cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Stock Transport Orders Between Storage Locations, Requisition Consumption

Former Member
0 Kudos

Dear SCN Community,

We have Stock Transport Orders setup to transfer Materials from one Storage Location to another within the same Plant.

We are using "Stock Transport Orders with SD" (Order Type MM-PUR: UB; Movement Types MM-IM: GI 641, GR 101; Delivery Type SD: NL; Stock after GI: Stock in Transit):

http://help.sap.com/saphelp_470/helpdata/en/4d/2b90dc43ad11d189410000e829fbbd/content.htm

The problem/issue is that these Stock Transport Orders between two Storage Locations 'A' & 'B' within the same Plant 'X' consume already existing Purchase Requirements this Plant has against another Plant 'Y' within the same company.

Can this be prevented in this scenario?

And if yes, where would we need to make the change(s) (e.g. in the IMG)?

Best Regards

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

> The problem/issue is that these Stock Transport Orders between two Storage Locations 'A' & 'B' within the same Plant 'X' consume already existing Purchase Requirements this Plant has against another Plant 'Y' within the same company.

>

> Can this be prevented in this scenario?

>

Hi,

I read it at least 5times still unable to understand can you be more elaborate

Former Member
0 Kudos

Example:

Plant 'Y' has one Storage Location 'C'.

Plant 'Y' is the MRP Area (SAP ECC) / Planning Location (SAP SCM APO)

Plant 'X' has two Storage Locations 'A' & 'B'.

Plant 'X' is the MRP Area (SAP ECC) / Planning Location (SAP SCM APO)

Initially in Week 01 an APO Deployment generated Purchase Requisition (Distribution Receipt (Confirmed)) exists to order 100 EA from Plant 'Y' into Plant 'X'.

Afterwards for the same Week 01 also a Stock Transport Order is manually being raised & executed in SAP ECC in order to transport 7 EA from Plant 'X' / Storage Location 'B' into Plant 'X' / Storage Location 'A'.

This Stock Transport Order consumes 7 EA of the APO Deployment Purchase Requsitions reducing it to 93 EA (= 100 EA - 7 EA).

This Stock Transport Order of 7 EA within Plant 'X' shouldn't it have had a net zero effect on the requirements situation of Plant 'X', and thus should not have caused any change rg what Plant 'X' requires from Plant 'Y'?

Edited by: SNC User ID on Feb 16, 2012 10:42 AM

csaba_szommer
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

If storage location A and B of PlantX are assigned to different MRP areas (1) and the APO STO requisition was from PlantY to storage location A of PlantX (2) then it's logical what you see in the system.

Due to the manual STO the stock has increased under the APO MRP area (of PlantX) and that's why you need less pieces to transfer from PlantY.

This is because you have two MRP areas and planning is done seprately for them.

(this expanation works if my assumption above is correct)

Edited by: Csaba Szommer on Feb 16, 2012 8:35 PM

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Csaba!

Unfortunately, the MRP Area (ECC) / Planning Location (APO) is the entire Plant 'X'.

Thanks.

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

former_member197616
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

as per my under standing i simplify this requirement .

Due to a requirement in plant X ,it raised a PR to plant Y say foir qty 100.

plant Y make a transfer between its storage locations say a qty 7 ( say from A to B with in plant Y)

When comes to X it requires 100 and plant Y need to send irrespective of its internal moments.

system should not reduce the qty to 93 for sending to plant X from Y ,,,,,, may be spli in the delivery occurs due to differant storage locations are having the qty and not a single storage location is not having the full qty.

internal stock ntransfers of plant Y will not effect the MRP of plant X .

Regards,

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi raghavendra sai!

Thank you for re-phrasing the situation on hand! -

Thus, yes, your statement is correct:

"system should not reduce the qty to 93 for sending to plant X from Y"

Though, your conclusion does not apply:

"may be spli in the delivery occurs"

No split in Delivery occured.