The main objective of this brief article is to emphasize a few of the challenges in TM-BN4L Integration with the settlement process and touch base on the design approach to arrest them in the build phase. With TM-BN4L integration as an integration platform for invoicing, most of the issues can be fixed by enhancing the standard interfaces without adopting standard interface triggers as it is.
This article does not aim to provide a comprehensive guide on the best practices for managing potential issues. Instead, the objective is to draw attention to the potential issues and advocate for their proactive mitigation during the design phase by proposing one of the suitable solution.
1. Possibility of carrier management team selecting a wrong charge type from Freight Order UI.
Standard configuration is not available to restrict/filter the “charge type” on the freight order UI.
Apart from user training, one of the ways to tackle this problem is implementing an enhancement on the freight order charges UI. By doing so, you can proactively address the issue and prevent presenting all available charge types from the configuration for selection.
2. Retrigger of charge calculation regardless of the freight order execution and invoicing status.
When fuel and exchange rates change without an established procedure, freight order charge calculations will trigger, which can result in irrelevant updates to the freight order charges. These changes can cause discrepancies - in the "Invoicing status" on freight documents, FSD creation/transfer, and invoicing.
It is important to have a robust rate table change management process that also includes updating the relevant freight documents to prevent the unnecessary retriggering of charge calculations on freight documents. By doing so, TM-BN4L communication can be controlled effectively.
3. BN4L-TM carrier invoice messages fail because of the wrong tax codes from BN4L.
It is currently not possible to preconfigure tax codes on the BN4L platform. This limitation means users (carriers) may enter the wrong tax codes.
The SAP BN4L development team has included this requirement on their list of priorities, as they recognize the need for a structured approach that aligns tax codes with specific countries. While they work on implementing this feature, proper user training can help to manage the issue on an interim basis.
4. The BN4L-based invoice submission process does not allow the complete cancellation of a submitted invoice to reuse its invoice number.
If a carrier has erroneously utilized the invoice number of a freight document for another document, there is no provision accessible to modify the invoice number and proceed with submission.
These kinds of operational issues have to be handled out of the system with an established procedure.
5. In certain cases of cost distribution, there may be instances where the link between the cost distribution amount and the document reference (Delivery) is blank. This can occur due to various reasons.
Because of the missing link, FSD transfer fails to create a settlement document in the finance module, resulting in a mismatch between the freight accruals and the cost document.
One of the reasons is object locking/recreation - This can be avoided by running the FSD creation and transfer background programs out of operational hours.
In case this particular issue is identified after posting the carrier invoice to FI, one of the dirty trick is to consider setting the "AutoEvalGrSetmt Del" indicator for the carrier business partner to allow FSD reversal even after invoice posting, be very careful and make sure activities in the production system during this change otherwise risk of running self-billing.
6. FSD and Invoice documents status management in TM to support reposting failed document transfer.
a. Transmitting documents across various systems or platforms can sometimes lead to unsuccessful document transfers due to various reasons. When FSD and Invoice are utilized to transfer data, they may encounter different error statuses. As background programs trigger these transfers, multiple documents may fail with distinct issues, leading to a complex situation that requires careful handling.
To address such a situation, SAP recommends a potential solution outlined in Note 2772098. This note proposes developing a custom program that can reset the status of the document in question, allowing it to become eligible for retransmission after the root cause has been addressed. Additionally, please refer to the notes.
2877999 to understand the buttons in the freight settlement document.
2764695 - Freight settlement stuck in "Posting Started" status for SAP Transportation Management
7. To ensure successful integration between Transportation Management (TM) and BN4L, it is highly recommended to establish business-specific control over the communication trigger.
To ensure that carriers remain focused on essential tasks and avoid unnecessary distractions caused by non-business critical changes on Freight Orders, it is strongly advised to follow the solution described in the following wiki: "How to Handle Changes After Sending of Freight Documents" (link: https://blogs.sap.com/2023/03/...). By implementing this solution, the triggering of the "TransportationOrderRequest_Out" interface can be effectively controlled.
Evaluate implementing the business rules in PPF schedule badi to have control on other interfaces that flow from TM -> BN4L
8. In order to minimize superfluous communication between application systems (S4 TM) and BN4L, it is advisable to exercise caution when initiating the interface trigger.
This recommendation becomes particularly relevant in specific business scenarios where carriers are selectively adopting BN4L for a restricted scope, such as participating in tendering activities without involvement in invoicing processes. By exercising careful control over the interface trigger, unnecessary communication between the systems can be effectively avoided.
Consider stopping/controlling the associated PPF action triggers from S4 TM.
To summarize, this article has emphasized a handful of factors that could result in adverse effects if neglected during the design phase of the settlement process. It is advisable to perform comprehensive testing under conditions that closely simulate real-world carrier invoicing situations. This will enable identifying and resolving any potential issues that could undermine the system's overall efficacy.
