Constrained Materials and scheduling 8.03.405A

Thanks to all for your info

After a bit more testing we have found that :-
For Purchase Direct Materials
If the material has a L.T. in Part Plant whether it is marked as
constrained or not, then the Schedule is driven by the L.T., once a
P.O. is generated for that material the Due Date IS used to drive the
schedule, and this appears to work even if the material Due Date on
the P.O. is sooner than the material L.T. in Part Plant. (If the
Material does not have a L.T. then the schedule DOES NOT pick up the
P.O.Due Date.) Very strange.

However, once the material is fully received on to the Job, the L.T.
takes over again and is STILL seen as a constraint. This also happens
if the L.T.is in the Supplier Price List. This means that thwe
associated operation is always pushed into the future by the length
of the L.T.

Stock Material
If a material has a L.T. AND is marked as 'Constrained' the schedule
is driven by the L.T. if there is not enough stock. However, due date
on the inventry P.O. does not affect the schedule which is still
constrained by the material L.T.

According to EPICOR, the L.T. issue on Purchase Direct material is
fixed in 406, so we are about to load 406A onto our test system and
will run some trials next week.

Thanks again and will keep you posted

Tim


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:
>
> Nick hit the nail on the head. The Part Plant maintained lead time
is not used in purchasing suggestions if a primary approved vendor is
set up. In that case, the LT in the appropriate price list takes over.
>
> The price list in effect for each PO (and the associated part's
specific vendor LT) also impacts Change suggestions. If you are below
Min and a PO exists due within that PO vendor's specified LT for the
part - you will not get an expedite message as it assumes you can't
do any better than that L/T.
>
> Tim: I think the scheduler interprets constrained materials much
like I described above with Change suggestions.
>
> However, that suggests that if a PO for the constrained part is
coming in SOONER than the part L/T (no matter where it is getting
that L/T from) - and that receipt will result in sufficient available
material (above requirements to that date plus your Min O/H and
Safety) - do you still see the behavior?
>
> As long as the part isn't flagged as buy direct, I would think
constrained materials would be treated by the scheduler much like ATP
would (any material) - and "use" the scheduled PO receipt - as long
as that use still results in the part staying at or above your Min
O/H + Safety in a time phase view.
>
> If it doesn't, it is just another feature that doesn't fulfill its
promise.
>
> Rob Brown
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/17/08, nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...> wrote:
> From: nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...>
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: Constrained Materials and scheduling
8.03.405A
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 8:42 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim,
>
>
>
> This is all very close to my heart...! Firstly we run 8.03.305, and
>
> in this version the constrained material concept doesn't seem to
work
>
> properly and we eventually gave up trying. Even setting the
>
> constrained material flag in the MPF doesn't work. You would think
it
>
> would be logical to drive your scheduling based on those materials
>
> which you have defined as constrained, but in 305 the system
doesn't
>
> do this :o(
>
>
>
> The material due date is generated by MRP from the scheduling
process
>
> and not the other way around, so this date will not drive the
>
> scheduling process. Additionally, the PO release promised date is
>
> ignored by the MRP calculation and is "cosmetic" only.
>
>
>
> The lead time in the vendor price list affects the "order by" date
in
>
> the buyer workbench. I could be completely wrong here, but I didn't
>
> manage to get the MRP lead time to have any effect on raw materials.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, "fredcarnot" <fredcarnot@ ...>
wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an
operation
>
> > based on the materials lead time. As most of our materials are
Buy
>
> > Direct, material availability is a key element of our ability to
>
> run an
>
> > acurate schedule. However, as with our materials, there is hardly
>
> ever
>
> > a standard lead time, I was hoping that I could drive the
schedule
>
> > using the material due date in the Purchase Order as the
constraint
>
> > rather than a standard material lead time. I can not get this to
>
> work,
>
> > I assume that it should.
>
> >
>
> > If this does not work, and we need to rely on Lead Times, then
what
>
> > action starts the lead time count-down, raising the Purchase
>
> Order ????
>
> >
>
> > Grateful for any help on this.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks
>
> > Tim
>
> >
>
Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an operation
based on the materials lead time. As most of our materials are Buy
Direct, material availability is a key element of our ability to run an
acurate schedule. However, as with our materials, there is hardly ever
a standard lead time, I was hoping that I could drive the schedule
using the material due date in the Purchase Order as the constraint
rather than a standard material lead time. I can not get this to work,
I assume that it should.

If this does not work, and we need to rely on Lead Times, then what
action starts the lead time count-down, raising the Purchase Order ????

Grateful for any help on this.

Thanks
Tim
Hi Tim,

> Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an operation
> based on the materials lead time.

Does this require Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) module?

Mark W.
Tim,

This is all very close to my heart...! Firstly we run 8.03.305, and
in this version the constrained material concept doesn't seem to work
properly and we eventually gave up trying. Even setting the
constrained material flag in the MPF doesn't work. You would think it
would be logical to drive your scheduling based on those materials
which you have defined as constrained, but in 305 the system doesn't
do this :o(

The material due date is generated by MRP from the scheduling process
and not the other way around, so this date will not drive the
scheduling process. Additionally, the PO release promised date is
ignored by the MRP calculation and is "cosmetic" only.

The lead time in the vendor price list affects the "order by" date in
the buyer workbench. I could be completely wrong here, but I didn't
manage to get the MRP lead time to have any effect on raw materials.

