Lesson 5 of 5
Testing QM with goods receipt
10 min
Listen to this lesson
QM controls are preventive: they stop bad material from being used. A test that only proves "lot created, lot accepted" misses the point. The important tests prove that rejected or uninspected material cannot be used, and that each usage decision lands stock in the right place.
Test cases
| Case | Steps | Expected result |
|---|---|---|
| Lot creation | Post GR of 500 rotors (101) against a Lakeside PO | One lot, origin 01, 500 pc; stock in quality inspection; material document referenced |
| No inspection type | Post GR for a material without active inspection type | No lot; stock goes straight to unrestricted use |
| Accept | Record passing results; UD A1 | 500 moved with 321; lot shows stock posting completed |
| Reject | Record failing results; UD R1; post to blocked | Stock moved with 350; blocked stock visible in stock overview |
| Split | UD with 497 unrestricted and 3 blocked | Two postings, quantities add up to 500 |
| Usage blocked | Try to issue inspection stock to a production order | System refuses: no unrestricted stock |
| Notification | Create Q2 from the lot's defects; complete tasks | Notification references PO and supplier; cannot close until tasks done |
A minimal QM regression set for goods receipt inspection.
Evidence
For each case keep: the purchase order and material document numbers, the inspection lot number and its status (created, results recorded, usage decision made, stock posting completed), the UD code and quality score, and the stock by stock type before and after (for example in MMBE or the stock overview apps). For the negative case, keep the error message text and the absence of a goods issue document.
- BeforeRotor stock in 171S: unrestricted, quality inspection and blocked quantities noted
- Post GRInspection stock rises by 500; lot number recorded
- DecideUD and stock posting; lot status recorded
- AfterStock by type compared with expected movement
- Negative checkAttempt to consume blocked stock fails as designed
In a system conversion, check the master data too. Contoso's ECC system EP1 had inspection setup on most purchased components. After each mock conversion, compare the count of materials with active inspection type 01 in CMQ with the count in ECC, and run a lot-creation test for a sample. A missing setup means rotors go straight to unrestricted stock with no inspection, and nobody notices until a bad batch reaches the line.
What would you do?
All QM tests pass in CMQ, but nobody tried to issue blocked rotors to a production order. Priya asks whether the QM test cycle can be signed off. What do you recommend?
Walkthrough: the happy path with document numbers
- Goods receipt 5000001876 posts 500 CMC-RTR-200 against Lakeside PO 4500002246 into 171S (movement 101); lot 01 is created for 500 pieces.
- Check stock by type: 500 in quality inspection, 0 unrestricted (
MMBEor Stock - Single Material). - Record results in Record Inspection Results; all characteristics accepted.
- Usage decision A1 in Manage Usage Decisions; stock posting 321 for 500; status SPCO.
- Check stock again: 500 unrestricted. Then try the negative test on a second lot: issue its inspection stock to a production order. The system must refuse it.
- Test lot creation, each UD code's stock posting, and the negative path that blocks consumption.
- Evidence: PO, material document, lot number and status, UD code, stock by type before and after.
- In a conversion, reconcile inspection setup counts between ECC and S/4HANA.
- Notifications must link back to the lot and supplier and close only when tasks are done.
Check your understanding · not graded
Lesson check
1. Which test proves the QM control works rather than just the process?
2. What should happen at GR for a material with no active inspection type?
3. Which conversion check catches missing inspection setup?
4. Which result proves the negative QM test passed?