Skip to main content

Since upgrading from apps9 to apps10 about 2 months ago, we have had an issue with our MRP Action Proposals. MRP is generating the proposal “Remove Order” for parts which have requirements, and also the POs are already in state “Arrived”. I have checked our legacy ifs9 environment and confirmed that this was not occuring in apps9. 

Is there a way to prevent this from happening when we run MRP? The purchase orders are already arrived, so in my opinion it doesn’t make sense that IFS is recommending us to cancel these order lines, and it is causing confusion for our material handlers.

 

Hi Jason,

Can you have a look in the Gross Requirements tab, And there I presume that the Shop Order Component demand is missing, coz you got ’No Demand Exists’ message also. I mean we should find the root cause of this problem! Perhaps both Shop Order Comp demand and PO Supply is pegged to a Dop Order?! And should not be loaded at all into MRP.

-Mats at R&D


Hi Jason,

Can you have a look in the Gross Requirements tab, And there I presume that the Shop Order Component demand is missing, coz you got ’No Demand Exists’ message also. I mean we should find the root cause of this problem! Perhaps both Shop Order Comp demand and PO Supply is pegged to a Dop Order?! And should not be loaded at all into MRP.

-Mats at R&D

Hi Mats,

 

You are correct the the Shop Order Component demand is missing from the Gross Requirements tab. It is also correct that both the Shop Order demand and the PO supply are both pegged to a DOP order. I suppose you are suggesting that in this case the MRP flag should be turned off for the part, since the requirements are already being covered by DOP?

 

Thanks,

 

JHOWES


Hi

In this case it smells suspicious that the arrived PO line sitting in inspection is seen by MRP engine. I think we should sort this out ( I am vacation ) You may raise a support case… Double check again if the PO Line is pegged to DOP.

You should not have to change the MRP Control flag because of this

-Mats


Reply