Configuration

Using Transport Instead of BTL for Load Building

In a recent project, our team was tasked to design and implement a solution for a client that would drive Load Building functionality with Recommended Shipments from Fulfillment. Through a detailed analysis, we ended up selecting Transport as the engine for Load Building these RecShips from Fulfillment. The end solution was well received, and offered the client extremely flexible and robust configurability to distribution planning while utilizing constraint-based optimization to help generate a more realistic plan.

Looking at the RecShip as an ‘Order’ for a specific SKU/Origin/Destination in Transport, we receive a large batch of RecShip ‘Orders’ representing a mix of deployment orders for manufactured product. Utilizing Transport’s deep constraints such as Equipment Capacities, Product-Equipment Compatibilities, Location Constraints, Trailer Capacity Constraints, and others - we were able to generate prioritized, constrained Vehicle Loads and Vehicle Load Lines in Fulfillment that would not have been possible using BTL.

There were three unique objectives that needed to be satisfied during the load building process. The first objective was to prioritize the RecShip based on a combination of the SchedShipDate, NeedArrivDate and AvailtoShip date. This prioritization was customized logic that was written into the interface between Fulfillment and Transport. The logic was different for manufactured items compared to purchased items, and utilized a combination of the Transport ASD and Semi-Fixed Trip functionality.

The second objective was to limit the number of pallets of a specific hazardous material to each load that was built. Third, we needed the ability to build loads with material on partial pallets. The key to this was that the client knew in most cases material on partial pallets would not be not enough to fill a truck. So the load needed to be filled with full pallet material after the all of the partial pallets were added.

This third objective was the key reason that the client opted to build the loads in Transport instead of using BTL. Because any material could be placed on a partial pallet depending on the source, destination, and current sales volume, the material was not the key factor in determining if it was to be counted as a partial or full pallet. Instead, we chose to use Transmode in Fulfillment. Using BTL, we weren’t able to put multiple Transmodes (Partial Pallet and Standard) onto one load. However, within Transport we were able to combine the two Transmodes onto one load - therefore filling a partial pallet truck with full pallet items. We also extended this Transmode logic to some of our purchased items to separate certain groups of items from a supplier into unique loads.

Once the loads were generated in Transport, they were interfaced back to Fulfillment and then to SAP as STOs or POs. Although the client chose to build loads in Transport, we set up all of the appropriate tables in Fulfillment including several tables new to v7.4.1 (i.e. UOMCategoryConvFactor) so that the client would be able to view the loads in Load Manager.

In summary, this was a great example of a joint design and integration effort between two different applications – that actually complement one another very well. I’ll be anxious to work on even tighter integration between Fulfillment and Transport, and also try to streamline the PO/STO create process in SAP.

Thanks to Kelli Sprague at SupplyWeb Solutions for her contribution to this post, and the integration design!

© 2008 JBF Consulting.