C_TS422 sample questions & answers

A discrete automotive-components manufacturer is preparing master data on SAP S/4HANA before its first planning cycle. A subassembly is meant to be produced in-house, and demand for it clearly exists from the finished products that consume it. After the planning run, however, the subassembly receives a purchase requisition rather than a planned order for in-house production, while comparable in-house items on the same bill of material correctly receive planned orders. The consultant confirms the bill of material is complete, the routing exists, and the work centers are set up. Its peers on the same bill of material plan correctly and its routing and work centers are complete, so the team must determine why this one item is not being planned for in-house production. The team needs the first cycle to reflect the real sourcing intent and must avoid simply accepting the purchase requisition, because the part is genuinely manufactured in-house and no supplier is set up for it. The correction must make planning propose in-house production for the subassembly while leaving the correctly-planned peers untouched, and the result must be reproducible into later systems.

Which correction makes planning propose in-house production for the subassembly?

An industrial-pump manufacturer running SAP S/4HANA has completed a planning run for a busy assembly line. One work center is shared between two product families, and the planner is concerned it may be overloaded once the planned orders are scheduled. Leadership wants committed delivery dates by the end of the day, but the planner does not yet know whether the planned load at that work center exceeds its available capacity. The team considers several approaches: releasing all planned orders immediately and reacting to any shopfloor delays, raising the work center's available capacity on the assumption it will be tight, or cutting order quantities so the load is certainly low. The planner wants to base the commitment on what the planning result actually shows about load versus available capacity at that work center, rather than discovering an overload during execution or changing the plant without evidence. The decision must give pre-commitment visibility of the load so the team can judge whether any levelling is genuinely needed before dates are promised to customers.

Which action gives the planner pre-commitment visibility of load versus available capacity?

A food and beverage manufacturer runs a liquid-products area as process manufacturing on SAP S/4HANA, alongside a discrete packaging line. A team member who set up the discrete line tries to execute the liquid area the same way, using the discrete production order approach that worked for packaging. The liquid area, however, does not behave correctly under the discrete approach, and the team is unsure whether to push the discrete objects onto it, convert the area to discrete, or run it in some other way. The packaging line continues to run normally through its discrete path, so the issue is specific to how the liquid area is being executed. The consultant must decide how to execute the liquid area correctly while keeping it distinct from the discrete packaging line, and stop reusing a discrete assumption where it does not apply. The correction must let both areas run validly side by side, with the liquid area executed in the way that suits how it actually works rather than by the discrete assumption that does not fit it.

Which approach correctly executes the liquid area while keeping both streams valid?

A pharmaceutical manufacturer on SAP S/4HANA produces two kinds of output: a standard over-the-counter product with steady, forecastable demand sold through retail, and a specialised preparation made to specific clinic orders with low predictability and order-specific characteristics. The planning team initially set both to the same strategy for simplicity, but the specialised preparation has been accumulating finished stock that clinics do not order in that exact form, while the standard product occasionally runs short. Demand for the standard product is steady across the retail calendar, whereas clinic orders for the specialised preparation arrive irregularly and in specific forms. The consultant must assign each product the planning strategy that fits its demand. The standard product's steady, forecastable demand suits building to a forecast and holding stock, while the specialised preparation's order-specific, low-predictability nature suits producing against actual clinic orders rather than to forecast. The correction must stop the specialised preparation being built to stock it cannot sell as-is, and keep the standard product available for its predictable retail demand, by matching strategy to each product's pattern rather than applying one uniform approach.

Which strategy assignment fits the two products' demand patterns?

An electronics manufacturer on SAP S/4HANA plans most of its catalogue successfully with the standard planning run. One subassembly, however, is a genuine bottleneck: it has sequence-dependent setup, limited availability on a specialised resource, and tight delivery commitments, so its scheduling must respect finite capacity and setup sequence rather than assume unlimited capacity. The standard run keeps proposing dates that the bottleneck resource cannot actually meet during execution, and the planner must decide how to plan this item so its schedule reflects the real resource and setup limits. The consultant must decide how to plan the bottleneck without disturbing the rest of the catalogue, which the standard run handles well. The bottleneck's specialised resource is available only in limited windows, and its setup time depends on the sequence in which items are produced. Moving everything to advanced planning would over-engineer the unconstrained majority, while leaving the bottleneck on the standard run keeps producing unrealistic dates. The correction must give this constrained item a schedule that respects its finite resource and setup limits, while the unconstrained items remain on the standard run that already serves them well.

Which planning approach fits the bottleneck subassembly without over-engineering the rest?

A building-materials manufacturer on SAP S/4HANA reviews the result of its latest planning run. A finished product carries an exception message indicating that its demand cannot be covered within the requested dates. A junior planner suggests treating all exception messages as background noise and ignoring them, so the team can release what is already planned and move on. The exception names a specific finished product whose demand cannot be covered within the requested dates, and nothing about the planning run itself has been shown to be faulty. Other team members are unsure how to respond: some would delete the product's demand so the message simply disappears, others would switch the plant to a different planning method in the hope of removing such messages, and others suspect the exception points to a genuine shortfall that needs looking into. The consultant must decide how to treat this exception before the plan is committed, weighing whether dismissing or suppressing it could let a real coverage problem reach the shopfloor against the effort of investigating its cause in timing, supply, or capacity.

How should the team treat the coverage exception on the finished product?