In SAP, both KMAT (Configurable Material) and FERT (Finished Product) marked as configurable are used to manage products with variations, but they differ significantly in their purpose, structure, and application in product design and planning. Below is an explanation of the differences, along with their pros and cons in the context of product design.
Key Differences Between KMAT and FERT (Marked as Configurable)
1. Definition and Purpose
- KMAT:
KMAT is a dedicated material type in SAP for configurable materials. It represents a generic, configurable product that is defined by a set of characteristics (e.g., color, size, features) and a super Bill of Materials (BOM) with dependencies. It’s typically used in variant configuration scenarios where the final product is assembled or produced based on customer-specific choices during sales order entry. - FERT (Marked as Configurable):
FERT is the standard material type for finished products, typically produced in-house and ready for sale. When marked as configurable (via the "Material is Configurable" checkbox in the Basic Data 2 view), it becomes a specific, pre-configured variant of a configurable material (often linked to a KMAT). It has its own material master and can be stocked or planned independently.
2. Material Master Characteristics
- KMAT:
- Does not have an accounting view by default (non-valued material), as it’s a placeholder for configuration rather than a physical, stockable item.
- Requires a configuration profile (transaction CU41) with characteristics (CT04) and a super BOM (CS01) with dependencies to define possible variants.
- No fixed BOM or routing until configuration occurs in the sales order.
- FERT (Configurable):
- Fully maintained material master, including accounting, sales, purchasing, and inventory views, as it’s a tangible, stockable finished product.
- Can be linked to a KMAT via variant configuration (e.g., using CS40 to assign it to a super BOM) and has a predefined configuration.
- Fixed BOM and routing can be maintained for production planning.
3. Usage in Processes
- KMAT:
- Used in Make-to-Order (MTO) or Assemble-to-Order (ATO) scenarios where the product is configured dynamically at the time of the sales order (VA01).
- The configuration drives the BOM explosion and production order creation (CO01).
- FERT (Configurable):
- Typically used in Make-to-Stock (MTS) scenarios where specific, frequently ordered configurations are pre-defined and stocked.
- Can also be used in MTO if linked to a KMAT, but it represents a materialized variant with a specific material number.
4. Inventory and Planning
- KMAT:
- Not stockable as a standalone material; inventory is managed only after configuration results in a specific variant (often a material variant or FERT).
- Planned via sales orders or dependent requirements, not as a standalone forecast.
- FERT (Configurable):
- Stockable and can be planned independently using MRP (e.g., via MD02/MD04).
- Represents a specific variant that can be forecasted, produced, and stored in inventory.
5. Example
- KMAT: A "configurable car" with options for engine type, color, and trim. The final product is determined during order entry.
- FERT (Configurable): A "red sedan with V6 engine" as a pre-defined, stockable variant of the configurable car, assigned its own material number.
Pros and Cons in Product Design
KMAT
- Pros:
- Flexibility: Ideal for products with a high degree of customization, as it supports unlimited combinations of characteristics without needing separate material masters for each variant.
- Reduced Master Data: A single KMAT can cover thousands of potential variants, minimizing the need to create and maintain numerous material masters.
- Dynamic Configuration: BOM and routing are determined at runtime based on customer input, making it suitable for complex, customer-specific designs.
- Scalability: Perfect for industries like automotive or high-tech, where product variations are vast and unpredictable.
- Cons:
- Complexity: Requires extensive setup (characteristics, classes, dependencies, super BOM), which can be time-consuming and error-prone.
- Non-Stockable: Cannot be pre-produced or inventoried without converting to a variant, limiting its use in MTS scenarios.
- Planning Challenges: Lack of standalone planning capability means it relies on sales orders or integration with other tools (e.g., material variants or time-series planning).
- Runtime Overhead: Configuration during order entry can slow down sales processes if dependencies are overly complex.
FERT (Marked as Configurable)
- Pros:
- Simplified Planning: Can be forecasted, produced, and stocked independently, making it ideal for MTS scenarios with predictable demand for specific variants.
- Pre-Defined Variants: Reduces runtime configuration effort since the variant is already materialized with a fixed BOM and routing.
- Inventory Management: Fully supports standard SAP inventory and costing processes, providing better visibility and control over stock.
- Operational Efficiency: Faster order processing since configuration is pre-set, reducing the need for real-time variant selection.
- Cons:
- Limited Flexibility: Each variant requires its own material master, which can lead to master data proliferation if many configurations are needed.
- Maintenance Overhead: Changes to the base configuration (e.g., KMAT super BOM) may require updates to multiple FERT material masters.
- Less Dynamic: Not suited for highly variable, customer-specific designs unless paired with a KMAT in an MTO process.
- Redundancy: Duplicates effort if used alongside KMAT, as it’s essentially a materialized subset of the configurable product.
Comparison in Product Design Context
Aspect | KMAT | FERT (Configurable) |
|---|---|---|
Customization | High (dynamic, order-driven) | Moderate (pre-defined variants) |
Master Data | Minimal (one generic material) | Extensive (one per variant) |
Inventory | None (virtual until configured) | Stockable and traceable |
Planning | Sales-order driven | MRP-driven (forecast possible) |
Setup Complexity | High (dependencies, profiles) | Moderate (fixed BOM/routing) |
Use Case | MTO/ATO, complex products | MTS, standard variants |
When to Use Each in Product Design
- Choose KMAT:
- When designing products with extensive customization options (e.g., computers with variable RAM, CPU, and storage).
- For MTO scenarios where customer specifications vary widely and pre-production isn’t feasible.
- To streamline master data for products with thousands of potential combinations.
- Choose FERT (Configurable):
- When designing products with a limited, predictable set of popular variants (e.g., a car model in three standard trims).
- For MTS scenarios where you want to pre-produce and stock specific configurations.
- When operational simplicity and inventory control outweigh the need for dynamic configuration.
Conclusion
In product design, KMAT shines for its flexibility and ability to handle complex, customer-driven configurations with minimal master data, but it sacrifices inventory and planning simplicity. FERT marked as configurable offers practicality for pre-defined variants, enabling inventory management and streamlined production, but it lacks the adaptability of KMAT and can bloat master data. The choice depends on your product’s variability, production strategy (MTO vs. MTS), and operational priorities. Often, a hybrid approach—using KMAT for configuration and FERT for frequent variants—provides the best balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment