requirements spikes

[former_member205751]

Hi

requirements spikes is a phenomenon.If a customer places an emergency requirement on 15 th october ,and expecting the delivery to be made on 17th.it comes as bolt out of blue for planners having released production planning for the month of october at the beginning of the month.using PP/DS optimizer (for machine planning ) and SNP optimizer( for monthly planning),now this sudden requirement on 15 th october has to be addressed when already there exists october 15 th planning which is well in place  via SNP and PPDS optimizer.This sudden spurt i personally call it as "requirement spikes" ...now the question boils down to how do i address this requirements spikes in APO ?

My country side planners say we are very happy with spread sheet planing because that addresses our frequent  requirement spikes ,but your APO requires manual intervention to address requirements spikes.-few clicks here and there -and that should deliver a monthly production plan and machine wise production plan.If i need to intervene manually then what is the necessity for computer and technology.? so  there goes there line of reasoning.However they are using APO without issues but this requirement spikes is the pain area for them.I wish experts intervention to soothe my planners.

thanks

[Former Member]

RO,

Without some kind of effort, your users will never get out of denial mode. An organism will not change unless it has a vested interest to do so. So, either you make it painful for the users to continue working with spreadsheets (management dictate to change which works poorly) or you make it desirable to change by providing a superior, easier system.

So, keep working with your users and show them the benefits. There are benefits, aren't there?

Best Regards,

Mike

[former_member205751]

your line of thinking is different but very much acceptable to me ,now that i have sailed through half the ocean - i have set this goal- that is to put some added effort and take my users to the shores .

[sourabh_jain66]

Hi rahul,

I would agree with DB here, to address this kind of requirement, adjustment in your APO design is required.

If this spike is a regular phenomenon then proper use of safety stock functionality should be helpful.

If this is not the regular thing then you need to sit with business guys and understand the impact of these orders on KPIs probably and then decide what you can use to address this kind of requirement.

Rgds

Sourabh

[Former Member]

RO,

My country side planners say we are very happy with spread sheet planing because that addresses our frequent  requirement spikes ,but your APO requires manual intervention to address requirements spikes.-few clicks here and there -and that should deliver a monthly production plan and machine wise production plan.If i need to intervene manually then what is the necessity for computer and technology.?

??? It is not clear to me what your role is in this company.  There are several ways to answer, but the appropriate answer depends upon why YOU are there in the first place, and what is the nature of the project.  It you are IT, you shouldn't be answering this question at all, since it is a business question, and not something IT can or should answer.  If you are, however, a planning director or planning manager or executive, and you DON'T know the proper answer, then maybe you shouldn't be implementing APO at all.

The simple answer is that a computerized system gives you improvements over the manual planning process.  The improvement can take many forms.  One POSSIBLE improvement can be to require less manual intervention by planners to produce a plan.  There are many other justifications to create and implement any formal automated planning system such as APO.  If minimum manual intervention in the context of a volatile sales marketplace is the main business goal, it is an easy matter to design a solution to accomplish this.

There is no computer program (or spreadsheet; or planning genius) that can automatically be all things to all people all the time.  A certain amount of manual intervention is inevitable for every solution; software or otherwise.   If you are in fact a manger of planners, I would suggest that you should avoid the trap of debating with employees (such as planners) about which business goals should be pursued.  Executives are there to set the goals, Managers are there to  implement the strategies to achieve the Executives' goals, and Employees are there to carry out the strategies as detailed and handed down by the managers and supervisors.

Spikes in requirements can be handled in many ways.  Stocking plans are the most obvious solutions, and are commonly used.  Specific allocations of resources devoted to short term requirements are another common solution.  There are others. Each has advantages and disadvantages; each requires varying amounts of planner intervention.  I might add that spreadsheet planning also requires planner intervention.   I couldn't possibly advise you the best method to manage unexpected planning problems, without first understanding the business requirements that caused you to build so much rigidity into your current APO solution.

Best Regards,

DB49 

[former_member205751]

well am deputed as developer and my task is to built an APO system brick by brick and replace manual planning with APO planning over a period of time but was a bit taken aback with one planner comment like .-few clicks here and there -and that should deliver a monthly production plan --  however i have assured them of gradual reduction of manual intervention over a period of time.Guess this answer will work for the moment with them

[Former Member]

RO,

As I mentioned before, it is not (and should not be) the responsibility of IT to determine the business requirements.  The project management on the business side make these decisions, and they then direct IT to create the solution.

Normally, when end users approach me with business-related requirements, and the requirements have not already been documented in the project's Business Blueprint, I refer the end users back to their management.  Their management may in turn dismiss the question as out of scope, or they may add it to the scope of the project, depending upon what they wish to accomplish and how much resource they wish to expend.

In any case, IT usually does not make decisions as to which business requirements will be addressed during the project.  Once IT knows what the requirements are, we either produce an acceptable solution, or we certify the requirement as a gap.  In general, any gap that makes sense can be closed if there is enough project money and project resources and project time available. Normally, developers do not participate in this decision-making process.  In your case, you may be in a 'special' position, where you are in effect a 'quasi-IT manager' for this project, and you might be called upon to provide technical estimates of the resources (such as external consulting resources) that would be required to close any newly discovered gap that cannot easily be closed.

Best Regards,

DB49

[former_member205751]

yup "special position" that's true too many big names have come and gone,yielding little or no results ,so it appears the management has decided to stop calling big IT consulting teams ,instead call an IT guy who can work as an individual,he may not be an expert but a jack of all trades ,master of none.and it appears to them that I fit the bill.it is there way of cost cutting .so with all humility i should say am really special but sometimes it is taxing too. i took a point from your message that is to refer the business requirement to management and not to handle myself as it is not my cup of tea "my job is to run a production plan with minimum manual intervention." if i reiterate this statement over and over again to the users my problem is solved.  it is best i stay away from users until they get rid of denial mode and enter into acceptance mode