Thursday 4 August 2011

PIR's (Planned independent requirements in AFS

Hello All.

I have one issue that I would like to share with you and maybe some
good ideas to solt ve can pop up. :-)

We have one request from our business that in one specific flow we use
the planned independent requirements in order we have the forcast of
the requirement for some matrials. This forcast for a specific
material can came from several locations and we were able to found a
way to have it seperated using the requirement plan number.
Then the ordering plant will place some Production orders that we
convert in sales orders in the producing plant and we will then get
our PIR's consumed. Now my question is how can I inform the system
that if the Sales order is from one plant it should consume the PIR's
related to that plant and if it cames from the other plant it should
consumen the PIRS related to that plant.

I don't know if am clear on my explanation, but if you need any more
explanation please let me know.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Best Regards
Manuel Antonio

1 comment:

AFS-User-Network said...

Hello Manuel,

Unfortunately, I cannot offer you a solution, but at least I can tell you that your business requirement is pretty familiar to me, too.

Although our context is slightly different, we face the same problem: In some markets we have more than one DC, but our demand planning team is actually planning on a market/country-level, not per DC.

Initially, we thought that we can use the function related fields "Planning material", "Planning plant" and "Planning conversion factor" (see material master, MRP 3 view). However, it didn't work. I remember that we have raised a SAP message and got the reply that this is not supported by AFS.

The way how to deal with this at the moment is that we force the business to manage a particular material at only one DC per country so that we can uniquely assigned the PIR to that DC.

It is obvious that our business is not very happy about this limitation and I am sure that they will come back to me asking for a better solution.

Therefore, I am very interesting in the outcome of this discussion!

Kind regards,
Klaus