cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Cross Plant, Multi lvl CTP?

andy_yeri
Contributor
0 Kudos

Experts,

In SCM 7.0 currently. Had a question around the CTP functionality. Have used CTP process for capacity chks @ the Fin goods level, however, we have a requirement for:

1. Cross plant CTP capacity checks (on a resource in Plant 1 & on the 2nd resource in Plant 2, simultaneously at the time of Sales Order creation)

2. Multi-lvl chk - the BOM lvls for which this chk needs to happen are across 2 Plants

any ideas on this one?

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Andy,

All you requirement can be achieved through standard PPDS CTP process.

the planning procedure of all such products should be 3(Cover requirement immediately)

Now you will have to the entire configuration of rule based gatp( Primarily location substitution)

then in the check instruction select the production setting as (availaiblity check first and then production)

Also define the location determination activity in substitution rules(/SAPAPO/RBA04).

The system will tell all the locations where capacity is free to generate PPDS planned order.

Regards

Vaibhav Sareen

frank_horlacher
Employee
Employee
0 Kudos

all of your requiremetns are possible with CTP but read note 426563 first to know the limitations of CTP.

I created scenarios with your settings: 2 plants and multipe BOM levels to check during CTP.

Edited by: Frank Horlacher on Aug 9, 2010 11:14 AM

andy_yeri
Contributor
0 Kudos

thanks frank,

is it possible to share the details? pls let me know..

cheers

frank_horlacher
Employee
Employee
0 Kudos

What do you want to know?

It is very simple. Just enter planning procedure 3 for all products that shall take part in the CTP check. If you have a second plant you need to create a transportation lane as alternative source of supply for the components. On the finished goods level a change of sourcing plant is difficult in CTP because the plant is set in the sales order. You could use a dummy DC, then the CTP will check the plants after the DC. Or you configure a rule for plant substitution in RBATP. After the RBATP the CTP is called.

Edited by: Frank Horlacher on Aug 10, 2010 10:54 AM

Former Member
0 Kudos

Frank,

I did not get the dummy DC portion. Why would u need that ? What purpose will it serve ? The sales order would have the DC as the delivering plant right ? The the RBATP will suggest the actual plant as the delivering plant and that will then be followed by the CTP check. In that case how do the components get the alternate plant suggested ? Would that be a 2nd plant then ?

frank_horlacher
Employee
Employee
0 Kudos

You introduce the dummy DC because then you can create transportation lanes to the DC from your alternative plants. You do not need rules based ATP in thios case. Within CTP the system does not change the location of the sales order but it can change the delivering plant to the DC. If there is a problem with plant 1 the CTP check will also create a purchase requistion from the DC to plant 2 and a planned order in plant 2.

the problem of this method is, that you have to deal with dummy objects you may not like in execution. But you could change the location in the sales order after your first CTP check to the plant which gave the best result with the dummy DC and the transport requisition. then the order is placed in the plant you prefer and there are no dummy objects in ERP who need to be executed.

That is a way to go without the complex rules based ATP.

It is even easier if you have manual sales order entry with sales persons who can change the plant in the sales order.

they would enter plant 1 at first and trigger a CTP check. If the check has no satisfactory result the sales person can still change the plant in the sales order and trigger a second CTP check.

this is somehow a poor mans rules based ATP but very effective.

when you go with rules based ATP you do not need the dummy DC.

Edited by: Frank Horlacher on Aug 16, 2010 4:02 PM

Edited by: Frank Horlacher on Aug 16, 2010 4:08 PM