PRODQM_STOCK_ATP and PRODQM_ATP

[Daniel Martínez-4]

What is the difference between these scheduling types?

Thanks,
--
Daniel

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Very quickly:

PRODQM_STOCK_ATP: when ATP quantity goes down the
ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created

PRODQM_STOCK_QOH: when QOH quantity goes down the
ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created

The PRODQM_ATP has a different approach:

when ATP quantity goes down the ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a
requirement is created and associated to the OrderItem that caused the
inventory level to go down the minimum stock; also the other oper
requirements are considered to try to adjust reorder quantity in the
requirement

Frankly speaking, I don't like too much the last one; in my opinion for
more complex/precise requirement strategies the MRP should be used
instead; for very simple oned the RODQM_STOCK_ATP or RODQM_STOCK_QOH
should do their job pretty well.

Jacopo


Daniel Martínez wrote:
> What is the difference between these scheduling types?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Daniel

[Scott Gray]

Hi Jacopo

I have to agree the last one doesn't make any sense to me, do you know why
we've kept it?

Regards
Scott

On 28/06/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Very quickly:
>
> PRODQM_STOCK_ATP: when ATP quantity goes down the
> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>
> PRODQM_STOCK_QOH: when QOH quantity goes down the
> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>
> The PRODQM_ATP has a different approach:
>
> when ATP quantity goes down the ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a
> requirement is created and associated to the OrderItem that caused the
> inventory level to go down the minimum stock; also the other oper
> requirements are considered to try to adjust reorder quantity in the
> requirement
>
> Frankly speaking, I don't like too much the last one; in my opinion for
> more complex/precise requirement strategies the MRP should be used
> instead; for very simple oned the RODQM_STOCK_ATP or RODQM_STOCK_QOH
> should do their job pretty well.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> Daniel Martínez wrote:
> > What is the difference between these scheduling types?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Daniel
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Scott,

I think that all is caused by a different vision Si and I have on this
subject... Si is more oriented on the last approach, I guess.

For some details you can have a look at:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-653

but I'm sure there is another Jira issue around.

Jacopo


Scott Gray wrote:

> Hi Jacopo
>
> I have to agree the last one doesn't make any sense to me, do you know why
> we've kept it?
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 28/06/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Very quickly:
>>
>> PRODQM_STOCK_ATP: when ATP quantity goes down the
>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>>
>> PRODQM_STOCK_QOH: when QOH quantity goes down the
>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>>
>> The PRODQM_ATP has a different approach:
>>
>> when ATP quantity goes down the ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a
>> requirement is created and associated to the OrderItem that caused the
>> inventory level to go down the minimum stock; also the other oper
>> requirements are considered to try to adjust reorder quantity in the
>> requirement
>>
>> Frankly speaking, I don't like too much the last one; in my opinion for
>> more complex/precise requirement strategies the MRP should be used
>> instead; for very simple oned the RODQM_STOCK_ATP or RODQM_STOCK_QOH
>> should do their job pretty well.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> Daniel Martínez wrote:
>> > What is the difference between these scheduling types?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --
>> > Daniel
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato]

I think that the last comment on that issue (by Si Chen) perfectly
summarize our different vision on this subject:

Si: "Jacopo, I just noticed I recommended the opposite of what you
mentioned! The reason is because PRODRQM_STOCK_ATP only creates
requirements the first time a product's ATP falls below minimum stock,
which seems to cause many products not to have requirements created."

In my opinion, this is correct behaviour: one requirement is created
only when the minimum level is reached, not after.
In Si's vision (if I am not wrong, Si, please, correct me if I'm not
reporting your thoughts correctly), we should adjust the requirement if
new orders are created after it.
In my opinion this is not necessary because, in this simple strategy,
the ProductFacility.minimumStock must be set with a safe guard that will
allow to fulfill orders coming after the level is reached and before the
new purchase order is shipped.

That's all,

Jacopo

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Scott,
>
> I think that all is caused by a different vision Si and I have on this
> subject... Si is more oriented on the last approach, I guess.
>
> For some details you can have a look at:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-653
>
> but I'm sure there is another Jira issue around.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Hi Jacopo
>>
>> I have to agree the last one doesn't make any sense to me, do you know
>> why
>> we've kept it?
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 28/06/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Very quickly:
>>>
>>> PRODQM_STOCK_ATP: when ATP quantity goes down the
>>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>>>
>>> PRODQM_STOCK_QOH: when QOH quantity goes down the
>>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>>>
>>> The PRODQM_ATP has a different approach:
>>>
>>> when ATP quantity goes down the ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a
>>> requirement is created and associated to the OrderItem that caused the
>>> inventory level to go down the minimum stock; also the other oper
>>> requirements are considered to try to adjust reorder quantity in the
>>> requirement
>>>
>>> Frankly speaking, I don't like too much the last one; in my opinion for
>>> more complex/precise requirement strategies the MRP should be used
>>> instead; for very simple oned the RODQM_STOCK_ATP or RODQM_STOCK_QOH
>>> should do their job pretty well.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel Martínez wrote:
>>> > What is the difference between these scheduling types?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > --
>>> > Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>

[Scott Gray]

Thanks for the info Jacopo,

My personal preference would be if ATP + requirements goes below minimum
then create another requirement

