SAPIBP1 - Technical Weeks, Lead Times & SCM Planning Operator

[marc_laberge]

Hi,

So we have just started configuration on a new project by taking a copy of SAPIBP1 for S&OP and Supply Planning only.

In there, all Supply Key figures have a base planning of WK* where WK are the technical weeks. Now, if I read the help correctly, the Lead Times Attributes are supposed to be entered in base planning level periods.

This does not really make sense, a lead time in Technical Weeks is kind of meaningless as from month to month, the number of technical weeks might change.

So, I'm wondering how can lead times work properly in SAPIBP1.

Do I need to change all my base planning to the Calendar Week ?

How would this affect disaggregation / aggregation from Day to Week to Month ?

Thanks,

Marc

[marc_laberge · Accepted solution]

Well, it seems I miss a standard planning operator parameter : PLANNING_TPLEVEL.

This parameter allows you to run the operator at the level you prefer. The lead times are then taken from this level (weeks for example).

[former_member594111 · Accepted solution]

Hi Marc

The planning operator TS-Based Supply Heuristic is not editable , how to make it editable

Thank you

[lingaiahvanam]

Hi Marc,

IBP supply functionality not support this requirement.

Once copy SAPIBP1 planning area to new planning area that means all key figures at base planning level weekly. If you change planning level period from week to technical week, lead time and operators run at technical weeks. There is not option to bring lead time to normal calendar week.

Best Regards,

Lingaiah

[marc_laberge]

Hi Lingaiah,

I don't want to contradict you, be SAPIBP1 is now all defined in Technical weeks, I did not change any planning levels from my copy. This is why I'm asking the question (and I open an OSS message). If a customer buys the RDS right now, the solution is based on SAPIBP1 defined in technical weeks which means an RDS customer cannot use lead times.

I'm wondering what is SAP's comment on this.

I will report back if we get an answer.

Thanks,

Marc