Yasmine Hesham Hassan Zaki (Convergys International Europe B V)

There is a mismatch between the confirmed receipt date and the system’s current stock receipt date (today), leading to planning inaccuracies.

This discrepancy causes underestimation of available stock, disrupting planning cycles and triggering unnecessary stock orders.

Clients are informed of stock issues while the stock is still with the supplier. They expect the system to reflect that the stock is unusable without canceling the order, which is not currently happening.

When changing the stock status to “quarantine inbound” to indicate unusable stock, which should trigger stock blocking.

We expect that the system should show a negative stock blocking entry on the expected receipt date. Instead, it creates a blocking entry for today, skewing stock reporting.

PG advised that when it comes to inventory status blocking, inventory status dimension should be part of coverage dimensions in order to exclude such transactions from planning. Otherwise, they will appear as 'Inventory journal' transaction in net requirements form. Also, as for the date, the 'Inventory journal' transactions are basically negative "Reserved ordered" transactions with "Inventory blocking" reference which are not order specific but instead grouped by multiple orders and therefore doesn't have any specific date. For these it is assumed that the date is current, just like the on-hand.

However, the use of the inventory status as a coverage dimension would defeat the purpose of it as then we'd be planning for blocked materials and the customer would like visibility of the stock, just with the correct dates to reflect it.

The system isn't allowing the customers to delete Invoiced Sales orders with WMS Work ex. “Unable to delete Work Inventory Transaction, inventory already moved” and other orders involved in other processes like Production orders generated via cross-docking against WMS-enabled SO ex. "Transactions for reference type Production with reference id XXX for item XXX cannot be deleted because the transaction is marked and cross docked against reference type Sales order with reference id XXXX".

The system doesn’t respect the Unit price set on the Original SO in case the Confirmed ship date is modified on the Intercompany SO in Currency exchange rate scenario leading to incorrect invoicing.

Enabling the "Select voyage cost" functionality from Pending vendor invoices in D365 F&O would streamline workflows by allowing users to allocate voyage costs earlier in the process, reducing manual steps and rework. It would enhance cost allocation accuracy, improve invoice matching and validation, and provide more timely financial visibility. This early integration supports better inventory valuation, budgeting, and decision-making, while also aligning more effectively with the Landed Cost module for comprehensive cost tracking.

If a user needs to run the same test twice within a single quality order—such as using different specification limits—the test must be added to the quality order twice. This is allowed as long as each test entry has a unique sequence number. However, the system currently auto-assigns the same sequence number as the first test, which results in a duplicate record error. As a result, users must manually adjust the sequence number to avoid this issue.

As of now, D365 F&O does not support automatic transfer of comments made during the purchase order (PO) workflow to the individual PO lines workflow. This creates a disconnect between high-level approval context and line-level execution details.

Potential Benefits of Implementing This Feature

1. Improved Traceability and Auditability

Transferring comments ensures that approver rationale and instructions are preserved at the line level. This is especially useful when:

Multiple approvers are involved.

Specific line items require justification or special handling.

Auditors or reviewers need to understand the decision-making trail.

2. Enhanced Collaboration Across Teams

Procurement, finance, and operations teams often work on different parts of the PO lifecycle. Line-level visibility into workflow comments would:

Reduce back-and-forth communication.

Clarify expectations for each line item.

Help downstream users (e.g., receiving or invoicing teams) understand context without needing to access the full workflow history.

3. Better Exception Handling

If a PO line is flagged for special treatment (e.g., expedited delivery, vendor negotiation), having the comment visible directly on the line:

Alerts the responsible team immediately.

Reduces the risk of overlooking critical instructions.

Supports faster resolution of issues.

4. Support for Custom Workflows and Automation

For organizations using Power Automate or custom workflow logic, transferring comments could:

Enable automated routing based on comment content.

Trigger conditional logic (e.g., flagging lines with specific keywords).

Improve integration with external systems or reporting tools.

5. Consistency Between Header and Line-Level Decisions

In cases where PO lines are processed or approved separately, having the original workflow comments ensures:

Decisions made at the header level are consistently applied.

Reduces misalignment between what was approved and what is executed.

When the Default values (e.g., Automatic BOM and route consumption) are set in the General section, they are only applied to the active line (the order you are positioned on). The other selected order does not get the updated values in case of “Report as

Finished” and “Start”. If you create a new production order after this, the default values are applied correctly to the new order.

Users expect that the Default values (e.g., automatic BOM and route consumption) should apply to all selected production orders.

The system’s batch processing for “Report as Finished” does not propagate default values (e.g., automatic BOM and route consumption) to all selected production orders. Instead, it only updates the order that is currently active in the UI.

This is likely due to how the UI or underlying logic handles default value application—default values are set per active record, not per batch selection.

This may require a change in the UI logic or backend processing to iterate over all selected records and apply the chosen defaults.

After selecting multiple production orders, manually updating the default values (e.g., automatic BOM and route consumption) for each order before running the batch “Report as Finished", this ensures consistency but is time-consuming.

Benefits of Allowing Direct Registration Without Quarantine

1. Streamlined Receiving Process

Allowing direct registration bypasses the need to route items through a quarantine warehouse, which:

• Reduces the number of steps in the receiving workflow.
• Speeds up inventory availability for downstream processes like picking and shipping.
• Minimizes delays caused by misconfigured quarantine zones or missing associations.

2. Improved Warehouse Space Utilization

• Avoid unnecessary use of quarantine space for items that don’t truly require it.
• Consolidate inventory more efficiently by directly placing items in their final storage locations.

3. Enhanced Flexibility for Quality Management

The current setup enforces strict routing through quarantine zones. Relaxing this:

• Allows for more dynamic quality control strategies, such as inline inspections or post-receipt audits.
• Supports hybrid models where QC is performed at the receiving dock or staging area, as described in 2024 Supply Chain- Warehouse and Inventory management.

4. Reduced Configuration Complexity

Avoids the need to:

• Create and maintain separate quarantine warehouses and zones.
• Configure item model groups and quality associations with quarantine flags. This simplifies setup and reduces the risk of errors like the one you're encountering.

5. Cost Efficiency

By eliminating the need for additional warehouse infrastructure and reducing manual handling:

• Labor costs and operational overhead can be lowered.
• Device licensing can be optimized.

PURPOSE of the needed feature implementation is to:

1. Accurate Production Sequencing

The feature would ensure that SFG operations are completed before FG operations begin, aligning system behavior with real-world manufacturing logic. This is especially critical in industries like paint manufacturing, where bulk production and unpacking are tightly coupled.

2. Improved Resource Utilization

Correct sequencing allows planners to:

• Avoid resource conflicts.
• Minimize idle time.
• Optimize machine and labor usage.

This leads to better throughput and reduces operational costs.

3. Enhanced Planning Visibility

With proper Gantt chart sequencing:

• Planners can visually track dependencies between SFG and FG operations.
• Adjustments become easier and more intuitive.
• The risk of scheduling errors is reduced.

4. Reduced Manual Intervention

Currently, users must manually adjust dispatching sequences and scheduling parameters. Automating this logic would:

• Save time.
• Reduce human error.
• Improve user experience and confidence in the system.

5. Support for Industry-Specific Workflows

Paint manufacturing and similar industries rely on bulk-to-unpack transitions. This feature would:

• Make D365 F&O more adaptable to specialized workflows.
• Increase its value proposition for manufacturing clients.

6. Alignment with Best Practices

The workaround currently recommended involves:

• Dispatching sequence: SFG2 → FG → SFG1.
• Scheduling methods:
• SFG2: Forward from scheduling date.
• FG: Forward from previous job.
• SFG1: Backward from previous job.
• Avoiding “schedule/synchronize references” and “reschedule single job”.

While effective, this workaround is manual and error prone. A built-in feature would eliminate the need for such complexity.

Currently, when a user starts a job and then declares an indirect activity (e.g., attending a meeting), the job is interrupted, and feedback is prompted. Once the indirect activity ends, the original job is no longer immediately accessible or resumable. This forces users to manually search for and restart the job, which introduces delays and inefficiencies.

Implementing the feature would:

• Eliminate manual job tracking, reducing reliance on pen-and-paper workarounds.
• Enable automatic job resumption, allowing users to return to their previous task seamlessly.
• Reduce downtime between activities, improving overall throughput in warehouse operations.
• Businesses could see faster order fulfillment.
• Labor utilization would improve.
• Support costs might decrease due to fewer user errors and escalations.

This consistency would:

• Simplify training for new users.
• Encourage adoption of the new blue screen interface.
• Avoid system waiting states, which currently occur between stopping and restarting jobs.