I agree that all "parent" parts should be master scheduled providing
that they are not finished goods nor "service" parts depending upon
their specific application.

If they can be shipped to an end customer then they should be master
scheduled.

-----Original Message-----
From: bpcs-l-bounces+dsweeney=phoenixbcinc.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bpcs-l-bounces+dsweeney=phoenixbcinc.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:22 PM
To: BPCS ERP System
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] No planned production order for certain items

I believe that all parent parts should be master scheduled.

I have a query/400 to list any cases of customer orders on items that
are
not master scheduled. I bring this to the attention of customer service
&
factory leadership to ask if it is intentional that we want MRP to
ignore
these requirements.

Apparently we have a tiny volume of parts where something is going on
partially outside of BPCS, such as first time sample pilots.

So one issue is confusion by some people which end items should be
exception
to master scheduled, who where in process of setup new item do this.

We have some end items with safety stock, because customer can call with

little warning and want some quanity immediatedly. We ship them from
the
safety stcck, then MRP gets us to replenish it. Problem there is
company
business can evolve, their need for some parts drops off their schedule,
but
we still have safety stock.

Al Macintyre
on 405 CD

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:50:28 -0500, Carlson, Christopher W. wrote
Thanks for the response, Al.

One thing you mentioned caught my eye. Should *all* parent parts be
MPS items? This is a distinction that has confused me from the
outset.

We have a finished good (let's call it part A), which is made up of
several components. One of these components (part B) is made from
yet another material that we manufacture (part C). As things stand,
part A is MPS (or so I believe--the Master Scheduled flag in MRP140
is 'M') while parts B and C are not (the Master Scheduled flag is
'N').

Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of this field?

--- Chris

-----Original Message-----
From:
bpcs-l-bounces+christopher.w.carlson=saint-gobain.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx

[mailto:bpcs-l-bounces+christopher.w.carlson=saint-gobain.com@xxxxxxxxxx
om] On Behalf Of macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:20 PM
To: BPCS ERP System
Subject: Re: [BPCS-L] No planned production order for certain items

A problem that can happen with new parts is that engineers set them
up with effectivity date of the date they entered them, inform
customer
service that the parts are now in the system, customer service
releases
orders needing the parts real soon.

Even though we might have enough of the raw materials to make the
parts, if the MRP planning sees that something is needed into the
past due on arrival, or before starting effectivity date, then it
does not get planned.

Avoid this by

(a) Be sensitive to lead times, so that orders are not entered such
that
any component is past due when the customer order is entered (You
can fake out BPCS by using an ancient planning date, to get MRP
planned, then a valid planning date to reschedule the past due parts
... or enter a customer order for a DOABLE date, run MRP, then
change customer order to a not-doable date.)
(b) Ask engineers to use some date earlier than the date they key in
new parts, for effectivity, so as not to muck up MRP if the parent
parts get ordered right away.

Also check on whether the parent parts are MPS items (Master
Scheduled). Sometimes when new items get entered, some standards get
overlooked.

When we run MRP planning
1. Plan all the MPS items.
2. Plan all their components.

You could get a listing of any parent items for which there is
independent demand, but failure to code them as MPS items.

Al Macintyre

Kevin Harper wrote
Chris,

I hope these questions are helpful at determining the issue....

- Is there demand for the parent item(s) ?
- Is the parent item demand showing up in MRP maintenance?
- Are these items within their effectivity date range on the BOM ?
- Are these items using a method code on the BOM (other than blank)
?
- In Facility Planning, what is the Requirements Code ? (should be D

or S or blank)

Kevin Harper
Waterfall Data Solutions, Inc.
(717) 982-2765

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Carlson, Christopher W. <
Christopher.W.Carlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We're using BPCS 6.0.2, and for a certain kind of item no
production

planning is taking place.

It's a third-level item--that is, it is used to make an
intermediate

part, which is then used to make a finished good. We maintain a
zero minimum balance, and the Facility Planning Data record is set

up with a fixed period requirements (order policy G) with an order

period of 30 days. Additionally, the 'Master Scheduled' field is
set to 'N' in both the Facility Planning Data and Item Master
records (this setting appears to be valid for second-level
purchased
components).

Does anybody know of something that would prevent production
planning from taking place for these items, or could you give me
some sort of hint as to where I could look?

Thanks!

--- Chris Carlson

--
This is the BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list To post a message
email: BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list
options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l
or email: BPCS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.

Delivered-To: Christopher.W.Carlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
This is the BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list
To post a message email: BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l
or email: BPCS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.

Delivered-To: macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxx


--
WOW! Homepage (http://www.wowway.com)


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com 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.