MRP looks like its not considering the BoM

Kinetic ERP
1

Hello All,
So im in the nuts and bolts of scheduling and running MRP for the first time with the part parameters set up as ive been guided by consultants

We are having to use Plan as assembly (due to our engineering BoM & WIP Movements in plant not being traceable easily)

Ive run MRP and im getting head mashed with what its spitting out, its creating unfirm jobs, in the wrong order!

So i run MRP, on these settings:

image
image1191×554 20.5 KB

Once its run, go into Job Status Maintenance, Firm up the next weeks demand, and release it at the same time

I go into the planning workbench, make any adjustments its suggesting (cause why not work with them) and i go on my merry way…

however… ive come across a number of examples here so:
image
Thats the parts structure and method in as it should be with the “C” code as a material to the “V” code

The V code has demand against it thats throwing huge negatives:

image
image1862×861 73.9 KB

I go to my “C” Code and ive got only 1 demand in associated with 1 of the V code jobs, and then a MRP job for a date miles in the future in turn giving me the negatives on the “V” code im seeing

image
image1855×584 39.9 KB

I dont know what i can do to make it see that the jobs open but no materials are in stock to make it, Ive marked ALL our parts as constrained materials also to try and force it to no avail.

I hope someone out there can help me, im basically wanting to be able to drill through the bom, releasing the jobs bottom to top, this is releasing jobs top to bottom

Speak soon all!!! and THANK YOU!!! :slight_smile:

2

If I am understanding correctly, it’s the demand for the Purchase Parts that you’re not seeing? Do you have ‘Generate PO Suggestions’ checked against each part?

image
image1012×715 36.5 KB

3

The system does not work bottom up, it works top down. That is because the demand is at the top and is what will drive subassemblies and purchased parts.

You need to firm the V jobs before you can get the lower level jobs to be produced. From the Help:

Use the Engineering Workbench to cause the MRP process to generate multiple jobs for each sub-assembly within the method of manufacturing. When the primary job for the parent assembly is assigned the Firm status, the sub assemblies break off to separate jobs and the material demand link is created.

4

Hi Mate, I get what you are saying but our configuration is not using sub assemblies, we are doing plan as assembly

So the C code is a component we manufacture, that then we use in the process of making the V code

So i get your logic on using the sub assembly, but, the materials are constrained, so should be “make the C codes, so you can make the V codes”

Am i missing something obvious that is fundementally not how the system works?

5

Hi, This is more around the internal jobs not the PO’s generate suggestions is generating the suggestions for raw materials or purchased items, its the job release structrure that seems to be not working how i thought

6

So the C code is a Manufactured part with a BOM too? We have parts set like that too and we don’t currently firm any jobs and still see the demand.

These fields made a difference if you are looking for sub-level jobs:

image
image1153×671 49 KB

7

Hello,
So we are being advised (as we are going through implemenation) that we need plan as assembly to help stock and move material around the plant

we cut 1000’s of components
we make 100’s of welded sub assemblies
that go into
100’s of finished welded assemblies
that we then galvanise in
10’s of at a time
to subcontract out potentially at 100’s of
to then assemble to order on return of 10’s

so we use lot sizes and multiples to drive in whats most machine efficient, and we need to be able to make to stock, but then put demand on the components or welded sub assemblies as they are required in finished welded items

we are being told that we cant cut the 1000’s of, have them stocked, then pick a few hundred off for welded subs using plan as assembly as the WIP Movements and multiple operations cant be classed as “stock”, we are also FIFO Lot Tracking all materials.

