Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management

User is using PFE and is trying to start multiple jobs parallel to each other at the same time. However, he receives the following

error message: "You are currently registered on other job(s). You need to report feedback on these before commencing on new jobs."

Like the new feature of (List view for reporting job progress from the production floor execution interface), it would be great to add the same option to the report scrap form.

Related to the tickets: 861974, 953576

Planning optimization does not support 'Dimension-based configuration'.

MS support replied, that it is a known problem, but currently, it is not clear when Microsoft will solve it. This issue has low priority.

Currently Planning Optimization ignores such setup as ‘Configuration group’ for BOM\Formula lines. As a result, it generates the planned production order with all the components from BOM\Formula lines in 'Derived requirements' regardless of what Configuration of the finished goods was planned for production. However, deprecated MRP covers such cases.

Without it customers have to increase efforts to manage their BOM data: generate separate BOM for each item configuration.

Example of case:

Item FG001 has 3 configurations: default, config1 and config2.

FG001 has 1 BOM to cover all the configurations:

Mat 1 - common material and used in all configurations.

Mat 2 - common material and used in all configurations

Mat 3 - used only for config1 + default

Mat 4 - used only for config2 + default

When deprecated MRP is running it generates planned production orders with the next info in Derived requirements:

FG001 default configuration: Mat 1, Mat 2, Mat 3, Mat 4

FG001 config1: Mat 1, Mat 2, Mat 3.

FG001 config2: Mat 1, Mat 2, Mat 4

Planning Optimization generates planned production orders where Derived requirements are the same for all FG001 configurations.

It would be very nice to return this functionality in Planning Optimization.

Microsoft insists on using Planning Optimization as an improved high-performed MRP engine, and at the same time deprecated MRP engine is not supported.

Currently, it is strange, that we have to propose customers use functionality, which does not work correctly in comparison with deprecated functionality.

It is not possible to run the Explosion feature in combination with Planning Optimization. This is a challenge in the case of a multilevel bill of materials. It would be really nice if this Explosion feature could be added to Planning Optimization, especially for scenarios with multilevel bills of materials.

Currently in the form: Adjust material in the MES user indicates the qty of material being used. However, the user can only adjust components included in the BOM/Formula.

This idea is to allow the user to add additional components for the production order, the same way is done in the the picking list journal.

When using the old masterplanning safetystock is shown as demand in the pegging of planned orders. When using planning optimization it is not visible anymore in the pegging/ net requirements why a planned proposal is created when it is based on a safetystock requirement.

A support ticket was raised but it was parked as 'as designed'

With reference to Lcs Issue927117:

When a vendor account is set on hold for ‘Purchase order’ and an existing purchase order is modified to add an extra line, no re-validation is performed, and confirmation is made, which is not expected.

As a daily process, purchase orders are amended regardless of the status. New lines will be added by users, who may not be aware that vendor account is on hold for any valid reason.

Introducing a change which will prevent the addition of lines while the vendor is placed on hold for ‘Purchase orders’, would greatly help avoiding any monetary implications which arise as well as any other undesired, directly triggered situation.

Hi!

I can imagine Im not the first to suggest a stadard function to post the product reciept from the Warehouse Management App. Is this something you think could be added to the roadmap?

Thanks,

Regards,

Johan Grankvist

Accigo

Not sure if I must report a cosmetic bug for it, but out of the box the location is not shown upon (raw) material picking work.

This can be resolved by:

• Location confirmation must be turned on
• Field priority to be changed to show the field earlier in the form.
• Moving the image to the header or do not show image.

Changing text size 100% on a mobile device TC53 Zebra.

Our scenario is that workers read the location and go to it, there they scan the LP as confirmation for the correct item. So no confirmation on location is required, as it is an additional unnecessarily step.

By allowing a little bit less space between the texts, all information would fit. Or making the default photo a bit smaller. The spacing between the lines stays identically.

#v4a 131 bug, cosmetic Location is not shown by default to the user if not location confirmed and no field priority is set

Today if we setup a location stocking limit with *consolidate* location directive strategy, the system consolidates and ignores the location stocking limit.

It should try to consolidate within the limit defined, then suggest another location when the limit is reached.