Hi Murugan,
I think, you are planning to activate DMR based inspection to get Tightened/Normal inspection lots created automatically based on the rejection & acceptance criteria. But you also need to confirm, you wish to activate this dynamic process at Inspection lot level or MIC level? This is something should come out form your As-Is / To-Be process mapping form BPML list.
Answer to Question 1: Yes, you need DMR for your purpose. Saying that, you should activate below setups -
a) Work with business to decide they are interested in Dynamic Modification at Inspection type level or MIC level [PLKO-QDYNHEAD = 1 or 3]
b) If for the above case you have selected this at Inspection lot level [PLKO-QDYNHEAD = 1], then assign DMR at header level [PLKOD-QDYNREGEL = DMR]. In this kind of cases, your Inspection lot will have inspection lot system status "SKIP" for those cases, which is driven by Quality level criteria maintained by DMR. for those inspection lots, you will not be able to record any MIC results.
c) If you have selected this at MIC level [PLKO-QDYNHEAD = 3], then you should not add DMR at header level [PLKOD-QDYNREGEL = Blank]. Instead, you should maintain this for quality operation => MIC level. Once you do this, then while inspection lot is created, this details will be passed into the table QAMV. Benefit of having it at MIC level is that -
* Every MIC could have it's own Quality level to validate and check.
* Need not be forced by other MIC's RR value.
* Surely get impacted by UD done, ad UD is done at inspection lot level, and thus QDQL stage values are changed.
Answer to question 2: How system will understand the impact and the quality level it should attend. Sometimes back I have shared my thoughts and limited experience in a few threads. Please take clues form this one - http://scn.sap.com/thread/3758451
If you do not have any specific and/or special requirements, then I think this standard process may be useful to your business case. But you should model these feedback in your sandbox/quality system for better understanding of the scenario.
Thanks,
Arijit