Nick

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "fredcarnot" <fredcarnot@...> wrote:
>
> Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an operation
> based on the materials lead time. As most of our materials are Buy
> Direct, material availability is a key element of our ability to
run an
> acurate schedule. However, as with our materials, there is hardly
ever
> a standard lead time, I was hoping that I could drive the schedule
> using the material due date in the Purchase Order as the constraint
> rather than a standard material lead time. I can not get this to
work,
> I assume that it should.
>
> If this does not work, and we need to rely on Lead Times, then what
> action starts the lead time count-down, raising the Purchase
Order ????
>
> Grateful for any help on this.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
Hi Mark,

Did you used to run 305...?

Did you notice if this got sorted between 305 and 405...?

I'm sure this doesn't work on my system, and you have got me thinking
now...!

Nick

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> > Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an
operation
> > based on the materials lead time.
>
> Does this require Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) module?
>
> Mark W.
>
We have been attempting to implement APS for almost a year without success.
Constrained materials is one of the issues. Scheduling looks at the
"theoretical lead time" assigned in the part master for material lead times.
If the PO date is less than the Part Master lead time APS will use the
actual PO lead time. If the PO lead time is longer than the Part Master
lead time, APS will use the shorter (but inaccurate) Part Master lead time
causing the job to be scheduled to begin prior to the actual arrival of the
material.



_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
nmtaylor1969
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 7:45 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Constrained Materials and scheduling 8.03.405A



Hi Mark,

Did you used to run 305...?

Did you notice if this got sorted between 305 and 405...?

I'm sure this doesn't work on my system, and you have got me thinking
now...!

Nick

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Mark
Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> > Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an
operation
> > based on the materials lead time.
>
> Does this require Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) module?
>
> Mark W.
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You could always have a BPM, that conditionally sets the part master
lead time to the latest PO lead time as you approve the PO for that
supplier?



Gary



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mike McGee
Sent: 17 November 2008 14:26
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Constrained Materials and scheduling
8.03.405A



We have been attempting to implement APS for almost a year without
success.
Constrained materials is one of the issues. Scheduling looks at the
"theoretical lead time" assigned in the part master for material lead
times.
If the PO date is less than the Part Master lead time APS will use the
actual PO lead time. If the PO lead time is longer than the Part Master
lead time, APS will use the shorter (but inaccurate) Part Master lead
time
causing the job to be scheduled to begin prior to the actual arrival of
the
material.

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
nmtaylor1969
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 7:45 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Constrained Materials and scheduling 8.03.405A

Hi Mark,

Did you used to run 305...?

Did you notice if this got sorted between 305 and 405...?

I'm sure this doesn't work on my system, and you have got me thinking
now...!

Nick

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
"Mark
Wonsil" <mark_wonsil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> > Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an
operation
> > based on the materials lead time.
>
> Does this require Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) module?
>
> Mark W.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nick hit the nail on the head. The Part Plant maintained lead time is not used in purchasing suggestions if a primary approved vendor is set up. In that case, the LT in the appropriate price list takes over.

The price list in effect for each PO (and the associated part's specific vendor LT) also impacts Change suggestions. If you are below Min and a PO exists due within that PO vendor's specified LT for the part - you will not get an expedite message as it assumes you can't do any better than that L/T.

Tim: I think the scheduler interprets constrained materials much like I described above with Change suggestions.

However, that suggests that if a PO for the constrained part is coming in SOONER than the part L/T (no matter where it is getting that L/T from) - and that receipt will result in sufficient available material (above requirements to that date plus your Min O/H and Safety) - do you still see the behavior?

As long as the part isn't flagged as buy direct, I would think constrained materials would be treated by the scheduler much like ATP would (any material) - and "use" the scheduled PO receipt - as long as that use still results in the part staying at or above your Min O/H + Safety in a time phase view.

If it doesn't, it is just another feature that doesn't fulfill its promise.

Rob Brown






--- On Mon, 11/17/08, nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...> wrote:
From: nmtaylor1969 <n.taylor@...>
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Constrained Materials and scheduling 8.03.405A
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 8:42 AM













Tim,



This is all very close to my heart...! Firstly we run 8.03.305, and

in this version the constrained material concept doesn't seem to work

properly and we eventually gave up trying. Even setting the

constrained material flag in the MPF doesn't work. You would think it

would be logical to drive your scheduling based on those materials

which you have defined as constrained, but in 305 the system doesn't

do this :o(



The material due date is generated by MRP from the scheduling process

and not the other way around, so this date will not drive the

scheduling process. Additionally, the PO release promised date is

ignored by the MRP calculation and is "cosmetic" only.



The lead time in the vendor price list affects the "order by" date in

the buyer workbench. I could be completely wrong here, but I didn't

manage to get the MRP lead time to have any effect on raw materials.



Nick



--- In vantage@yahoogroups .com, "fredcarnot" <fredcarnot@ ...> wrote:

>

> Constrianed materials do drive the scheduling date for an operation

> based on the materials lead time. As most of our materials are Buy

> Direct, material availability is a key element of our ability to

run an

> acurate schedule. However, as with our materials, there is hardly

ever

> a standard lead time, I was hoping that I could drive the schedule

> using the material due date in the Purchase Order as the constraint

> rather than a standard material lead time. I can not get this to

work,

> I assume that it should.

>

> If this does not work, and we need to rely on Lead Times, then what

> action starts the lead time count-down, raising the Purchase

Order ????

>

> Grateful for any help on this.

>

> Thanks

> Tim

>