Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by axk

925

Hello,

I am trying to set coverage groups and generate net requirement for a product, but results, which I am getting from MinMax coverage code Master Planning are different from what I do expect from MinMax. Maybe I am wrong about this!

I set Min to 1250,00 and Max to 1500,00. If I am correct, I should receive planned purchase order when invent on-hand goes below 1250,00. Default order settings are empty.

Coverage group settings:

Master planning settings:

The result of master planning (session date is set 2017-06-10):

Do I interpret these results correctly and this one is wrong? We are getting planned purchase order for today when invent on-hand is at 1283,00 (min is 1250,00). If I select "On-hand" ReqTrans and look at "Pegging", it is consumed by all sales orders, but not by safety stock.

I took a look at code and it is determined by "Priority" at ReqTrans and it is set based on InventTrans IssueStatus. Safety stock has no InventTrans, so it is set to 0 and it results that it is last position in "Pegging". If I make a small change and set priority for safety stock, this is what I will get:

6675.netreq2.png

Safety stock requirement date is today's date and it is fully covered by invent on-hand. When it goes below 1250,00 (min) on 2017-06-29, planned purchase order is already scheduled for this day.

Can somebody explain, which version is correct? Is there any parameter for this (did not find anything in code)? Am I wrong about MinMax replenishment model? Is there a bug in Microsoft Dynamics AX2012?

I experienced the same problem with MinMax in Microsoft Dynamics 365.

Thank you for your opinion!

*This post is locked for comments

I have the same question (0)

All responses (8)

Answers (1)

axk 925 on at

Like (0)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

I would be grateful for any opinion about this.

Thanks!

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

gkumar 740 on at

Like (0)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

hi a-kow,

There is no need to modify code,you need to change the setup of Fullfill minimum appropriately.

Please find link below on the explanation of the same:

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/.../choosing-the-right-coverage-setting-for-when-to-fulfill-minimum

Thanks,

Ganesh

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
axk 925 on at

Like (0)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

Hi Ganesh,

I know and I was trying different combinations of "Fulfil minimum" and only "Coverage time fance" option worked as it is supposed to work, but it is not what I am trying to get here.

As I found out there are some latest hotfixes for safety stock replenishment. I will check this path and come back here to share it if that turns out to be the solution.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

guk1964 10,888 on at

Like (0)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

Your 1 day safety lead time means all the demand is seen as needed a day earlier.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
axk 925 on at

Like (0)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

Yes, I know, but safety stock is not going below minimum level until 28-06-2018, so it is still too early.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
guk1964 10,888 on at

Like (0)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

What is the item lead time?

What set ups do you have for item coverage?

What settings do you hand for Fulfill minimum and for Minimum periods?

Is the item used in Production or is just a traded item?

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Weaveriski 23,616 Moderator on at

Like (1)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

Set the negative days to 300 and re-run it.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Verified answer

axk 925 on at

Like (0)

Report

RE: Wrong (?) results of MinMax coverage code Master Planning

Ok, so just to close this thread.

Master planning errors were a result of safety stock de-prioritization as I suggested in the first post. And Microsoft released a hotfix for this problem - KB_4074644.

According to TechNet:

The KB addresses the over-replenishment and the early replenishment caused by safety stock de-prioritization. This fix applies to all replenishment modes (Requirement, Min/Max and Period), in case of regenerating the plan. For net change/CTP, the KB only applies in the case Requirement coverage code is used. This fix applies to item with and without expiration dates.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No