Talk:Material requirements planning/Archives/2012

ERP system

I work in ERP, specifically software support at a BPCS shop. When I first arrived at the Wikipedia articles on ERP, I felt most of them were stubs, so I have been nibbling here and there to try to add what seems to be missing, and also cope with some POV by other editors who seem to have had a lot of bad experiences either in ERP implementation, or whose exposure is only to a small segment of the overall picture. User:AlMac|^(talk) 23:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, it behooves the controller to have a very complete understanding of the product.

External Link MRP example

Hi, i would like to put a external link, the direction is http://www.webandmacros.com/mrp-example.htm, in this page explain a real case of the MRP, its detailed step by step the explosion of the MRP, this page belongs an article that describes the MRP, also in this web you can download a free macro excel to calculate the MRP. i wait your answers, Thanks - Train78

I don't think that would be a good idea. How many webandmacros.com spam links have you added to Wikipedia so far? I count 14 this month. Please stop the self-promotion. (Requestion 04:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

See Also

What is meant by the DBR link? Can't seem to what could be the correct article on the disambiguation page. Mathmo ^Talk 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This article and it's namesake seem too similar to be split into a pair of articles. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturing resource planning should be merged into Enterprise Resource Planning, as they are the same thing. Material Requirements Planning should remain its own article, as it is completely different. Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't work in the industry, the 3-way split seems to make sense, based on the historical development and distinctions between the three systems. As this article says: "Both MRP and MRPII are still widely used, independently and as modules of more comprehensive ERP systems". I've found the division to be clear and sensible, fwiw. It helps an outsider to understand ERP by knowing what came before, and the scope of ERP seems to be very different to MRP and MRPII. They are related but different, I think. Stuart (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking a college course on these subjects, I find the three-way split to be analogous to the way it's taught... this way is beneficial. Perhaps the different topics: ERP, MRP, MRP2, could be included in a set, and interlinked as needed?--117.206.50.30 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

These three systems are rarely used concurrently and many modern software solutions combine two or three of these systems together (this usually depends on the particular industry). Although historically they were distinct ideas and systems, current use puts a narrow gap between their definitions.I would propose these three systems are merged into one heading with three distinct subheadings. Subheadings should contain a historical overview and description of the distinctions among these three systems.207.255.75.90 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am currently studying this at university and it is taught as three different components, with ERP and MRP evolving into MRP2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.135.120 (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

MRP, MRP II and ERP are three stages of the evolution of manufacturing systems. MRP focused on manufacturing in the 1970's. MRP II was introduced in the 1980's and corrected some of the gaping flaws in the original MRP system , incorporating other business modules such as SOP, and allowed for feedback from suppliers to be integrated into the system. ERP was introduced in the 1990's as an extension of MRP II, and focused on dealing with ALL business aspects, creating seperate, stand-alone bussiness modules that were also interconnected, allowing information to flow throughout the entire business, from manufacturing to HR, to marketing and to customer service. These articles should NOT be merged, as they are seperate entities. There are numerous books spanning three decades to back this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.31.165 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

General assumption here is that Material Requirements Planning is only used in a manufacturing environment, which is simply not the case: MRP occurs in Maintenance environments and also as part of a Distribution network (sometimes called Distribution Requirements Planning)... in fact with globalisation and increased automation, the use of Material Requirements Planning is growing in both areas ... would certainly therefore not recommend that this article be merged with Manufacturing Resource Planning at this stage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.207.114 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that MRP -> MRP II -> ERP represent actual, historically significant evolution of the space. Would recommend that all three be retained yet provide cross-linking to both highlight the evolution of technology and businesses' growing adoption of same. Here is a reasonable, albeit in PPT, lineage: http://me.emu.edu.tr/majid/IENG447/IE%20447/CIM%20-%20ERP%20.ppt Kerberus13 (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although interlinked, the three accrynoms refer to three completely different concepts. MRP (Materials Requirements Planning) is merely the planning algorithm. MRP II (Manufacturing Resources Planning) is an encompassing term, that refers to the planning methodology (of which MRP is one of the components). ERP (Enterprise Resources Planning) is another step in the evolution, and is normally used to refer to the Software that supports management of companies that may (or may not) use the MRP II methodology. As such, I am in favour of keeping the three terms separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.212.15 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also taking a class in Applied Enterprise Systems and have previously worked with both MRP and MRPII. We are and should treat them as separate entities but there could be a use for an evolutionary article on the subject. This could go from MRP to Cloud Computing via MRP2, ERP, SOA and SaaS for example. From here you should be able to link to the main articles like they are presented now. /reffotsirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reffotsirk (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MRP is an algorithm for offsetting production requirements and exploding the BOM (see Orlicky). MRP II is (hierarchical production planning) framework which includes MRP as a module. It is not software. See the seminal work of Vollmann, Berry, and Whybark. ERP is a term used for all transaction management software that may include MRP. I do not see ERP as a successor of MRP II and it is certainly not widely accepted as the successor or MRP II. APS (Advanced Planning Systems) would in my view be the successor of MRP II. See the book of Stadtler and Kilger (2008). The three should not be combined. I am also surprised about the supposed history of MRP. As far as I know, MRP was developed by Orlicky in the 60s at IBM and not at Toyota. At least there should be some references here. This is a general remark about this article. It is too much of a story from the school banks. I am a PhD student stuying these systems and I am reading many new things in the article that I have not read before in the literature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilio1st (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some interesting observations here; while the majority are generally valid there are a few contentious points - for example the suggestion that the three systems "are rarely used concurrently". MRPII (Manufacturing Resource Planning) is built upon MRP (Material Requirements Planning) and is difficult to adopt without the use of MRP. Similarly, the suggestion that ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) is a successor to MRPII is difficult to support. MRPII is a series of management processes and disciplines for maintaining valid production plans whereas ERP is a term coined by Gartner to describe systems that had grown to provide functionality for areas beyond the horizons of Planning & Control. A system cannot be the successor to a management approach. However, a business using an ERP 'system' can still follow the disciplines of MRPII and use the 'time-phased explosion' technique (as described by Joe Orlicky) of MRP to create component and material plans.

To suggest that APS (Advanced Planning & Scheduling) is the successor to MRPII is to invite ridicule from practitioners - as opposed to theorists and sellers of the software, because that's what APS is. APS is software which uses algorithms based around parameters set by planners to 'optimise' the plan and is promoted as removing the problems coming from people having to make decisions. There are instances of APS being put to good uses and some elements apply lessons that we all learned from Eliyahu Goldratt. However, if a business is overloaded then decisions have to be made and we face the choice of either delegating these decisions to people or applying algorithms within a computer system. I will say no more - the topic is described on http://www.mlg.uk.com/html/capacity_requirements_planning.htm. Mlg-ianh (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Ian Henderson

External Reference

I was wondering if this article was copied from here: http://www.ctsguides.com/manufacturing-mrp-materials-resources-management-software.asp or whether that software consulting firm has copied (w/o attribution) the content of the Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.137.129 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)