From the documentation: When adding to a forecast set, the values from the selected master schedule sets are added into one forecast. If the target set contains forecast values, these values are included. If there is a master schedule proposal in the target set, it is left unchanged. Only forecast fields are combined. I can add 5 & 6 into 3, but I cannot add 5 & 6 into 6. Very helpful. So then one (kind of clever) way to work with this is: Set 2 & New (Empty Dummy) Set <ADD TOGETHER INTO> Target Set 1Works since the calculation is additive to the existing target set forecast values.
Thanks for quick response @matt.watters! Tried to be clever, but think the logic of add like I’d hope isn’t there. Can likely work with your solution though.
Does that happen to be the date of the requirement (or offset from that)? If so, I think you are running into an IFS design choice like this other post discusses: Purchase Requisitions / Shop order Requisitions in the past - clean up? | IFS Community
Related question: is there a way to drive req’s into the future (i.e. with lead time or the like). More specifically purchase req’s for finished goods. IF demand creates a need, MRP is dropping it where needed (with a latest order date potentially in the past). As specified above, obviously that can’t happen - I would think earliest availability date would be current date / MRP run date + total lead time (by whatever collection of lead time components). Is there a way to make the “latest order date” no less than current date or MRP run date, i.e. place the req lead time into the future to represent the reality of it. This, of course, means you may be short supply for some period of time - but would prefer that reqs generated/automated by MRP abide by lead time, and short lead time orders only be handled manually. @majose Bumping this. How do we configure MRP to push purchase requisitions out to a realistic receipt date based on lead time?
No, that is one of the things that IFS doesn’t deal well with - dates - if not careful, you will either be overloaded with excess supply if the dates keep moving out beyond the leadtime OR you will end up missing customer order commitments because there are too many requisitions and the right one didn’t get acted on. We fool the order proposal algorithm by setting the date (month and day) to the correct reschedule from the supplier, but set the year to one year behind us, so that IFS always considers the existing orders within the calculation. We just trained everyone in manufacturing and sales to realize that 22 Dec 2022 was actually a good date, but in 2023. We’ve not found a clever alternative that doesn’t continually create new supply. @ShawnBerk - I’ve just run into a related concern with our purchasing team. Did your company ever try utilizing the ‘Update Earliest Unlimited Supply Date’ option to temporarily push out lead time for the inventory part so reqs wouldn’t genera
Updated my custom attribute to be more discerning, since PO/CO# are same as the parent DO#. Same initial ask still applies. Thanks
@matt.watters @Vernon Anderson - I replied on the linked post above as well, but I’m curious if either of you had any leads on future official development to address this limitation and/or knew partners you could suggest who had successfully worked around it to provide an MS output like “G” planning does for MRP.
Hi, In core logic in MS there is no code whatsoever that performs order cover time logic, when lot sizing and creating the MPS. It could be interesting to implement in future releases. But we have to consider Planning Time Fence and probably the last shop order requisition within PTF so that we create an MPS schedule that is a litle bit stable between the Level 1 Calculations. I am just afraid that if we just implement a dynamic lot sizing rule without a thougt we could create a nervous system. Because the idea with G, for some customers, is to create a more stable schedule. -Mats As a new user of IFS (coming from SAP) this is the first thing that has made me go ‘hmmm?’ with the product, that being, time period aggregation of calculated supply isn’t possible to use for top level parts coming out of MS, but yet it is for any MRP planned subassemblies or lower level items. Otherwise I’ve been impressed. Hope this percieved gap is addressed technically in a future release.Biggest iss
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.