In a side-by-side scenario, which of the following objects can you map from transportation management (TM) to materials management (MM)? Note: There are 2 correct answers to this question.

Question

Options

• ATM charge type to MM service master
• BTM charge category to MM G/L account
• CTM purchasing organization to MM purchasing organization
• DTM charge type to MM service material group

• A
  83% (57)
• B
  12% (8)
• D
  6% (4)

Explanation

In a side-by-side TM/MM deployment, TM charge types map to MM service masters (A) because both represent billable services at the line-item level, enabling cost transfer from TM freight charges into MM service entry sheets. TM purchasing organizations map directly to MM purchasing organizations (C) because the purchasing org is a shared master data object that functions identically in both modules - no translation layer is needed.

Option B is wrong because TM charge categories are higher-level groupings, not the objects that map to G/L accounts; G/L account determination in MM happens through account assignment categories and valuation classes, not TM charge categories directly. Option D is wrong because TM charge types map to service masters (specific service line items), not to material groups, which are classification buckets used for materials/services broadly and don't carry the right granularity for this mapping.

Memory tip: Think "like maps to like in specificity" - a charge type (specific) maps to a service master (specific), and a purchasing org (shared entity) maps to a purchasing org (same shared entity). Anything that sounds like a mismatch in specificity (category → G/L, type → group) is a distractor.

No community discussion yet for this question.