Knowledge Paper Vendor Evaluation ME61/ME63

1.1 Abbreviations Used

VE Vendor evaluation
MC Main criterion/criteria
SC Subcriterion/criteria
SM Scoring method
UD Usage decision
GR Goods receipt
QS Quality score
FM Function module
PURCHIS Purchasing Information System

1.2 Overview/General

CSS subject area: MM-IS-VE, previously MM-PUR. Therefore also search with MM*
and key words Vendor Evaluation/ME61/ME63.

Principle/brief description:
Vendors are always evaluated at the purchasing organization level. As a result of VE,
a vendor gets an evaluation record relating to a purchasing organization (ME61).
This record consists of the overall score, which is calculated from the scores for the
MC with the application of a weighting key.
The scores for the MC are calculated in turn from the scores for the SC. This is
similarly done with the application of a weighting key.
The scores (points) for the SC are calculated via various SMs. If no method is stored
for an SC (blank), the score for the SC can be entered manually (manual SM).
In the case of the semi-automatic SMs, a score can be entered for each info record.
The score for the SC then corresponds to the average score for all info records.
In the case of the automatic SMs, the scores are calculated automatically.
(See also the documentation.)

1.3 Documentation

Release 3.X:
R/3 Library – Materials Management - Vendor Evaluation
Release 4.X:
R/3 Library – Materials Management– Information System - Vendor Evaluation
The Release Notes for 4.0 are definitely worth reading: Materials Management –
Information System – Vendor Evaluation.

Important topics:
How the System Computes Scores, System Settings.
General explanation of scoring methods: Introduction to VE – Elements of VE –
Subcriterion.

1.4 Transactions (Customizing)

OMGC: Weighting keys for MC
OMGI: MC with associated SC plus assignment of SMs to be used.
OMGL: Purchasing-organization-dependent settings
OMGU Maintain scope of list
OMEK Maintain scores for compliance with shipping instructions.

1.5 Tables:

1.5.1 Customizing tables

The T147* tables are important for Customizing.
T027A is the table for defining shipping instructions and T027C specifies the points
scores for compliance.

1.5.2 Tables for evaluation records

The scores from the current evaluation are stored in the following tables. Old
evaluations are not stored:
ELBK: Vendor's overall score. Key is EKORG/LIFNR
ELBP: Scores for main criteria plus the individual scores for the associated
subcriteria (ELBP-KRT1 ... EBLP-KRT2). Key is EKORG/LIFNR/HKRIT; the
explanatory texts for HKRIT (main criteria) are stored in T147G.
ELBM: Scores for semi-automatic criteria at info record level. Manual evaluation of a
vendor info record is possible for semi-automatic SC. (Goto -> Evaluation per info
rec). These are SC with the SM "1". Key is EKORG/INFNR/HKRIT/LIFNR/MATNR.
A VE evaluation record is defined through the entry of a vendor and purchasing
organization in tables ELBP, ELBK, and ELBM.

1.5.3 Automatic criteria

1.5.3.1 S013 is a LIS info structure that is updated online.

In the standard system, the periodicity is monthly. Updating cannot be set to update2.
The most important characteristics (key) are: MANDT/ SPMON/ EKORG/ LIFNR/
MATNR/ INFNR, whereby the info record number (INFNR) is only updated in the
case of purchase orders without a MATNR.

The points scores for the automatic SC are updated in the structure S013 following
VE-relevant events such as goods receipts.
For these scores, a points figure is determined for each GR. This is then included,
after smoothing, in the points score of S013 (see also Tips and tricks).
Special aspect:
There are two fields in the structure S013 for each automatic SC: Points score 1 and
Points score 2.
Points score 1: Points score for current month.
Points score 2: Cumulative points score for all months.
For a detailed description with an example, refer to the documentation under:
Logistics General – Logistics Information System – Notes on the Calculation of Key
Figures - Purchasing Information System - Vendor Evaluation.

There is also a standard analysis for S013 in the Purchasing Information System
enabling you to evaluate the points scores for certain automatic SC (points scores 1
and 2).

When a VE is carried out, scores for the automatic subcriteria Quantity Reliability,
On-Time Delivery Performance, Compliance with Shipping Instructions, Adherence
to Confirmation Date, Quality of Service Provision, and Timeliness of Service
Provision are determined from the data of S013. Important: The cumulative points
scores of S013 are not entered in the VE evaluation record until re-evaluation is
carried out.

1.5.3.1.1 Date criteria

Currently, two SC/SMs are implemented. However, three are offered.

1. On-Time Delivery Performance, SM “4”: Basis for evaluation is the statistical

delivery date in relation to the GR date.
2. Adherence to Confirmation Date, SM “B”: Basis is the delivery date set out in
the vendor confirmation (shipping notification) in relation to the GR date. The
vendor’s adherence to the delivery dates of which he himself gave you advance
notification is evaluated.
Important: Only works for internal confirmation category 2 (shipping notification).
See SAP Note 85204.
3. Shipping Notification Reliability, SM “A”: Basis for evaluation is the statistical
delivery date in relation to the date from the shipping notification. This criterion
enables you to evaluated how well a vendor confirms his adherence to a desired
delivery date (statistical delivery date).
Shipping Notification Reliability is not implemented up to and including
Release 4.5. It can thus only be programmed via a user exit!

