Production Order Variance Calculation KKS1 — Fixing KV031 and KV011, and What Lands in COSB

In the last post on cost center variance calculation (KSS1) I noted that the similarly-named KKS1 is a different animal. This is that post: production order variance calculation. I hit two errors on the way in, so we start with their causes and fixes, then verify — by comparing the database before and after — exactly what gets stored where. Environment: controlling area JNC2, plant JNC2, period 2026/008, KRW, three production orders.

※ Screens, menus, and settings may differ depending on your SAP release and system configuration.

Two errors before it would even run

KV031 ("no target cost version") — version 0 itself existed. What was empty was the variance variant for orders (AWVAO) in OKV6: only the cost-center one (AWVAS) was maintained, which is why KSS1 worked fine while KKS1 refused. Same OKV6 screen, different column.

KV011 is an order status problem. Order 1004916 got its goods receipt and final delivery on August 2 — run KKS1 for period 007 and, as of that period, the order counts as incomplete. Running with period 008 resolves it.

The run and its first artifact: target costs

Two of the three orders showed variances, totalling 6,000 (Variance = actual costs − allocated actual costs; order 1004916 came out 0 because actuals equalled the GR amount).

First thing saved: target costs — new WRTTP 05 lines in COSP and COSS that didn't exist before the run. This is exactly where KKS1 parts ways with KSS1: cost center variance calculation updates only COSB and stores no target costs, while KKS1 persists per-order target costs matching the Target Costs column on screen.

The second artifact: variances in COSB

Two COSB lines with WRTTP 31 / VRGNG KVAR appeared. Plan and actual lines are untouched; no CO document, no FI posting — variance calculation itself creates no documents, same as KSS1.

Tracing where the 6,000 came from: in the preceding KSII step the machine activity's actual price exceeded the standard, that revaluation amount (business transaction RKLN) hit the orders as a debit, and it carried straight through as an input price variance. The RKLN amounts in COSS actuals match the COSB variance amounts order by order. No material-side variance this time.

Does the closing sequence even need KKS1? (this data set says…)

A slightly surprising comparison: all three orders had zero balance (already offset by the revaluation credit), so the settlement amounts are identical with or without KKS1. What actually differs is whether the 6,000 of variance-cause information exists in COSB — i.e., whether settlement can pass variance categories on to CO-PA.

Wrap-up

  • KKS1 differs from KSS1 in two ways: it stores target costs in COSP/COSS, and it feeds settlement (KO88/CO88), which can carry variances by category into FI and CO-PA.
  • What's the same: KKS1 by itself posts nothing to FI. Closing numbers are moved by settlement, not by variance calculation.
  • If the run won't start, check three things first: the order variance variant in OKV6 (AWVAO), the order status (DLV or TECO), and the execution period.
  • Browsing COSB directly: the object key for orders is OR + order number.

Korean original (with screenshots): SAP 생산오더 차이계산 KKS1 — KV031·KV011 해결과 COSB 저장 결과

Where these documents come from
Everything on this blog comes from one small dumpling factory built end-to-end in an S/4HANA sandbox — one plant, one product, one month, every document number real. The whole build is written up in two books.
· Free 16-page sample — the opening chapters, no email required
· How Sarah Joined a K-Dumpling Company and Became an SAP Genius — the business novel, 53 pages, $25
· The Dumpling Factory: Building a Complete SAP S/4HANA Company from Scratch — the build manual, 85 pages, $50

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Modern ABAP Syntax Notes — Patterns and Pitfalls from Real Development

ABAP syntax actually used while developing our custom Z reports, organized by topic. Examples come from working sources, together with the pitfalls we actually hit. Structure: syntax item → explanation → example code. Last updated: 2026-08-13 1. Data Declarations and Types ▷ Inline declarations DATA(...) / @DATA(...) — Declare and assign in one statement. SELECT result tables land directly in @DATA(lt_...) — the structure is derived from the SELECT list SELECT matnr, maktx FROM makt INTO TABLE @DATA(lt_makt) WHERE spras = @sy-langu. DATA(lv_qty) = ls_stpo-menge * iv_losgr / lv_bmeng. LOOP AT lt_mat INTO DATA(ls_mat). " loop variable inline too ENDLOOP. ▷ FIELD-SYMBOLS / ASSIGNING — Modify internal table rows in place without copying. ASSIGN COMPONENT lets you pick the column name at runtime (used for dynamic logic such as auto-hiding empty columns) LOOP AT gt_list ASSIGNING FIELD-SYMBOL(<ls_list>) WHERE typps = 'M'. <ls_list...
Read more

SAP S/4HANA Table Reference — Tables I Actually Query, by Topic

SAP tables I actually queried while building custom reports and running end-to-end tests on an S/4HANA sandbox, grouped by topic. Updated continuously as development goes on. Each table: Table / Description / Key fields / T-codes / Used in our custom reports. Last updated: 2026-08-13 1. CO — Allocation Cycles (Assessment / Distribution) Table Description Key fields T-codes Used in our reports T811C Allocation cycle header ※ Distribution = ALART 'V', assessment = ALART 'U'. Classic CO-OM uses TAB='CCSS' TAB / CYCLE / SDATE KSU3, KSV3 ZCO0040 (allocation cycle report), ZCO0041 (distribution cycle detail) T811S Cycle segments ※ SRULE (sender rule) / RRULE (receiver rule) / SPERCENT / RCDATA (variable portion type) / NEGTEST (negative tracing factors — stored value differs from the screen code) TAB / CYCLE / SDATE / SEQNR KSU3, KSV3 ZCO0040, ZCO0041 T811K Selection criteria per segment ※ SETKIND: 0=cycle, 1=sender control, 2=sender, 3=rece...
Read more

A 36% margin became 6% at month-end, and every posting was correct

On the day we shipped, the billing document said the margin was 36% . Three weeks later, after the close, the same sale carried a margin of 6% . Nobody made a mistake. No posting was reversed. Every document in between was correct. This is the part of SAP that spreadsheets never prepare you for, so it is worth walking through with real numbers. Everything below comes from a small dumpling factory I built from an empty S/4HANA client and drove through one complete business month. 1. The sale looked great A sales order for 20,000 KRW of dumplings, delivered and billed: Step Transaction Effect Sales order VA01 Revenue 20,000 · standard cost of goods 12,800 → expected margin 7,200 (36%) Goods issue VL01N → PGI Cost of goods sold hits the P&L for the first time — at standard Billing VF01 Revenue 20,000, receivable 22,000 (incl. tax) If you stop reading the system here — and a lot of people do, because t...
Read more