0

Projected stock vs Carry over negative projected inventory.

Jan 18 at 02:20 PM

180

Hi experts,

We are using the supply heuristic at our project in week mode. Moreover, we have set the CARRY_OVER_NEGATIVE_PROJECTEDINVENTORY parameter of the SCM operator to 'YES', so our negative stocks are transferred to the Net demand of the next period. We now see the following results:

So we see that the negative projected stock -41 is taken into account in the Net Demand of the next period (41 - (-41) = 81, due to roundings). This triggers a transportation receipt of 85. The result is a projected stock at the end of the second period of 44. This is because of standard setup of the Projected Stock, which is calculated as

PS(t) = MAX { PS(t-1); 0 } + Receipts(t) – Supply(t)

So basically, the negative projected stock is taken into account in our net demand, but not in the projected stock, which gives an incorrect view. Now it seems that 44 is the projected stock at the end of the period, but this is not the case, as is also clear when you look at period 3 (dependent demand of 1029 results in net demand of 1026, difference being the quantity of 3 which is the real projected stock (85 - 41 - 41)).

If we would remove the CARRY_OVER_NEGATIVE_PROJECTEDINVENTORY parameter, the result would be:

This is more correct from a projected stock point of view, but now we have not taken our negative stock into account. This would result in lost sales, which is worse than late delivery. Also not the ideal situation.

Is there any way to get to the following result (which would be a correct and realistic result):

You see that this is a combination of the first and second situation. Here, the Net demand is the dependent demand of the second period + the negative stock that was carried over. Both are covered by the transportation receipts. This results in a 'leftover' or projected stock of 85 - 81 = 4. This is than used in the next periods.

Is there any way to achieve this?

Best regards

Kristof

Matheus Korndoerfer
Jan 19 at 12:48 PM
0

Hello Kristof,

Please provide screenshots with same planning view, but with 3 additional Key Figures: INVENTORYTARGET, TOTALRECEIPTS and SUPPLY.

Best regards,
Matheus

Show 6 Share

Hi Matheus,

The situation has a bit changed by now, but the issue is still there. This is how it looks when I add those three key figures:

So you see a negative projected stock in CW04. This one is used to increase the Net demand (1026 + 41 = 1067). However, Projected stock in CW05 is 44, so 1070 (Transport Receipts, or just 'Receipts') - 1026 (Dependent Demand or 'Supply'). This makes it seem as if there is 44 left by the end of CW05, but in fact this should have been consumed by the projected stock of CW04.

In fact, we believe that when setting the parameter CARRY_OVER_NEGATIVE_PROJECTEDINVENTORY, the end result should be:

Here, the projected stock shows the real stock after covering the 'late delivery' of 41 units of CW04. In the first screenshot, the stock seems to be 44 (CW05), but in fact it is only 3 (see difference between dependent and net demand in CW06 = 3).

Is there a way to get this correct Stock figure?

Best regards

Kristof

Hi Kristof,

Regards,
Matheus

Matheus Korndoerfer

Hi Matheus,

Can you check again?

Thanks,

Kristof

Hi Kristof,

Thank you for the correction! I can see the images now.

Your expectation is correct! If you also check the SAP Help Portal Parameters for Controlling Algorithm Functions, section CARRY_OVER_NEGATIVE_PROJECTEDINVENTORY, the example mentioned is exactly the same as your expected scenario.

Please create an incident under component SCM-IBP-SUP-ALG requesting to assign it to me and mention this thread in the incident.

Warm regards,
Matheus

Former Member

Hello Matheus,

did Kristof create an incident as suggested by you?

Regards,

Niko

Former Member

Hello Nikolaos,

The issue was not reproducible at the end, so we couldn't identify the root cause.

If you are facing a similar issue, please also create an incident under component SCM-IBP-SUP-ALG requesting to assign it to me and mention this thread in the incident.

Best regards,
Matheus