Part.Plant Source Type

NonStock

Qty Bearing

Phantom

Generate PO Suggestions

Process MRP

View as Assembly

Pull as Assembly

Plan as Assembly

P

Y

Y

N/A

Y

Y

N

N

N

Purchased Part link to job; Excess on PO to Inventory

P

Y

N

N/A

N

N/A

N

N

N

No Output

P

N

N

N/A

N

N/A

N

N

N

No Output

P

N

Y

N/A

Y

Y

N

N

N

Purchased part is received to invneotry

M

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

Y

N

Sub-Assembly within Parent Job

M

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

N (Manual)

N

Job to Job

M

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

N (Manual)

Y (Manual)

Job to Job

M

Y

N

N/A

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

N

Sub-Assembly within Parent Job

M

Y

N

N/A

N/A

N/A

Y

N (Manual)

Y (Manual)

No Job

M

N

Y

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

N

N

Job to Stock

M

N

Y

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

N

Y (Manual)

Job to Stock

M

N

N

N/A

N/A

N/A

Y

N

N

No Job

M

N

N

N/A

N/A

N 

Y

N

Y (Manual)

No Job

M

Y

N

Y

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

N

Phantom Disappears; Child parts move up 1 lvl

Part.Plant Source Type

NonStock

Qty Bearing

Phantom

Generate PO Suggestions

Process MRP

View as Assembly

Pull as Assembly

Plan as Assembly

M

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Phantom Disappears; Child parts move up 1 lvl on the
Job

M

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Reference output only, No Job demand

M

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N (Manual)

Y (Manual)

Job to Job

M

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y (Manual)

Job to Stock

M

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

Sub-Assembly within Parent Job

M

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Sub-Assembly within Parent Job

P

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Purchased Part link to job; Excess on PO to Inventory

P

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Purchased part is received to invenotry then issued to
Job

Scenario

FPN #

Operation Relation

Finite or Infinite on Resource Groups

Daily Production Capacity on Resource Group

Production Consumption Rate on Sched Resource on Method

Production Standard on Operation on Method

Scheduling Priority Code "Normal" Forward or Backward

Expected Result

Actual Result

ERP Team Recommendation / Comments

Reasonable Outcomes?

1

FPN1

All Finish to Start

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

FPN1 = 10 

Backwards

We should see scheduling blocks that represent the last possible start time in order to finish the job by the ship date.  Additionally, we should only see one job scheduled per resource group per day because the Prodcution Standard per Operation (10) is equal to the calendar capacity (10).

After MRP run only: jobs were backward scheduled with finite operations and the scheduling board showed some late jobs and how many days late.  Also creates leap frog effect on jobs.
After global scheduling: it also has a leap frog effect with RG5 RG6 RG7 (after the subcontract Op) (see screenshot).  All Ops are filling capacity but having the leap frog scenario between jobs is not desireable in a straight assembly line.

MRP is light scheduling only.  Global Scheduling processes a more accurate schedule.  Backwards scheduling can create a leap frog scenario between jobs is not desireable in a straight assembly line environment.  Backwards scheduling does not allow any time in the schedule for issues should they arise.  It reflects the last possible recommended time to start a job to meet the required by date of the customer or demand.

No

2

FPN1

All Finish to Start

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

FPN1 = 10 

Forward

We schedule the job to start at its earliest convenience staggered finitely one job per day per resource and we are expecting that the leap frog effect goes away from scenario 1.  The jobs will finish earlier that the scheduled ship date in some cases, unless our finite capacity is exceeded and we would expect to see some late jobs.  MRP will still schedule backwards.  Global scheduling will use the forward setting on the "normal" priority code.

After MRP run only: jobs were backward scheduled with finite operations and the scheduling board showed some late jobs and how many days late.  RG1 RG2 and RG3 have gaps in the schedule that are explainable because they are before the sub-contract operation when backwards scheduled and must wait until the lead time is completed for the sub-contract (see screenshot). 
After global scheduling: the scheduling board showed some late jobs and how many days late.  No leap frog effect between jobs. All Ops are starting at 6am (start of calendar) and completely filling the gaps even through the weekend and outside of the production calendar.  RG5 RG6 and RG7 have gaps in the schedule that are explainable because they are after the sub-contract operation when forward scheduled and must wait until the lead time is completed for the sub-contract.

