Comments
Guy,This is just a business process change (the way this is worded). Your two lines that specify old and new code behavior are word for word identical (rightly so). I see your approach as a solution, but no change to Planning Optimization is needed. In addition to your planner following up manually with BOM changes I’d like to see a Plan Group of Superseding limited to only 2 lines since the priority value is confusing and now redundant.However, I’d prefer to see the “Use-up Engineering Change” capability seen in so many other ERP solutions. Here, effectivity dates are used and kept up to date (a change inside Planning Optimization MPS) to the date where MRP projects a transaction driving inventory of the old item in the Planning group negative. This does imply a likelihood of a small residual inventory of the old item, but so does your recommendation – easy to report on. Multi lines (e.g. these 2 new items supersede 3 items on the old BOM) would simply leverage phantom items in the plan group. No change to Planning Optimization and no manual step, A new checkbox column on the old and new BOM lines set to Use-up equals true and a new column declaring the same Use-up group (Plan Group could work, but why not).
Additional clarification: Although voice workstreams can technically be configured to route calls to agents in the Busy state, in our environment we intentionally use Busy to indicate that an agent is already engaged in a live chat, so voice should not route to them in that case.When record-based assignments (like Case or Email) also push agents to Busy, this logic is disrupted, because it falsely marks the agent as busy even when they aren’t handling a live interaction.This makes it difficult to maintain clear presence logic across channels (e.g., Voice should only avoid agents who are busy with chats, not those assigned to backend records).
Hello Team,Customer have been suggesting the below set up: The customer is seeking best practices for configuring access so that different users can access specific features based on their business processes. Below are the details provided:Access Scope: Users should only have access to parts of the IVS functionality, specifically the on-hand inventory query, not the full PowerApp.Compliance Requirements: The customer has rules and dependencies to prevent elevated access for users without the appropriate knowledge or role.Business Impact of Delay: If this setup is delayed, there is a risk of users causing issues in the IVS service by having full access, as well as potential troubleshooting challenges if users cannot access the UI.Could you please advise on the recommended best practices for implementing this setup?Looking forward to your response.Thank you for your support.
Under review sicne 2021 and still it is not possible to reschedule? pick work can be created depending on the matirial requirement date (planned Start Date of the operation), this is may be the reason for this limitation. there must be a way to cancel any open pick work and then release to warehouse again to create a new pick work. depending on parameter this would be done after rescheduling or in Batch mode.