MPSMRP Ax2012

Microsoft Dynamics AX Planning from an APICS Perspective
Table of Contents
Microsoft Dynamics AX Planning from an APICS Perspective ................................................................. 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 43
A Brief APICS History......................................................................................................................... 54
Concept Distinctions ......................................................................................................................... 65
Part Number ................................................................................................................................. 65
Master Planning ............................................................................................................................ 65
AX Planned Orders ........................................................................................................................ 98
Futures and Actions .................................................................................................................. 1211
Critical AX Planning Inquiries .................................................................................................... 1211
Dynamics AX Coverage Settings .................................................................................................... 1615
Coverage Code Types ................................................................................................................ 1716
Negative Days ........................................................................................................................... 1817
Positive Days ............................................................................................................................. 1817
Time Fences .................................................................................................................................. 1918
Safety Margins .............................................................................................................................. 2019
Some Vocabulary Distinctions....................................................................................................... 2120
Back-flushing ............................................................................................................................. 2120
Distribution Requirements Planning ......................................................................................... 2221
Firm Planned Order ................................................................................................................... 2221
First-Article Inspection .............................................................................................................. 2322
Fixed Order Quantity ................................................................................................................ 2322
Forecast Consumption .............................................................................................................. 2322
1|Page
Heijunka .................................................................................................................................... 2322 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Kanban ...................................................................................................................................... 2322 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Lot Traceability.......................................................................................................................... 2423
Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
Maximum Inventory ................................................................................................................. 2423 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
MRP .......................................................................................................................................... 2423 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
MPS ........................................................................................................................................... 2423
Phantom Bill of Material ........................................................................................................... 2423 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Planning BOM ........................................................................................................................... 2524 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
React versus Pro-act ..................................................................................................................... 2625
Microsoft Dynamics AX Planning from an APICS Perspective.................................................................... 1 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
A Brief APICS History ........................................................................................................................... 4
Concept Distinctions ............................................................................................................................ 5 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Part Number .................................................................................................................................... 5 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
Master Planning............................................................................................................................... 5
AX Planned Orders ........................................................................................................................... 8 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Futures and Actions ....................................................................................................................... 11 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
Critical AX Planning Inquiries.......................................................................................................... 11
Dynamics AX Coverage Settings ......................................................................................................... 15 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Coverage Code Types ..................................................................................................................... 16 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
Negative Days ................................................................................................................................ 17
Positive Days ................................................................................................................................. 17 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Time Fences ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
Safety Margins................................................................................................................................... 19
Some Vocabulary Distinctions............................................................................................................ 20 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
BackflushBack-flushing .................................................................................................................. 20 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
Distribution Requirements Planning............................................................................................... 21
Firm Planned Order ....................................................................................................................... 21 Formatted ...
First-Article Inspection ................................................................................................................... 22 Formatted ...
Fixed Order Quantity ..................................................................................................................... 22 Formatted ...
Forecast Consumption ................................................................................................................... 22 Formatted ...
Heijunka ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Formatted ...

Formatted ...
Kanban .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Formatted ...
2|Page
Lot Traceability .............................................................................................................................. 23 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Maximum Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 23
MRP............................................................................................................................................... 23 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
MPS ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
Phantom Bill of Material ................................................................................................................ 23
Planning BOM ................................................................................................................................ 24 Font color: Auto, Check spelling and grammar
React versus Pro-act .......................................................................................................................... 25 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Not Bold,
3|Page
Introduction
My name is Nigel Cox. I’m a partner at enVista’s Microsoft Dynamics AX practice. enVista is a
consultancy that specializes in the application of industry expertise in solving supply chain problems.
Let me start out by declaring that I am an avid supporter of the APICS mission, the defined OMBOK
(Operations Management Body of Knowledge) and the venerable APICS Dictionary. I am only
disappointed that so many people in the field don’t know about or choose not to take advantage of all
that APICS offers. It is, by far, the cheapest and fastest way to master all the important concepts, as well
as practical advice on how to manage Manufacturing and Supply Chain Operations. Too many, in my
view, rely on software manuals, if that! Generally these manuals teach you how to use the software Commented [TC1]: Try either “software manuals” or “the
rather than how to better get the job done. And really, that’s what we should focus on. That’s where the software manual”
money is. Imagine knowing nothing about carpentry, buying a table saw and a router and thinking you’ll
learn what you need to make a living as a carpenter from the owner manuals.
After graduating from the University of Cambridge in the UK (Production Engineering focus), I joined
BPICS (the British wing of APICS) in 1977. I was educated by George Plossl that same year in two week
long workshops. George was one of the three founders of APICS. Maybe I’m biased, but he was the
greatest practitioner of the three, in my opinion. Joe Orlicky was more academic and Ollie Wight was the
better salesman and entrepreneur. For me, George’s books were much easier to read as well as more
illuminating. Check them out, they are classics and still relevant. It was a huge privilege and a life-
changing event for me to be educated by George, literally at the very start of a career in Materials
Management.
I’ve been CFPIM (Certified Fellow in Production and Inventory Management) since 1990, was Chapter
president of the fastest growing chapter in the world in 1989, CIRM and train-the-trainer certified in
1992 and was an APICS Region Director for 4 years. I was also section chair for the local ASQC chapter.
I’m a (UK) Chartered Engineer, let my PMP lapse, and been trained by Goldratt, JCIT (Costanzo), and
Juran (Quality). As well as Certifications in other ERP software titles, I have 7 certifications in Dynamics
AX and have been a frequent presenter at AXUG events and webinars. After my UK apprenticeship I
spent the first half of my long career in Manufacturing and Supply Chain companies and the second half
consulting to them, mostly around ERP and Lean practices. I consider myself an expert in Lean,
MPS/MRP, Demand Planning/S&OP, and Configure-to-Order. Bottom line is: if I can’t shed some light on
core principles and how Dynamics AX relates to them by now, then shame on me!
I’ve been a Dynamics AX consultant for almost 10 years now and have made several presentations to the
AX User Group (AXUG.com). I cannot say enough positive about this group for Dynamics AX education,
training and peer-to-peer networking, especially for Dynamics AX customers. In collaboration with
others I recently presented a session at one of AXUG’s Manufacturing and Supply Chain Focus
Conferences named AX and APICS, which inspired me to pen this paper.
4|Page
A Brief APICS History
Back in 1977, when I got started, the emphasis was on MRP, Materials Requirements Planning (later
renamed MRP I) and scheduling. The target APICS membership was Materials Planners and Production
Control staff. Since then, in chronological order (but dates uncertain to me) it has expanded its scope,
more and more targeting higher management, with the two key additions being:
 MRP II (aka MRP2): Read now as Manufacturing Resource Planning, this added Master planning
and started to look at the whole supply chain of Customers, Vendors, and their Vendors,
Demand planning/Sales and Operations Planning. Capacity planning had accompanied MRP I,
but MRP II added Rough Cut Capacity Planning1.
 ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning added support for almost all back office, warehouse and shop
processes. Many include front office (CRM) capabilities and intercompany collaboration.
Dynamics AX is in this category.
 Lean: Initially defined as JIT (Just in Time). APICS added JIT Certification. About this time APICS
dropped the longer form of “APICS - American Production and Inventory Control Society” and
changed it to “APICS - The Association for Operations Management”. It also started to offer
CIRM (Certified in Integrated Resource Management) which is squarely aimed at higher levels of
management.
The evolution of software offerings followed suit starting as pure Materials Requirements Planning. This
was a single program that, using period “buckets”, looked at Sales orders and forecasts and using BOMs
(Bills of Material) it recommended Production and Purchase Orders that were needed as well as
reporting exceptions. Performed in an optimal sequence this program netted bucketed demand
quantities against inventory and minimums, offsetting by the lead time and exploding net requirements
using the bill of materials. Bucket-less MRP followed, which really meant buckets of a day. This grew into
ERP where software like Dynamics AX supports virtually all functions of a Supply Chain enterprise.
Reflecting the expanded scope, I’ve heard the APICS Operations Management Body of Knowledge
(OMBOK) more recently described as:
 Strategy and Execution focus

