RE: [SYS21] Material Requirement Schedules (Vendor Scheduling)

Excellent point, Kris...
You should never amend a PO using 42/PMP if the PO was created using Vendor
Scheduling...
At least that's the way it used to be in 3.5.1...
I don't know if they have "fixed" that limitation in the later releases...








"Gonyer, Kris-Coining" <gonyer@tmdinc.com> on 02/06/2003 12:55:23 PM

Please respond to "GEAC/JBA System 21 Users" <jbausers-l@midrange.com>
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  To:          'GEAC/JBA System 21 Users'                     
               <jbausers-l@midrange.com>                      
                                                              
  cc:          (bcc: Jeff Klipa/Harvard)                      
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  Subject      RE: [SYS21]   Material Requirement Schedules   
  :            (Vendor Scheduling)                            
                                                              






We found this problem a few years back.  In our case for the items in
question, PMP09 records were missing contract numbers.  As a result,
whenever a purchase receipt was made against such a line, the contract 'cum
received' was not updated by the receipt amount.  If I remember correctly,
users were modifying their schedule orders through order amendment (42/PMP)
which subsequently wrote PMP09 records without contract numbers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian.True@trelleborg.com [mailto:Brian.True@trelleborg.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:47 AM
To: jbausers-l@midrange.com
Subject: [SYS21] Material Requirement Schedules (Vendor Scheduling)


We are currently running V5R3 and seem to be having intermittent problems of
the Purchase Receipt qty not reflecting in the total CUM Receipts.  Does not
seem to be one item or one vendor.  Sort of scattered across all items. We
have modified PM010, but nothing to do with cums.  We can see the receipt in
INP95 and everything looks okay.  Was wondering if anybody else was having
this kind of problem.  Thanks

Brian True
Trelleborg Automotive
brian.true@trelleborg.com




_______________________________________________
This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list To post a
message email: JBAUSERS-L@midrange.com To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change
list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l
or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l.
_______________________________________________
This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list
To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l
or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l.