SAP tableObjectKAZYModulePP_M2D

KAZY table — Periodic Cost and Quantity Distribution Table

KAZY is a technical cost object controlling table that carries a production order or other CO object's costs and quantities distributed by fiscal year, period, value type and cost element. It is generated and consumed internally by work in process (WIP) calculation, results analysis and settlement runs, not something a consultant queries as a primary reporting source. Field-level specifics vary and should be confirmed against the system before scripting against it.

This page covers what KAZY holds inside cost object controlling, the joins that connect it back to a production order and its operations, and the recurring mistake of treating its rows as stable, user-facing cost figures. It also flags where the table's exact field layout needs to be confirmed in the target system rather than assumed.

Published 16 Sept 2026· 1,138 words

What it stores

One row in KAZY represents a slice of an order's or cost object's costs and quantities for a single fiscal year, period, value type (plan, actual, target or variance) and version, broken down by cost element. It is a periodic totals-style record, similar in spirit to the other CO cost totals tables, but generated specifically to support work in process calculation, results analysis and related settlement processing for cost object controlling. Consultants rarely build custom reports directly on KAZY; it functions as an internal data carrier that the standard WIP and results analysis programs read and rewrite each time those runs execute for a given order or period. Because it is regenerated rather than posted to directly, its content reflects the last calculation run, not a running ledger of individual transactions.

Key fields

  • MANDT - client, always the first restriction on any selection
  • OBJNR - object number tying the row back to the order, WBS element or other CO object it belongs to; treat this as indicative rather than confirmed for this specific table
  • GJAHR - fiscal year the cost and quantity record was calculated for
  • PERBL or PERIO - the posting period within the fiscal year, used to align WIP or variance results with a specific period close
  • WRTTP - value type distinguishing plan, actual, target and variance rows; mixing value types in one selection is the most common source of wrong totals
  • VERSN - version, relevant mainly when plan values are involved
  • KSTAR - cost element the value is posted against; not confirmed with certainty for this table and should be checked against the actual field list before building a query

How it joins the data model

  • KAZY-OBJNR = AFKO-OBJNR joins the periodic cost row back to the production order header it belongs to
  • KAZY-OBJNR = AFPO-OBJNR is the equivalent join at the order item level when the object is item-based
  • KAZY-OBJNR = AFVC-OBJNR connects the row to the specific operation whose activity type consumption drove the cost
  • AFRU-OBJNR feeding into the same object number is what actually generates the confirmed quantities that a WIP or results analysis run later distributes into KAZY
  • KAZY-GJAHR and the period field are matched against the fiscal year and period used by the settlement or results analysis run being investigated

How to read it safely

Always restrict on client first, then narrow by object number derived from the order rather than scanning by cost element or period alone, since the table can carry a large number of rows across every order that has ever run through WIP or results analysis. Fix the fiscal year and period before running any selection, and never mix value types in a single sum without separating plan from actual from variance, since combining them silently produces meaningless totals. This is not a table with natural selectivity on its own; selectivity comes entirely from first identifying the order or cost object through the production order tables and only then reading the periodic rows for it.

How to prove it in the data

Symptom: the work in process or variance value shown for an order in a given period looks wrong or unexpectedly zero. Confirm by taking the order number, finding its object number through the order header, then selecting the periodic cost table for that object number, the fiscal year and period in question, separated by value type. Compare the raw distributed value against what the WIP or results analysis report is displaying for the same period; a mismatch usually means the calculation run has not been re-executed since the last confirmation or settlement posting.

ECC vs S/4HANA

In ECC this sits in the family of CO-PC and cost object controlling totals tables that get read and rewritten by WIP calculation and results analysis programs. In S/4HANA, actual cost postings are consolidated into the universal journal, and standard reporting for order costs, WIP and variances is expected to run through that layer or through the standard order cost analysis transactions rather than direct table access. Whether this specific table has a public CDS compatibility view or has been functionally superseded for reporting purposes is not confirmed here and should be checked against the installed release before relying on it for any S/4HANA build.

Common pitfalls

  • Treating a raw row as the final cost figure shown to a user; the displayed WIP or variance value is the output of a calculation logic applied on top of these rows, not the row itself
  • Summing across value types without separating plan, actual and target, which produces a number that looks plausible but corresponds to nothing the business recognises
  • Assuming the table is populated for every order the moment it is created; rows only appear once a cost object controlling process such as WIP calculation or results analysis has actually run against that order and period
  • Drawing conclusions from historical rows after a recalculation run has since overwritten them; the table reflects the latest run, so period-over-period history is not guaranteed to be stable if runs are repeated
  • Querying this table as a first step instead of the standard order cost analysis or results analysis reports, which apply the business logic this table was never meant to expose on its own
  • Assuming the exact field names without checking the system, since this is a lightly documented technical table and layout details are easy to get wrong

Whose problem this is

A discrepancy traced to this table belongs to the CO-PC or cost object controlling consultant, since the content is generated by WIP calculation, results analysis and settlement configuration rather than by PP order execution itself. PP involvement is limited to confirming that the underlying order structure, operations and confirmations are correct. Basis gets involved only if the table's size is causing a performance problem in a background job.

Related SAP objects

Reviewed pages this object connects to in the ERPClimb knowledge graph.

Source: ERPClimb — https://erpclimb.com/sap-tables/kazyERPClimb is an independent platform and is not affiliated with SAP SE. Reference pages are written and reviewed by SAP consultants for learning and troubleshooting.