1.5.3.2 Price level, price behavior

In this case, the system does not access S013. This score is calculated at the time of
evaluation. See documentation.

1.6 Breakpoints:

1.6.1 In VE (e.g. ME61)

Main program SAPMM06L -> Include mm06li0o (OK code).
FM EVAL_SEMIAUTOMATIC_CRITERIA: Computation of scores for semi-automatic
SC, i.e. SC with SM "1" or for which ELBM records exist.
FM EVAL_AUTOMATIC_CRITERIA_S013: Calculation of vendor's score for on-time
delivery performance/quantity reliability, i.e. SC with the SMs "2", "3", "6", A, B, C, D.
FM EVAL_PRICELEVEL_CRITERIA: Determination of price level (or the scores for
SC with SM 4). Determination in the form price level.
FM EVAL_PRICEHISTORY_CRITERIA: Determination of the price history (or the
scores for SC with the SM "5"). Determination in the form price history.
Form qm_daten: Determination of QM scores.
In detail:
SC with SM "7": FM QLIB_GR_LOT_KQD
The QSs for GRs per vendor are determined here: First, all lots with UD are read and the QSs
calculated accordingly. Then the S012 is read. All GRs without lots or with lots without UD are
rated with the maximum QS. The mean value is determined therefrom and returned (considerably
simplified). There are also some user exits in the FM.
SC with SM "8": FM QLIB_GR_QMEL_KQD
Externally triggered, non-cancelled, and completed quality notifications of origin Q2 are read. After
this, the vendor business volume (invoice amount) is determined in the structure S012. A QS
(complaints score) is returned. Important: If the business volume from S012 is lower than the
nonconformity costs, the minimum QS is taken.
SC with SM "9": FM QLIB_AU_LOT_KQD
This FM works in a similar way to QLIB_GR_LOT_KQD, but for audit lots
Even though the above three FMs are from QM, experience shows that errors are
largely to be sought in PURCHIS, i.e. in the structure S012. Similarly, it is thus clear
that the three SMs for quality evaluations can only be used if the PURCHIS is active.

1.6.2 Calculation of points in structure S013 (post GR, etc.)

In Leinsf02 (without any claim to completeness)
Form LIS_WE1 (delivery time variance)
Form LIS_WE2 (quantity reliab., date variance, compliance with shipping instr., ...)
Form LIS_WE3
Form LIS_AVIS
Form LIS_Verbuchung: Here the points scores are already calculated and are
already contained in XMCEKPO. At this point, the points scores are not yet
smoothed.
You can pick out field names from the reference structure MCEKPO (Include
MCEKPOADD) via SE11.
At this point a customer exit is run through, which you can check.
RMCSS013: In the form LIS_Verbuchung, the update program RMCSS013 is
invoked (among other things).
Here the smoothing takes place before the data records are then stored in the
structure S013. The form routines in RMCSS013 are self-explanatory.

1.7 Customizing (IMG – Materials Management – Purchasing – Vendor

Evaluation)
1) A text must be maintained for all main criteria and subcriteria, otherwise a non-
specific error message appears (ML061). For more information, see SAP Notes
38879 and 102911. ML061 also appears if MC and associated SC have been
maintained but no SC have been maintained for the MC in the purchasing
organization data (OMGL) for the relevant purchasing organization (EKORG).
Example: In OMGI, the MC “Price” has been defined with the SC “Price Level” and “Price
History”. In OMGL, the MC “Price” is maintained for the relevant purchasing organization but no
SC is maintained for the MC “Price”.
The message also appears if generally no SC has been maintained for an MC.

2) Points scores for automatic subcriteria: The intervals for the automatic subcriteria
used must be maintained, otherwise nonsensical scores may result. In addition to
the F1 documentation, you should take account of SAP Note 51054. The limit
values –99.9% and +99.9% must be maintained. Similarly, the invisible limit 0+
must be observed.
Variance Score
-99.9% 1
+99.9% 100
A variance of 0% brings the vendor 100 points, whereas a variance of –1% results in a score of 1
point.

Critical Points/FAQ:
• Reversals of goods receipts are not taken into account in VE. SAP Note 52458
should also be taken into consideration in this connection. Changes as of Release
4.0: see Release Notes.
• Updating of quantity reliability following GR:
Quantity reliability is updated if:
– The “delivery completed” indicator is set, or
– The deletion indicator is set, or
– The GR quantity is equal to or greater than the order quantity.
In the case of a GR against a scheduling agreement, this has the effect that as a
rule quantity reliability is not updated. In the case of a scheduling agreement, the
order quantity corresponds to the sum of the quantities set out in the individual
lines of the delivery schedule (i.e., it is variable). Since scheduling agreement
delivery schedules usually contain a number of lines relating to the future, there is
no evaluation.
Example: Scheduling agreement with the following delivery schedule:

