Not sure I get what you mean? You ship from a remote warehouse to another site but you would like to receive it into a remote warehouse belonging to that site? Then why don’t you have the Remote Warehouse as the receiver in the Shipment Order?

Correct. This is a solution used by integration with WMS. Main warehouses (2 x WMS, not remote) are receiving goods from other warehouses (remote) in the same site. We use shipment order for that purpose. So the destination is a site, not remote warehouse in 99% cases… but:

The case is that sometimes WMS is rejecting delivery. We would like to process that in the smoothest possible way: WMS would confirm that is receiving goods, but in the special location belonging to the remote warehouse. So there wouldn’t be needed any additional return movement from main warehouse to the remote warehouse.

Then why do you have it as a remote warehouse and not just a normal warehouse in the site and receive there in the 1 % of the cases?

A remote warehouse is in another physical location with another address, not sure why you need a remote warehouse?

Remote warehouse is configured as in the same site as main warehouse. It’s in different physical location though, so it has another address. Yes, I’m aware of fact that maybe it should be configured as in the another site. But I can’t change it right now. This remote warehouse is an incoming / buffering warehouse for RMA. If goods are OK, there are “returned” - shipped by shipment order (remote warehouse → site ) to the main warehouse. And the scenario is that the main warehouse barely (1% of cases) doesn’t accept this and we want this goods to be registered in remote warehouse back. My idea was to accept the delivery in the site by WMS in the original remote warehouse immediately instead of accepting in some other location in the site and then moving to original remote warehouse.

I’d like to know if it’s just possible / it’s a matter of parametrization, because I couldn’t make it happen.

Fun fact: in the opposite this schema works:

We can create shipment order from site to remote warehouse (remote warehouse in the same site) and we can choose / reserve parts from the remote warehouse we are moving into. So we have situation where we move parts to ourselves. It doesn’t make sense for me, but it works :) 

As I remember you can only receive into the context of the reiver of the shipment order. This is not a parametrization. I think a customization of the LOV in the receipt flow could probably solve your specific scenario.

Regarding the “fun fact”-section, this is actually depending on setup. You can add a Default Inventory Part Availability Control on the remote warehouse to not reserve. That will mean that you can only reserve from the remote warehouse when you are in that context e.g. having shipment order with sender remote warehouse. In this way you can also control if the material in the remote warehouse is plannable or more dedicated to the remote warehouse e.g. if the remote warehouse is a service van, you don’t want any planning engine to ask the service van to hand it back for general needs in the site.

Yes, that’s the case: remote warehouses are not available in the LOV when receiving from Shipment Order. However remote warehouses are available in the LOV when receiving from regular Purchase Order. Is there a bigger idea behind this?

I think we see the receiver of the Shipment Order (site or remote warehouse) as a separate address location and that is where it should be received. It is a bit more sloppy/flexible in the purchase order which could give confusion as well and usability issues to see locations from different address location.

Another complicating aspect is that when you deliver a shipment order we place it in the material in Inventory Part in Internal Order Transit with the delivering and receiving site/remote warehouse. This is to keep track of material in transit and the inventory value of this. Then at receipt we move from this table into stock at the destination i.e. the receiving site / remote warehouse. These things must be in match for the transaction to come through.

Thank you very much for your help and explanations Fredrik. It makes sense now to me.