MRP is light scheduling only.  Global Scheduling processes a more accurate schedule.  Forward schedule with finite resource groups allows a more defined schedule.  Some jobs will finish earlier than the scheduled ship date in some cases, unless our finite capacity is exceeded and we would expect to see some late jobs.  This allows us a proactive approach to move jobs, communicate with the customer, increase capacity, etc that we have identified jobs that will not meet the required by date.  In order to utilize this method, we must have operation production standards defined at each operation for each method, even if it is a logical estimate.  However this method would require updates to each method production standards in order to change any unit rates.

Yes

3

Add FPN3

All Finish to Start

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

FPN1 = 10
FPN3 = 5

Forward

Added FPN3 with same operations as FPN1 but changed production standard on the method from 10 to 5 hrs.  Added FPN3 sales orders to match the FPN1 sales orders in December.  We removed the FPN1 sales orders in October and November.  We are expecting MRP will backwards schedule and there will be a leap frog effect because of the various production standards and available capacity in the calendar.  We are expecting global scheduling to forward schedule and eliminate the leap frog effect.  We expect gaps in the RGs that fall after the sub-contract operation.

After MRP run only: jobs were backward scheduled with finite operations.  Because we removed the sales orders for jobs in October and November there was enough capacity to fill the schedule without any jobs being late.  RG1 RG2 and RG3 have gaps in the schedule that are explainable because they are before the sub-contract operation when backwards scheduled and must wait until the lead time is completed for the sub-contract (see screenshot).
After global scheduling: the scheduling board showed no late jobs.  No leap frog effect between jobs. All Ops are starting at 6am (start of calendar) and completely filling the gaps even through the weekend and outside of the production calendar.  RG5 RG6 and RG7 have gaps in the schedule that are explainable because they are after the sub-contract operation when forward scheduled and must wait until the lead time is completed for the sub-contract.

MRP is light scheduling only.  Global Scheduling processes a more accurate schedule.  Forward schedule with finite resource groups allows a more defined schedule.  Some jobs will finish earlier than the scheduled ship date in some cases, unless our finite capacity is exceeded and we would expect to see some late jobs.  This allows us a proactive approach to move jobs, communicate with the customer, increase capacity, etc that we have identified jobs that will not meet the required by date.  In order to utilize this method, we must have operation production standards defined at each operation for each method, even if it is a logical estimate.  However this method would require updates to each method production standards in order to change any unit rates.

Yes

4

Move and Firm jobs

For MRP, only firm jobs can be re-scheduled and/or locked.  Also only firmed jobs will generate any change suggestions from MRP as long as they are unlocked.  Locked jobs will not generate change suggestions.  Un-firm jobs will be re-created entirely by MRP at the point the system recognizes any BOM change.  MRP will not move these firm jobs.
For Global Scheduling process, it will move both firm and un-firm jobs in the schedule.  In order to have Global Scheduling ignore the mov+V4ement of jobs, those jobs must be firmed and "scheduling locked."  Global Scheduling will move these firm jobs.

As expected

Yes

5

Move and Schedule Lock Firm Jobs

For MRP, only firm jobs can be re-scheduled and/or locked.  Also only firmed jobs will generate any change suggestions from MRP as long as they are unlocked.  Locked jobs will not generate change suggestions.  Un-firm jobs will be re-created entirely by MRP at the point the system recognizes any BOM change.  MRP will not move these firm jobs.
For Global Scheduling process, it will move both firm and un-firm jobs in the schedule.  In order to have Global Scheduling ignore the movement of jobs, those jobs must be firmed and "scheduling locked."  Global Scheduling will not move these firmed and scheduling locked jobs.

As expected

Yes

6

Cancel off some Sales Orders

Firm job will show the suggestion to adjust the job in Planning workbench if the sales order ship by date has moved as long as it is not schedule locked.

As long as an alert group is tied to a planner, the planner is tied to the product group, the product group is associated to the part and the product group is associated on the sales order line, then all expected suggestions come into the planning workbench as expected.

