C_S4TM_2023 Exam Dumps : SAP Certified Associate - SAP S/4HANA Cloud Private Edition, Transportation Management

In SAP S/4HANA Transportation Management, incompatibilities can be defined with different system reactions for automatic and manual planning to enforce restrictions, such as preventing the hazardous product POISON from being transported on a TRUCK unless authorized by user A. According to the SAP documentation:

Automatic Violation: Incompatibility Must Not Be Violated; Manual Violation: Incompatibility is Ignored (B): This setting ensures that automatic planning strictly enforces the incompatibility (no POISON on TRUCK), but user A can manually override it during planning, allowing flexibility for authorized users.

Automatic Violation: Incompatibility Must Not Be Violated; Manual Violation: Warning If Incompatibility Is Violated (C): This setting also enforces the incompatibility in automatic planning but issues a warning during manual planning, allowing user A to proceed with authorization while being alerted to the violation.

The other options are incorrect:

Ais too restrictive, as it prevents both automatic and manual violations, not allowing user A to authorize the transport.

Dis too permissive, as it ignores the incompatibility in automatic planning, which violates the company policy.

In SAP S/4HANA Transportation Management, incompatibilities are used to define restrictions during automatic and manual planning to prevent certain combinations of objects. According to the SAP documentation, the following incompatibility types are valid in the Automatic and Manual Planning incompatibility area:

Vehicle resource - Location (stay level) (A): This incompatibility type restricts a vehicle resource from staying at a specific location (e.g., due to regulatory or operational constraints).

Freight unit - Freight booking (C): This type prevents specific freight units from being assigned to certain freight bookings (e.g., for ocean or air transport) due to incompatibilities like cargo type or equipment restrictions.

The other options are incorrect:

Transportation request header - Transportation request header (B)is not a standard incompatibility type for planning; it is more relevant to freight unit building or other processes.

Carrier - Transportation order (D)is used in carrier selection or tendering, not in the Automatic and Manual Planning incompatibility area.

In a shipper-to-LSP B2B scenario where both parties use SAP Transportation Management, the LSP plans and executes transportation for the shipper. According to the SAP documentation, the key documents involved are:

LSP’s forwarding quotation (A): The LSP creates a forwarding quotation to provide a price estimate to the shipper, which forms the basis for the transportation agreement.

Shipper’s freight unit (D): The shipper creates freight units based on their transportation requirements (e.g., from sales orders), which are transferred to the LSP for planning and execution.

The other options are incorrect:

LSP’s service order (B)is used for internal services, not for shipper-LSP interactions.

Shipper’s freight order (C)is created by the shipper for direct carrier execution, not in a scenario where the LSP handles planning and execution.