Solved

MRP not creating SO Req for part with no demand but Safety Stock >0


Userlevel 6
Badge +13
  • Hero (Customer)
  • 346 replies

We are in Apps9 and have a manufactured part set up with a Safety Stock of 1.  There is no other Demand.  There are two shop orders set up for the part but they are Parked and the Parked reason is set up to not include SO as Supply.  
 

We are finding when running MRP that a requisition to satisfy the qty x 1 Safety Stock is not being generated.  

We have checked what we believe to be the obvious (component parts active, routing and structure buildable, MRP code set to A, phase in date/s) but can’t identify the reason.  

 

Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks

Linda

icon

Best answer by AlexSkupien 8 October 2020, 14:34

View original

14 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +28

Hi, 

It has been my experience that MRP does not work for the Safety Stock the way we might be thinking it will.  I think it is Demand dependent, meaning, if there is Safety Stock alone, there is no urgency to replenish if it gets to zero. Only if there is demand in addition to safety stock, then MRP will account for both and will set the dates accordingly much closer as expected.

There is something about it in IFS help.

//[yourdomain]/ifsdoc/documentation/en/Mrp/frmMrpPartInfo.htm

There is some pertinent information here on slides 28 to 35 that seem to indicate that MRP should not be used to plan Safety Stock and that isn’t the default.  We do run MRP to plan against safety stock, but I think the date it works to can vary with other demand in the system.

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

Useful to know, @ShawnBerk.  Do you know which section the slides are in you refer to?

 

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +28

Hi Linda,

Sorry, I should have rechecked that link.  I pulled it from an email and thought it was the right one.  The slides I referred to are part of a power point presentation in the elearning section that is related to the last link I sent.  Try this one

//[your domain]/ifsdoc/documentation/en/TMPlanning/MTSMrp/MTSMrpLogicIP.htm

Shawn

 

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

We’re getting some mixed results here, @ShawnBerk, some of which back up the theory that Safety is ignored unless there’s demand, but we’re going to go away and do some more testing.

Thanks for your response and information.  Much appreciated.

Linda

Userlevel 1
Badge +5

Hi Linda,

have you checked the MRP Messages for that part? What does it say?

MRP Run is set to create safety stock at run date?

In Inventory Part the flag for MRP is set?

BR,

Alex

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

Hi @AlexSkupien 

MRP code on the Part is set to A (default supply type = requisition.  MRP “Plan Safety Stock Receipt on MRP Run Date” box is checked.  

MRP Messages as follows:

 

No errors/warnings on the MRP Run

 

 

Userlevel 1
Badge +5

Hi,

I meant the MRP Control flag. If this is not set, MRP does not care about that part.

Also, if this part is an active master scheduled part, then it would not be seen by MRP

BR,
Alex

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

Hi

Yes, MRP Control Flag checkbox is ticked and it’s not a master scheduled part…

 

Linda

Userlevel 1
Badge +5

Hi,

Guess then you have to check whether there is a bug with the “parked”- status settings.

TEST Environment and recreate with and without parked shop orders.

BR,
Alex

 

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

Hi @AlexSkupien .  That’s exactly what we have done.  Good to know we’ve not missed anything as yet.    

We’re just about to raise a case to support.  I’ll update this question when I get some feedback.  

 

Badge +1

Hi @PRODQ , have you received any feedback on this yet? Also experiencing problems.

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

Hi @MLEABDTG 

 

We raised a case back in October but haven’t had any feedback/action from IFS Support as yet.  

 

Linda

 

Badge +1

Hi @PRODQ 

Maybe this will help you?  Check the ‘Plan Safety Stock Receipt considering MRP Run Date' when running the MRP

Userlevel 6
Badge +13

Hi @PRODQ , have you received any feedback on this yet? Also experiencing problems.

They acknowledge it as a bug which R n D should fix but we’re in restricted support so can’t get it reported to R n D.  If you’re not in restricted support maybe you could report it?  The alternative is to upgrade to Apps10 as it works correctly in there.  

 

If only it were that simple!  :-) 

Reply