 Operations strategy
 Supply chain strategy
 Sustainability
 Operations links
 Product and Service Design
 Strategic capacity
 Project management
1
In the early days MRP runs took considerable time, especially when the results were mapped to Capacity
Requirements plans, Rough Cut Plans were invented to leverage Master Plan level Resource Profiles, representing
the sum of capacity needed for subassemblies and fabrications. Rough Cut Planning could be run in a fraction of
the time detailed Capacity Requirements plans ran permitting faster analysis, tweaking and even some iteration of
the Master Plan. With MRP and CRP running so much faster on modern equipment, AX does not directly address
Rough Cut Planning and maybe doesn’t need to. However, with some creativity, AX MPS is flexible enough that
Resource Profiles could be added and an effective Rough Cut plan generated if so desired.
5|Page
Concept Distinctions
For clarity, I will be describing situations in APICS terms, then contrasting with AX terms. Let’s start with
the bigger, more basic distinctions . . .
Part Number
What APICS generally defines as a Part number is an Item Number in AX, but AX permits a
combination of additional optional fields to further qualify the sku (stock keeping unit). Which of
these is needed for a particular item is defined by the Item’s Item dimension group. The optional
additional fields are:
 Configuration
 Style
 Color
 Size
 Status (introduced in AX 2012 release R3 – mid 2014) this works with the new
Advanced Warehouse module and can be used to reflect such as a green banana
ripening to a yellow banana.
Style, Color and Size can optionally be renamed for a given Item Dimension Group. Inventory
quantities are specific to the combination of item dimensions that are active for that item’s item
dimension group. For example, if an Item is in an Item dimension group that specifies Style,
color and size, then all three must be specified along with the item number for ANY inventory
transaction.
The valid combination of an item and its item dimension values as a specific sku is also called a
Variant. At the end of the day a specific variant as a combination of Item id and item dimensions
is equivalent for planning to an Item that is at the same level of detail.
This isn’t a big distinction between AX and APICS. Variants are known in APICS circles, they just
aren’t typically taught.
Master Planning
The fact is that you won’t see “MRP” anywhere in AX. There is a Forecast Plan, which as far as I can tell,
maps the forecast data into one, collapsing the forecast hierarchy, adding it up across customers and
potentially consuming it by actual sales. And then there is AX MPS – Master Production Schedule. AX
uses this one program to perform both what APICS calls MPS and what APICS calls MRP. Just keep in
mind that when I refer to APICS MRP this is embedded inside AX MPS and not really distinguished from
what APICS calls Master Planning.
6|Page
The design, planning, execution, control, and monitoring of supply
chain activities with the objective of creating net value, building a
supply chain management competitive infrastructure, leveraging worldwide logistics,
synchronizing supply with demand, and measuring performance
globally.
A grouping of business processes that includes the following
activities: demand management (which includes the forecasting order
master planning servicing); production and resource planning; and master scheduling,
(which includes the final assembly schedule, the master production
schedule and the rough-cur capacity plan).
The anticipated build schedule for those items assigned to the master
scheduler. The master scheduler maintains this schedule, and in turn,
it becomes a set of planning numbers that drives material
requirements planning. It represents what the company plans to
produce expressed in specific configurations, quantities and dates.
master production schedule (MPS)
The master schedule is not a sales forecast that represents a
statement of demand. The master production schedule must take
into account the forecast, the production plan, and other important
considerations such as backlog, availability of material, availability of
capacity, and management policy and goals.
Table 1: Three important excerpts from the APICS Dictionary 8th edition
APICS makes it clear that the MPS is manually defined and maintained, especially in short to
medium term. We would expect the number of items Master Planned would be a fraction of all
items. In most cases the Master Plan items are end products only.
Figure 1: A depiction of the Firm Master plan defined maintained manually by the Master Planner rather
than being arithmetically defined by net requirementscalculated as the floating MPS would still be. MRP at
all BOM levels would be driven by the MPS rather than base original demand. Commented [TC2]: In my opinion, the first sentence in
this caption, could be reworded
The APICS Master Plan is distinctly a statement of supply and not demand. The computer does
not create it or adjust it in the near term Firm horizon but does recommend changes. It will
adjust and create orders in the Floating horizon, further out in time. The Master Production
Schedule is then used as input to MRP, which rigorously generates and ties in the plans for
everything else, referenced in the MPS items’ multi-level BOMs (Bills of Material).
7|Page
Back in the early days of MRP I, pioneering users often found the whole plan to be too nervous.
The slightest change by a Customer Service Rep would have a ripple effect all the way down the
BOM levels. A period forecast that was not fully consumed (i.e. sales orders were less than
forecast) at the end of its period had the same effect the next day, except that since many items
were forecast for the same period and many still had unconsumed forecast, the effect was more
widespread. The idea was that at the critical level of the BOMs (see next paragraph), Sales and
Operations would agree on a plan. The plan would have an agreed demand component and an
agreed supply component. Planned over- or under-supply meant inventory build or contraction
as a strategic and tactical means for accommodating demand variations.
Think of it this way: We are a make to stock manufacturer and we gather around in a Sales and
Operations Planning meeting coming up with a supply plan for every Master Planned Item. This
supply plan is generally a compromise between potentially costly flexing of manufacturing
(overtime, subcontract, new equipment, etc.) and protecting a stable level capacity utilization by
building inventory ahead of peak demand.
S&OP • Sales &

