| Status | |
|---|---|
| Owner | |
| Stakeholders |
The purpose of this document is to define the conversion approach to create Conversion Specification Document CNV-2009 Material Master – QM View in S/4HANA.
The QM View in the Material Master contains quality-related settings that control how a material is handled in Quality Management processes. These settings include inspection types (e.g., goods receipt, in-process, delivery), quality control keys, certificate requirements, preferred inspection plans or material specifications, and the status of quality management activation for the material. Maintaining the QM View ensures that materials are consistently subjected to the correct inspection processes during procurement, production, and sales.
In SAP S/4HANA, the structure and usage of the Material Master QM View remain consistent with SAP ECC. The QM View is defined by material (MARA-MATNR), plant (MARC-WERKS), and the associated quality-related fields. These include inspection setup (QMAT), inspection types (QMAT-ART), active status, and assignment of task lists or material specifications.
In SAP ECC, aside from the standard fields, additional legacy configurations may exist, such as:
This conversion aims to migrate active and relevant Material Master QM View data from existing ECC systems into S/4HANA by applying the required transformation logic using Syniti as the data migration and transformation platform. The converted records will be loaded into the target S/4HANA system using standard SAP mechanisms such as BAPIs (e.g., BAPI_OBJCL_CREATE or BAPI_MATERIAL_SAVEDATA), IDOCs, or direct table loads where applicable, ensuring that all materials in scope have consistent and accurate QM-related setup in the target system.
The scope of this document covers the approach for converting active Material Master – QM View data from Legacy Source Systems into S/4HANA following the Material Master QM View Design Standard.
From the current system landscape, Material Master QM View data exists separately in the legacy systems (PF2 and WP2), with potential discrepancies in both systems. Harmonization and validation are required to ensure accurate and consolidated data in S/4HANA. While PF2 and WP2 serve as source systems, extensive mapping and transformation logic will be necessary to produce properly formatted load templates in line with the target design.
The data from legacy system includes: Final relevancy rule pending MDS
Active Material Master QM Views that are in use within the last three (3) years in inspection lots, quality certificates, or inspection plans.
QM Views without Deletion Flag, i.e., not blocked or obsolete.
QM Views assigned to plants that are in-scope for S/4HANA migration, based on the To-Be Plant Mapping.
Materials with at least one valid inspection type (e.g., 01, 04, 09) configured and active in the QM View.
Materials where control key, inspection setup, and certificate requirements are consistent with S/4HANA target design.
The data from legacy system excludes:
Inactive QM Views for materials not used in inspection lots or quality processes for more than three (3) years.
QM Views marked for deletion or with inspection types blocked in ECC.
QM Views belonging to plants that are out of scope or deleted as per To-Be Plant Mapping.
Obsolete inspection types or settings that are not supported in S/4HANA.
Duplicate or conflicting QM Views for the same material/plant combination, where only one harmonized record should remain.
List of source systems and approximate number of records
| Source | Scope | Source Approx No. of Records | Target System | Target Approx No. of Records |
|---|---|---|---|---|
PF2/WP2 | Material Master QM views will be extracted from source systems. An initial extract of the relevant data will be provided in Google Sheet format to assist business in decision making on including any relevant data from Source Systems. | 500,000 | S4 HANA | 400,000 After cleansing |
Not applicable
Document Management
Not applicable
Legal Requirement
Not applicable
Special Requirements
Not applicable
Inspection Plan strictly adheres to the Master Data Standard. The complete information of the tables and key fields that hold the Inspection Plan information follows the Master Data Standard document.
