cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

TS Supply Optimizer - Fair Share not doing proportional distribution

eddyizaguirre3
Participant
0 Kudos

Hello Optimizer experts,

I am right now testing IBP time series optimizer fair sharing logic, looking to evenly distribute the demand between several products that are produced in one production line.

For this example I have one customer: 11100001 and three products: FG126, IBP - 100, IBP - 110. I have no stock on hand, the costs are the same for production (1), the transportation cost rate (10) and non -delivery cost rate (1000). Also they consume the exact same rate of capacity (1).

In addition, I have no stock on hand and capacity supply of 200. I am using fair share option with 4 segments for non-delivery.

Below, are my expectations for the result based on what I understand in the SAP Help Portal, and also what IBP is giving me after the run.

Expectation:

Result:

I don't understand why it gives this result. Just FYI, If I increase the capacity I get receipts for FG126, so it's not about master data and I have checked multiple times that the costs are the same.

Is there something in the logic that i'm missing or not explained in the SAP help portal? What's your experience with this?

Thank you for sharing!

Cheers,

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

carsten_schumm
Advisor
Advisor

Hi Eddy,

looks strange. If the supply costs and non-delivery costs of different products are similar and are restricted by common constraints, then also fair-share for demands of different products should happen. But please note that inside a segment no fair-share happens. So you will most likely not get the 66.7 fulfillment for each demand. The results in the 3rd fair-share segment will be in the range 50 to 75 (more or less randomly).

To find the root cause in your scenario, we need the according optimizer diagnosis file. It'll be probably the best if you do this via an according incident.

Kind regards, Carsten

eddyizaguirre3
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Carsten,

Thanks for the clarification. I did accidentayl had put a value of 1 in the non-delivery cost policy in Master Data Customer Product of product FG126, and that was causing not to fair share there. The result is exactly what you said.

I still have a question related to your comment... "more or less random". Once I corrected my mistake I ran this about 10 times. and 10 times I got the same result.

In my head that means that there is an internal logic, because if it was truly random If I run 10 times I would get different results at least 30% of the times or something like that.

Is there some alphanumeric logic that prioritizes it when all variables are the same in the code?

carsten_schumm
Advisor
Advisor

Hello Eddy,

glad to see that you resolved the issue.

The optimizer result is not truly random in that case - therefore I wrote 'more or less randomly'. As long as the internal sorting (e.g. same order of table rows) is similar you will get comparable results. But when you create a new session (e.g. by logging out and in again in the IBP Excel-AddIn) this can change as temporary data is created inside a session.

Additionally the mathematical solver can't guarantee a specific solution if multiple cost-equivalent optimal solutions exists. It will return the first one it finds. To always get the same solution the optimal solution needs to be unique.
With IBP 2011 we will improve some internal sorting, but we can't rule out that some other solution is found by the solver if multiple optimal solutions exist.

Cheers, Carsten

eddyizaguirre3
Participant
0 Kudos

Thank you Carsten, as always your insights are very useful to understand a little bit deeper what the optimizer is doing internally.

Looking forward for that update.

Thanks again for the help! 🙂

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

mkorndoerfer
Contributor

Hi Eddy,

Actually the Fair-Share for Non-Delivery is for the same product and different customers, not same customer and different products. The idea is that the same product is distributed equally across the customers that need it.
You can find more details in the SAP Help Portal Fair-Share Distribution, section "Examples", sub-section "Non-Delivery Costs".

In your example, it's likely that there's a constraint somewhere where the optimizer is only able to produce 1,100 units of products and since the costs are all the same, it's choosing randomly which products are produced and delivered to the customers.

Best regards,
Matheus

eddyizaguirre3
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Matheus,

Thank you for your reply, you were right I did had a constraint that was making it not fair sharing as I wanted to.

However I do see some fair share between different product for the same customer once I fixed my mistake.