Now accepting guest editorial from SAP, Oracle, Workday and ServiceNow practitioners.Pitch a guide
The Sign-Off Table

Lesson 6 of 6

Testing and transitioning from LE-TRA

10 min

Listen to this lesson

0:00 / 7:07

A LE-TRA replacement succeeds when shipments still flow from order to invoice, carriers still get paid the right amount, and margins still carry freight. The transition has two parts: a mapping of LE-TRA objects and functions to TM, and a phased cutover that moves sites one at a time without a document belonging to both worlds.

Mapping LE-TRA to TM

LE-TRATMTest focus
Shipment (VT01N, VT04)Freight units planned on freight ordersEvery delivery type creates freight units; planning finds them
Shipment type and stagesFreight order type, stops, stagesStops and sequence for multi-drop trucks
Route and route determinationTransportation lanes, zones, distance determinationLanes exist for each source-destination pair
Forwarding agent on the shipmentCarrier selection and tenderingRanking, acceptance, rejection, timeout
Shipment cost document (VI01)Charges on freight order and freight settlement documentRates per lane equal the agreed contract
Shipment cost settlement to MMFSD posting: service PO and SESAccruals post and clear
Output: bill of lading, IDoc SHPMNTTM output and B2B messagesDocuments and carrier messages correct

Contoso's LE-TRA to TM mapping with the test focus for each line.

Phasing and coexistence

During the transition, some sites run TM and others LE-TRA. The rule that keeps this safe: a delivery is either TM-relevant or LE-TRA, never both. Contoso controls this by shipping point and document type in the TM integration settings, and by a check in LE-TRA that rejects shipments for TM-relevant deliveries (illustrative design). Chicago (1720) goes first as a pilot because it has one carrier lane mix and lower volume; Detroit and Toledo follow.

Phases by site: a pilot first, then the high-volume sites, then LE-TRA off with two years of usage right still left.
The Sign-Off Table · thesignofftable.com/academy/sap-scm-202

End-to-end test design

The end-to-end test that matters starts with a sales order and ends with the carrier paid and margin reported. Contoso's core case uses Great Lakes Fleet Services:

  1. Create a sales order for 50 × CMC-ALT-100 to ship-to 17100006 (Grand Rapids); for the core case reuse the pattern of sales order 1000457.
  2. Create the outbound delivery; check that a freight unit exists and appears in the transportation cockpit.
  3. Plan the freight unit on a freight order Detroit–Grand Rapids; run carrier selection; tender to Midwest Freightways; receive the 990.
  4. Pick and post goods issue on the delivery; record loading and departure events on the freight order.
  5. Bill the customer (invoice 90001877 in the canonical example: 12,000.00 USD); confirm billing is unaffected by TM.
  6. Create and post the FSD; check service PO, SES and the accrual of 761.80 USD.
  7. Post the carrier invoice in MIRO; confirm the accrual clears.
  8. Check cost distribution: freight assigned to the delivery items and visible in margin analysis for Great Lakes and CMC-ALT-100.
The end-to-end case with its two checkpoints where LE-TRA replacements usually fail.
The Sign-Off Table · thesignofftable.com/academy/sap-scm-202

Parallel freight costing in the pilot

Before Chicago goes live, Contoso runs one month of parallel freight costing: every Chicago freight is still shipped and settled in LE-TRA, and the same deliveries are planned and charged in TM in the quality system from a copy. Charges are compared per freight order with a tolerance of 0.5% or 5.00 USD (illustrative), and every difference is classified as a rate setup error, a different calculation base (for example weight versus pallets), or an accepted improvement.

Low impact, low likelihoodShipment printouts and labels: sample test
High impact, low likelihoodGoods issue and billing unchanged: regression test
Low impact, high likelihoodCockpit profiles and layouts: planner walkthrough
High impact, high likelihoodTM relevance, carrier tendering, settlement and accruals: full end-to-end cases
Where Contoso spent its test effort in the LE-TRA replacement.
The Sign-Off Table · thesignofftable.com/academy/sap-scm-202

After the last site goes live, the end-to-end cases become part of Contoso's release regression in CMR. TM changes with every S/4HANA feature pack, and carriers change their EDI from time to time, so the regression set runs the core freight case for each carrier and lane type, plus the cancellation and extra-charge cases, before every release reaches CMP.

Cutover checklist for one site

  1. Day minus 10: TM master data for the site complete (locations, lanes, carriers, agreements) and counted against the design.
  2. Day minus 3: carrier B2B switched to production partners; one test tender per carrier confirmed.
  3. Day minus 1: list open LE-TRA shipments and unsettled shipment costs for the site; agree completion owners.
  4. Day 0: switch the site's deliveries to TM relevance; first freight units appear in the cockpit.
  5. Day 0 to 5: daily check that no new LE-TRA shipment is created for the site and that FSDs post.
  6. Day 30: last LE-TRA shipment costs settled and invoices verified; LE-TRA closed for the site.

What would you do?

In the Chicago pilot's parallel month, TM charges are 3% higher than LE-TRA on 40 of 300 freight orders, all to Toledo. What should Priya conclude?

Key points
  • Map every LE-TRA object and function to TM with a test focus.
  • A delivery is either TM-relevant or LE-TRA, never both; phase by site.
  • The end-to-end case runs from sales order to carrier invoice and margin.
  • Close open LE-TRA shipments and costs before switching a site off.

Check your understanding · not graded

Lesson check

  1. 1. What replaces LE-TRA's shipment cost document in TM?

  2. 2. What is Contoso's coexistence rule during phasing?

  3. 3. Why did Contoso choose Chicago as the pilot site?

  4. 4. What happens to LE-TRA shipments still open at a site's cutover?