Hi Vaishnavi,
Please note that the first thing you should have done before creating the PO itself, is to maintain -
a) Add QM inspection type 01 + select 'Active'.
b) Add QM Control Key in Material master QM view.
c) Add Certificate Type in Material master QM view.
d) QM proc.active check box - This indicator acts at 'Client' level and not specific to 'Plant' level. So, beware of it before activating it.
Once the steps a), b) and c) had been selected, and only after that PO was created, then these values form MARC would have been copied to -
EKPO-SSQSS - Control Key for Quality Management in Procurement]
EKPO-ZGTYP - Certificate Type
If so, then you should not received this error message. But these mandatory setup were activated later, just before receiving GR in MIGO. Hence I think you can't really create a certificate in QCPR table using QC51 transaction, even if you cancel the material documents. Please can you test this functionality in DEV/QUA/SBX system by replicating this scenario?
Please note that if this is the first time you are trying to use the functionality of 'QM in Procurement', then there could be one more configuration missing, related to number range for storing the Quality Certificates in QCPR table. Please confirm the same in the below path if this is existing -
Quality Management => QM in Logistics => QM in Procurement => Define Keys for Certificate Processing => Define Number Ranges for Certificate Receipt => Add number range.
Now, once all these things are there, and as Kumar suggested, please change the message mode to 'Warning', for the next examples, you will not get this error.
If this is a PRODUCTION SCENARIO for which a QC needs to be absolutely created, then please plan for the below things - [Please ensure this by testing thoroughly in Quality system]
a) Take business approval to allow ABAP team insert EKPO-SSQSS and EKPO-ZGTYP record for the concerned PO.
b) Transport the missing Number range for creating Quality Certificate.
Then try to create a QC in QC51!! Please note that this is not a recommended process to follow, hence this should be taken as an one time exception and not a practice to follow.
Please try and test this proposal and share your thoughts.
Thanks,
Arijit