Hi,

IFS has always supported the concept of ‘two-level’ Master Scheduling.

MS Level 0 is typically used to represent a family part where a forecast for an entire product family can be entered.  This is normally entered into MS Set ‘0’ and acts as the base forecast which can be disaggregated (or ‘pushed down’) to any MS Level 1 parts which are members of the family (so, the actual parts which are manufactured and sold).  The contribution from the base family forecast is then visible against the MS Level 1 part.

Note that an IFS Planning Structure would need to be created to connect the MS Level 0 part to the MS Level 1 parts first!

When you work with MS Level 0, you can actually use any MS Set you like (it doesn’t have to be MS Set ‘0’).  This allows you to perform simulation and what-if scenarios.

The Disaggregate Level 0 to Level 1 functionality allows you to disaggregate from any Source MS Set  (at MS Level 0) to any Target MS Set (MS Level 1).

MS Sets and the concept of product families is also used in the IFS S&OP (Sales and Operations Planning) functionality.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks for the reply, it makes sense.

I think what was (and still is to some degree) confusing me is that you can also select Set 0, even if you are creating your forecast directly in the Level 1 Parts and aggregating up to to the Level 0 Part. Or when you disaggregate from Level 0 to Level 1, you can choose Set 0 as the Target Set.

So from a system aspect, Set 0 doesn’t seem to be tied to Level 0 Parts specifically.

So am I right in thinking Set 0 is intended to be used, say, for your ‘start of year’ base plan data (with the assumption being, this would usually be high level i.e. Level 0 Family Parts), that you leave as a reference? However, from a system point of view it acts no differently to a user defined set? It’s the fact it has it’s own defined Set Type that, to me, implied it might behave differently to the ones marked as ‘other’… but perhaps I’m overthinking it!

Thanks for the reply, it makes sense.

 

I think what was (and still is to some degree) confusing me is that you can also select Set 0, even if you are creating your forecast directly in the Level 1 Parts and aggregating up to to the Level 0 Part. Or when you disaggregate from Level 0 to Level 1, you can choose Set 0 as the Target Set.

So from a system aspect, Set 0 doesn’t seem to be tied to Level 0 Parts specifically.

 

So am I right in thinking Set 0 is intended to be used, say, for your ‘start of year’ base plan data (with the assumption being, this would usually be high level i.e. Level 0 Family Parts), that you leave as a reference? However, from a system point of view it acts no differently to a user defined set? It’s the fact it has it’s own defined Set Type that, to me, implied it might behave differently to the ones marked as ‘other’… but perhaps I’m overthinking it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi,

Yes, I believe that it the case.  You can use MS Set 0 to hold a family forecast which can then be used for reference purposes, so there is no difference when you compare to any other MS Set.

However, we do know that MS Set 1 is special because it represents the ‘live set’ that is used when MS Level 1 creates the master production schedule with demands then being seen by (say) MRP which will plan for the lower level sub-assemblies and components.

I have a feeling that some of this functionality (such as ‘Set Type’) may just be a historical legacy.

Perhaps Mats @majose can add some insights!

Hi,

When we really improved the S&OP solution in Apps10 we didn’t clean up the Master Schedule Sets basic data. It was kind of forgotten. Set Type is not longer in use.

And from Apps10 and onwards MS Set 0 has no special meaning. We might remove it from our installation scripts.

And yes….

“So am I right in thinking Set 0 is intended to be used, say, for your ‘start of year’ base plan data (with the assumption being, this would usually be high level i.e. Level 0 Family Parts), that you leave as a reference?”

Its intended use case was as you describe. And of course you can use it like that in the future as well.

Regards,

Mats

Thank you both for your help, that is all completely clear now :)