Hi APO Collegaues
We are using standard APO realignment functionality and are finding a result that is not standard SAP.
Below is the scenario:
1. We want to move all data for product P1 to P2
a. P1-10/2014- Sales = + 150 Kg
b. P2-10/2014- Sales = + 50 Kg
2. There are existing CVCs for P1 in POS and but not for P2.
3. We used standard APO realignment functionality and created steps with additive logic – 100 % move P1 to P2 – Delete source
4. Realignment was executed for both LC and info cube.
5. Result was correct in LC and POS with only P2 CVCs existing.P1 CVCs were deleted
P2-10/2014- Sales = + 150 Kg in LC pl books.
6. Result was correct in info cube with :
a. P2 got new positive entries in info cube e.g. P2-10/2014- Sales = + 150 Kg
b. P1 got new negative entries in info cube e.g. P1-10/2014- Sales = -50 Kg
c. P1 had positive entries in info cube e.g. P1-10/2014- Sales = +50 Kg
Info cube requests have not been collapsed.
Here is the Q-
7. Next we import new historical data for P2 and other product P10/P11 etc. When we run program to generate CVCs by reading the cube, there is CVC with P1 proposed again. We do not expect this as realignment was run to delete the source CVC in both LC and infocube.
8. The cube has 2 P1 records with +50 and -50 due to info cube realignment. It also has 1 record for P2.
Info cube requests have not been collapsed nor data selective deletion for P1 done. Does P1 need to be deleted from the cube? or
Does the cube request need to be collapsed?
9. As we deleted the source P1, we do not expect CVCs for P1 again from the info cube. Is this standard SAP behavior you have seen?
10. How do we prevent deleted CVCs from being proposed again by reading the info cube for P1? Only P2 should have CVCs being proposed if new data comes in.
Is this standard SAP behavior you have seen for realignment of both LC and cube? Your experience in this regard would be highly appreciated.
Regards
Manoj