Operations
Planning
A meeting
MPS • Master
Production
Manually maintained Scheduling
Exceptions reported
MRP •Material
Requirements
A computer Planning
program
Figure 2: APICS model of planning
Clearly, if the Sales and Operations planning team meets to review every master plan item, we
need to be frugal about how many we are reviewing. Since reducing nervousness is a primary
goal the effect needs to be broad. One technique is to define a small number of product families
representing the breadth of what a company makes. Each family would have a Planning BOM
containing actual products that reflects the anticipated product mix. Another approach is to
target the narrowest level of the companies’ Bills of Material, planning for the “critical few”:
8|Page
Figure 3: BOM level at which to master plan
Not only is this the logical level to Master Plan, it’s the logical level to carry inventory as a
Customer Service buffer. Recall that the Master Plan as a statement of supply differs from
projected demand by the planned levels of inventory across items and over time. Make to stock
generally means setting the pace for the whole plan from a carefully managed Production plan.
For pure make to order the pace of acquiring and holding materials may set or constrain the
plan. For Configure to order it most likely is more sensible to plan and carry inventory at some
subassembly level. By master planning across the breadth, you really are managing the entire
supply chain by concentrating human attention on the fewest line items. George Plossl always
referred to the Master Production Schedule as “Management’s Handle on the Business”.
In APICS, Planning BOMS are aggregated, summary BOMs across a range of related Products.
Their components may be percentages of finished goods, where the BOM really represent just a
product mix that can be forecast as one. But keep in mind that Planning BOMs also do not have
to be at the End Product level. The components could be configurable subassemblies/modules
or even materials, perhaps directly from a Product Family. AX supports master planning at the
subassembly level by permitting forecast consumption to be “transaction” based. As opposed to
just Sales orders, Transaction would be any form of real demand such as a component
requirement on a Production Order or the Shipment side of a transfer order. In APICS terms AX
is capable of consuming both Dependent and Independent Demand from the forecast.
If the ERP system being used did not have a separate Master Planning module, this was often
implemented by “Firm Planned Orders”. Firm meant that MRP would not delete it from run to
run (as it would regular planned orders), although it would report exceptions (i.e. critique it!).
And this is one way to do APICS style Master Planning in AX MPS.
As you will see, AX is also capable of immediate MPS right from any item’s Net Requirements
inquiry. This re-plans the item and its materials.
AX Planned Orders
The planned order screen in Master Planning lists all planned supply orders. All are generated by
the MPS run in an “Unprocessed” state. The planner may change the status to:
9|Page
 Processed: This is intended to be simply a visual cue that the planner has looked at the
Planned and order and decided to ignore it. The form can also be easily filtered to
exclude planned orders in this state.
 Approved: This is intended for the planner to ensure that this planned order is retained
in the next AX MPS run if, for any reason, they don’t want to “Firm” it to an actual Commented [TC3]: Do you mean “into?”
supply order. Remember that an AX “Approved” planned order is exactly the same as an
APICS “Firm” planned order.
These are the types AX Planned Order that will be listed on the screen:
Planned purchase orders

If the item has a default Vendor specified, the planned order will be populated with it.
Otherwise, if the parameters2 are set to select the default vendor based on trade agreement
price, the cheapest vendor found will populate. If the parameters are set to search purchase
trade agreements based on lead time, the vendor found with the shortest lead time for that
item will populate. If no vendor is found, the field will be blank and a vendor needs to be
manually selected before the planned order can be firmed into a (unconfirmed) purchase
order.
Planned production orders

When the planned production order is firmed, it will use the Active BOM and Active routing.
A Master planning parameter sets the status which the Production order will assume. Most
set this to Scheduled. Most wish to subsequently decide when to Release which prints the
Route card, the Start which creates and prints the pick list. Commented [TC4]: Inserted the ‘e’, at the end of the
word Route
Planned transfer orders
If the warehouse being supplied (such as a satellite or branch) is always planned to be
refilled from another warehouse (such as a DC), Master planning creates a planned transfer.
If the Site is set for planned transfer journal (between warehouses within the Site) this will
be a Planned transfer journal (see next) otherwise it will be a planned transfer order.
Firming will convert this to an actual Transfer order.
Planned transfer journals

(See prior). When a planned transfer journal is firmed it will convert to an un-posted
transfer journal3. Just like a planned (or firmed) transfer order, this will appear to planning
as an outstanding supply to the destination warehouse and demand on the source
warehouse. This could be firmed to an un-posted transfer journal. This should then be
posted at the time of the actual move, when it will deduct from the sending warehouse and
increment the destination warehouse in the same moment. New in AX 2012, a planned
transfer journal could be considered a more realistic way to plan Point of Use
2
Navigation: Master planning>Setup>Master planning parameters>Planned orders fast tab>Vendor>Search
Criterion. Possible values: Lowest unit price or Minimum lead time.
3
A transfer journal is the standard AX way of moving inventory, often referred to as a bin-to-bin move.
10 | P a g e
replenishment, but most will simply replenish based on visible signals at the work place,
such as a physical kanban.
Planned Kanbans
AX offers the ability to create an open kanban from MPS as well as the more usual method
being triggered by an empty kanban signal. These kanbans are referred to as Scheduled
kanbans.
Planned pegged supply

