UCM Survivorship Rules Are Not Applied Correctly When Base Table Record Does Not Have Any Corresponding ATGP Table Attribute Data (Doc ID 2008274.1)

Last updated on OCTOBER 10, 2016

Applies to:

Siebel Universal Customer Master - Version 8.1.1.10 [23021] and later
Information in this document applies to any platform.
*** Checked for currency OCT-10-2016 ***

Symptoms

SIEBEL VERSION:
---------------
Siebel 8.1.1.10

ISSUE STATEMENT:
----------------

Customer followed the below KM article to configure Siebel UCM Survivorship feature to check the time stamp on the incoming SDH column against existing attribute group data time stamp:

- 1551564.1 - How To Configure UCM Survivorship Engine To Compare Base Table Attribute Modification Timestamp (S_UCM_ORG_ATGP.LAST_MOD_DT) To A Custom SDH Datetime Column?

The configuration and functionality works fine for comparison against existing S_UCM_ORG_ATGP data that is already there for the incoming SDH table.

However, Survivorship feature did not work properly when the incoming SDH record has no existing/corresponding S_UCM_ORG_ATGP data.

The situation occurred as the customer initially did not enable/use UCM Survivorship feature when Siebel UCM was first implemented into the environment. Thus, all data loaded and processed through Siebel UCM did not have survivorship applied and thus did not have any data in the ATG table, S_UCM_ORG_ATGP for Account in this particular case. This is expected and correct behavior when survivorship is not enabled/used.

The customer then enabled UCM Survivorship later on in the implementation. Once Survivorship was enabled (on 04/24/2014), customer applied KM Doc ID 1551564.1 to have Survivorship compare the SDH UCM_EXT_UPD_TIME to the ATGP LAST_MOD_DT column for Recent criteria.

When customer load SDH records after 04/24/2014 with SE enabled, some of the records were loaded with SDH UCM_EXT_UPD_TIME column < current datetime (ex: SDH UCM_EXT_UPD_TIME was 04/12/2015 and BDM execution date was 04/27/2015). So for these records with SDH UCM_EXT_UPD_TIME column < current datetime, this happened:

a. SE rule did not pass, so the SE protected field was not updated with the incoming SDH value

b. Since SE rule did not pass, there was also no record inserted for the ATG table

Once the SDH record's UCM_EXT_UPD_TIME column was set to a date > current time, then re-running the BDM on the same SDH record allowed the SE rule to pass, base table record's field was updated with the incoming SDH value and the ATG record was created.



Cause

Sign In with your My Oracle Support account

Don't have a My Oracle Support account? Click to get started

My Oracle Support provides customers with access to over a
Million Knowledge Articles and hundreds of Community platforms