SAPtips 2003 Klee Associates, Inc.

P
a
g
e

2
2
Editor's Note: APO ships with
so much functionality, it's
almost scary. Fortunately, APO
Editor Dan Sulzinger has been
to the mountaintop. Fresh from
his most recent investigations
into APO 3.0 and the latest-and-
greatest version (3.1), Dan is
here to tell us about the rich pos-
sibilities available to SAP

users
in the GATP Advanced Methods
area. Dan's last two articles
focused mostly on Basic ATP
Methods, but in this new piece
(the first in a series), Dan guides
us into more advanced areas.
Dan kicks off the series with an
overview of the key terms and
prerequisites for using any of the
Advanced Methods. Then he
hones in on two of these methods,
Multi-Level Checking and
Capable to Promise. By con-
trasting the two methods, Dan
debunks common misconcep-
tions about each, and provides
us with valuable APO-related
tips along the way.
In my previous articles, I dis-
cussed ATP and Global ATP; in
those articles, I walked readers
through the ATP Basic Methods.
In this next series of articles, I will
start digging into some of the
most exciting tools within APO:
the APO Global ATP Advanced
Methods! The capabilities dis-
cussed in this article are some of
the most advanced ATP capabili-
ties, which deliver on the promise
SAP offered some six years ago.
The capabilities found in
Advanced Checking techniques,
such as Rules-Based ATP, Multi-
Level Checking, and Capable to
Promise, are not, and I mean not,
warmed over, old school planning
techniques! With GATP Advanced
Methods, we finally have the tools
to truly promiseand know that
our promise to deliver won't be
broken. Finally, we are able to
drive our supply chain, as opposed
to our supply chain driving us.
This kind of talk might seem
boastful now, but after we com-
plete this article series on
Advanced Checking capabilities, it
will become apparent that SAP's
offering delivers as advertised.
After finishing these articles, many
readers will want to run out and
get themselves some GATP. But we
all know that we dont just "go get
some GATP." I have repeatedly
noted that APO is not a plug-and-
play tool, and Advanced Checking
requires all of the hard work and
dedication that has been discussed
in earlier editions of SAPtips. So,
let's build on these efforts and take
on the challenge of implementing
a fully integrated ATP solution.
Each company will focus on differ-
ent APO components in this
endeavor, according to the unique
requirements of your business and
industry.
Just how powerful are the
Advanced Methods? Consider the
potential of Rules-Based ATP, my
personal favorite. With Rules-
Based ATP, I build the "Rules of
Engagement" for the way I want
to operate my business. In the
event a shortage is detected, I can
instruct SAP to check an alternate
location for the product; if it is not
available in the secondary loca-
tion, SAP checks for alternate
product in the primary location.
Should this step not resolve the
short, it goes to the next location
(which has been defined previous-
ly) and checks for an alternate
product. If, after all of this, the
shortage is not resolved, then pro-
duction of the primary product is
triggered. This is all done
because I defined the relationship
between customer, product, loca-
tion, cost, and criteria that allow
me to better serve my customers.
Rules-Based ATP is an iterative
process, meaning it will continue
to search for a solution based on
the criteria that I define. It is crit-
ical to note that GATP follows our
instructionsit does not invent
numbers, nor is it psychic.
Finally, with Rules-Based GATP,
the reaction will be consistently
predictable, based on the tactical
strategies and best practices that I
want my company to follow.
Now that you understand my
position on the merits of Rules-
Based ATP, it is incumbent upon
me to provide a "fair and bal-
anced" assessment of the other
Advanced Methods that APO
delivers.
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
3

V
o
l
u
m
e

I

I
s
s
u
e

3
w
w
w
.
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
.
c
o
m
SAPtips
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
Available to Promise What APO

Delivers Part Three:

Contrasting Multi-Level Checking and Capable to Promise (CTP)
By Dan Sulzinger, e-Consulting Group, Inc.
With Rules-Based ATP,
I build the "Rules of
Engagement" for the
way I want to operate
my business.
SAPtips 2003 Klee Associates, Inc.
P
a
g
e

