GATP - MISL and Location Consolidation

[Former Member]

Hi Gurus,

I have configured and tested MISL and location consolidation feature.They work well separately.

But the requirement is as below :

First perform MISL check.

If MISL fails,then location consolidation should happen.

Example :

Product	Plant 1000	Plant 1100
PROD1_05	19 pcs	15 pcs
PROD1_07	5 pcs	15 pcs

• Sales order of :
  • Line item 10 : quantity 25 pcs for PROD1_05 on location 1000
  • Line item 20 : quantity 16 pcs for PROD1_07 on location 1000

In the above example as MISL will fail,consolidation should happen at 1000 by :

• creation of PR :  PROD1_05 : 6 pcs from 1100 to 1000
• creation of PR :  PROD1_07 : 11 pcs from 1100 to 1000

I have tried below settings but none give the desired result.

1. 3 condition types corresponding to the rules MISL,Normal location substitution,Consolidation referring to same access sequence in one rule strategy
2. 2 condition types corresponding to the rules MISL,Consolidation referring to same access sequence in one rule strategy
3. 2 condition types corresponding to the rules MISL,Normal location substitution referring to same access sequence in one rule strategy (say A) sequence followed by 1 condition type corresponding to rule Consolidation in another rule strategy (B).

       A and B assigned in one strategy sequence.

If any of you have tried this scenario or have any ideas,please guide.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Mr. Shankar,

   Q)  Are you getting correct results in avl. check screen and the problem is that the results don't flow back when you do 'Accept All' ?  

  If not try this :

  Ideally this should be like :

   1. One rule condition that finds MISL rule. If this fails.

        ( note mention switch of ATP and continue working with Rules based ATP)

   2. Second is a normal condition which does location substitution.

Now you should at least get the expected results in avl. check screen.  pls check and update and then lets review the results.

Regards,

Jit

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi SAP Consultant,

Thanks for your reply.The problem is I am not getting the right results in avlb.check screen.

Below are the options that I have already tried (in line with your suggestion).

Locations used : Plant 1000 and plant 1100

Stock scenario as in original post

Option 1 :

Rule A : MISL rule linked to condition type X (with setting 'Switch off...')

Rule B : Normal location substitution rule linked to condition type Y

Rule C : Rule with 'Consolidation location' as plant 1000 linked to condition type Z

• All the above condition types the same access sequence
• condition type X (as step 10),Y(as step 20),Z(as step 30) assigned to same rule strategy

Result :

(Attaching the screenshots also if above not visible)

The result is as required for line item 20.

(5pcs of PROD1_07 from 1000 and PR for 11pcs of PROD1_07 from plant 1100 to 1000)

It doesn't work as required for line item 10.

(10 pcs of PROD1_05 from plant 1000 and 15 pcs PROD1_05 from plant 1100.No consolidation in plant 1000)

(this is not material specific)

Option 2 :

Rule A : MISL rule linked to condition type X (with setting 'Switch off...')

Rule C : Rule with 'Consolidation location' as plant 1000 linked to condition type Z

• All the above condition types the same access sequence
• condition type X (as step 10),Z(as step 20) assigned to same rule strategy

Result :

The result is as required for line item 20.

(5pcs of PROD1_07 sourced from 1000 and PR for 11pcs of PROD1_07 from plant 1100 to 1000)

Again,it doesn't work as required for line item 10 but behaves differently than option 1.

(Only PR for 15pcs of PROD1_05 from plant 1100 to 1000)

Am I missing something in the above ? Or needs a different approach ?

- Shankar

Message was edited by: Shankar Sundaramurthy

[former_member259271 · Accepted solution]

Hi Mr. Sundaramuthy,

I have the exact same requirement: MISL first, then consolidation.

Consolidation after MISL seem to be the problem, as it is no problem to perform 'normal' RBA after an unsuccessful MISL check.

Did you ever get the combined scenario to work (MISL first, then consolidation)?

In the consolidation check, are you able to correlate the delivery dates?

With the correlation option available for the consolidation rule, I was expecting the items that are consolidated in the same location to have correlated delivery dates, even if they are not in a delivery group.

Regards,

F. Consultant