Rather uniquely, AX offers some powerful features for “To order”. A BOM line can be
flagged as “pegged supply”. If the component is purchased this means that AX will
automatically create a “tied” purchase order to the parent production. If the component is
manufactured in house AX automatically creates a tied (read hard wired!) child production
order. Both would happen when the parent Production is taken to any status beyond Commented [TC5]: In my opinion, I’d use “creates an
Created (Estimated, Scheduled, Released, Started). Beware that existing available inventory associated..” rather than tied
is ignored and the quantity of the child order exactly matches the required quantity on the
parent’s BOM. While the parent is in the Created state, MRP (AX MPS) will actually create a
planned order. Note that a Planned pegged supply cannot be altered or firmed. The main
benefit is to plan lower levels in the BOM. AX uses a function named “Mark lines” - a form of
hard reservation4 - to link the two. Also be aware that manually creating a Production Order
from a sales order line uses the same mark lines and that any supply order(s) can be
manually “marked” to a demand(s). For anything other than standard cost, mark lines forces
actual cost for that supply-demand interaction.
Supply Forecast
All the planned orders mentioned so far are created by MPS. AX also lets you create any of
them manually, although I’ve never found a use for that. Planned orders of type Supply Plan
are keyed in. These are different from other generated planned orders in that they behave
like planned orders that a planner has Approved (reminder: what APICS calls a “Firmed”).
That means they are preserved from one MPS run to the next.
The Supply Forecast in Dynamics AX is dismissed by many as not very useful. I contend that
it is another way to perform APICS-style MPS. It really is an alternative to an APICS Firm
Planned Order (in AX an “Approved” planned order), with the added benefit that it is
maintained as a separate forecast and is separately distinguishable from all other planned
orders. More on this later.
4
MPS pegging reflects what I like to call a “soft” reservation, visible in Net Requirements inquiry. Unreserved
Inventory and even open supply orders can be automatically or manually reserved to specific sales line quantities.
This is a hard reservation. Mark lines is an even harder form of reservation. For example, for an average costed
item, this bypasses averaging cost being calculated with other on-hand inventory, forcing an actual cost arithmetic.
11 | P a g e
Futures and Actions
APICS refers to “Plan Exceptions” or MRP “Messages” where AX uses Futures and Actions.
Essentially, wherever AX MPS can only generate a planned supply that already would be late
with all the assumptions MPS was given – especially lead time and minimum on hand values, it
turns to the human planner for help. AX can’t reduce the lead time, or dynamically override the
safety stock without permission, but maybe a human being can. Perhaps they can find another
vendor who can deliver faster. Or maybe they could fast track a Production Order in much less
lead time than was planned for. Ask yourself how quickly you could get it if the CEO thundered
that it was critical?
Here again, AX seeks to be more than helpful and sometimes leads to confusion. Rather than
saying “this is what you’d have to do to meet plan” it really tells you twice. The Action message
tells you what you would have to do to still meet the demand5. The Futures message tells you
how much you’d have to delay the demand (a threatened sales order line, perhaps) if you could
not expedite supply. The two are really a bracket of the range of solutions that the planner must
attempt to find a solution within. Another way of perceiving this is that the Action message
tells you what you need to accomplish and the Futures message tells you what will happen if
you don’t. There are parameters to switch on an off on-and-off Actions and Futures as well as Commented [TC6]: In instances like this, I like to use
parameters constraining the messages. AX is capable of recommending quantity increases or hyphens, like “on-and-off” as it really is a collective thought
decreases as well as date changes. Be careful how much you switch on and at what stage of
planner maturity you switch it on. Switching everything on at go live can make it very difficult to
understand what MPS is recommending. For a given item with supply-demand challenges, AX
can generate many lines of recommended changes and many more with recommended
cancellations, including cancelling planned it orders it just generated (more on this later).
Critical AX Planning Inquiries

Planning is still a human process today. “Lights out” planning is at least rare and arguably not
feasible! Futures and Action messages are each and every one, an admission that AX MPS could Commented [TC7]: Inserted comma
not solve a supply-demand challenge and human intervention is called for. Put another way, Commented [TC8]: Inserted comma
they are predominantly cases where it is impossible to meet demand with the assumptions MPS
was given, including minimum inventory levels and lead times. They are a way to positively focus
planner attention and “plan by exception”. This can have huge implications for the planner to
get “ahead of the game”.
Note that Futures and Actions can be accessed from any specific Planned Order using the
Requirement profile icon. While these messages relate to each order or planned order they are
best read for the whole item (across orders and time), which is what this Net Requirements
inquiry does, also showing a projected (“Accumulated”) on-hand over time.
5
Note that while, in the text, I have focused on supplies already too late to meet demand inside plan, AX does also
provide Futures and Actions where it deems supply is planned to arrive too soon, recommending an action of
delay.
12 | P a g e
Figure 4: An Item (The item number is displayed in the window title) or Variant’s “Requirements profile”
inquiry. In APICS circles this might also be described as a “Supply-Demand” inquiry. If you access this form
from a specific planned order the header will be limited to the Variant, Site and Warehouse in the planned
order. It is very useful to know that if you access it from the Item Master (select the “Net Requirements”
icon on the Plan ribbon) then all possible variants and warehouses are displayed in the header.
Figure 5: This is the Actions tab for Figure 4.
13 | P a g e
Note that this screen provides an Update button that will actually run MRP real time for this
item, down through its BOM levels. If something has changed since the last MRP run, this can be
very handy6.
There is also a separate Futures Inquiry and Actions Inquiry which lists all messages including
those for real orders (not just planned orders). This can be critical since it is possible that no
Planned Orders are generated but an actual order, for example, still needs expediting,
Action messages of types Advance, Postpone, Decrease/Increase, and Derived Actions (lower in
the BOM) can be turned on or off by named Plan or based on the item’s Coverage Group or
overridden by Item Coverage.
Figure 6: Part of Coverage settings
Time fences can be set such that only messages within that time frame get created. Margins
affect the sensitivity of the messages. Let’s say you don’t want to see postpone messages that
need less than a week’s postponement or you don’t want to see expedite messages that only
need a 1 or 2 day advancement.
In addition to the Net Requirement inquiry there are three other very useful forms are
accessible from the Planned orders Orders screen: Commented [TC9]: I think you need to check your
consistency in whether you capitalize P and O in planned
orders – it seems to vary. In my opinion, if you are talking
Explosion: This form illuminates what is needed for this planned order down through its
about the form, could be different than actual planned
BOM (including lower level Futures and Actions) as well as showing its pegging. orders?
6
Not being a fan of finite scheduling, I’ve never tested this, but I suspect that the Update button would NOT
reschedule all other orders constrained by shared resources.
14 | P a g e
Figure 7: The Explosion Inquiry is most often accessed from the Net Requirements inquiry with a
particular supply or demand selected. It is also accessible from other forms (such as a sales line).
Note that the information displayed in the tree is repeated as a grid with a column showing indent
level. Whereas the tree cannot be exported to a spreadsheet, the grid can.
Multilevel Pegging: There is a Downstream and Upstream tab. This is in the context of
material flow, so downstream actually shows the driving demands and Upstream shows
the upstream supply needed for this planned order (ideally that shows all on hand!).
Figure 8: Also accessible from the Net requirements inquiry the Multi-level pegging in the
downstream mode. Note that Downstream also means Up the BOM!
15 | P a g e
Figure 9: Multi-level pegging in the upstream mode. Note that Upstream also means Down the
BOM!
Derived Requirements: This is like the explosion except it only goes down the BOM one
level. It also shows lower level Futures and Actions.
Figure 10: Derived Requirements inquiry
Dynamics AX Coverage Settings

