User Group News
04 February 2010
APS SIG 4th Feb 10 A planners day and version 8 improvements
A fun day at Infor's offices in Blyth Valley covering APS 'a day in the life' and enhancements in APS in SL version 8.
See www.sytelineusers.co.uk/docs\sigs\aps_sig_feb_10_agenda_(2).pdf for more details.
Presentations from the event:
Introduction to APS – Trevor Palmer (Infor)
A day in the life of a Renishaw Planner – Darren Chandler (Renishaw)
APS enhancements in version 8 – Trevor Palmer (Infor)
Meeting Notes:
Ideas to develop the SIG:
The concept of an APS SIG is too narrow, it should be expanded to be a Manufacturing SIG (rebranding?). This doesn’t negate the possibility of future SIG meetings focussing on APS.
Suggestions for future Manufacturing SIG meetings:
Shop Floor Data Capture and Shop Floor Transactions
Stock Accuracy (or more generally Stock Control)
Quality
Transfer Orders
APS again!
The idea of an APS Users e-mail should be continued. It should be used if anyone has a question about APS that other members could answer. Sending a standard e-mail message to apsgroup@sytelineusers.co.uk will result in it automatically being forwarded to all members who are on the list.
If anyone has any further suggestions for future meetings, wishes to volunteer to present at a future meeting, or wants to be added to the APS mailing list. Please contact Graham Little, graham.little@renishaw.com
The next SIG meeting will be arranged in about 6 months time, assuming that speakers are forthcoming. While Infor are always willing to put forward their people, SIGs should not just be about Infor presentations, they need input from members as well.
Notes from discussion:
Queue time is an assumption of the waiting time before a job can move onto a resource used by infinite APS. It is not needed (or used) by finite APS which is able to calculate this value for itself.
Forecasts do not automatically net off demand received for higher level items. Mark Whitwam demonstrated that this could be done using the BTA add-on Forecasting module.
Infor don’t have any plans to phase out the Analyser client, however all its functionality is gradually being duplicated in standard SyteLine. This includes more in version 8.01. The Analyser client is not supported under SAS (Software as a service).
It was reported that PLN batch sizes are not being generated consistently even though order minimum, order multiple, and order maximum settings are all correct. Days of supply are set to zero. Version 7 of SyteLine was being used; order maximums are only applied to component supply in version 8.
Order multiples are applied on top of order minimum settings. For example, an order minimum of 60 with an order multiple of 100, gives a batch size pattern of 60, 160, 260, etc. The online help file is apparently quite extensive on this subject.
The revised Infor365 Knowledgebase has not been well received. Infor have noted customer’s dissatisfaction and are planning to enhance it.
It seems that Doc-Trak cannot be linked into QCS. 2 other companies present are using Doc-Trak but not with QCS. Fasview offers a similar alternative solution along with other functionality. Mark Whitwam will ask the suppliers of Doc-Trak about linking their product to QCS.
[Post Meeting Note] Mark has talked to Lake Co (authors of Doc-Trak) and they are willing to quote to change it to link to QCS. I guess this confirms the original statement. If several people were interested in this enhancement, it could to coordinated through the User Group and costs shared.
Why Late?” analysis seems to be the biggest APS issue. Renishaw are helping Infor develop a solution that will become part of standard SyteLine in version 8.03. Input from other companies is invited. Renishaw original requirements
Suggestions on how a Customer Order could be loaded, so as that its value is included in the order book, but not allowing it to disrupt plans (as it is not yet guaranteed) were invited. 4 responses were put forward: (1) Set the order’s due date at the end of the planning horizon, input the real date in the promise date, and mark it as a pull up order. A variation on this is to use a date in the future, e.g. 31/12/2010, that everyone in the company knows is used for uncertain demand. (2) Use a non-planned item number to carry the date and value, which is then changed to the real item when the requirement is firmed up. (3) Enter it is a quotation and amend reports to include the value of these. (4) Use a Blanket Customer Order without a release.
It was suggested that free stock could be used several times over for different Customer Orders by ATP/CTP. This shouldn’t be the case. Trevor suggested that the customer checks their system’s settings.
ATP/CTP cannot be used with MPS orders before they are saved.
Transfer orders don’t work with lots when both sites require unique lot numbers. The use of site-specific prefixes was suggested to avoid clashes when lots are moved between sites.
Problems were reported with using safety stock for manufactured items at multiple levels in a bill of manufacture. Issues include Customer Orders being projected late, unwanted retention of stock, and new demands “parachuting” into existing plans. Safety stock policy has 2 settings; dynamic and post process.
[These notes were generated from the scribblings made at the meeting and the memories of 2 people. If they contain inaccuracies or omissions, I apologise, and will incorporate significant corrections if they are sent to me. Graham Little.]
|