Yes

7

Cut off date with Global Schedule process

use a cut off date for global scheduling to not affect firm jobs in a certain time window

There is no cut off date with global scheduling.  The date field is the date you wish to start putting load on the capacity.  Global scheduling moves all un-locked jobs for both MRP and Firm regardless of where they fall into the schedule.

This causes some conflicts from previous anticipated design.  We can no longer run global scheduling on jobs beyond the expected firm job window.  The current intent is any jobs that are firmed up must also be locked.  However when they are locked, the system will no longer move the jobs either by MRP or global AND becuase they are schedule locked you no longer get job suggestions if/when the sales order for the parent job moves.  This affects the communication required between sales and scheduling when a sales order date must change and who would manage the ship by date on the sales order.  Component MRP signals will continue to update if the firm and locked job is manually moved in the schedule.

No

16

FPN1

All Finish to Start

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

Load vs Capacity Change

Forward

Not required, tested below once we started using Infinite Resource settings

N/A

N/A

N/A

17

Delete Op7 on FPN3?

All Finish to Start

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

FPN1 = 10
FPN3 = 5

Forward

Not required, tested below once we started using Infinite Resource settings.  Remove Op7 from FPN3 to simulate the overall throughput for the job not ending perfectly in line with the available capacity on the calendar.

N/A

N/A

N/A

8

FPN2, FPN4

All Finish to Start

Infinite on all

1

0.25

FPN2 = 0
FPN4 = 0

Forward

After MRP we woud expect backwards schedule for all jobs with leap frog effect in the sequence of jobs between the resource groups.  Global scheduling with forward scheduling we would expect no leap frog effect.
After Global Scheduling we expect only 4 units per day through each resource group with jobs starting today and filling capacity.

After MRP, all the operations stacked up because there were no Production Standards set on the Operations for the methods.  This caused all jobs to be due exactly at the end of the day on the due date.  There also was no leap frog effect with operations.
After Global Scheduling, we saw all jobs stacked on the same day because of no Production Standards.

Production Standards are required even when using Production Capacity.

No

9

FPN2, FPN4

All Finish to Start

Infinite on all

1

0.25

FPN2 = 2.5
FPN4 = 2.5

Forward

After MRP we woud expect backwards schedule for all jobs with leap frog effect in the sequence of jobs between the resource groups.  Global scheduling with forward scheduling we would expect no leap frog effect.
After Global Scheduling we expect only 4 units per day through each resource group with jobs starting today and filling capacity.

After MRP, all the operations still stacked up with Production Standards set on the Operations for the methods.  This caused all jobs to be due exactly at the end of the day on the due date.  There also was no leap frog effect with operations.
After Global Scheduling, we saw all jobs stacked on the same day not respecting production capacity or consumption rate.

Adding Production Standards did not effect the jobs, they still all forward scheduled from the same day, with having the finite setting unchecked for MRP and Global Scheduling.

No

10

FPN2, FPN4

All Finish to Start

Infinite on all

1

0.25

FPN2 = 2.5
FPN4 = 2.5

Forward

After MRP we expect to see stacking of operations within the jobs.
After Global Scheduling without Finite we believe this would stack all jobs to start on the same day again.

After MRP we saw stacking of operations within the jobs.
After Global Scheduling we saw stacking of operations within the jobs all starting on the same day.

Running MRP with Finite option but Global Scheduling without finite option, made all jobs forward schedule on the same start date After Global Scheduling was run.

No

11

FPN2, FPN4

All Finish to Start

Infinite on all

1

0.25

FPN2 = 2.5
FPN4 = 2.5

Forward

After MRP we expect to see stacking of operations within the jobs.
After Global Scheduling with Finite we believe this would stagger the jobs on different start dates.

After MRP we saw staggering of operations within the jobs and the jobs themselves.
After Global Scheduling with Finite option we saw staggering of operations within the jobs and the jobs themselves.  We also saw leap frog effect on resource groups.

Running MRP with Finite option and Global Scheduling with finite option, made jobs forward schedule and stagger using a 4 unit per day rate based on the Production Capacity and the Production Consumption Rate settings after Global Scheduling was run.