It is worth reviewing the way AX manages planning attributes, specifically those managed under
what AX refers to as Coverage and Order Setting.
16 | P a g e
Order settings set order quantity minimum, maximum and multiples. These can be specific to
the supplied warehouse. And are distinct for Purchase. Inventory and Sales. Depending on setup
Inventory either refers to Production or Warehouse to Warehouse transfer.
Coverage manages supply rules:
Figure 11: Part of Coverage settings
Coverage Code Types

While the user can create an unlimited number of Coverage codes, they have to be one
of the following types:
Period
This is equivalent to APICS’ “Period of Supply”. When MRP detects a net
requirement triggering the need for a Planned Order, it looks out the number of
days specified in the field “Coverage Period” to see how much demand has
accumulated. It will set the Planned Order to this quantity, unless the Order
Settings specify a minimum order quantity or multiples that is higher.
Requirement
This is equivalent to APICS’ “Lot for Lot”. When MRP detects a net requirement
triggering the need for a Planned Order, it will set the Planned Order to this net
requirement, unless the Order Settings specify a minimum order quantity or
multiples that is higher. Setting this Minimum (and optional Maximum) is also
the easiest way to emulate what APICS calls a “Fixed lot size”.
Min./Max.
This is the classic Min/Max on hand. When AX projects an inventory below the Commented [TC10]: Here is another instance of the use
Minimum, it will create a planned order for the difference between the Min and of hyphen – I always use on-hand, vs. separate words –
again, my opinion, as it allows the collective noun to stand
the Max values (unless that is lower than the Minimum order quantity). Since
alone
the Min and Max values are item specific rather than group specific they have to
be maintained on Item Coverage (accessible from the Plan ribbon on the item
master). Again these can be specific to Warehouse). Min/Max values can also be
date effective. This could be useful for a planned inventory ramp up or ramp
down.
Manual
This simply means that MPS will not process this item. Note that this means its
net requirements will not be exploded to its components either. The item may
be manually controlled (perhaps non-inventory or expensed upon receipt) or it
17 | P a g e
might be kanban controlled. Also note that there is nothing to stop you planning
kanban items with any of the other Coverage Codes. They can easily be filtered
out so the planner does not create production orders and MRP may be an
alternate way to manage the kanban items components (not that I’d
recommend it!).
All Coverage group settings can be overridden using Item Coverage settings.
Negative Days
This is a pesky Coverage setting and the source of much confusion. I have regularly been
a panelist on AXUG “Meet the expert” sessions and this always comes up. I like to
describe it as the number of days you will permit MPS planned inventory to go negative
(strictly, below minimum) before having MPS create a new planned order. This next
statement is very important: This setting has no effect if there are no actual supply Commented [TC11]: Not sure if the colon is proper
orders already created. It’s really about when do you prefer to expedite an existing punctuation – might consider ellipsis, followed by, i.e. very
important … this .. ??
order rather than create a new one.
Imagine that you have a PO already due in 5 days, but a new demand emerges for
tomorrow. If the negative days is set to less than 5, AX will create a new planned
purchase order due tomorrow. However it will also recommend expediting the existing
PO in an Action message and cancelling the planned PO it just created. If the negative
days is set to 5 or more then MPS will not create a planned order. It will put an Action
message on the existing PO to expedite it7.
In my experience this comes down to how well your planners are paying attention to
Action messages. If they are on the ball, a large negative days is safe8. If they are relying
solely on planned orders then a small negative days may be preferable. But beware, if
the planner is careless and just creates the recommended planned order they (s)he Commented [TC12]: ‘they’ relates to planner (singular) –
could just be ordering excess inventory. Keep in mind this could happen multiple times e.g. the planner … (s)he, or the planners .. they ??
and there may also be a minimum order quantity.
The concept of Negative Days is uniquely AX and not addressed in APICS.
Positive Days
In my opinion this setting is only relevant where you are dealing with limited shelf life.
Microsoft defines this as his is how many days after a receipt can the inventory remain
positive. What that translates to is how many days after receiving it is it still usable.
Most planners will want to set this value high, say 999. While APICS notes Lot expiration,
there is also no direct APICS equivalent to Positive Days here.
7
Note that the planner may see no warning if they are just looking at planned orders. They need to be also looking
at the Action messages inquiry where Actions on existing orders show up.
8
I like 999, but at least one other reputable consultant likes to set it to the largest feasible lead time.
18 | P a g e
Time Fences
Time fences also can be set by plan name, Coverage Group or Item Coverage. These align fairly
well with APICS training:
Figure 12: Coverage time fence maintenance form
Firming Time Fence

Watch out for this one, it can be dangerous. This is the number of days from the day that MPS is
run that planned orders should AUTOMATICALLY get turned into real orders. Know what you are
doing if you set this to other than zero. A zero setting means no planned orders will be Commented [TC13]: Perhaps a quick example like,
automatically firmed into real supply orders. “setting it to zero, will not automatically firm” ?
Freeze Time Fence

This is number of days from the day that MPS is run that planned orders will not be deleted. In
other words, they will be treated as “Approved” planned orders. This actually is another way of
achieving the “Frozen” plan that APICS defines for Master Planning as opposed to MRP and is an
alternative to the use of a Supply Plan discussed earlier. Planning will treat all planned orders in
the horizon as Approved (i.e. APICS Firm Planned Order). Remember that this time fence can be
for a specific Coverage Group of items.
Coverage Time Fence

This is the number of days out that MPS will still create planned supply orders. Wise advice is to
set this longer than your longest cumulative lead time. However much longer it is set future
dependent demand of the purchase part will be visible. In APICS this is called the Planning
Horizon.
Explosion Time Fence

This is the number of days out that MPS will still take planned supply orders and explode them
as demand down to the next level of the BOM. There is no point in making this longer than the
Coverage time fence.
19 | P a g e
Capacity Time Fence
This is the number of days out that MPS will take planned production orders and accumulate
capacity requirements on resources (including resources/work centers). There is no point in Commented [TC14]: Since this is referring to AX, perhaps
making this longer than the Coverage time fence. But there may be a system performance or … work centers (resources)
business case for making it shorter.
Forecast Time Fence

This is the number of days out that the Forecast will be included as demand.
Safety Margins
This is akin to what APICS terms “Safety Lead Time”, but it targets Receipt time (allowing for
time in receiving), Issue (allowing for time between releasing to the warehouse and actually
being picked), and reorder (allowing time for the back office to create the order paperwork).
Safety Margins can be set at Plan name, and Item Coverage Group (not for specific items on
Item Coverage).
Figure 13: Safety margins on part of the Coverage form.
The example above would add 1 day’s receipt margin for all items in this Coverage group. All
supply orders would have a due date one day before they could be planned to be in inventory. 1
day’s issue safety time adds a day for packing and 1 day’s reorder margin adds a day for creating
paperwork on all supply orders.
20 | P a g e
Some Vocabulary Distinctions9
Let’s turn to Vocabulary. APICS has long maintained the very useful APICS Dictionary. Get one. Maybe I
love this stuff too much and need to get a life, but I’ve read it cover to cover - a few times. I can’t say
that about any other dictionary or even glossary. And I learn something every time.
For clarity, I will be describing situations in APICS terms, then contrasting with AX terms.
BackflushBack-flushing
APICS uses the terms Post-deduct (also listed as BackflushBack-flushing) and Pre-deduct. This is
an automated component pick based on a BOM line attribute. Back-flushing means the pick is Commented [TC15]: You hyphenated back-flushing this
automatically transacted after an event. The event is typically the completion of the production time, which I am accustomed to seeing, but not the others?
order for some quantity, but may be the reported completion of a quantity at a Routing
Operation. Pre-flushing or Pre-deduct occurs before the event, typically as the order is started
or the pick list created.
Be aware that whenever components are flushed their on-hand level is now estimated rather
than real. For back flush the computer on hand level is what is physically in stock plus what is in
work in progress (on the assembly) but not yet finished. For pre-flush it is what is physically in
stock less what is in on Production Orders but not yet physically taken for assembly into the
product. Either of these makes cycle counts much harder. Plus any error in the BOM
contaminates on-hand accuracy. For these reasons I always recommend at least a separate
point of use on-hand location and for AX I generally recommend a separate point of use
Warehouse.
My reason for this is that AX only permits one location as the default issue (or default pick) per
item-warehouse combination. Also you will want to specify a POU Warehouse on BOM lines.
Keep in mind that AX Coverage can be switched off at the Warehouse level, forcing AX MPS to
plan supply at the Site level, in other words adding up across warehouses. So AX MPS will look at
the main warehouse in combination with the inventory at points of use when planning main
warehouse replenishment.
I like to make the floor responsible for inventory accuracy at the Point of UsePoint-of-Use and Commented [TC16]: Again, in my opinion … Point-of-Use
the Warehouse responsible for inventory accuracy in the warehouse. By the way, provocative as – your choice
it may sound, I like to make the floor responsible for BOM accuracy as well!
9
Referencing APICS Dictionary 8th Edition
21 | P a g e
In AX it isn’t called Back-flushing or pre-flushing. AX has an Item master Flushing Principle which
can be set to Start, Finish or Manual. Think of Start as Pre- and Finish as Back-. Manual really
means you intend to “Pick” exact material quantities for a specific Production Order from the
warehouse and send them to the floor order by order.
The flushing principle on the AX item master does NOT get copied to the BOM line. Instead the
BOM Line flushing principle can be left blank, in which case the item master value is assumed, or
it can be forced to Start or Finish. This is how you can tell AX that the same item is Picked from
the warehouse for one parent and held at point of use for flushing for another parent. In turn
any Production order BOM will always default to blank. If the Production BOM line flushing
principle is blank AX will look up the flushing principle on the BOM Line. If that is also blank AX
will check the component’s Item Master where the flushing Principle must be Start, Finish or
Manual.
When you Start an AX Production order it can look at every component and if the flushing
principle is Start that component is included in an automated Pick. When you report production
as finished AX can look at every component and if the flushing principle is Finish that component
is included in an automated Pick.
If the flushing principle for a component is blank on every BOM Line, then you can switch the
way an item is being flushed everywhere by simply updating its Item Master. If you can, set it up
this way.
Distribution Requirements Planning

In APICS this is the planning of product distribution such as central to regional DC to store. AX
MPS combines poor man’s DRP and MRP by permitting warehouse specific planning and adding
a planned order of type Transfer. Depending on Warehouse setup, the planned Transfer may
model either a Transfer Order (with a separate ship and receive as well as an in-transit quantity)
or a Transfer Journal (instantaneous bin to bin move). AX also adds Intercompany Planning
capabilities.
What AX doesn’t do is add Allocation Rules - the planning logic is strictly single source. The
Supply Chain has to be relatively well defined. For example you can’t tell AX to plan on the basis
that the West coast DC gets product X from a Central Warehouse, but if that warehouse is out,
get it directly from the factory or some other warehouse. It will only plan to get it from one
source. A planner can override, of course. Also you can’t have MPS plan for 70% replenished
from here and 30% replenished from there.
Firm Planned Order10

