R3483 - MPS/MRP

[Dazza]

Hi All!

We are implementing Xe, and have noticed that when MPS is run over Parent WOs that are not Frozen (either processed message or created WO) demand is created but MRP appears not to see this demand as it does not create supply orders to match. However, where the Parent WO is frozen, then MPS runs over that part - supply orders are correctly created. This is not logical. Supply orders hould be created regardless of whether the demand WO is Frozen or not.

I am using R3483 for the MPS, with Generation Type set to 3 & using R3483 for the MRP with Generation Type 4.

Does anyone know of a way that I can setup MPS/MRP so that demand is created from Firmed WOs (Status 10) whether it is frozen or not - and more to the point, a way that MRP will create supplies to match this demand?

If this is the case though, is there a way to set a default so that every WO created defaults to Frozen status?

 

[Krofire.com]

Conventional wisdom says that Generation Type 3 and 4 are the same. Indeed, according to the standard White Paper on the matter, this was to be rationalised on SAR 4494191. Therefore the difference between your MRP and MPS will purely be in the Data Selection.

The problem you describe, all things being equal, would be a bug. It should certainly work the way you expect. However, on the basis that I have not heard of such a bug (which might not mean a lot - check the KG for SARs!) I have a hunch that this is purely setup.

If you were using Generation Type 5 then the White Paper says: "Gen Type 5 is used to ‘freeze’ the master schedule once it has been stabilized. A basic assumption is that work orders have been created from messages to cover the master schedule demand. This generation type will freeze the entire planning horizon - similar in concept to the freeze fence, which freezes just a part of the horizon. No new work orders will be planned. No messages for existing work orders will be created. The adjusted ending available is allowed to go negative. Demand is only ‘exploded’ down to components from existing work orders. There is no ‘-PWO’ demand from parent items, only ‘-FWO’ demand. All of this logic is hard coded for Planning Code ‘1’ only (master schedule items). I.e. the use of this gen type is dependent upon proper set up of the planning codes - planning code 1 items will not be re-planned".

It shouldn't make any difference whether your Work Orders are Frozen or not. They will generate demand for lower level items. The only difference between Frozen and Unfrozen is the replanning. The above explanation should illustrate this.

If you get demand blowing down in an unpredictable way then there is a slim chance that you may have misinterpreted the evidence. Generation Type "1" generates no Pegging therefore would cause the MRP to create no Supply. An error in the S&D Inclusion Rules can produce the same result. Using Net Change may also do this. In fact there are a dozen different variables that it would be impossible to comment.

Check out your "Ending Work Order Status" Processing Option in R3483. The White Paper says: "When a work order status is specified here, messages will still be received for parent items (with FPO in the Planner Remarks). However, the component demand planning will continue to be based on the unadjusted condition of work orders with a status greater than or equal to the status specified - i.e. no corresponding messages will be received for the components. Instead, FPO Adjustment Suggestion message(s) will be received. For example, with no actual or forecast demand to justify an existing work order at the status specified here, a cancel message would be received for the parent (with 'Cancel FPO' in the planner remarks). Corresponding messages to cancel or decrease existing orders for the components required for this work order would not be received. FPO Adjustment Suggestion message(s) that refer to the work order number with 'Cancel Parts List' in the planner remarks would be received instead."

As for your very last point - I once tried to change the Data Dictionary default for the Freeze Flag to make it default to Frozen in Xe. However, it didn't work. We believed that this may have been a Tools Bug fixed by a later ESU but I have no confirmation of this. It is possible that the blank is forced into the field by Event Rules in P48013. This should work but shouldn't be necessary.

I enclose the White Paper.

 

[Dazza]

Mark,

Thanks for your help! Unfortunately I have to admit that our problem was
caused by a mi-interpretation of what I was seeing - not a bug like I
thought:

We found the cause of the problem. Unprocessed Expedite and Defer messages
for the MPS items are treated by MRP as though the change to the Start Date
will be accepted. Therefore the Supply Demand form shows us a cumulative ATP
figure which appears to be incorrect as the Demand dates are from the actual
Start Date on the WO, but the Supply column shows the WOs and POs generated
by MRP based on the planned changes to the Start Dates.

Freezing the WOs appeared to prevent the issue as obvuiosly no planning
messages are generated to Defer/Expedite these Orders.

While our users were deleting any messages they did not want to process via
Detailed Message Review, we had set our Message Display Fence to 90 days in
the Item Branch Record. This meant that while we thought all the
Defer/Expedite messages that the users did not want to action had been
actioned, there were actually some further out (past 90 days) that were
generated by MRP but not seen by the users.

Increasing the Message Display fence on items with longer than 90 days of
Firm Orders should fix this situation.

I now have a new question however:

A. Is there a way to configure the Supply Demand form (P4021) so that the
Demand column dates reflect the proposed start dates from the Expedite/Defer
messages rather than the actual start dates on the WOs? (To stop confusion
among users)

B. Is there a way to configure the MPS/MRP (R3483) so that MRP does NOT
assume that the changed dates on the upper level are processed (i.e. MRP
places the Supplies to meet the Actual Start Dates - not un-vetted system
generated recommendations)?

Regards

Darren Swindells

Business Analyst

Hills Industries Limited
Edwardstown, SA, Australia
Phone (South Australia): +61 8 8301 3496

Phone (Queensland): +61 7 3212 9560
Mobile: 0402517604
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.hills.com.au

It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth - SIR ARTHUR CONAN
DOYLE

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain
confidential information. The information is intended only for the use of
the recipient named above. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the original
documents to us, and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited.