web
You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
close
Skip to main content

Notifications

Announcements

No record found.

Community site session details

Community site session details

Session Id :
Small and medium business | Business Central, N...
Answered

Requisition Worksheet and Vendor/Item lead times

(1) ShareShare
ReportReport
Posted on by 34
Hi,
 
I'm having an issue with the requestion worksheet not respecting vendor and or item lead times.
 
As an example,
 
I have Item A, that as a result of upcoming Sales Orders, will become below its safety stock level of 100 on 29/11/24.
The item and the Vendor attached to the item both have lead times of 10W, so we would expect the worksheet to calculate and display the due date as either; 27/01/2025 (10 weeks from today) or 5/02/2024 (10 weeks from the day the safety stock is reached). Instead, the system is suggesting to reschedule a purchase order that is already set for 2/02/2024 to 29/11/2024. I don't understand this, the system should know that the stock cannot be receipted until 27/01/25 at the earliest if the order was placed today!
 
Am I missing something fundamental with how the worksheet calculates with lead times? My current thinking is that the worksheet will not include a lead time on suggested purchase orders that are created to fulfil a Safety Stock demand but to me that does not make sense.
 
Additional item information;
 
Inventory =121
Qty on PO= 70
Qty on SO= 43
Reorder Policy= Lot-for-Lot
Dampener period= 12W
Lot accumulation Period =12W
Rescheduling Period= 12W
Safety Stock= 100
Min Order Qty = 70
Order Multiple = 70
Lead time Calc. = 10W
Currently no SKU exists for the item but we do have other items that do have SKUs that seem to have the same issue.
 
Location mandatory in inventory Setup is FALSE
 
Vendor Info;
 
Lead Time = 10W
base Calander is set.
 
Any help would be much appreciated, I'm sure I am missing something big! but cannot find any similar questions raised or relevant information on Microsoft Learn.
I have the same question (0)
  • Suggested answer
    Saif Ali Sabri Profile Picture
    2,351 Super User 2025 Season 2 on at

    The issue you're encountering with the Dynamics 365 Requisition Worksheet is likely due to how the system prioritizes rescheduling existing orders over creating new orders, as well as how it interprets lead times and demand timing.


    Key Observations:

    1. System Suggests Rescheduling Instead of Creating a New Order:

      • The system is suggesting rescheduling an existing purchase order due on 02/02/2024 to meet the 29/11/2024 demand. This happens because Dynamics 365 assumes that rescheduling is possible within the Rescheduling Period (12 weeks in your case) and will prioritize rescheduling over creating a new purchase order.
    2. Lead Time Calculation for New Orders:

      • The Requisition Worksheet is likely not considering lead time when safety stock is driving the demand. It is treating the safety stock replenishment as an immediate demand that should be addressed as soon as possible. This behavior is tied to how the worksheet interprets Lot-for-Lot reorder policy and the safety stock requirement.
    3. Other Configurations Influencing the Suggestion:

      • Dampener Period (12W): This setting prevents the system from suggesting changes to existing orders if the new suggested date is within the dampener period.
      • Rescheduling Period (12W): The system will attempt to reschedule existing orders within this period to meet demand.

    Why Lead Times Are Being Ignored

    The Requisition Worksheet in Dynamics 365 interprets lead time in specific ways depending on the source of demand:

    • Safety Stock Demand: Lead time is often not considered because the system assumes the safety stock is an ongoing requirement and not tied to a specific future demand date.
    • Actual Demand (e.g., Sales Orders): Lead time is applied from the expected receipt date to meet the due date of the demand.

    Since your safety stock is driving the replenishment in this scenario, the system isn't calculating lead time for the new purchase.


    Proposed Solutions

    1. Check the "Lot-for-Lot" Reorder Policy Behavior

    The Lot-for-Lot policy replenishes exactly what is needed to meet demand within the Lot Accumulation Period. It does not account for lead times when safety stock drives the replenishment. To address this:

    • Consider using Fixed Reorder Quantity or another policy that accounts for lead time in safety stock replenishment scenarios.

    2. Adjust Dampener and Rescheduling Periods

    Since the dampener and rescheduling periods are both set to 12 weeks, the system might be overly aggressive in suggesting reschedules. Try reducing these periods to minimize interference with lead time calculations:

    • Reduce the Dampener Period to a lower value (e.g., 1 or 2 weeks).
    • Reduce the Rescheduling Period to a lower value (e.g., 2–4 weeks).

    This will make the system less likely to reschedule existing orders and more likely to create a new purchase order considering lead times.

    3. Force Lead Time Consideration for Safety Stock

    You can create a workaround by creating a dummy demand (e.g., a Sales Order or Production Order) that triggers the safety stock replenishment but explicitly applies the vendor/item lead time. This will force the Requisition Worksheet to calculate the due date correctly.

    4. Review Vendor Calendar and Supply Settings

    • Confirm that the Base Calendar assigned to the Vendor is correct and includes valid working days.
    • Ensure there are no conflicting calendars between the Vendor, Item, and Locations that could interfere with lead time calculations.

    5. Introduce SKUs

    Since you mentioned that some items with SKUs are showing similar issues, ensure that SKU-specific settings are aligned with the item's global settings. SKUs can help apply location-specific or vendor-specific lead times more accurately.

    6. Test with a Simpler Configuration

    To isolate the issue, test the scenario with minimal configuration:

    • Remove the dampener, rescheduling, and lot accumulation periods temporarily.
    • Set reorder policy to Fixed Reorder Quantity or Order.
    • Ensure vendor/item lead times are still set to 10 weeks.

    This will help verify whether the lead time issue is tied to safety stock replenishment logic or some other configuration.


    Steps to Verify

    1. Reduce Dampener and Rescheduling Periods.
    2. Re-run the Requisition Worksheet and verify whether the lead time is being correctly applied.
    3. Test by creating a Sales Order or Production Order for the item and checking if lead time is respected.
    4. If necessary, adjust the reorder policy or test with an SKU.

    Conclusion

    The core issue appears to be related to how the Requisition Worksheet treats safety stock replenishment when lead time is involved. By tweaking the Dampener Period, Rescheduling Period, and possibly using a different reorder policy or dummy demand, you should be able to resolve the problem. If the issue persists, more granular debugging with SKUs or specific demand scenarios may be necessary.

  • Verified answer
    Ben Baxter Profile Picture
    6,620 Super User 2025 Season 2 on at
    1) The previous response looks like ChatGPT, so you can probably ignore all of it.
     
    2) I would encourage you to evaluate the Planning Worksheet over the Req. Worksheet.  You will get warning messages when you encounter planning issues like this, which usually help identify the issue.
     
    3) Is it rescheduling the "Due Date" to 29/11/24?  If so, that appears correct, regardless of whether it is feasible.  The suggestion may suggest an "Order Date" in the past, which is why it isn't feasible, and an example of where the Planning Worksheet would show this as a Warning message.
     
    4) If you are on the latest BC Cloud version, you can use Planning Flexibility = None on your PO to avoid the reschedule if it isn't possible.  In earlier versions this caused supply overages, but the calculation seems to be adjusted now to prevent that.  Worth testing in your Sandbox.
     
    5) Did you have the "Respect Planning Parameters" toggle turned on when running your plan?  You should have this on all the time, set it once and it will default to "True" for all future planning.
     
    6) Because you don't have a SKU, the "Respect Planning Parameters" may not change the outcome, since the system makes up its own planning parameters (Lot-for-Lot) when the SKU isn't present.
     
    7) Why not turn on Location Mandatory?  This avoids inventory in an unclassified Location.  You can still leave all the Warehousing turned off, but this helps future proof your system.
     
    Remember, planning isn't an easy job, and neither is troubleshooting the outcome.  It often helps to see the data, so I would encourage you to reach out to your support partner to step through the scenarios together.
     
    Hope this helps!
     
    Best Regards,
    Ben Baxter
    Accent Software Inc
  • HS-18110301-0 Profile Picture
    34 on at
    Thank you Ben, I appreciate you taking your time to answer this! I also detected a ChatGPT like response in the first one so was planning to ignore.
     
    In reply to you,
     
    2. The original plan was to sue the planning worksheet but we found this to be quite overwhelming at the start to be honest, the warnings do seem helpful though and may have to revisit.
     
    3. Correct, it's the due date which is rescheduled, the PO's created as a result do not follow the lead times at all.
     
    4. I have not come across Planning Flexibility before, but will definitely have to look into it.
     
    5. Respect Planning Parameters is always turned on though i found it to make no difference in these cases either way.
     
    7. This one i find the most interesting, I read somewhere though of course I can no longer find the link that this was essential to ensure accurate planning with and without SKU's. Always happy to be proven wrong though so may need to revisit this as well.
     
    Thanks again for your time and response!
     

Under review

Thank you for your reply! To ensure a great experience for everyone, your content is awaiting approval by our Community Managers. Please check back later.

Helpful resources

Quick Links

Responsible AI policies

As AI tools become more common, we’re introducing a Responsible AI Use…

Neeraj Kumar – Community Spotlight

We are honored to recognize Neeraj Kumar as our Community Spotlight honoree for…

Leaderboard > Small and medium business | Business Central, NAV, RMS

#1
OussamaSabbouh Profile Picture

OussamaSabbouh 2,116

#2
Khushbu Rajvi. Profile Picture

Khushbu Rajvi. 764 Super User 2025 Season 2

#3
YUN ZHU Profile Picture

YUN ZHU 635 Super User 2025 Season 2

Last 30 days Overall leaderboard

Featured topics

Product updates

Dynamics 365 release plans