Skip to main content
Solved

RMA receipts showing up as supply in MRP

  • 22 December 2021
  • 8 replies
  • 225 views

When I have an open RMA order for stock items - MRP states we will be receiving the items as supply that will satisfy demand. This is not appropriate since the materials must pass through quality inspection and disposition.

 

How can I remove RMA receipt material from being viewed as a supply signal in MRP?

Best answer by jeremyd45

Got it. This makes sense. There is another question about this here as well: 

https://community.acumatica.com/ideas/allow-mrp-to-exclude-rr-order-receipt-lines-as-valid-supply-6679

 

View original
Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

8 replies

angierowley75
Acumatica Moderator
Forum|alt.badge.img+3
  • Acumatica Moderator
  • 775 replies
  • December 22, 2021

On Item Warehouse Details you can specify which Locations should be ignored by MRP.


  • Author
  • Freshman I
  • 17 replies
  • December 22, 2021

The items haven’t been received so changing the locations will not make a difference.


jeremyd45
Pro I
Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • Pro I
  • 209 replies
  • December 23, 2021

You can set a default location for RMA  for the warehouse (You would have to make a location), which would be an MRB or RMA location, which would then be excluded from MRP and on hand quantity calculations.

If you made a separate Warehouse (NOT location), you can remove all calculations for MRP from that warehouse buy deselecting all boxes:

 


  • Author
  • Freshman I
  • 17 replies
  • December 27, 2021

I don’t want to create a separate warehouse when the RMA location is within an existing warehouse that performs production and RMA transactions.

 

The RMA order is open; no material is on hand, and MRP reads the order as a supply signal despite the material not being useful for production UNTIL a disposition is created.

 

I want to configure the RMA order type to be ignored by MRP for receipt operations. This will prevent the supply signals from being overstated for non-conforming material.


jeremyd45
Pro I
Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • Pro I
  • 209 replies
  • December 27, 2021
ccohen37 wrote:

I don’t want to create a separate warehouse when the RMA location is within an existing warehouse that performs production and RMA transactions.

 

The RMA order is open; no material is on hand, and MRP reads the order as a supply signal despite the material not being useful for production UNTIL a disposition is created.

 

I want to configure the RMA order type to be ignored by MRP for receipt operations. This will prevent the supply signals from being overstated for non-conforming material.

Understood, but at this time it is not possible to configure the order type to not be included with MRP. MRP looks at the warehouses and locations, so if you have the same warehouse location for finished goods (or production) and RMA, the system doesn’t know what to do with it. By having a separate location within the warehouse that is not allowed in on hand quantity, it should not show up as supply. In your availability calculations, do you have the box checked to include sales returns in your available quantity? 

Where are you seeing the supply? I may be possibly not looking at the same thing you are. 

 


  • Author
  • Freshman I
  • 17 replies
  • December 27, 2021

Looking at the MRP Detail Inquiry - I understand the locations can manage the on hand calculation, the issue is resolved once the material is received. 

Prior to material receipt, the system expects more supply than is appropriate thus reducing the purchase suggestions required to meet demand. The two lines in the screenshot are for RMA material and MRP increases qty. on hand even though they will be received into an RMA location.


jeremyd45
Pro I
Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • Pro I
  • 209 replies
  • Answer
  • December 27, 2021

Got it. This makes sense. There is another question about this here as well: 

https://community.acumatica.com/ideas/allow-mrp-to-exclude-rr-order-receipt-lines-as-valid-supply-6679

 


  • Author
  • Freshman I
  • 17 replies
  • December 27, 2021

Thanks for the link, I couldn’t find a related suggestion earlier.


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings