Mathias Vanclooster Functional consultant

Hi all,

When using a purchase requisition of the type "Replenishment". The MRP will take these requirements into account in the next MRP run. Once this purchase requisition is picked up, the status "closed" is given to the purchase requisition and no more traceability is possible (other than via 'references'). It would be useful to have another status field to follow up/show the generated (MRP) orders; once these are confirmed a link/status to show that the items have arrived at destined location would be a nice feature for easier follow-up.

Thanks!

Hi all,

From the agreement booking dates, with the Advanced find you could generate WO's in bulk. However since the advanced find is becoming depreciated, this is no option any more. When opening the agreement booking dates, there is no default button available to generate WO's in bulk from the selected agreement booking dates. Strangely enough, when adding the "Status" column (active, processed and canceled), this button does appear and feature works. Could you look into adding this as a default available button? Thanks!

Hi,

When agreement booking dates are being generated, the conversion through the asynchronous MSFT flow doesn't work as stable (one of my customers has after 2 months that 296 booking dates are not transformed to WO's).

This results in the WO's not being generated from the agreement booking dates.

I've taken this up with MSFT and have gotten the feedback that this is a known issue however a small customization might solve it.

Yet, I'm trying to launch this idea to make a scheduled PA to look into the agreement booking dates with the status "Active".

If the agreement booking date is within the "Generate WO days in advance" date (from the booking setup where the agreement booking date belongs to), then the WO generation workflow should be triggered.

Else the flow can be terminated.

Thanks for liking this idea!

Kind regards,

Hi,

At one of our customers, the technicians receive the insufficient inventory warning when consuming a work order product in Field Service.

When looking at the on-hand inventory level in FO however, it is visible that there are sufficient products available for the site, with the specific warehouse. However as seen in the sentence before, location is not mentioned.

The reasoning behind this is that the location inventory concept does not exist at the moment in Field Service.

Which leads to incorrect data coming from FO to CE, being insufficient inventory levels where this is not the case.

At our customer we use the data integrator functionality to once a day export and import this data from FO to CE (however duplicate detection stops the import of the on-hand inventory).

Is it possible to look into this idea and maybe provide feedback should there be another/better way or if this is on the roadmap?

Thanks!

Kind regards,

Mathias

Hi,

When selecting a production order and opening the explosion (by clicking on "View" > "Explosion"), the planned order linked to the explosion can be accessed by clicking on the planned orders (if they haven't been firmed yet).

As the planned order are opened there is the default Microsoft function (on the right side of the screen below the Help & support icon) to open the screen in a new window (as a linked screen) and go one form back or thus go back to the explosion.

It is possible to perform the same action (open in new window) in this explosion form and go back to the list of all production orders. When selecting a different production order, the explosion is updated and at first it seems the list of planned orders is updated as well (since the production order shown on top of the form of the planned orders is corrected) however this is not the case, the planned orders shown in this grid are incorrect (and actually still linked to the first selected production order).

One of my customers operates on a daily basis with this "linked screen" functionality to more efficiently review the planned order requirements of their production orders. Current work around is to perform all steps described in the first section of this post however would be great if this could be fixed by Microsoft.

Thanks!

Kind regards,

Mathias