Basically you have a choice.
You can run your company as if facilities do not exist, or if everything is same facility,
or you can run your company with different facilities, or you can have a confused mess.

"Global" is for if you are not using the facilities feature of BPCS.

In some files you really need to have one or the other populated ... facilities or global, not both. In other files, the only impact of having population you aint using is the disk space and file access inefficiency.

Let's suppose the different facilities are geographically separated, not in the same city. You might want to allow transit time between them. This is impractical if same facility.

You can have different rules for how the facilities function.

If all your facilities are identical in function, and not separated geographically, then perhaps you are trying to use the facilities function to resolve something where warehouses would be the answer. We have multiple warehouses inside the same facility building:
* shipping warehouse = end customer parts about ready to go out
* work-in-progress making sub-assemblies prior to final assembly
* etc.

In BPCS 405CD, warehouses can be further sub-divided into locations.
Once upon a time we did this, but there was a trade-off between inventory accuracy and all the extra move transactions needed to get the inventory from one location to another.

Also, inventory backflushing from labor in BPCS is not very intelligent when it comes to picking locations to deduct the inventory from.

If you are running by facility, there are several files which must be populated for that facility, for the whole ball of wax to run correctly. Fortunately, BPCS provides capabilities to copy stuff from one facility reality to another. However, for mass copies of thousands of items, you may need outside programming help.

I am setting up various test environments. I see that I can set up the BOM without putting in a Planning Facility - called Global Planning. Or, I can put in the facility code - called Planning by Facility.

Does these two methods produce different results? Or, does it just give you the ability to break up the planning runs so that they do not have to process all facilities at one time?? Yet, you would have to run the planning for all 3 facilities anyway, right?


Don F. Cavaiani
IT Manager
Amerequip Corp.

"It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." Harry S. Truman

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.