apo ctp

8/11/2019 APO CTP

1/4

SAPtips 2003 Klee Associates, Inc.

Page22

Editor's Note: APO ships withso much functionality, it'salmost scary. Fortunately, APO

Editor Dan Sulzinger has beento the mountaintop. Fresh fromhis most recent investigationsinto APO 3.0 and the latest-and-

greatest version (3.1), Dan ishere to tell us about the rich pos-sibilities available to SAP usersin the GATP Advanced Methodsarea. Dan's last two articles

focused mostly on Basic ATPMethods, but in this new piece(the first in a series), Dan guidesus into more advanced areas.

Dan kicks off the series with anoverview of the key terms and

prerequisites for using any of theAdvanced Methods. Then hehones in on two of these methods,

Multi-Level Checking andCapable to Promise. By con-

trasting the two methods, Dandebunks common misconcep-tions about each, and providesus with valuable APO-relatedtips along the way.

In my previous articles, I dis-cussed ATP and Global ATP; inthose articles, I walked readersthrough the ATP Basic Methods.In this next series of articles, I willstart digging into some of themost exciting tools within APO:

the APO Global ATP AdvancedMethods! The capabilities dis-cussed in this article are some ofthe most advanced ATP capabili-ties, which deliver on the promiseSAP offered some six years ago.The capabilities found inAdvanced Checking techniques,such as Rules-Based ATP, Multi-Level Checking, and Capable toPromise, are not, and I mean not,warmed over, old school planning

techniques! With GATP AdvancedMethods, we finally have the toolsto truly promiseand know thatour promise to deliver won't be

broken. Finally, we are able todrive our supply chain, as opposedto our supply chain driving us.

This kind of talk might seemboastful now, but after we com-plete this article series onAdvanced Checking capabilities, itwill become apparent that SAP'soffering delivers as advertised.After finishing these articles, manyreaders will want to run out andget themselves some GATP. But we

all know that we dont just "go getsome GATP." I have repeatedlynoted that APO is not a plug-and-play tool, and Advanced Checkingrequires all of the hard work anddedication that has been discussedin earlier editions of SAPtips. So,let's build on these efforts and takeon the challenge of implementinga fully integrated ATP solution.Each company will focus on differ-ent APO components in this

endeavor, according to the uniqrequirements of your business anindustry.

Just how powerful are tAdvanced Methods? Consider tpotential of Rules-Based ATP, mpersonal favorite. With RuleBased ATP, I build the "Rules Engagement" for the way I wato operate my business. In tevent a shortage is detected, I cinstruct SAP to check an alternalocation for the product; if it is navailable in the secondary loction, SAP checks for alternaproduct in the primary locatioShould this step not resolve tshort, it goes to the next locati(which has been defined previouly) and checks for an alternaproduct. If, after all of this, tshortage is not resolved, then pr

duction of the primary producttriggered. This is all dobecause I defined the relationshbetween customer, product, loction, cost, and criteria that allome to better serve my customerRules-Based ATP is an iteratiprocess, meaning it will continto search for a solution based the criteria that I define. It is crical to note that GATP follows oinstructionsit does not invenumbers, nor is it psych

Finally, with Rules-Based GATthe reaction will be consistentpredictable, based on the tacticstrategies and best practices thawant my company to folloNow that you understand mposition on the merits of RuleBased ATP, it is incumbent upme to provide a "fair and baanced" assessment of the othAdvanced Methods that APdelivers.J

une2003Vol

umeIIssue3

www.S

APtips.com

SAPtips

SAPtips

Available to Promise What APO

Delivers Part Three:Contrasting Multi-Level Checking and Capable to Promise (CTP)

By Dan Sulzinger, e-Consulting Group, I

With Rules-Based ATP,

I build the "Rules of

Engagement" for the

way I want to operate

my business.

8/11/2019 APO CTP

2/4


Page23

The following ATP Methods areconsidered "Advanced Methods":

Combination of BasicMethods

Rules-Based ATP

Capable-To-Promise (CTP)

Multi-Level Checking

Simulation and Explanation

Going through all of thesemethods in a meaningful way willrequire more than one article. Inthis edition of SAPtips, we'll startby reviewing the prerequisites youmust understand before utilizingany of the Advanced Methods.Then we'll shed some light on twoof the Advanced Methods,Capable-To-Promise and Multi-Level Checking, by contrastingone against the other.

Prerequisites:Requirements for Usingthe Advanced Methods

Understanding this discussionrequires a knowledge of the nutsand bolts for using the AdvancedMethods. These prerequisites arethe building blocks necessary forintegration, reaction, and presen-tation of the solution during anyATP request processing. In orderto take advantage of theAdvanced Methods, we need toknow how the following elements

are going to be populated andfrom where they are sourced:

Business Event: is loaded atruntime from the R/3 System withthe value of the checking rule.

ATP Group: is loaded in thelocation-specific product master,if you transferred customizations.Simply put, ATP Group is theaccumulation groupings that

define how to react to shortfallquantity. Remember: ATP groupis always assumed from the prod-

uct master at runtime; this is a"gotcha!" (You need to activatethe accumulation of confirmedquantities.)

Check Mode: When you trans-fer ATP Customizing during theinitial supply, the check mode isfilled with values from R/3.Check Mode is the combination ofassignment mode and productiontype. If it was not transferredfrom R/3, it is taken from theproduct master.

Check Mode TIP 1: For APO-specific products, you must fill theCheck Mode in the location-spe-cific product master. The require-ments class can only be adoptedfrom SD. So, no other R/3 mod-ule can transfer requirementsclasses. Without SD, the CheckMode is read from the APO prod-uct master. This is also the case

for Rules-Based ATP with prod-uct substitutions, which is alsoread from the product master forthe subsequent substitutions.

Check Mode TIP 2: As a rumake sure the Check Mode filled in the APO product mast

to elevate the potential for resuthat were not what you expecte

Check Mode TIP 3: I recommend that the functional stasupporting APO and GATunderstand the R/3 plug-inDepending on the version of Rand APO you are using, the pluins vary and the impact is vedifferent. The APDocumentation CDs outline thinformation in a very usabmatrix in the technical integratisection under GATP.

Check Instructions: Determinwhat we want to do if and whenshortage is detected. CheInstructions belong to APO and atherefore always maintained APO. The Check Instructions ain reality, our "Rules Engagement." Check Instructiodetermine which Basic Methods a

processed and in which order: chewith neutral results, time of prodution, or rules-based checks.

Check Control: CheControl is used to determine tchecking for sub-locations anthe checking for versions. CheControl determines whether wuse checking horizons, whethwe check for deltas, whether wconsider past receipts, anwhether we use check horiz

for goods receipt.

Categories: There are also noSAP categories to consider, such the Map R/3 MRP element. TiRemember APO categories aconsidered non-SAP categories!

Scope of Check: Is alwaassigned a check control andcollection of SAP categories annon-SAP categories.J

une2003Vol

umeIIssue3

www.S

APti

ps.com

SAPtips

SAPtips

For APO-specific

products, you must

fill the Check Mode in

the location-specific

product master.

8/11/2019 APO CTP

3/4


Page24

Characteristics-DependentPlanning (CDP): CDP employscharacteristics for planning in the

enhancement industry (i.e., paper,oil processing, metal fabricationindustry) and of course the semi-conductor industry. One notewor-thy feature of these industries'production is that many products(co-products) come from a singleproduct process.

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - B a s e dForecasting (CBF): CBF carriesout the planning in the SAP APOcomponent Demand Planning. Thevast majority of the demand plan-ning functions for forecastingfuture requirements are availablehere. In SAP, these singular config-urable definitions (i.e., size, color,engine, upholstery) are defined ascharacteristics. The characteristicvalues are like size: exampleswould be small, medium, andlarge; likewise, color would bemagenta, white, gold, etc.

Now that we've covered the pre-requisites to using the AdvancedMethods, let's hone in on the twoAdvanced Methods we're lookingat this time around: Multi-LevelATP Check and CTP.

Juxtaposing Multi-Level ATPCheck (MATP) and Capable-To-Promise (CTP) In order todiscuss Multi-Level ATP Checkand Capable to Promise, it is nec-essary to juxtapose how they oper-

ate and illustrate comparable func-tions and limitations. Some peopletry to explain the differences bysaying that CTP is time-dimension-al, and therefore time-specific, andthat MATP offers better perform-ance. But this is a bit simplistic. Inreality, it all depends on the busi-ness objectives for the types ofproducts handled by the company,and other variables. In Table 1, I'veoutlined the major differencesJ

une2003Vol

umeIIssue3

www.S

APti

ps.com

SAPtips

SAPtips

Table 1: Contrasting Multi-Level Checking with Capable-to-Promise

Multi-Level ATP Check CTPAvailability Check Execution

1. A product availability check, or a checkagainst the forecast, can be carried out at thecomponent level.

TIP: Scope of check, checking horizons, andshortage checks are used.

Note: This difference between MATP and CTPis considerable, and if you are using CDP(Characteristics-Dependent Planning), thensome capabilities are limited.