Stat. delivery date Scheduled quantity

-----------------------------------------------------
03.01.1998 100 pc
03.15.1998 100 pc
04.01.1998 100 pc
GR of 102 pc on 03.01.1998 is not evaluated. In the unlikely event of a GR of 320 pc, a points
score for quantity reliability would be determined.
• The minimum delivery percentage (OMGL) is only taken into account if the
delivery is received on time. The minimum delivery percentage is only relevant to
on-time delivery performance.
• The standardizing value for delivery time variance (St.de.time var, T147-WELFZ)
and the minimum delivery quantity in percent (minimum delivery percentage,
T147-WEPRZ) are used as follows.
If the values in the material master record (i.e. in the assigned purchasing value
key) have been maintained, these values are pulled. Otherwise the values
maintained in OMGL are applied. If no values are maintained in either the
material master record or OMGL, the standardizing values are set as follows:
Minimum delivery percentage: 1
In the case of scheduling agreements, the firm zone is set as the standardizing
value for delivery time variance. In the case of purchase orders, the desired
delivery date (i.e. statistical delivery date less the creation date of the schedule
line) is set for this standardizing value.
• Invoices are not included in VE. That is to say, a vendor who submits invoices
containing prices that differ from the order price does not receive a better or
worse rating (price level, etc.). Reason: relevant objects such as info record,
conditions etc. are not changed as a result of this.
• Neither a change in the maximum points score nor changes in smoothing factors
have retroactive effect. This applies to all SC whose points scores are updated in
S013. Even a re-evaluation does not alter this. To obtain the complete VE with
the changed parameters, proceed as follows:
1. Recompilation of statistical data of S013 using report RMCENEUA. See also
the documentation for LIS/PURCHIS.
2. Re-evaluation of vendor (e.g. via ME61).
• The score 0 for a criterion means “not evaluated” (see documentation).
• In S013, the points scores are updated as at the system date on which the GR
was recorded. Updating of MCEKKO-SYDAT at time of GR.
Example: GR takes place punctually on 12.31.1997, but is not recorded until 01.01.1998. The
points scores in S013 are updated as per January 1998.
• VE cannot be used for the purposes of automatic source determination (as can
the quota arrangement, source list, etc.)
• When carrying out Customizing activities for VE using two parallel sessions (e.g.
OMGL in session 1 and ME61 in session 2), you should note that Customizing
changes only become effective after the transaction is explicitly re-invoked (in this
case, ME61).

1.8 Problem analysis: tips and tricks

1.8.1 How is an individual GR evaluated?

As described above, only the points scores from S013 are updated in the case of a
GR (not the VE evaluation records!). Since these are stored in S013 in an already
smoothed state, the analysis can proceed as follows:
Example:
Scenario 1: A GR can be posted - e.g. in the test system; Customer claims the delivery date
variance criterion is scored/updated wrongly
1) SE16 for S013 with EKORG/LIFNR/MATNR and SPMON = month of system date (sy-datum)
gives:
SPMON EKOR LIFNR MATNR PWTT1 PWTT2
199801 EKAR AR1 ARLO5101 90 90
2) Posting of goods receipt.
SE16 for S013 with EKORG/LIFNR/MATNR and SPMON = month of system date (sy-datum) now
gives:
SPMON EKORG LIFNR MATNR PWTT1 PWTT2
199801 EKAR AR1 ARLO5101 91 91
3) S is the smoothing factor for “On-Time Delivery Performance” as stored in OMGL (here s = 0.1).
From the smoothing formula (first-order smoothing) follows:
Points score GR = (PWTT1new – (1-g)*PWTT1ood )/s
= (91 – 0.9 x 90)/0.1 = 100 points for the GR

This points score can be compared with the score expected from the Customizing settings. In this
case, 10 days was set as the standardizing value for delivery time variance. A variance of 10 days
thus corresponds to a variance of 100%. From this, the percentage for the actual variance can be
calculated and the points score read from the assignment of points values (OMGL) for the SC "On-
Time Delivery Performance".

Alternatively, the unsmoothed points values can also be read directly in the form LIS_Verbuchung (see
Breakpoints). This method is safer, since incorrect values can be calculated as a result of the
(program-internal) rounding of the smoothed points value in 3).

A further alternative: If the user parameter MCL is set to X, the unsmoothed points scores can be read
in the update log (MC30). Reliability of MC30: limited, see scenario 2 (MCE2).

Scenario 2: No GR can be posted. An existing GR is to be checked.

1) Simulation of updating of associated purchasing document with MCE2.
Here the points scores are displayed directly. It is not necessary to calculate back via the smoothing
formula. The points score shown can be compared directly with the expected points score. Experience
shows, however, that the update simulation is not always reliable and is to a certain extent Release-
dependent. For this reason, the lengthy procedure from scenario 1 should be used

1.8.2 Logs:
Evaluation logs are available after a VE. (Goto – Logs) (only until you exit the
transaction, however). SAP Notes on these logs are available, which can be found
under the subject area MM-IS-VE.
1.8.3 Change documents
Exist, but always only for the last evaluation (last change).