cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Rule based ATP error

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Guru's

I am getting some strange behavior of APO as I have maintain material XXX on plant A and plant B with 500 unrestricted stock in each plant. Also I have rule for location substitution which says first look into plant A and than B. In the check instruction I have deselected start immediate. Let see how my ATP result are shown.

1. Create a sales order with Qty =500 default plant A, GATP confirms 500, no rules triggered.

2. Continue without confirming and increase the qty to 1000, rules triggers but instead of going to new location (plant) it confirms another 500 pcs from the same plant remember in this plant total stocks are 500. Main lineu201D item catu201D goes to TAPA and two new sub line item with u201Ctanu201D item cat and confirming in total 1000 pcs from the same plant.

3. Now increase the qty to 1500 pcs, rules triggers first 500 get confirm from the defaulted plant, again 500 from the same plant and now another 500 from the substituted plant.

Basically it is confirming from the same plant twice and confirming more than the stocks available. Can someone help me to resolve this issue please?

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Idrees

Which version of APO are you on ? I think that in older versions of APO, you have to activate creation of TQA's in the Global settings (Transaction /SAPAPO/ATPC00).

Im guessing that you are seeing overcommit because TQA's are not activated.

One more suggestion is that you activate the ATP log (Transaction /SAPAPO/ATPLOG) with Direct Display option for your userid. Might help you get some insight into whats happening.

Rishi Menon

michael_thinschmidt
Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Idress,

This sounds like a problem with the TQA's - Temporary Quantity Distributions. Please check the transaction /SAPAPO/AC06 after running the ATP check for 1500 pcs. Has the system created TQAs for the material/plant ? if yes, are they maybe duplicated ?

best regards,

Michael