Source of Supply Not Determined for Requisition

Buyers report that requisitions sit in the pool without a vendor attached even though everyone in the department knows which vendor supplies the material. The purchasing group tries to run the automatic assignment or conversion job and the requisition simply does not move to the next stage, or it throws a message saying no source could be determined. Sometimes it works for ninety plant-material combinations and fails for the hundred-and-first, which convinces the requester it is random. Occasionally the complaint is the opposite: the system picks a vendor nobody wanted, which is really the same underlying issue seen from the other side - a valid source existed but it was not the one the business expected.

Pull the requisition list filtered on the material and plant with no source of supply field populated, then run the source list display and info record list for the same material-plant-vendor combination side by side. If the source list requirement flag is on and the source list report returns zero rows, or returns rows with validity dates that do not span the requisition's delivery date, that is the proof, not an assumption. Cross-check the info record and contract validity in the same pull.

If the source list requirement flag is set but no entry exists, this is a data fix - create the source list entry with correct validity and, where there should be one preferred vendor, set the fixed indicator; no transport needed. If a contract or info record has expired or is exhausted, extend validity or release a new agreement - also data maintenance, though contract release strategy approval may add a workflow delay. If multiple valid sources conflict, the fix is a data decision, not a bug - pick which source should win and mark it fixed in the source list, since the system will not arbitrate ties. If the vendor is not extended to the purchasing organisation, that extension is a master data create in the vendor master, owned by vendor master maintenance not by the buyer. The only genuine configuration case is when the source list requirement indicator itself is being applied inconsistently across material types or plants by policy - that is a change to procurement policy settings and does need a transport and sign-off, and is rare compared to the data causes above.

The reflex fix is to have the buyer manually type the vendor into the requisition or the resulting purchase order and move on, since the deadline for the goods does not wait for a config discussion. This clears the immediate requisition but leaves the source list, contract or info record gap in place, so the next requisition for the same material fails identically. Over time this trains the buying team to always assign sources manually, defeating the point of maintaining source lists and quota arrangements, and it hides genuine contract expiries that should have triggered a renewal, not a workaround.

Master data maintenance owns source lists, info records and quota arrangements; procurement policy or MM configuration owns the source list requirement indicator and any sourcing rule changes. The handover note should state the material, plant, and which of source list, contract, info record or quota check failed, plus whether the fix was a data entry or requires an approval workflow for a new agreement.