Skip to main content

Supplier Agreement – Blanket Order Functionality in IFS

  • April 7, 2026
  • 6 replies
  • 46 views

Steven Heurter
Sidekick (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+8

Many customers are using Supplier Agreements with Blanket Orders in IFS to support long‑term, pre‑approved contracts and enable efficient call‑off purchasing via agreement releases. This approach works well for recurring goods and services by reducing approvals, enforcing agreed prices, and streamlining operational procurement.

In practice, however, several areas are commonly raised for discussion when using this functionality:

  • Authorization and control model
    Blanket Orders are treated as pre‑authorized by design. Releases generated from these agreements do not trigger PO authorization, even when values change due to additional lines or charges. This often leads to questions around governance, delegation of authority, and audit compliance.

  • Handling of value changes and charges
    Additional costs or changes to the PO value are considered part of the already approved blanket commitment. While this aligns with the original concept, it can be challenging for organizations that expect authorization to be triggered on value increases or deltas.

  • Flexibility versus risk
    The functionality favors flexibility and user responsibility over restrictive system controls. Some customers see this as a strong benefit, while others experience it as a risk—especially in regulated environments or project‑driven cost control models.

  • Alignment with business processes
    Differences in procurement operating models, financial controls, and project governance mean that the standard Blanket Order behavior does not always align with internal policies or expectations.

  • “Working as designed” vs. business expectations
    Many behaviors are intentional and long‑standing in IFS, yet still create challenges in real‑life usage. This raises recurring questions about whether gaps should be addressed through process changes, configuration options, or future product enhancements.

Given these points, it would be valuable to hear from other IFS customers and users:

  • How are you using Supplier Agreement – Blanket Orders today?
  • What challenges or limitations have you encountered?
  • How do you manage authorization, value changes, or additional charges?
  • Do you see the current behavior as a benefit, a risk, or both?
  • Are there enhancements or configuration options you believe are missing?

Sharing experiences and lessons learned can help establish best practices and guide future improvements.

6 replies

Forum|alt.badge.img+8
  • Sidekick (Employee)
  • April 7, 2026

Hi Steven,

Thank you for starting this thread. In my experience, my Customers tend to avoid using the Blanket Option of Supplier Agreement and instead opt to use the Agreement Option. The general reasoning for my clients is the Agreement Option is MRP Driven and the Blanket Option is manual.

I seldom have Customers use “Blanket” Supplier Agreement these days for those reasons. 

Thanks,

Alex


Steven Heurter
Sidekick (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+8
  • Author
  • Sidekick (Employee)
  • April 7, 2026

I’m currently having a customer, who would like to use the Blanket Order Agreement for certain items to streamline the procurement flow and avoid multiple handlings in for example Authorization.

For that the Blanket Order Agreement is working fine, but it generates a huge risk in both Authorization and control model and Handling of value changes and charges, since there is no control on these changes after the Agreement Release have been created. For that i have created a case: Value Changes in PO from blanket agreement doesn't trigger any authorization. The functionality also doesn’t block adding new materials, or at least retrigger authorization in that cases.

This is a Huge financial risk for the customer, since it will be very fraud sensitive.

Only this risk is already a reason to not advice to use this functionality, which is a loss, since in the base the idea of the functionality is good.


Forum|alt.badge.img+8
  • Sidekick (Employee)
  • April 7, 2026

Hi Steven,

Maybe I’m missing something, but what is the problem with using the Supplier Agreement with Type = Agreement and then letting MRP driving the replenishment through the Supplier Agreement?

I believe in this scenario the Authorizations would take place.  Thoughts?


Steven Heurter
Sidekick (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+8
  • Author
  • Sidekick (Employee)
  • April 7, 2026

Hi Steven,

Maybe I’m missing something, but what is the problem with using the Supplier Agreement with Type = Agreement and then letting MRP driving the replenishment through the Supplier Agreement?

I believe in this scenario the Authorizations would take place.  Thoughts?

That is correct, but i don’t want to go into detail why the customer wants to use Blanket order Agreements, but the customer and i are noticing significant risks with this functionality. Therefore this discussion is started to see what the experiences are from other customers/users/employees and how they handle these short comings from the functionality. to eventually bring it under the attention from R&D so it might be something to bring into the roadmap for evaluation and maybe change/enhancement.


Steven Heurter
Sidekick (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+8
  • Author
  • Sidekick (Employee)
  • April 8, 2026

I’ve added an idea on the Community which regarding the common raised areas for discussion.

 


Mikko K.
Hero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+9
  • Hero (Employee)
  • April 8, 2026

If this Blanket Order discussion is re-initiated so that enhancements/re-design is actually put forth, then I can chime in by saying that a customer of mine decided not to use Blanket Agreements and call-offs of them for 2 main reasons:

  1. the orders bypass authorizations EVEN when changes are done to the PO, just like this Idea explains:

     

  2. orders created via Blanket Agreement are created for a single part only. Multiselection via the Create Agreement Release assistant would be very useful, but has already been shot down by RnD: