cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Standard field for Net explosive mass (NEM) for dg documents

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

I have searched standard fields in the material master and dangerous goods master but i can not find a standard field for Net explosive mass (NEM). This value is needed for dangerous goods documents.

Is there anyone that know if there is a standard field for this or do I have to create one myself?

Best regards / Gustav

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

christoph_bergemann
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hello Gustav

please refer to online help of SAP in chapter "Dangerous Goods Management (EHS-DGP)". You will find a subchapter " Dangerous Goods Master Data (EHS-DGP-MD)" and there "Special Tab Pages" as well as "Class 1".

To my knowlege this DG extension is definitive available with an Enhancement Pack (I believe 3) but might be delivered using a SP (Support Package) (that means you need not to activate the Enh. Pack). PLease refer may be to the DG Best practises which are cited very often in this FORUM (recent version) regarding details of set up etc.

With best regards

C.B

Edited by: Christoph Bergemann on Apr 2, 2011 9:49 PM

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thank you for the answer!

I did some research and the business function OPS_EHS_CI_1 needs to be activated in our system.

Before we activate this function, is there any important things to consider?

Best regards

christoph_bergemann
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hello Gustav

sometimes SAP is saying that Enh.- Pack need to be activated and if you take a "close" look this it is not the case. It is sufficient to use new SPs.

Now based on your reseach results:

Actually the situtation regarding Enh.. Pack is like this:

a.) to use EHS you need to "switch" (activate) the EA-APPL component; no way back ! possible !

b.) to use Enh. Pack EHS extensions you need to "switch" (activate) the Enh.Pack => actually: no way back possible ! (SAP has announced that they are planing to change this behaviour; I did not follow this discussion; I believe actually there is no way back and personally I believe this (to go back) does not make sense in EHS environment)

c.) OPS_EHS_CI_1 is the Business function in Enh. pack 3

d.) LOG_EHS_CI_2 is the Business function in Enh. pack 5 (now available to all customers).

Therefore to my understanding this is the SAP approach: 1.) first activate EA-Appl, then OPS_CHS_CI_1 and then if suitable/necessary LOG_EHS_CI_2

What are the pros and cons of activation?

a.) in principal you are dealing with a "release" change (testing required; analysing new customizing activities etc. etc.)

b.) to our experince there are in most cases "strange" effects at other places; therefore you need take care regarding the activation (example: we lost some EHS functions (which are part of the former release) in release change to ECC 6.0; these functions (yes they still exists but..) are only ! part of EHS after ! an "activation" of Enh. Pack 3)

c.) at the end you get all enlargements which are part of Enh. Pack (without a choice!

In most cases the benefit is higher compared to the "technical" risks of the activation (on long term approach).

Details of the functionality of OPS_EHS_CI_1 and/or LOG_EHS_CI_2 (what are the changes etc.) are explained on high level in help.sap.com and on detailed level on SAP marketplace; therefore I will not enumerate them.

On SAP Marketplace you find a number of OSS hints "how to use Enh.Pack" / "How to activate" / Master Insturctions (Set up etc.) etc.

Personally my impression is: both Enh.Packs (3 + 5) contain usefull new functions which could give benefit on mid and long term in using EHS.

Keep in mind the SAP strategy: new functions (PS: Enh. Pack 6 will get in Ramp Up this year (to my recent knowledge) and will contains further EHS extensions) will always be part of enh. pack. Only if the function is needed because of legal change a new function is delivered as SP (no activation necessary).

With best regards

C.B.

Edited by: Christoph Bergemann on Apr 9, 2011 8:31 AM

Edited by: Christoph Bergemann on Apr 9, 2011 8:36 AM

Edited by: Christoph Bergemann on Apr 9, 2011 8:37 AM

Edited by: Christoph Bergemann on Apr 9, 2011 8:37 AM

Edited by: Christoph Bergemann on Apr 9, 2011 8:39 AM