Re: MRP Input (was: MPS - Customer Demand and General ECL Date Questions)

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 12/23/2002 9:33:42 AM Central Standard Time,
laflammep@kennedydc.com writes:

Paul,

You are correct on both counts.

What I meant to convey is that the suggested release date for the shop order
will be backed off by the lead time.  That is the date that you should have
started the shop order in order to finish on the date requested.  The due
date will always be the same as the customer order request date.  Yes, this
is by design.  If you look at MRP540, it has a selection filter by release
date, which enables you to only look at a certain release period.  If for
example, you release shop orders once weekly, you enter a release date of one
week in the future.  You will only be shown planned orders that have to start
within a week to ensure completion by the request date.  This helps the
planner to not have to look at a bunch of planned orders that are not needed
yet.  It also will allow for starting of shop orders at or before their
respective lead times.  This is especially helpful if you have items with
different lead times.  The release date is also used to determine the due
date for sub-assemblies and components.

Also, in point 2, I forgot to mention that the shop order due date will still
be the same as the request date even if you add the one day to the routing.
However, the last operation due date will be the day before the request date
(using our one day example).

Myron Hamilton
COBUS


> Thank you Myron,
>
> In your point 1, below, you say the system will subtract lead time. In my
> testing, lead time has absolutely no effect on the planning of shop orders
> to meet a customer demand. So in my example of a customer request date of
> 1/7/03, the shop order due date as rescheduled by MPS is always 1/7/03
> reguardless of how much lead time I put on the Item in IIM. Is this by
> design?
>
> To your point 2, adding a move day to the last op is the only solution I've
> found so far that would work.
>
>