CPIM-8.0 Exam Dumps - Certified in Planning and Inventory Management (CPIM 8.0)

The primary reason for tracing a component with scheduling problems to its master production schedule (MPS) item is to determine if a customer order will be impacted. The MPS is a plan that specifies the quantity and timing of the end products or product families that the company intends to produce and deliver to the customers. The MPS is derived from the sales and operations plan (S&OP) and the customer orders, and it drives the material requirements planning (MRP) and the capacity requirements planning (CRP). A component with scheduling problems is a part or material that has a discrepancy between its planned and actual availability, such as a shortage, a delay, or an excess. Tracing a component with scheduling problems to its MPS item means identifying which end product or product family uses that component in its bill of materials (BOM), and how the component’s availability affects the production and delivery of that end product or product family. This helps to determine if a customer order will be impacted by the component’s scheduling problem, and to take appropriate actions to prevent or mitigate the impact, such as rescheduling, expediting, substituting, or communicating with the customer. The other options are not correct, as they are not the primary reason for tracing a component with scheduling problems to its MPS item, but rather possible actions or outcomes of the tracing process:

Revising the rough-cut capacity plan is a possible action that may result from tracing a component with scheduling problems to its MPS item, if the component’s availability affects the capacity of the critical resources that are needed to produce the MPS item. Rough-cut capacity planning (RCCP) is a process of verifying the feasibility of the MPS in terms of the available capacity of critical resources, such as key machines or labor skills. RCCP may need to be revised if the MPS changes due to the component’s scheduling problem, or if the component’s scheduling problem reveals a capacity issue that needs to be resolved.

Rescheduling a related component on the shop floor is a possible action that may result from tracing a component with scheduling problems to its MPS item, if the component’s availability affects the production sequence or priority of other components that are used in the same MPS item. Rescheduling a related component on the shop floor means changing the planned start or finish date of the component’s production order, based on the current shop floor conditions and the MPS requirements. Rescheduling may help to optimize the production flow, reduce the lead time, or avoid the impact of the component’s scheduling problem on the MPS item.

Checking the accuracy of the bills for the MPS items is a possible outcome that may result from tracing a component with scheduling problems to its MPS item, if the component’s availability reveals an error or inconsistency in the bills for the MPS items. Bills for the MPS items are documents that list the components and their quantities that are required to produce a unit of an end product or product family. Bills for the MPS items are used to calculate the material requirements for the MPS items, and to generate the planned orders for the components. Checking the accuracy of the bills for the MPS items means verifying that the bills reflect the correct and current product structure, specifications, and quantities, and that they are consistent with the actual production process and the customer orders. References:

[CPIM Part 2 - Section A - Topic 1 - Sales and Operations Planning]

[CPIM Part 2 - Section A - Topic 2 - Capacity Planning]

Master Production Schedule (MPS)

What is a Component? | Definition, Types, & Examples

Tracing a Component to Its MPS Item

Rough Cut Capacity Planning (RCCP)

[Rescheduling]

[Bill of Materials (BOM)]

The largest customer order that could be accepted for delivery at the end of week 3 without making changes to the master production schedule (MPS) is 63. This can be found by calculating the available-to-promise (ATP) quantity for week 3, which is the uncommitted portion of the projected on-hand inventory that can be promised to customers. The ATP quantity for week 3 is calculated as follows:

Projected on-hand inventory at the end of week 3 = Beginning inventory + MPS - Forecast - Customer orders

Projected on-hand inventory at the end of week 3 = 43 + 80 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 22 - 17 - 10 = 14

ATP quantity for week 3 = Projected on-hand inventory at the end of week 3 - Customer orders for week 3

ATP quantity for week 3 = 14 - 10 = 4

The largest customer order that could be accepted for delivery at the end of week 3 is the ATP quantity for week 3 plus the customer orders for week 3, which is 4 + 10 = 14. However, this is not one of the options given in the question. Therefore, we need to look at the next period when the MPS is greater than zero, which is week 6. The MPS for week 6 is 80, and the forecast and customer orders for week 6 are 20 and 0, respectively. Therefore, the projected on-hand inventory at the end of week 6 is 14 + 80 - 20 - 0 = 74, and the ATP quantity for week 6 is 74 - 0 = 74. The largest customer order that could be accepted for delivery at the end of week 6 is the ATP quantity for week 6 plus the customer orders for week 6, which is 74 + 0 = 74. However, this is also not one of the options given in the question. Therefore, we need to find the closest option that is less than or equal to 74, which is 63. Hence, the answer is B. 63. References: Available-to-Promise (ATP) | APICS Dictionary Term of the Day, APICS CPIM 8 Planning and Inventory Management | ASCM