Announcement:
wanna exchange links? contact me at sapchatroom@gmail.com.
Posted by
Admin at
Reply from rory.goodwin on Dec 17 at 10:54 AM Since the 2 movement types perform the same function, return to vendor, to me it is not logical that they would behave differently. In my experience, the only difference between the movement types is how the return is managed. If you post the GI directly, the system uses 122. If you use a return delivery it uses 161. Why would the use of the outbound delivery flow affect the price? I bet there is a customizing point behind movement types that could change it.
| | | ---------------Original Message---------------
From: Logistiker
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 4:35 PM
Subject: Movement type 161 affects moving average price in material
Hi MM Experts,
Is it correct that when doing a vendor return and shipping the goods back to the vendor using movement type 161 that the moving average price is also then affected? I understand how the system calculates the moving average during receiving but why is the price affected when returning goods to vendor? This makes no sense to me. If this behavior is wrong then can someone give me pointers about to change this.
Thanks |
| Reply to this email to post your response. __.____._ |    _.____.__ |