Plan as assembly is our option, but we are wanting to put demand in at the top level, let MRP explode out the BoM and then create all jobs associated downwards in the lots and multiples, so we only get jobs when we go below min or 0 and our lot sizes carry the volume of material, thats netted off up the BoM if common

8

can you share a screenshot of Site Maintenance > tab: Detail > Planning

9

image
image1870×614 52.3 KB

there we go, any questions let me know

10

It has been a while, but what I remember from Plan-as-assembly is once you released the main job it creates all the child jobs. As the materials are not according a Make-Direct logic, the MFG-lead time is an important scheduling factor. Do you use the calculated MFG lead time calculator?
On Part Maintenance > Sites > Planning you can see how many days the calculator has opted for scheduling this item. If V can have a longer cumulative time than this level, while C will probably have the same numbers.

ps. Correct me if i’m wrong, but that’s probably also the reason that constraint material doesn’t work like you want to. If the lead time is 30 days, it will probably schedule out the V job a lot further after mfg lead time calculation.

Maybe nice to see a screenshot of Part Maintenance > Sites > Planning → Manufacturing Lead Times as well for the V part.

1 Like
11

Our BOM’s are structured similarly:

Finished Goods Part that we sell to customer

  • Consumes Sub-Assembly with it’s own BOM
    - Consumes Sub-Assembly with it’s own BOM

We see Unfirm job suggestions on Time Phase for all levels - am I correct this is what you want to achieve? The Pull As Assy and View As Assy were the 2 fields we had to check as true.

Can you change the BOM for one part and run MRP just for that top level and see what happens?

1 Like
12

What is already odd is firming the Plan-As-Assembly (PAA) job didn’t result in 2 firm jobs (V and C). I would say that the PAA structure didn’t function the way it should. I remember that when there was not enough manufacturing lead time left to be on time PAA was overruled by the original part value (make direct or make to stock). When PAA was overruled I got a job with a subassy in it. I can imagine your default from part C is make to stock as default.

@tmat Do you recognise that behavior of overrulling PAA?

13

Hi, Ive run the MFG Calculate lead times, we havent run this before with a purpose, so

image
image557×509 22.7 KB

Ive got this showing for the V code, originally it was 4

image
image598×530 22.9 KB

Ive got this showing for the C code, again orignially was 4

Will this impact the MRP Calculation? this is a new thing for me

14

The system does not work that way, it will always consider the V codes first.

What do you have for manufacturing lead times on your materials?

15

You have a lot of moving parts here. My first thought is that if you run MRP without a cutoff date, you might find the rest of your missing supply suggestions.

IF you can confirm that, the next question is why are jobs being pushed out so far? Could be a capacity issue, a material issue, manufacturing lead time issue, or some other configuration issue, but I would try no Cutoff Date first and see if the rest of your suggestions show up.

4 Likes
16

funny you say that, ive just been asked the same question further up, We wanted use the MoM to get us the times, so ive run the process in the application and its thrown out some big numbers, possibly just scroll up abit and see

17

Hi Hi, okay i am putting in that cutoff period, but agreed a few moving parts here

Ive run the mfg lead time calc process now,
I’ll re-run the MRP without the cutoff in, see what suggestions i get

Ill report back

Updated:

MRP Has Run, its not changed my demand on the V code

image
image1862×298 21.6 KB

No new job suggestions in the JSM screen
Time Phase:
image
image1843×872 98.6 KB

Its created an unfirm suggestion on the C code

image
image1855×303 21.5 KB

Time Phase:
image
image1864×559 38.6 KB

Its suggesting that on the 18/09 to make the material part, for the V part thats got demands on the 21/06

No planning workbench suggestions showing for either of the parts also

18

I just saw after I posted. I see you are going to run MRP again now that you have those values. We will see what happens.

1 Like
19

Any specific screens you think are worth sharing so i can get us all on the same page

Aplogies if i sound abit of a noob, all new, im absorbing as much as i can in all aspects as im in the core team for implemenation so im trying just this specific is throwing out being able to release things “right” for us to procceed

20

@Jordie We have never checked the Plan As Assembly so I can’t compare our job suggestions with that field being used. We found the Pull\View As Assy were what gave us what we needed

@Mitch_B Personally if you’re testing I would update the BOM’s for the top part number and a couple of levels below and then run MRP just for those parts with no end date to see what it throws up

There are so many settings that affect MRP (on the Part, Site, BOM, etc) that it can take a while to find the settings that suit you and how you need to run but you will get there :slight_smile: