Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management

The tracking number groups have been the same options for years and most customers that require batch/serial numbers to include other options like, item number, product code, or just a custom code. If we could select other fields and order of said fields to use for batch/serial number creation would be helpful to avoid customizations at almost every customer.

Example:

• Customer A
• Item number then Sequence Number
• 11129A-0001
• Customer B
• Item number then Reference Number then Sequence Number
• 87462-PRD0001-0001
• Customer C
• Custom code - Sequence Number
• 943-0001

when using the PACK INVENTORY INTO CONTAINER , we would like to have the Ability to hide the "Remaining Quantity to Pack" on the RF Device in order to change this to a blind pack. this would help us to ensure that quality is being done.

Currently, SSRS reports on out platform fails to handle a large number of records. When the number comes to millions, the reports will take extremely long time to proceed the reports. And, in many cases, the report will fail.

One example can be mentioned is Inventory settlement adjustment report. More details can be found at: LCS > Issue 979603. The report data provider class loops through all the found records and insert them all into temporary table for the printout. Yet, when the number of loops becomes too big, this will not work.

Hence, I would like to suggest an idea of performance improvements for SSRS reports in general.

In the location directive, you can configure the strategy "Location aging FIFO" for picking. The system checks the aging date of the location. However, the aging date is updated whenever you move a license plate into a location. The disadvantage is that if you add multiple license plates with different items to a location, the aging date gets updated each time a license plate is added. Let me explain with the following example:

• Item X001 is in location A001 with LP001 dated 1-05-XXXX.
• Item Y002 is in location A001 with LP002 dated 1-10-XXXX.
• Item X001 is in location A002 with LP003 dated 1-07-XXXX.
• Item Y003 is in location A002 with LP004 dated 1-09-XXXX.

In the above scenario, the aging date of location A001 is 1-10-XXXX, and the aging date of location A002 is 1-09-XXXX. If you release a sales order or transfer order for item X001 for picking, Dynamics will propose picking from location A002 because its aging date is older than that of location A001, even though the license plate of item X001 in location A001 is older than that in location A002.

It would be very helpful to have an additional location directive strategy that checks the aging of the license plate in combination with the item, rather than just the aging date of the location.

At our customer we create the internal and external documents by means of the electronic reporting workspace.

As we have the requirement to print GS1-bar codes on the documents we tried setting this up.

However, we noticed that only a limit amount of barcode rendering formats are available of which GS1 formats are not one of them.

We think at least the supported GS1 bar codes provided by the Microsoft documentation should be available in electronic reporting.

And as GS1 format is becoming more the industry standard multiple customers might benefit from this.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/supply-chain/warehousing/gs1-barcodes

For the customer, it is basic functionality to be able to delete old/irrelevant records in the system, however, deleting and old/irrelevant engineering BOM version in local company, when using ECM, seems to be impossible.

Customer aware of this old bug [674851] but having a design leading to impossible scenarios with data inconsistency is not optimal.

If you remove approval and try to remove the old BOM in USMF, this is impossible.

Deleting in USMF does not work since it is not the engineering company and deleting in DEMF and releasing does not do anything to the old BOM, since it only releases the active version of the BOM.

The expectation is that either release from local company includes deletion of the BOMs deleted in engineering company, or deletion of the BOMs in engineering company also deletes it from the local company (since engineering is normally supposed to be the master for BOMs when ECM is used) or, simplest, there is a way to manually delete a BOM in local company. When saying BOM, it means BOM version and BOM.

• When creating non conformances from a batch the site will not fill automatically

• We expect when we create a non conformance from a batch the the site will automatically be filled with the correct info

• When created directly from the non conformance form it is working as expected.

i logged an issue (330108) at LCS and colleagues informed me to introduce this as new idea.

issue is, that the customer uses the rebate management-feature and as well projects, respectively have project-invoices.

unfortunately, the rebate-management-module is not supporting project invoices, whilst"normal" sales orders are reflected correctly.

I herewith strongly suggest to include them in the feature, at least by setting a boolean to define if to "include project invoices" or not, as soon as the source-type of the rebate deal is set to "invoice"

thank you,

Andreas

The issue is that when we go to the Inventory transaction and saves a new view that filters the transaction records by reference and select it as the default view (pined), the saved view doesn’t return the desired filter on the first try. You can then choose an other filter, go back to the pined one and now you have the desired result

Wish is to get the desired result in first execution.

Business Need:

A customer of our company utilises product configurations to differentiate characteristics of our products, with each configuration being sold in different regions. Each region has its own regulatory requirements, which necessitate different shelf life periods for the same product based on country legislation. Currently, Microsoft Dynamics lacks the capability to manage shelf life periods at the released product variant level, which poses a significant challenge for compliance with varying regional regulations.

Proposed Solution:

We propose the implementation of a feature that allows for the management of shelf life periods within the released product variant master data. This enhancement would enable businesses to efficiently comply with diverse regional regulations without resorting to costly customisations.

Business Impact:

The absence of this feature represents a substantial gap in our operations and could potentially lead to brand damage if end customers perceive that Microsoft Dynamics lacks essential features for regulatory compliance. Implementing this feature would not only streamline operations but also enhance the appeal of Microsoft Dynamics as a comprehensive ERP solution for businesses with complex regulatory needs.

Conclusion:

We believe that prioritising this feature in future updates will significantly benefit businesses and strengthen Microsoft Dynamics' position in the market. We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to seeing this enhancement in future releases.