TIP: Rules-based ATP check can and should beused with MATP.

2. MATP does not support characteristics-dependent planning (CDP).

The rationale is that CDP works with charac-teristic value assignments on the receipt andrequirement elements of individual orders.These do not exist in the ATP time series inLiveCache.

3. Due to the internal structure of the ATPcheck, the ATP check is not as time-specific asCTP.

Note: MATP does not work to the exact secondas CTP does.

4. ATP tree structures are not taken intoaccount in planning. Therefore, no orders existat the time of the check. A dependent require-ment of a component is only visible when the

ATP tree structure has been converted to aPP/DS order. When a very large schedulinghorizon is defined, PP/DS orders are createdimmediately for each Multilevel ATP check.The dependent requirements are then imme-diately covered.

5. The dates are determined by simple lead-time scheduling.Lead-time scheduling uses the followingproperties: Is based solely on the production calendar

of the location and is location-dependent.Do not overlook this!

Does not consider resource schedules. Does not consider lot size. The lot-for-lot

order quantity is always used. No association to bucket limits. No blocks are considered.

1. An availability check, which should not becompared with the ATP check, is carried out acomponent level using the pegging functionaity. In the pegging structure, all receipts andrequirements categories are handled the sam

way.

Tip: No division is made using ATP categorie

TIP: Scopes of check, checking horizon, andshortage check inclusions are not supported.

Tip: CTP does not support Rules-Based ATPchecking.

2. Characteristics-dependent planning (CDP)can be fully realized with CTP.

3. CTP works to the exact second. Precisetime-specific functionality is not available foMATP.

4. PP/DS orders will always appear instantaneously in CTP. Whether or not the plannedorders are temporary, they are order objectson which resources can be utilized directly.

Requirement Dates for the Components Determination

Check Result in Planning Considerations

8/11/2019 APO CTP

4/4


Page25

June2003Vol

umeIIssue3

www.S

APti

ps.com

SAPtips

SAPtips

between MATP and CTP, andpointed out some critical tips fordeploying either MATP or CTP.Note: the functionality compared in

Table 1 is based on the APO ver-sion 3.0 release. Additionally, sev-eral references are made to release3.1A, which I have been reviewingand testing.

ConclusionFor years, I preached that ATP

could provide such significant ben-efits that most companies could notaccurately calculate them. This wasbecause ATP was the top of thefood chain and out of reach of mostcompanies. But this comparison ofthe powerful capabilities of Multi-Level Checking and Capable toPromise has shown us that for SAPAPO users, the "true ATP" aspira-tion has the potential to becomereality. Nevertheless, we still have alot of questions to answer and a lotof APO functionality to cover. Welook forward to continuing this dis-cussion of Advanced Checking inthe next edition of SAPtips, and we

look forward to reader input on thekey areas you would like us toaddress.

Daniel P. Sulzinger,Senior SAPConsultant, eConsulting Group,

Inc. For the last sixteen years,Dan has consulted and trainedclients deploying packaged sup-ply chain solutions. He has ledmany multinational companiesthrough the process of assessing,defining, and deploying manufac-

turing and supply chain solutions.For the last five years, Dan hasfocused on SAP's AdvancedPlanner and Optimizer (APO)and Business Intelligence (BW)products. Dan has delivered SAPeducation and training for APO,BW, and R/3 modules, and he is afrequent speaker at Supply Chainand Logistic events international-ly. Dan's email address [email protected].

Multi-Level ATP Check CTP

Check Results Comparison

6. The results overview offers a built-in dis-play of the check results for sales order itemand all components checked.

Missing parts list displays the componentsand characteristic values there that have ledto a delay or reduction in confirmation.

7. Product availability check at componentlevel promises a better performance becausethis check uses time series.

Note: For users of the R/3 ATP Server, theaggregates in the time series are comparable

to the Time Axis stores in buffered memory.

8. A "daily production rate" can be mapped byproduct allocation(s), and the check is execut-ed against the allocation(s). This check onlyconsiders exact days.

9. No lot-size calculation is carried out byATP.

Tips: The lot-for-lot order quantity is used.

6. You check the results of the CTP process inthe PP planning log.

7. Orders are planned in their entirety, whichis a major performance consideration.

TIP: If your company has configurable producand is using CDP, then this limitation is nor-mally considered necessary for your business.

8. The planned orders are scheduled finitely tthe resources immediately. This is a config-urable option.

9. CTP always uses lot-size calculation.

Finite Scheduling on Resources

Performance

Lot Sizes

Table 1: Contrasting Multi-Level Checking with Capable-to-Promise

apo ctp

Documents