2
3
The following ATP Methods are
considered "Advanced Methods":
Combination of Basic
Methods
Rules-Based ATP
Capable-To-Promise (CTP)
Multi-Level Checking
Simulation and Explanation
Going through all of these
methods in a meaningful way will
require more than one article. In
this edition of SAPtips, we'll start
by reviewing the prerequisites you
must understand before utilizing
any of the Advanced Methods.
Then we'll shed some light on two
of the Advanced Methods,
Capable-To-Promise and Multi-
Level Checking, by contrasting
one against the other.
Prerequisites:
Requirements for Using
the Advanced Methods
Understanding this discussion
requires a knowledge of the nuts
and bolts for using the Advanced
Methods. These prerequisites are
the building blocks necessary for
integration, reaction, and presen-
tation of the solution during any
ATP request processing. In order
to take advantage of the
Advanced Methods, we need to
know how the following elements
are going to be populated and
from where they are sourced:
Business Event: is loaded at
runtime from the R/3 System with
the value of the checking rule.
ATP Group: is loaded in the
location-specific product master,
if you transferred customizations.
Simply put, ATP Group is the
accumulation groupings that
define how to react to shortfall
quantity. Remember: ATP group
is always assumed from the prod-
uct master at runtime; this is a
"gotcha!" (You need to activate
the accumulation of confirmed
quantities.)
Check Mode: When you trans-
fer ATP Customizing during the
initial supply, the check mode is
filled with values from R/3.
Check Mode is the combination of
assignment mode and production
type. If it was not transferred
from R/3, it is taken from the
product master.
Check Mode TIP 1: For APO-
specific products, you must fill the
Check Mode in the location-spe-
cific product master. The require-
ments class can only be adopted
from SD. So, no other R/3 mod-
ule can transfer requirements
classes. Without SD, the Check
Mode is read from the APO prod-
uct master. This is also the case
for Rules-Based ATP with prod-
uct substitutions, which is also
read from the product master for
the subsequent substitutions.
Check Mode TIP 2: As a rule,
make sure the Check Mode is
filled in the APO product master
to elevate the potential for results
that were not what you expected.
Check Mode TIP 3: I recom-
mend that the functional staff
supporting APO and GATP
understand the R/3 plug-ins.
Depending on the version of R/3
and APO you are using, the plug-
ins vary and the impact is very
different. The APO
Documentation CDs outline this
information in a very usable
matrix in the technical integration
section under GATP.
Check Instructions: Determines
what we want to do if and when a
shortage is detected. Check
Instructions belong to APO and are
therefore always maintained in
APO. The Check Instructions are,
in reality, our "Rules of
Engagement." Check Instructions
determine which Basic Methods are
processed and in which order: check
with neutral results, time of produc-
tion, or rules-based checks.
Check Control: Check
Control is used to determine the
checking for sub-locations and
the checking for versions. Check
Control determines whether we
use checking horizons, whether
we check for deltas, whether we
consider past receipts, and
whether we use check horizon
for goods receipt.
Categories: There are also non-
SAP categories to consider, such as
the Map R/3 MRP element. Tip:
Remember APO categories are
considered non-SAP categories!
Scope of Check: Is always
assigned a check control and a
collection of SAP categories and
non-SAP categories.
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
3

V
o
l
u
m
e

I

I
s
s
u
e

3
w
w
w
.
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
.
c
o
m
SAPtips
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
For APO-specific
products, you must
fill the Check Mode in
the location-specific
product master.
SAPtips 2003 Klee Associates, Inc.
P
a
g
e

2
4
Characteristics-Dependent
Planning (CDP): CDP employs
characteristics for planning in the
enhancement industry (i.e., paper,
oil processing, metal fabrication
industry) and of course the semi-
conductor industry. One notewor-
thy feature of these industries'
production is that many products
(co-products) come from a single
product process.
Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s - Ba s e d
Forecasting (CBF): CBF carries
out the planning in the SAP APO
component Demand Planning. The
vast majority of the demand plan-
ning functions for forecasting
future requirements are available
here. In SAP, these singular config-
urable definitions (i.e., size, color,
engine, upholstery) are defined as
characteristics. The characteristic
values are like size: examples
would be small, medium, and
large; likewise, color would be
magenta, white, gold, etc.
Now that we've covered the pre-
requisites to using the Advanced
Methods, let's hone in on the two
Advanced Methods we're looking
at this time around: Multi-Level
ATP Check and CTP.
Juxtaposing Multi-Level ATP
Check (MATP) and Capable-
To-Promise (CTP) In order to
discuss Multi-Level ATP Check
and Capable to Promise, it is nec-
essary to juxtapose how they oper-
ate and illustrate comparable func-
tions and limitations. Some people
try to explain the differences by
saying that CTP is time-dimension-
al, and therefore time-specific, and
that MATP offers better perform-
ance. But this is a bit simplistic. In
reality, it all depends on the busi-
ness objectives for the types of
products handled by the company,
and other variables. In Table 1, I've
outlined the major differences
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
3