A source of great confusion for new users of Microsoft Dynamics AX! In APICS, firming a planned
order tells MRP to keep it on the next MRP run, even if it looks like it’s not needed. Remember,
10
Beware, there is a parameter in AX Coverage Groups called the Firm time fence. MRP Planned orders within the
Firm Time Fence are automatically firmed (i.e. released as real supply orders. This is very different. Not only are
these electronically created, rather than maintained by a planner, they get turned into real orders as well!
22 | P a g e
MRP generally deletes all planned orders and/or recommendations any time an item is re-
planned. In AX Firming means changing the planned order (Purchase, Production, Transfer Order
or Transfer Journal) into a real order, thus removing the planned order. The exact equivalent of
APICS Firming is AX Approving. MRP will not delete an AX Approved planned order. MPS creates
Planned Order in an unprocessed state. The user can change the state to Processed or
Approved. MPS will delete Processed and Unprocessed planned orders when re-planning.
Processed status is really a way for the planner to inform herself that she’s looked at this one
already and decided not to take the recommendation.
First-Article Inspection
In the APICS dictionary this is defined as a quality check on the first component run after a new
setup has been completed. In AX this can be handled as a Quality association tied to the
Operation. However, this term is now also in common use as the first purchase of a new item
from a vendor including when first switching to new vendor for an existing item. There is no
easy way to automate this in AX. The best I have seen is to create a Quality Association for
Receiving in such a way that the user knows to remove it once first article inspection is
complete.
Fixed Order Quantity

AX does not explicitly offer this. My advice is to use the coverage type of “Requirement” but
then set a Minimum Order Quantity on the item’s Default Order Settings or Site-specific Order
Settings.
Forecast Consumption
This is consuming the forecast with Sales orders as they are taken. In AX this is referred to as
Reduction. AX also permits consumption by any demand (rather than just Sales) which is great
for Assemble to order where the forecast can be one BOM level below what gets sold. AX also
offers a Reduction key where the forecast is reduced by a time phased percentage scheme
rather than Sales orders.
Heijunka
While not actually listed in the APICS dictionary 8th Edition, this is a well-known scheduling board
for kanbans where kanbans can be manually sequenced, ideally to level load across the product
mix, thereby avoiding making too much of the same thing and starving flow for others. AX has
electronic Heijunka Boards as forms/workbenches or managing kanbans, and refers to them as
“Boards”. There is a board for the operator(s) of the cell, an optional board for the Lean
coordinator/scheduler in case the client wants to force all kanbans through a sequencing step,
and a board for the material handler/water spider.
Kanban
APICS kanbans are defined the same way that the Toyota Production System defined them. AX
uses the same word for roughly the same meaning in the new AX 2012 Lean. However, an AX
23 | P a g e
Kanban11 may have several activities and it’s really the Activity that most closely aligns to a
Toyota Kanban. The restriction is that Activities within an AX Kanban must have the same sizing
rules (kanban size/quantity and number of kanbans in circulation). It is the Activities that show
on distinct cell-side AX boards and model “pull” events. Think of the APICS kanban as a series of
Toyota kanbans (in a feeder line kind of flow) that all have equivalent sizing.
Lot Traceability
In APICS a production run that needs to be traced for quality or recall purposes uses “Lot
tracking” and individual runs are “Lots”. Where subassemblies or purchased components are
also Lot tracked we refer to that as "Hierarchical Lot Trace”. AX has all of this except it uses the
word Batch instead of Lot. Ax AX ALSO use the word “lot”, but for something else. In essence it Commented [TC17]: capitalize
assigns a unique “lot id” to every line in Inventory transactions. So, for example, each sales line
gets a lot id when it’s entered, but this may get split to more lot id’s later (e.g. partial pick/pack).
Lot-for-Lot
This is where supply orders are recommended by MRP in the same quantities as are demanded,
no more and no less12. AX refers to this as a Coverage type of “Requirement.”. Commented [TC18]: if interested, typically all
punctuation, in this case the ending period, need to fall
within the end-quotation mark.
Maximum Inventory
In APICS this is the maximum level planning attributes would permit, regardless of planning
attributes. So for period order quantity (Coverage type Period in AX) it is indeterminate, for
example. This specific coverage value in AX only pertains to a Min-Max coverage selection. It
sets the quantity you would need to order to achieve that level when using Min-Max coverage.
MRP
Material Requirements Planning. This is the mechanical process of item by item netting
requirements against inventory, offsetting by the lead time and exploding down a Bill of
Materials (BOM). Generally it is one program that is often run at night. It is not referred to in
Dynamics AX and is really embedded inside the AX MPS run.
MPS
As is clear in the earlier actual extract from the APICS Dictionary, APICS MPS is quite distinct
from MRP. MPS is largely manual and defines the overall game plan that MRP uses as its driver,
typically at one level of the bills of materials. In make to stock the MPS is usually maintained for
finished goods, for example. In assemble to order it might be at a sub-assembly level. In AX,
there is just a single thing called MPS. At first look AX MPS is APICS MRP and APICS MPS isn’t
supported in AX. As was discussed earlier, there is at least one way that AX MPS can be used for
both. See Master Planning under Concepts.
Phantom Bill of Material
11
AX does also have a way of generating planned kanbans from MPS called scheduled kanbans. I’ve not seen a lot
of use for this, though.
12
Some MRP software adds up requirements that fall into the same day, actually being more consistent with the
APICS Dictionary. To accomplish this in AX use a Period Coverage of one day.
24 | P a g e
In APICS a phantom BOM is basically shorthand for a list of components that routinely are used
in conjunction. When a Production order is created the phantom item is immediately replaced
by its components. This is called “exploding” the phantom. The phantom item may be a
subassembly that always gets put together “in line” on the floor as the parent is assembled (and
thus does not need a subassembly production order of its own), or it may just be a logical
association of items that go together on a parent assembly. An item might be treated as a
phantom on one parent’s BOM and as a regular item on another (although I have never seen
this used).
The not-insignificant advantage is that if the phantom BOM changes you only need to update
the one BOM, not what would be the lengthier BOMS of every aren’t using the phantom.
While not specifically in the APICS Dictionary, there is the concept of a “stock-able” phantom.
When planning encounters one of these it creates a planned production component
requirement for the phantom itself (unexploded) to the extent it is available in inventory and
only explodes the phantom for the remainder, if any. Although most companies that use
phantoms in their BOMs would love planning to use any available (e.g. left over) inventory,
many ERP systems don’t support this, including Dynamics AX, unfortunately. To use available
inventory, a human being needs to be aware and has to alter the Production BOM before
releasing it. Consequently you won’t see the word “Pseudo” anywhere in Dynamics AX.
In AX there is a flag on the item master labelled “Phantom”. If this is checked then any newly
created BOM lines will default to a BOM line type of “Phantom”, but it could be changed at that
time. If the BOM line type is Phantom, any Production order created using it will have its
Production BOM line also set to “Phantom” while it is in the Created state. At that time it also
could be changed. However, once it is promoted from the Created state (e.g. Estimated,
Scheduled, Released, or Started) it is exploded to its components and no trace of the phantom
item remains on the Production Order.
AX permits phantom items to have Routings. As the phantom is exploded on a Production order
the routings of all the phantoms on the parent BOM are added to precede the Routing of the
Parent itself. They are added in the same order as the BOM is laid out. I’m told these can even
be nested (Phantoms in Phantoms) although I’ve never encountered a need.
Planning BOM
This is a BOM used for planning only. It may be a fake item number that groups many items
under an aggregate forecast. The BOM lines become product mix percentages and effectivity
dates may be used to represent new product replacing old. You can do this in AX, but AX 2012
also introduced an “Item Allocation Key” specifically for spreading a single forecast timeline
across a mix of products.
Safety Stock
This is stock planned to be in inventory to protect against variations in demand and supply. The
AX term for this is “Minimum” or “Minimum On Hand” and is set in Item Coverage. There is an
25 | P a g e
option in AX to say whether replacing the Minimum should be planned immediately or at the
lead time out. APICS Safety stock is generally based on replacing at the lead time out. Why have
Safety Stock if you don’t plan to use it, when you need to? Put another way, don’t plan to place
a “rush” order just to replenish safety stock.
Two-Bin System
The closest AX comes is named Min-Max Coverage, but this changes how much is ordered as
well. AX will order the difference between currently planned on-hand (generally less than
Minimum) and the stated Maximum. In APICS 2-bin the order quantity is generally fixed
(number of bins, perhaps just one). I often recommend using manual (off-system) 2-bin for low
cost items that don’t need to be planned or tracked by AX. These can be set up as Non-inventory
and expensed on receipt. Buying would be manually triggered by opening the first (or
penultimate) box and manually expedited if the second box needed opening before more
arrived. A box would often represent a quarter’s demand, or more.
React versus Pro-act