No

12

FPN2, FPN4

All Finish to Start

Finite on all

1

0.25

FPN2 = 2.5
FPN4 = 2.5

Forward

We expect this scenario would use finite and the production standard and ignore the production capacity and consumption rates. No leap frog.

After MRP we saw staggering of operations within the jobs and the jobs themselves.
After Global Scheduling with Finite option we saw jobs at a rate of 4 per day and staggered forward scheduled.  No leap frog

2.5 production standard fit perfectly into a 10 hour calendar day but also the 4 unit per day we had set on the capcatity and consumption rate also fit perfectly into a 10 hour calendar day.  See scenario 15 so the standard does not fit perfectly.

Yes

13

FPN2, FPN4

All Finish to Start

Finite on all

1

0.25

0

Forward

After MRP scheduling blocks infinitely narrow (no production consumption set) but limited to a rate of 4 per day, backwards scheduled, with gaps and leap frog.
After Global Scheduling blocks infinitely narrow (no production consumption set) but limited to a rate of 4 per day, forward scheduled, with no gaps and no leap frog.

After MRP scheduling blocks infinitely narrow (no production consumption set) but we not limited to a rate of 4 per day.  Instead they were backwards scheduled, based on the due date only with gaps and leap frog.
After Global Scheduling blocks infinitely narrow (no production consumption set) but limited to a rate of 4 per day, forward scheduled, with no gaps and no leap frog.

Must have a production standards in operations on methods

No

14

FPN2, FPN4

All Finish to Start

Finite on all

1

0.25

1

Forward

After MRP we will see smaller blocks of time from the production standard of 1 hour, but limited up to 4 units per day and backwards schedule based on the due dates, with gaps and leap frog.
After Global Scheduling we will see smaller blocks of time from the production standard of 1 hour, but limited up to 4 units per day and forward scheduled, with no gaps and no leap frog.

After MRP saw smaller blocks of time from the production standard of 1 hour, but limited up to 4 units per day and backwards schedule based on the due dates, with gaps and leap frog.
After Global Scheduling we will see smaller blocks of time from the production standard of 1 hour, but limited up to 4 units per day and forward scheduled, with no gaps and no leap frog.

Must have a production standards in operations on methods.  Can add functionality if there is a unit or rate restraint beyond the production standard and calendar hours.

Yes

15

FPN1, FPN3

All Finish to Start

Finite, all except sub-contract

1

0.25

FPN1 = 10, subcontract = 0
FPN3 = 5, subcontract = 0

Forward

Rate increase, Load with Capacity.  Production Standard will stop overloading on any particular day and will override the consumption rate settings.  After MRP jobs will be backwards scheduled and use production standard to fill the calendar.
After Global Scheduling, this will push the schedule further back in the schedule while foward scheduling due to the production standard increase.  Some jobs may appear late for this reason., no gaps and no leap frog effect.

Discovered a problem that is causing MRP to keep bumping jobs out in the schedule approx 30 days everytime we run MRP, even without changing anything.  Once these jobs get so far out (roughly approaching one year in future from today) we begin to see error messages in the MRP log files and then the jobs are not scheduled.  The start and due dates for the jobs come in blank.  Tried this in both companies 10 and 11 in the DEV database.  We logged an Epicor ticket on 10/10/16. Ticket needs tested in 10.1.500.7.

Rate increase, Load with Capacity.  Production Standard will stop overloading on any particular day and will override the consumption rate settings.  Not recommended that production rate and capacity will be required in finite as this automatically will fill the gaps in availability.

Yes

18

ETD FPN FT

SubAssemblies that create Job to Job Sub-Jobs for backwards scheduling

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

ETD FPN FT = 8, all

Forward Code =Parent Jobs, Backwards Code=Sub-Jobs

 Create SubAssemblies that would drive sub-jobs and see how MRP and Global scheduling handle these jobs.  It is expected we need to test an additional priority code for backwards scheduling these jobs to their due dates so they are just in time for the parent job.  We need to see how forward scheduling and finite affects these sub-jobs.

