cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CTM Safety Stock Planning

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi SAP Experts,

Asking for your help on the set up of safety stonk planning in CTM

We would like to use safety stock and below are the parameters maintained.

1. Take Safety Stock into Account (3) is selected in the planning version

2. Safety Stock Method SZ and Safetiy Day's supply is maintained in Product Master

3. CTM:

Supplies -> Build Up safety stock (Consider supply shortage, stock is available) -> Consider Safety Days' Supply (always consider) is selected, but the safety days supply is still not respected.

Thanks! Sincerely, Ria

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

RahulHanda
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Ria,

It seems the first setting itself is not correct that is in planning version as 3. If you check F1 help of this field it clearly states CTM ignores the "Build up safety stock indicator" in CTM profile for 3. The below is an extract from "performance assistant (F1)" for this field:

Consider Safety Stock Requirements in SAP liveCache

  • Usage in CTM
    • You can only use this option in the standard system for make-to-stock production and static safety stock methods (SB and SM). Using a heuristic, you create safety stock requirements in SAP liveCache, based on the algorithm /SAPAPO/HEU_PLAN_SAFETY_STOCK. The safety stock of a location product is represented in SAP liveCache by an order of the type GC_OM_SAFETY_STOCK, which consists of a requirements element with the category SR in the standard system. Dynamic pegging takes this kind of safety stock requirement into consideration. CTM planning handles safety stock requirements like any other requirements in requirement prioritization.
    • If you choose this option, CTM ignores the Build up safety stock indicator in the CTM profile.

I would suggest you to cross-check this setting once again and switch to "2 - Consider Virtual Safety Stock Elements". Thereafter check the results and let us know if you still face an issue.

Regards

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

Thank you so much for your reply It somehow worked. But the safety stock is way below what I have provided. Btw, am using aggregated planning. If such is the case, should I put the safety stock in the product header or in the FGs (which are members of the product header). Currently, am maintaining it in both.

Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, Ria

RahulHanda
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Ria,

Depends upon your requirement. Do you want to put on header will meet business need or do you want to plan specific members. Test both and see results accordingly.

If this already answered your initial question please follow

For new question(s)/queries(s) open another discussion.

Regards

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

Safety stock should be planned on the members. But CTM is planning at header level. So am thinking of maintaining it only at the header. Will this have the same correct safety stock. Am thinking of just using heuristics with capactiy planning. Still using aggregated planning also. but safety stock is the same. not working as expected.

Sincerely, Ria

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

My safety days supply is 15 but am getting 7-9..


Why is that?

Sincerely, Ria

RahulHanda
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Ria,

As I mentioned above please don't mix issues (SCN rules of engagement). Your initial situation was that safety stock not even considered which you confirmed is now working. Please close this thread and open another discussion with some screen shots example what do you see with demand and supply w.r.t. days of supply.

We will try to help you there also.

Regards

Rahul

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Rahul,

Apologies for the confusion. I thought it is working but it is not as am not getting the correct day's supply. It just so happened that the number of days is lower now than before. Safety Stock method is SZ, so the day's supply should be the same as the product master. anyway. will just close this and will raise a new one.

Sincerely, Ria

Answers (0)