It’s funny, I’ve been doing this for a while, and i’ve always avoided using the RA order types. I recently got to wondering why I had the bias toward the RAS order type. So I thought I’d go into the details of the differences. So, here goes. RA vs. RAS Order type.
It’s actually curious just how similar they are. The whole concept comes from the “leading material”. I only recently heard this term and had it stick in my brain. I was talking to someone from SAP working on an OSS message I had open, and they asked if I was using the leading service material or leading serviceable material. When I first read this, I sat there with the blank look on my face, wondering exactly what they were asking me. It finally hit me, depending on what scenario you run, you might “lead” with a DIEN or service material, or you might lead with a “serviceable” material (the think you are fixing. So, step one is understanding the distinction.
Ok… so, now we get to the real deal. Exactly why would I choose leading “service” vs. “Servicable”. In my opinion, the answer is actually pretty simple. It all comes down to the processes you have available for any particular material. Let’s just say you have a material 100. It’s produced by you and come back for repair. Now, if the only option is that the customer returns the materials to you, you fix it and send it back, then you either method works great. BUT, as soon as you introduce some variability, like the service Exchange process, that throws monkey wrench into the whole deal. Why? because of item category determination. In the back end of SAP, when you use the RA order type, the item category determination works off of the “Serviceable” material. So it’s all dependent on what you are fixing. If a particular material is ALWAY fixed the same way, then using the RA is better approach.
Now, as soon as you enter multiple repair procedures into the mix that can be applied to a material, this is when you must go to the leading “Service” material. (RAS order type). The RAS order type gives you additional flexibility, and also decreased maintenance (in txn OISD) compared to the RA order type. Now, the RA gives you a more straightforward approach, but in my opinion, it tends to limit your options. If everything you do is field service, then this becomes less of an issue, but if you ever have the need for multiple repair procedures (or even field service vs. in-house repair), the RAS is truly the way to go.
Thanks for reading,As always, thanks for reading and don't forget to check out our SAP Service Management Products at my other company JaveLLin Solutions,