Comments
Here’s the revised version with your intent reflected:Thank you for the response and for confirming the current position.Given this gap in standard functionality, we have implemented custom batch jobs internally to support the process:- Forecast allocation: bulk allocation of period keys to forecast lines- Date correction: moving forecast lines out of closed periodsThis approach has worked well for us, however other customers may also find value in a standard solution. The current process still relies on manual, line-level updates, which can be challenging to manage at scale.A standard, scalable capability for bulk period key allocation and forecast date correction would reduce manual effort and avoid customers needing to create and maintain custom development for this scenario. I would still see value in Microsoft reconsidering this for Supply Planning in a future release.Thanks.
Thank you for the response. I understand the recommendation to use over/under delivery on the existing order line.The issue I am trying to raise is that, in practical intercompany scenarios, using over/under delivery does not eliminate the creation of additional intercompany supply/sales order lines. The variance can still result in extra system-generated order activity that then needs to be managed separately, which is the operational complexity this idea is intended to avoid.The value of the idea is to allow intercompany over/under variances to be resolved against the original intercompany order relationship, without creating additional intercompany supply orders or related sales order lines for the over/under quantity. This would keep the process cleaner while still supporting controlled over/under handling.If there is a supported configuration or process that prevents those additional intercompany lines from being created, I would be happy to review it. Based on the current behaviour, this remains the gap I am asking Microsoft to consider.