V
o
l
u
m
e

I

I
s
s
u
e

3
w
w
w
.
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
.
c
o
m
SAPtips
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
Table 1: Contrasting Multi-Level Checking with Capable-to-Promise
Multi-Level ATP Check CTP
Availability Check Execution
1. A product availability check, or a check
against the forecast, can be carried out at the
component level.
TIP: Scope of check, checking horizons, and
shortage checks are used.
Note: This difference between MATP and CTP
is considerable, and if you are using CDP
(Characteristics-Dependent Planning), then
some capabilities are limited.
TIP: Rules-based ATP check can and should be
used 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 and
requirement elements of individual orders.
These do not exist in the ATP time series in
LiveCache.
3. Due to the internal structure of the ATP
check, the ATP check is not as time-specific as
CTP.
Note: MATP does not work to the exact second
as CTP does.
4. ATP tree structures are not taken into
account in planning. Therefore, no orders exist
at the time of the check. A dependent require-
ment of a component is only visible when the
ATP tree structure has been converted to a
PP/DS order. When a very large scheduling
horizon is defined, PP/DS orders are created
immediately 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 following
properties:
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 be
compared with the ATP check, is carried out at
component level using the pegging functional-
ity. In the pegging structure, all receipts and
requirements categories are handled the same
way.
Tip: No division is made using ATP categories.
TIP: Scopes of check, checking horizon, and
shortage check inclusions are not supported.
Tip: CTP does not support Rules-Based ATP
checking.
2. Characteristics-dependent planning (CDP)
can be fully realized with CTP.
3. CTP works to the exact second. Precise
time-specific functionality is not available for
MATP.
4. PP/DS orders will always appear instanta-
neously in CTP. Whether or not the planned
orders are temporary, they are order objects
on which resources can be utilized directly.
Requirement Dates for the Components Determination
Check Result in Planning Considerations
SAPtips 2003 Klee Associates, Inc.
P
a
g
e

2
5
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
3

V
o
l
u
m
e

I

I
s
s
u
e

3
w
w
w
.
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
.
c
o
m
SAPtips
S
A
P
t
i
p
s
between MATP and CTP, and
pointed out some critical tips for
deploying 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 release
3.1A, which I have been reviewing
and testing.
Conclusion
For years, I preached that ATP
could provide such significant ben-
efits that most companies could not
accurately calculate them. This was
because ATP was the top of the
food chain and out of reach of most
companies. But this comparison of
the powerful capabilities of Multi-
Level Checking and Capable to
Promise has shown us that for SAP
APO users, the "true ATP" aspira-
tion has the potential to become
reality. Nevertheless, we still have a
lot of questions to answer and a lot
of APO functionality to cover. We
look forward to continuing this dis-
cussion of Advanced Checking in
the next edition of SAPtips, and we
look forward to reader input on the
key areas you would like us to
address.
Daniel P. Sulzinger, Senior SAP
Consultant, eConsulting Group,
Inc. For the last sixteen years,
Dan has consulted and trained
clients deploying packaged sup-
ply chain solutions. He has led
many multinational companies
through the process of assessing,
defining, and deploying manufac-
turing and supply chain solutions.
For the last five years, Dan has
focused on SAP's Advanced
Planner and Optimizer (APO)
and Business Intelligence (BW)
products. Dan has delivered SAP
education and training for APO,
BW, and R/3 modules, and he is a
frequent speaker at Supply Chain
and Logistic events international-
ly. Dan's email address is
Dan.Sulzinger@SAPtips.com.
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 item
and all components checked.
Missing parts list displays the components
and characteristic values there that have led
to a delay or reduction in confirmation.
7. Product availability check at component
level promises a better performance because
this check uses time series.
Note: For users of the R/3 ATP Server, the
aggregates in the time series are comparable
to the Time Axis stores in buffered memory.
8. A "daily production rate" can be mapped by
product allocation(s), and the check is execut-
ed against the allocation(s). This check only
considers exact days.
9. No lot-size calculation is carried out by
ATP.
Tips: The lot-for-lot order quantity is used.
6. You check the results of the CTP process in
the PP planning log.
7. Orders are planned in their entirety, which
is a major performance consideration.
TIP: If your company has configurable product
and is using CDP, then this limitation is nor-
mally considered necessary for your business.
8. The planned orders are scheduled finitely to
the 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