This section isn’t really a distinction between AX and APICS. APICS teaches how to do the job, AX
Planning is a tool that people can use to help do the job. This section is a reminder that it is just
a tool and gives some high level reminders about how you should use it.
Data integrity: Also known as “Garbage In In-Garbage Out”. Always be aware that any plan is Commented [TC19]: Added separating hyphen
only as good as the data it uses. It’s hard to blame the planner if Inventory balances are wrong,
or BOMs have a lot of errors. And then there is Forecast accuracy, due date reliability and so on.
These, especially the first two, have to be attacked aggressively for planning to be effective.
Dynamics AX provides capabilities to take on supply/demand planning closely aligned to the way
APICS trains. The distinctions made in the Concepts and Vocabulary sections here are really
minor and in many cases add value over traditional models once you understand them. At the
end of the day though, the challenge is largely a human one. The battle is to plan well enough to
stay ahead of the game. It’s plan well or resort to expediting. The better you plan the less time
spent putting out fires. The worse you plan the more you are forced to fight fires. For me the
litmus test as to where you are on this spectrum is two-fold:
1. Who’s doing it: If the planner is doing a good job anticipating and heading off
supply/demand challenges, then she’s doing all the work. If not the others are
feeling pain and others inevitably get engaged (or sucked in). Hopefully it’s not the
CEO, but sometimes it is!
2. What’s the focus: The planner looks at things Item by Item. When there’s a
challenge in Supply/Demand for an item, she’s looking at all the orders involved.
Those expediting are inevitably looking at individual order lines. This can be many
people (instead of one) looking at many problems (instead of one).
26 | P a g e
APICS teaches that the key is for the planner to get through all (or at least the critical)
exceptions daily. If not, then problems will remain unattended and the effort to solve them will
get greater. This can turn exponential and quickly become unmanageable. This only leads one
way: back to ignoring the plan and expediting by fire-fighting.
Here are some things to consider when the exceptions (AX Futures and Action Messages) start
to build:
1. Understand it is critical to turn this around. It will only get worse unless action is
taken.
2. Try to identify the source of increasing exceptions. Are orders being taken inside
lead time too often? Are there supply chain interruptions/problems?
3. Add planner capacity. Overtime is warranted, but it should be all hands to the
pump. Management can roll their sleeves up. Diverting other Materials staff to
the problem planning area can help.
4. Focus on the critical few. Prioritize by date. Consider prioritizing by ABC class.
5. Consider organizing for peak. Early in my Materials Management career I had 3
or 4 planners but I had others trained to back them up in times of need. We
actually called them our SWAT team. We tracked exception count by planner,
watching for any unhealthy trends. The SWAT team would drop their regular
duties and take on planning groups of items, relieving the stressed planner.
27 | P a g e

MPSMRP Ax2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPSMRP Ax2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Microsoft Dynamics AX Planning from an APICS Perspective

Heijunka ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Formatted ...

 Strategy and Execution focus

S&OP • Sales &

Figure 2: APICS model of planning

Planned purchase orders

Planned production orders

Planned transfer journals

Planned pegged supply

Critical AX Planning Inquiries

Figure 5: This is the Actions tab for Figure 4.

Figure 6: Part of Coverage settings

Figure 10: Derived Requirements inquiry

Dynamics AX Coverage Settings

Coverage manages supply rules:

Figure 11: Part of Coverage settings

Coverage Code Types

The concept of Negative Days is uniquely AX and not addressed in APICS.

Figure 12: Coverage time fence maintenance form

Firming Time Fence

Freeze Time Fence

Coverage Time Fence

Explosion Time Fence

Forecast Time Fence

Figure 13: Safety margins on part of the Coverage form.

Distribution Requirements Planning

Firm Planned Order10

Fixed Order Quantity

Phantom Bill of Material

React versus Pro-act

You might also like