cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Dynamic Checking Horizon

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Experts,

This is not a standard SAP question. I am only seeking some clues

I want to pass a dynamic value of checking horizon at check run time to force confirmation date that is apt for a given order Which component and in which structure can I influence this parameter value. I am not a patient debugger so assumed some one would have sure attempted this before and so looking for quick clues/ideas.

The reasoning being, a static checking horizon in the material master does not work well all the time. This is because it is not always easy and predicatable to tell when can I get my receipts if I have nil stocks today at the requirement location. It depends on which part of the year we are in and what is the source of supply.

Guru

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Guru

Before you decide to make checking horizons dynamic, consider a few things -

1. Checking horizons in GATP don't just define the date on which system commits if there is no supply available. It is also the horizon within which the system considers demand and supply elements for the cumulative ATP check. Any supply or demand beyond this date is ignored. So lets say that you have a dynamic horizon, are you ok with different demand and supply elements being considered/ ignored ?

2. The Checking Horizon represnts the time beyond which you have infinite supply. Its set to lead time because SAP assumes that beyond lead time, you can make/ buy anything you want. Within this horizon, you should already have supply elements (Purchase Req/ Production Orders, etc) to commit to - otherwise you have have a supply chain planning problem, not an ATP problem.

3. No matter what you do, an ATP check is an estimate. If you commit to stock, you are most likely to be accurate. If you commit to firm supply, you will be slightly less accurate. If you commit to planned supply, you will be even less accurate. If you cannot commit to even planned supply, and you need to commit to checking horizon, you are basically making an educated guess. And that may be the best commit you can give..but trying to make the 'worst' commit slightly better may not be the best use of your time.

My suggestion is, look at the touchpoints between your planning and ATP processes. Sorry, I know this is not what you were looking for !

RIshi Menon

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks Rishi and DB49,

No matter what you do, an ATP check is an estimate

This simple statement is hard to sell to business who often are tempted to think ATP is magic tool for a sacrosanct delivery date committed to the customer once and for all on a bond paper

Anyway here goes a piece of code that I googled from another thread. This comes from a guy named Babu who seemed to have got the pulse of ATP threadbare.

This works fine for us and been tested a while ago.

To summarize in simple terms IFF (if and only if) a human knows that system confirmation is not going to be met come what may, then he can always force creation of second schedule line by confirmation such orders at the end of certain number of days and this certain number of days is being updated by another program. What this does is it always protects the first delivery date at line item which is required to report service level measures. There is fine print and that could be unique for every business. Some business rules also need to apply.

The function module that you need to look is /SAPAPO/DM_ATP2_CHECK. In the above FM; there is a subroutine called "atp_check" within which there is another subroutine "set_check_parameters" where the checking horizon calculation is being happened.

Please debug and you can easily put an implicit enhancement to change the value at the end of the method

CALL METHOD /sapapo/cl_locationproduct_atp=>pegid_get_end_chk_hor

EXPORTING

iv_pegid = is_chkreq-pegid

IMPORTING

ev_hortms = es_chkpar-end_of_rlt

EXCEPTIONS

internal_error = 1

OTHERS = 2.

Guru

Former Member
0 Kudos

Guru,

Thanks for placing this snippet into the public domain.

Although I can't think of any business problem that this mod would solve, that doesn't mean it is not useful. For consultants, the job is to give to the client the thing that he asks for, and not necessarily the thing that will improve his business. You never know when this solution might result in a handsome fee for some of the forum members.

Good Luck & Best Regards,

DB49

Former Member
0 Kudos

For consultants, the job is to give to the client the thing that he asks for, and not necessarily the thing that will improve his business

Fully agree. I will add my two cents. Sometimes the client too knows that logic is surrogate but they have been there done that with a dozen applications before. With SAP fundamentals are set right but somethings can still work the old fashioned way and there is nothing wrong with that. Sales order to some may be couple of hundred dollars but to some it is above million dollars. Every value on the order is checked, re-checked, cross checked so somethings cannot be just simply automatic

I cant seem to award points beyond a sum total.Here too there is a validation !

Guru

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Guru,

Confirming orders at the Checking Horizon (dynamic or not) has always been a compromise at best. SAP has chosen to offer ATPs that are much more accurate than 'confirm by FG Lead Time". Varying the Checking Horizon dynamically may also cause logical inconsistencies with your Product check. Every time you insert an order confirmation in at 'Checking Horizon', you risk overconfirming the capacity of the production plant. Backorder Processing in particular can be difficult to manage.

From the meager list of requirements, I suspect that using standard Multilevel Available to Promise functionality would solve your business problem, and would provide a more accurate confirmation as well.

http://help.sap.com/saphelp_scm70/helpdata/en/05/7e1f3bc779144ae10000000a114084/frameset.htm

Best Regards,

DB49

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks DB49. That was real quick.

Yes agree to the compromise thing around checking horizon. Here opposite is true. ATP accuracy is anyone's guess here. There are scores of receipts and requirements 2 years out so the check result itself is kept neutral. Its used for for delivery date feasibility check with an aggressive view of potential receipts by a certain date and it is this certain date that I can afford to derive albeit momentarily.

The strategy group I see for most FG's in question is planning with final assembly - 40 (APO proposed strategy-20). No sales BOM's or configured materials are used. So no primary case for MATP can be made in the current environment.

PPM's exist for all finished products but only for main "raw materials" and not everything. This is a process industry (recipe) and production is against targets - largely anonymous demand + some planning without final assembly. Orders reduce/consume targted planned demand. of course lot of macros there to selectively control the consumption too and lots of Z ATP cats for fictitious receipts and requirements.

Guru

Former Member
0 Kudos

Guru,

Well, once you accept that some or all of the data in your system is unreliable, then sure, you will get an unreliable ATP. No matter what logic you use. There are standard solutions in SCM for all ATP problems commonly found in business. All of them rely on accurate data in the system.

MATP is suitable for any product that has a Bill of materials. It works just fine for Planning with Final assembly. I can't say if it is the best standard solution, because I don't know all of your company's requirements. My experience with customized ATP solutions is that most companies end up spending an enormous amount of effort getting them to work properly under all circumstances. Sometimes, small tweaks of existing business processes allow a company to make use of a standard solution. I personally would investigate this path, before embarking on a non-standard solution (such as dynamic checking horizon).

I suggest that you engage a consulting resource experienced in GATP to assist you in analyzing and improving your ATP checks. It will be money well spent.

Best Regards,

DB49