Mennatallah Mohamed Elhalawany (Convergys International Europe B V) support engineer

When a supplementary item is provided free of charge in an intercompany scenario with direct delivery in DEMF, purchase and sales prices are automatically populated. This occurs regardless of the pricing parameters configured on the intercompany accounts.

it would be helpful to fix the issue and not populate the unit price of the supplementary item that is suppose to be free of charges

this impacting the business This behavior disrupts the intended pricing model and can lead to financial discrepancies, affecting the accuracy of cost allocations and profit margins. This impacts the efficiency of the order processing workflow and results in erroneous intercompany invoicing, ultimately affecting intercompany agreements and internal financial reporting. Since there are different items that may contain 2 to 3 supplementary items, the impact it has on all financial & reporting aspects is unneglectable. item is supposed to be provided for free as part of an intercompany transaction between different parts of the business. However, the system is incorrectly charging for this free item on both the purchase order and the sales order, even though it should not have a price. This issue disrupts the normal process, making it appear as though the business is paying for and selling the item when, in fact, it should be free of charge.

The item description of the supplier is not printed on documents where we request the supplier for prices. This process now requires manual interventions. When we create a purchase request for quotation, we link several items and vendors. External item codes have also been set up for these vendors.

When we generate the RFQ journals, the external item code is not filled in on the journal lines and thus also not communicated to the vendor in our documents. After performing an automated process, we still need to align with the suppliers to clarify which items we wish to receive prices for. This leads to people doing the same thing multiple times.

we have an idea that we need to deliver an order in package, the scenario is in order to do this we create a main end product [finished goods] and connected are often 2 sub production parts. We keep them scheduled together using pegged supply.

Scheduling backward from promised delivery date using synchronize works fine. But if we try to re-schedule the sub-production parts earlier to optimize production capacity when there is a capacity space earlier -> scheduling with references synchronized to main-prod order goes wrong for one of sub-prod parts. We need to keep full (sub)prod orders together as it needs to be sent to customer as a whole package.  

so if you re-schedule the jobs from the dispatching resource and set the scheduling date "forward from delivery date", it generates the scheduling job "forward from today", not the expected results.

Re-schedule 2 connected sub-production order parts forward from date earlier than originally planned & synchronize scheduling to main-prod order is causing that first sub-prod order is scheduled forward today instead of entered 'scheduling date'. We need to schedule full order and not only one job to keep operations of sub and main prod order aligned in the factory. There should not be to many gaps in production planning dates because of WIP space/overview problems & production lead times are short.

the problem is impacting the business as Efficiency in scheduling and use of available capacity cannot be improved, and incorrect planned dates create issues in keeping connected parts together. This results in an inability to deliver the full package to the customer on time and causes unwanted work-in-progress (WIP) and space problems in the factory due to misaligned scheduling.

Planners manually attempt to keep the main production order synchronized, requiring extra effort, and reschedule without using reference synchronization settings.