I’ve been seeing some interesting scenarios where the first suggested due date on a PO suggestion for an item is for it to come in after we have already dipped below Saftey Stock. Now in this case, the Order By Date is in the past.
Order By Date 4/9 due by 5/21 with a workday lead time of 30 days. Attached is a chart of our time phase data for visualization. We have nothing of this part on order currently. Not understanding why we are getting a suggested date of 5/21 for a due date. My assumption is after that order is placed, there will be an expedite suggestion the next MRP run.
MRP will respect the lead time for new PO Suggestions. If you don’t allow historical dates for MRP/Generate PO Suggestions processes then the earliest you can order the material is “today” and it recognizes that the material won’t come in until the lead time is met. Was the last MRP run for this part on 4/9?
You’re correct, you’ll see an expedite suggestion after the next run once this PO is created.
So in this example, the MRP was run yesterday with Allow Historical Dates set to false. This makes me confused why we would still receive an order by date in the past, but yet still have it come in by 5/21 which is after we dip below Safety Stock.
Hi, Issac!
The order-by date will always be the need date less the lead time for the part - regardless of allowing historical dates or not. It’s telling you that to satisfy the stock out, the parts should have been ordered in the past (meaning you’re inside purchasing or manufacturing lead time).
As far as the due date planning past the stock out, that’s where the historical date comes in. If you allowed historical dates, the engine would think you can go to the past, order the parts on time, and have them delivered prior to the stock out. By not allowing historical dates, the start date is “today” essentially, and it’s adding today + lead time to get the expected due date.
We operate with the expectation that we can’t go into the past to order the things we need, and that the lead time clock starts today (regardless of whether it meets the MRP requirements) - and we either negotiate a shorter lead time to meet the requirements, expedite, and speak to the “lates.” as being inside of lead time.
According to support, the order by date “is just a piece of information”. Don’t get me started on that one.
Can you verify a couple of things.
Your production calendar days of the week
Does the vendor that the PO is written to have a different calendar?
Do you use supplier price lists? If so, is the lead time in your supplier price list the same lead time that is in your part site record
These play a role in the order by/due date discrepancy.
Assuming you’re on a 7 day calendar with no price lists then it’s working as expected.
Christy is correct. You probably go below safety stock on 5/9, so you should have ordered by 4/9. Since you can’t go in the past to order it the due date is MRP Run Date (yesterday) + LeadTime = 5/21.
Yes, you will have an expedite suggestion for this PO.
You can stop that by locking the PO date. I don’t recommend this because you will end up in an infinite loop of PO suggestions.
I do recommend locking quantity though, that way if demand increases before this PO is received you’ll get a New PO suggestion instead of an Increase suggestion. This of course depends on your business process and if you’re able to (or want to) increase a PO quantity.
This situation is now making more sense to me. Not allowing historical dates does not stop an order by date from being in the past, just the suggested due date for the PO. So the order by date is simply just telling you that in order to have stayed above min + safety you should have ordered it by that date.
