Skip to main content

Check the below requirement of the customer

 

The putaway and handling units were not efficiently developed and as a consequence there is a delay to putaway. Customer accepted that this would take up to 15 seconds a pallet, however in line with recent changes this has increased.

 

In the customer’s scenario, there are 36 bays in the warehouse which have space at the end for 4 pallets. Each Bay has approximately 260 locations, each for a single pallet.

The access to the end of the bay is via a standard pallet truck, or manual move. The movements in the bays are with VNA (very narrow aisle) specific devices, which due to their nature and size, need to work within a Bay as much as possible.

 

To achieve the design, customer has worked with drop off locations at the end of each Bay, so a transport task on putaway would first go to the end of the bay, before a second task used by the VNA trucks would be used to locate the pallet in the racking.

These trucks typically put one pallet away, then get another pallet from the store for picking or replenishment, then putaway, then retrieve etc.

 

4 pallets can be queued to putaway, and 4 pallets queued to pick at the end of every Bay.

 

IFS putaway logic had to be specifically tailored to prevent overcrowding at the end of the aisle, customer has it set in their TRN environment to split into 3 pallet groups, so an order is putaway by scattering across the locations which prevents trying to put too many into one drop off location at a time.

 

Putaway generation has increased to 6-18 minutes, per pallet which clearly is unacceptable.

 

Serialization or lot batches are not an option.

How the customer is supposed to use IFS correctly in this case without this unworkable delay?

I also have the same concern.

In my case Customer wants to register their arrivals with “ Receive in to Inventory and Perform Put away”

From my investigations I found the below points ,But still investigations are going on with the relevant product team

RnD team recreated this scenario and the execution of the flow took close to 4-5 minutes in a RnD environment and found this is a reasonable time as 1000 transactions occur in this process and each transaction averages at 0.2 seconds.(25000 quantity were included with PI-21 bags on the pallet-DEVEL (customer’s test) amount and PI)

But when it comes to customer scenario it takes 40 min to perform put away and it depends with the number of users (100 users -40 min/25 users -10 min)

Want to know the same or any solution for this.

 


The initial query and reason for the support case was the poorly developed element of using putaway with handling units. In Apps9 this kind of delay was never encountered. With a supposedly simpler process of just checking if a location has a HU in it, and how many can go there, the process now takes a minimum of 2 hours to work out one arrival (base on quickest recorded speed of 6 minutes and minimum number of pallets as 20) - however this can’t be proved as the process times out after about 30 minutes and the request is aborted.

In your example above Chalani we had the same in the run up to go live and thought 5 mins, while not good, was bearable. We now have a warehouse that simply cannot use the functionality IFS is supposed to provide as the delays are too long in reality. The only solution we seem to have is to look elsewhere, or try and use customisation with a technical consultant and bypass putaway completely. It’s not a good advert for IFS warehousing as it is clearly not fit for purpose given these scenarios