MRP scheduled everything backwards.  Global Scheduling did forward schedule the sub-jobs in other sites as forward finite with the multi-job option selected.  All jobs were forward scheduled in order to meet their parent job demand with dependency to each others parent job.  In order to change the priority code manually the job must be firmed.  When firming the Ladder Assembly job, we got a prompt that the parent job is not yet firm and do we wish to continue. We firmed those Ladder Assembly jobs and changed the priority code to the newly created "Normal Backwards" code.  Ran MRP and Global Scheduling again.  The result of this was no change to the scheduling board.  The Global Scheduling still scheduled all jobs and thier linked jobs forward in order to meet their parent job demand with dependency to each others parent job.

The result of this was no change to the scheduling board.  The Global Scheduling still scheduled all jobs and thier linked jobs (job to  job) forward with finite in order to meet their parent job demand with dependency to each others parent job.  The child job must complete before the parent job can start.  From the Help File in Calculate Global Scheduling Order Process, Schedule Multi-Job checkbox: Default value for the this flag at every place where the scheduling UI is called to instruct to the scheduling engine looks for any assembly or material that has a direct job link and those linked jobs get rescheduled as well to be just in time to supply the main job.

Yes

19

ETD FPN-Chassis

Some kitting operations with Finish to Finish & SubAssemblies that create Sub-Jobs to stock

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

ETD FPN-Chassis = 10, Kitting = 15

Forward

Similar to scenario 18, with kitting operations finish to finish on the ETD FPN-Chassis we should see those kitting operations overlap with the previous operation.  Create SubAssemblies that would drive sub-jobs and see how MRP and Global scheduling handle these jobs.  We need to see how forward scheduling and finite affects these sub-jobs.  It is expected since the parent job is Global Scheduled with finite and forward that all sub-jobs would also be finite and forward scheduled similar to scenario 18.  We need to specifically take note of how the Finish-to-Finish Kitting operations look.

After MRP we saw the parent jobs and sub-jobs generate from MRP.  Also the Subassemblies inside the parent jobs.  The kitting operations on both the parent jobs and Subassmbly jobs inside the parent jobs were finish-to-finish and because of the production standard, they did overlap with the previous operation as expected.  After Global Scheduling the sub-jobs (Sub Axle) were scheduled to be completed with finite as capacity was available for those resource groups, and was tied to the dates on the related operation so the sub-job gets done prior to its related operation.  The Subassembly within the job (Sub Door) was treated as a "critical path" and pushed to the front of the job it was contained in, before any other operation on the main job could start, even though the Subassembly did have a related operation that was most of the way down the job assembly line.  They were forward scheduled in finite as capacity was available for those resource groups.

If a "line-side" assembly exists in an assembly line parent level job, it seems the best option is to create an operation and resource group that represents the work that it takes to complete this "line-side" assembly and associate all the component materials for that assembly to the operation on the parent level job.  This operation could be set to finish-to-finish if required.  This would drive the components at the correct point in time to this related operation, while not interrupting the parent level job operation flow.  The sub-jobs (Sub Axle) results were as scheduled as expected to complete before the related operation required it.  Global Scheduling would move these jobs with the parent demand as necessary either un-firm or firm, as long as they are not schedule locked.

Yes

20

ETD FPN-Chassis

Some kitting operations with Finish to Finish & SubAssemblies that create Sub-Jobs

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

Adjust Different standards on the SubAssembly Jobs

Forward

Same as scenario 19, where this was already setup.

N/A

N/A

N/A

21

FPN1, FPN3

Update Firm and Un-firm Job Prefix

Finite, all except sub-contract

0

0

FPN1 = 10, subcontract = 0
FPN3 = 5, subcontract = 0

Forward

We expect that MRP generates new jobs, it will use the Un-firm job prefix for both stock and sales order demand link jobs.  When we firm jobs in the system, they should change to the firm job prefix expected.

results as expected

May need to create a reference file for what prefixes are to be used to designate which site the job resides in and update the master setup files for site config/site maintenance.  To be addressed in Sprint story 1992 - Determine Use of Firm and Unfirm job Prefix, with a pros/cons document.

Yes