teddybear
8th June 2006, 08:26
I have this question about INV Production Order.

Imagine I have this simple BOM structure where item B (purchase item) is a child of item A. These items are having the following parameter settings ;

For Item A
Order Policy : Anonymous
Order System : SIC
Order method : Lot-for-Lot
Reorder Point : 10

For Item B
Order Policy : Anonymous
Order System : SIC
Order method : Lot-for-Lot
Reorder Point : 0

After running session “Genarate Planned INV orders” (tdinv3201m000), I got an Planned INV Production Order of 10 pcs for item A. The planned start date for this order is today date.

There is no planned order for item B unitl I transfer the planned INV order to become a SFC order.

In this case, how will I know that I need to purchase item B ? By the time I know (after creating a SFC order), then it will be too late.

Any comment are much appreciate.

Hutje33
8th June 2006, 10:39
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the basics for SIC?
Also item B will need a re-orderpoint to stay ahead of shortages. Otherwise MRP is the way to go..........

teddybear
8th June 2006, 14:57
Hi Hutje33 ,

I agreed with you.

It is possible for item A to be controlled by SIC and item B by MRP ?

What our bussiness needs is have item A control by inventory level. Once there is planned INV order for item A, all the child for item A (that is item B) will be automatical allocated.

Hutje33
9th June 2006, 11:58
Hi Teddybear,

I'm afraid you're turning it around for what's supposed to be "normal".

In normal situations the upper level is MRP-controlled, which effects allocations for the lower levels. The lower level (semi-finished products or raw mat's/Purchase items) can be SIC or MRP.

teddybear
12th June 2006, 04:16
Hi Hutje33

I have a last question.

Why the allocation from the INV Production Order is not cascaded down to lower level as allocation.

Example : we have a Planned INV Production Order for item A and item A need item B. Why don’t BaaN generate a Planned INV Purchase Order for item B ?

I know this is the case but just can’t figure what is the reason for this.

Hutje33
12th June 2006, 12:36
Basic idea behind this method is, that reordering for lower level is supposed to be done based on reorderpoints/safetystock instead of allocations from upper levels i guess.