Regards
Scott

On 28/06/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think that the last comment on that issue (by Si Chen) perfectly
> summarize our different vision on this subject:
>
> Si: "Jacopo, I just noticed I recommended the opposite of what you
> mentioned! The reason is because PRODRQM_STOCK_ATP only creates
> requirements the first time a product's ATP falls below minimum stock,
> which seems to cause many products not to have requirements created."
>
> In my opinion, this is correct behaviour: one requirement is created
> only when the minimum level is reached, not after.
> In Si's vision (if I am not wrong, Si, please, correct me if I'm not
> reporting your thoughts correctly), we should adjust the requirement if
> new orders are created after it.
> In my opinion this is not necessary because, in this simple strategy,
> the ProductFacility.minimumStock must be set with a safe guard that will
> allow to fulfill orders coming after the level is reached and before the
> new purchase order is shipped.
>
> That's all,
>
> Jacopo
>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > I think that all is caused by a different vision Si and I have on this
> > subject... Si is more oriented on the last approach, I guess.
> >
> > For some details you can have a look at:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-653
> >
> > but I'm sure there is another Jira issue around.
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> >
> > Scott Gray wrote:
> >> Hi Jacopo
> >>
> >> I have to agree the last one doesn't make any sense to me, do you know
> >> why
> >> we've kept it?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 28/06/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Very quickly:
> >>>
> >>> PRODQM_STOCK_ATP: when ATP quantity goes down the
> >>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
> >>>
> >>> PRODQM_STOCK_QOH: when QOH quantity goes down the
> >>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
> >>>
> >>> The PRODQM_ATP has a different approach:
> >>>
> >>> when ATP quantity goes down the ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a
> >>> requirement is created and associated to the OrderItem that caused the
> >>> inventory level to go down the minimum stock; also the other oper
> >>> requirements are considered to try to adjust reorder quantity in the
> >>> requirement
> >>>
> >>> Frankly speaking, I don't like too much the last one; in my opinion
> for
> >>> more complex/precise requirement strategies the MRP should be used
> >>> instead; for very simple oned the RODQM_STOCK_ATP or RODQM_STOCK_QOH
> >>> should do their job pretty well.
> >>>
> >>> Jacopo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Daniel Martínez wrote:
> >>> > What is the difference between these scheduling types?
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > --
> >>> > Daniel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

[Daniel Martínez-4]

Thanks Scott, Jacopo.

I agree with Scott and Si. Be it with these secas or with the MRP, a
requirement should be created when ATP + requirements goes below minimum
stock.


Scott Gray escribió:

> Thanks for the info Jacopo,
>
> My personal preference would be if ATP + requirements goes below minimum
> then create another requirement
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 28/06/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I think that the last comment on that issue (by Si Chen) perfectly
>> summarize our different vision on this subject:
>>
>> Si: "Jacopo, I just noticed I recommended the opposite of what you
>> mentioned! The reason is because PRODRQM_STOCK_ATP only creates
>> requirements the first time a product's ATP falls below minimum stock,
>> which seems to cause many products not to have requirements created."
>>
>> In my opinion, this is correct behaviour: one requirement is created
>> only when the minimum level is reached, not after.
>> In Si's vision (if I am not wrong, Si, please, correct me if I'm not
>> reporting your thoughts correctly), we should adjust the requirement if
>> new orders are created after it.
>> In my opinion this is not necessary because, in this simple strategy,
>> the ProductFacility.minimumStock must be set with a safe guard that will
>> allow to fulfill orders coming after the level is reached and before the
>> new purchase order is shipped.
>>
>> That's all,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> > Scott,
>> >
>> > I think that all is caused by a different vision Si and I have on this
>> > subject... Si is more oriented on the last approach, I guess.
>> >
>> > For some details you can have a look at:
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-653
>> >
>> > but I'm sure there is another Jira issue around.
>> >
>> > Jacopo
>> >
>> >
>> > Scott Gray wrote:
>> >> Hi Jacopo
>> >>
>> >> I have to agree the last one doesn't make any sense to me, do you
>> know
>> >> why
>> >> we've kept it?
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Scott
>> >>
>> >> On 28/06/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Very quickly:
>> >>>
>> >>> PRODQM_STOCK_ATP: when ATP quantity goes down the
>> >>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>> >>>
>> >>> PRODQM_STOCK_QOH: when QOH quantity goes down the
>> >>> ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a requirement is created
>> >>>
>> >>> The PRODQM_ATP has a different approach:
>> >>>
>> >>> when ATP quantity goes down the ProductFacility.minimumStock --> a
>> >>> requirement is created and associated to the OrderItem that
>> caused the
>> >>> inventory level to go down the minimum stock; also the other oper
>> >>> requirements are considered to try to adjust reorder quantity in the
>> >>> requirement
>> >>>
>> >>> Frankly speaking, I don't like too much the last one; in my opinion
>> for
>> >>> more complex/precise requirement strategies the MRP should be used
>> >>> instead; for very simple oned the RODQM_STOCK_ATP or RODQM_STOCK_QOH
>> >>> should do their job pretty well.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jacopo
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Daniel Martínez wrote:
>> >>> > What is the difference between these scheduling types?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Thanks,
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Daniel
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>