The technical design of the target for this conversion approach (pending MDS)
| Table | Field | Data Element | Field Description | Data Type | Length | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARC | MATNR | MATNR | Material Number | CHAR | 18 | R |
| MARC | WERKS | WERKS_D | Plant | CHAR | 4 | R |
| MARC | QMATV | QMATV | QM Control Key (Material Active in QM) | CHAR | 1 | R |
| QMAT | ART | ART | Inspection Setup Indicator | CHAR | 1 | R |
| QMAT | ARTINSP | ARTINSP | Inspection Type | CHAR | 4 | R |
| QMAT | AKTIV | AKTIV | Active Indicator for Inspection Type | CHAR | 1 | R |
| QMAT | STEURKZ | STEURKZ | Control Key for Inspection Type (Insp. lot creation etc.) | CHAR | 2 | R |
| QMAT | PRUEFLOS | PRUEFLOS | Inspection Lot Origin | CHAR | 2 | C |
| QMAT | LOSART | LOSART | Lot Size for Inspection | NUMC | 6 | C |
| QMAT | VERWMERKM | VERWMERKM | Master Inspection Characteristics Assigned | CHAR | 18 | C |
| QMAT | LOEKZ | LOEKZ | Deletion Indicator | CHAR | 1 | C |
| MARC | SSQSS | SSQSS | QM Procurement Key | CHAR | 2 | C |
| MARC | SPRQKZ | SPRQKZ | Quality Management in Procurement Active | CHAR | 1 | C |
| MARC | PRUEFGR | PRUEFGR | QM Control Key for Goods Receipt | CHAR | 4 | C |
| MARC | INSMK | INSMK | Stock Type for Quality Inspection | CHAR | 1 | C |
All data cleansing should take place in the data source system as defined in this document, unless system limitations prevent it.
If data cleansing is managed outside of the source system (e.g. Syniti Migrate, 3rd Party Vendor, DCT), the necessary documentation must be produced and appended to this deliverable for sign-off.
| ID | Criticality | Error Message/Report Description | Rule | Output | Source System |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The high-level process is represented by the diagram below:
Summarize High-Level Process. Include diagrams, where applicable. Include information supporting details of Extract, Transform and Load specific to the Data Object
Extract data from a source into Syniti Migrate. There are 2 possibilities:
The agreed Relevancy criteria is applied to the extracted records to identify the records that are applicable for the Target loads
| Req # | Requirement Description | Team Responsible |
|---|---|---|
| Selection Ref Screen | Parameter Name | Selection Type | Requirement | Value to be entered/set |
|---|---|---|---|---|
<Object> DCT Rules
| Field Name | Field Description | Rule |
|---|---|---|
List the steps that need to occur before extraction can commence
| Item # | Step Description | Team Responsible |
|---|---|---|
The Target fields are mapped to the applicable Legacy field that will be its source, this is a 3-way activity involving the Business, Functional team and Data team. This identifies the transformation activity required to allow Syniti Migrate to make the data Target ready:
| Item # | Step Description | Team Responsible |
|---|---|---|
Transformation Rules
| Rule # | Source system | Source Table | Source Field | Source Description | Target System | Target Table | Target Field | Target Description | Transformation Logic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapping Table Name | Mapping Table Description |
|---|---|
| Item # | Step Description | Team Responsible |
|---|---|---|
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
The load process includes:
| Item # | Step Description | Team Responsible |
|---|---|---|
Load Phase and Dependencies
Identify the phase as to “when” the load for this object will occur. <Pre-Cutover, Cutover, Post Cutover> and list the steps that need to occur before the load can commence
List the Configurations required before loading can commence
| Item # | Configuration Item |
|---|---|
| Object # | Preceding Object Conversion Approach |
|---|---|
| list the exact title of the conversion object of only the immediate predecessor – this will then confirm the DDD (Data Dependency Diagram) | |
The table below depicts some possible system errors for this data object during data load. All data load error is to be logged as defect and managed within the Defect Management
| Error Type | Error Description | Action Taken |
|---|---|---|
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
| Task | Action |
|---|---|
| title | specific details of what and how the task needs to be performed e.g. which reports are being used etc. |
Any additional key assumptions.
Insert links and references to other documents which are relevant when trying to understand this decision and its implications. Other decisions are often impacted, so it's good to list them here with links. Attachments are also possible but dangerous as they are static documents and not updated by their authors.