Whitepaper "Lean manufacturing – Capable to promise and Kanban job scheduling" for CU6 now available for download

With Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012, two new concepts were introduced for lean manufacturing:

  • Event kanbans,  which support build-to-order and assemble-to-order scenarios, and also – in combination with the product configurator – configure-to-order scenarios.
  • Capable to promise (CTP), a new delivery date control method that can be used to calculate the expected delivery date at the time of order entry, based on an update of  the dynamic master plan.


In the recently released cumulative update 6 for Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012 R2 these concepts have now been combined to work together.


The white paper starts by explaining the fundamental mechanics of kanban job scheduling for simple and complex production flow configurations. It then introduces the concept of capable to promise in general (lean and non lean applications), and explains how CTP interacts with planned and actual kanban jobs. Finally, it explains how CTP can be combined with event kanbans, and what changes are introduced in cumulative update 6 for Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012 R2 to provide better support for build-to-order and assemble-to-order scenarios with CTP.


You can download the whitepaper from these locations (requires registered Microsoft account):


Download URL - Customersource - Partnersource

Comments (10)
  1. David Ruston says:

    Great reading, I am looking forward to exploring the possibilities and optimisations that this enhancement can bring to my clients.

  2. Ryan Green says:

    Is the a back port available for clients on AX2012 feature pack CU2?

  3. Hi Ryan,

    many of the issues in Kanban job scheduling have also been shipped in CU5. However, the core functionality that combines CTP with event Kanban's is only implemented for R2 CU6.

    I'm not saying that it is impossible to backport, but my judgment would be that it is better to spend the time to migrate to CU6 instead, if that combination is a key business process for the company.

    Hope that helps, if you want to discuss this in more detail please reach out to me per mail.


  4. Mohamad says:

    Hi Conrad,

    I am very impressed with your tremendous efforts in AX manufacturing R&D, thank a lot

    I have a question related to lean Manufacturing, I can see that in AX 2009 there was a feature for Sales Scheduling and EDI import from eBECs solution and I cannot find it in AX 2012, I wonder why it is not there anymore as we have an Automotive customer who is asking for it

    I appreciate if you send me respond to mohamad.alhamad@gmail.com

    Thanks again

  5. Mohamad, this is a very good point. We never considered Lean manufacturing to be the same as Automotive. The sales scheduling and purchase scheduling that eBECS had released as part of the lean manufacturing modules, was not released in the Microsoft version of Lean manufacturing in AX 2009. For Automotive supplier functionality we strongly recommend to use one of our ISV solutions that target this market.

  6. Faheem Zakir says:

    Hi Conrad,

    Appreciate your efforts for developing the Lean manufacturing module. Keep up the good work.

    We are setting up Lean manufacturing for a manufacturing environment where the probability of material variances is very high.

    However, during our setup we found that the we were unable to post actual consumption except through using the error quantities value which depends on the backflushing principle which is difficult to manage. Is there any other way to input the actual consumed quantities for a process job?

    Also, the Register scrap function once checked will allow the user to post the actual scrap i.e. more than or less than the BOM line scrap factor. This is as per the manual but there is no demo or lab as to how to use this functionality because during our testing we found that the quantities are calculated based on the scrap factor and we can only post the calculated quantities. Is that the case or are we missing some setup?

    Please provide us with some suggestions as the actual variance calculation has become a major hindrance for us.

    I appreciate if you send me your response to faheemzakir@gmail.com

    Thanks and regards

  7. Hi Faheem,

    to register variable consumption instead of fix quantities, I would suggest to use kanban line withdrawal kanbans to pull the material to the work cells. For each kanban line a withdrawal kanban is created and on the reporting it allows over and underfulfillment – depending on the settings of the kanban rules.

    These withdrawal kanbans are based on a transfer activity that has update onhand on receipt = No, and the flushing principle of the material in the BOM should be None (or the picking activity should have update onhand = no).

    Using the overconsumption is possilbe for BOM lines that have flushing principle Finish. When error quantities are reported on production kanban jobs, the calculated consumption for the material with flushing principle finish is calculated based on the sum of good and error quantity.

    Let me know if any of these approaches would help, and I could provide more details for them.

    Finally, there is the option to add a customization that allows you to create additional kanban lines, this is probably not rocket science, as there should be some method to add a kanban line and post it, if that would be the better approach. Unfortunatly we have not been able to add this functionality ourselves so far, facing other priorities.


  8. Faheem Zakir says:

    Hi Conrad,

    Thank you for your suggestions. Here is a summarized version of what we found out during our testing:

    1. Using WIthdrawal Kanbans for each Kanban line as per the setup you have suggested was used and it fulfilled our requirements. However, we have BOM lines ranging from 100-300 items. So it would be almost impossible to create and manage Withdrawal kanbans for each one of the BOM line items.
    2. Using the Error quantity field while reporting completion of the jobs to calculate the overconsumption of items having Flushing principle 'Finish' was also tested. However, it still does not allow us to post actual quantities because there could have been no error quantity but we might still have consumed extra raw materials for only some of the Kanban line items but when we post an error quantity, the system posts the extra consumption for all of the Kaban line items. In this case the posting of overconsumption of Kanban line items is not accurate.

    3.  As for the customization, we feel that this is possible because using the AOT, we can actually update the Quantity value in the KanbanJobPicklist table against the LotID of the Kanban line and the system updates the Quantities and posts the updated quantities without any error. However, we do not know of any impact that it might have on other areas of the system if we go ahead with this customization of allowing the user to update the quantities on the Kanban process board form. Please let us know if there is any.

    Additionally, during our testing we found out that the Labor and Overhead consumption is only calculated and posted based on the reported good and error quantities. We initially thought that the actual labor and overhead is posted based on the time interval between 'Start' and 'Complete' statuses of the Kanban process job. This is because we are currently not able to calculate real time labor and overhead variance unless we post the error quantities without actually producing them. Is our analysis of labor and overhead variance calculation accurate or are we missing some setup? What we would ideally want is to have accurate process times being posted so that our variance calculated for the production flow is close to being real time.

    Would appreciate you feedback on the points mentioned above.

    Thanks and regards

  9. Faheem,

    you have clearly stated the limitations fo options 1 and 2. On option 3, unless you make sure that the updates of the kanban lines and related transactions are done before the positing of the transactions, this approach should work. You will then see dedicated variances for the varying quantities reported when running backflush costing.

    On reporting time, there is not consideration of actual time reporting so far in the lean model. Lean does not allow a dedication operations labor reporting, and a lean activity should not be used like an operation in a production flow, as this leads to way too much reporting activities. If any, you should make comparison on total resources allocated to a work cell against the produced finished goods.

    Hope this helps.


  10. Faheem Zakir says:

    Hi Conrad,

    Thank you for your suggestions and inputs which has definitely helped us in terms finalizing a few things relating to Variance calculation in Lean AX 2012.

    I would also like clarify one point regarding the integration of Quality checks in Lean manufacturing. So far we have not found any method of generating Quality order/Quarantine orders from Kanban jobs as is the case with Production orders in standard AX. We know that it can be done manually but then it is not ideal as the link to the Kanban job is not possible. Is there any other way of generating Quality orders from the Kanban job upon registration of the FG item? If not then what could be the best possible method of integrating quality checks in Lean and also inventory blocking upon registration of an FG item in a Kanban job? Also, is there any plan of integrating quality checks in any of the future releases?

    And do you know of any implementation of Lean AX 2012 where quality checks has been integrated with Kanban jobs either through a customization or using a standard AX feature?

    Thanks and regards

    Faheem Khan

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content