Planning / Master Production Scheduling is where ERP discipline either begins or breaks.
Master Production Schedule (MPS) Creation & Approval looks operational from far away. In a real finance team, it is a chain of assertions: the right actor started the work, the required records existed, the control policy was applied, the state change was preserved, and the outcome can be explained later without rebuilding the transaction from emails and spreadsheets.
The expected business outcome is specific: Production commits to a feasible schedule aligned with demand and capacity; customer service levels improve through earlier ATP visibility; schedule instability (nervousness) is reduced via frozen horizons.
The control flow a finance team actually needs.
Step 1
Time-Phenced MPS By Item And Planning...
Step 2
Demand Sources Include Forecast, Sales...
Step 3
Rough-Cut Capacity Check Against Key...
Step 4
Frozen Horizon Enforcement With...
Step 5
MPS Vs. Actual Production Variance...
The ERP surface involved.
Module
Planning / Master Production Scheduling
Actors
Demand Planner, Production Manager, ERP System
Tier
Tier 2
Finance area
Manufacturing & Production
Region lens
US and UK finance teams
Publication date
May 6, 2026
Time-phenced MPS by item and planning period; demand sources include forecast, sales orders, intercompany orders, safety stock replenishment; rough-cut capacity check against key resources before approval; frozen horizon enforcement with change-request workflow; MPS vs. actual production variance tracking; what-if scenario comparison; ATP calculation per item per period; integration with sales order promising; approval workflow with role-based authorization.
US and UK teams have different compliance hooks, but the same control problem.
US teams usually care about clean evidence for audit support, vendor records, payment controls, tax reporting, and management review. UK teams usually care about VAT-ready records, approval evidence, digital-record discipline, and traceable postings. The country-specific details differ, but the operating pattern is the same: the ERP needs controlled records, explicit ownership, defensible state changes, and evidence that survives beyond the person who completed the task.
The control matrix.
| Control area | Requirement | Acceptance proof |
|---|---|---|
| Control 1 | Time-phenced MPS by item and planning period | Given imported sales forecast and confirmed sales orders |
| Control 2 | demand sources include forecast, sales orders, intercompany orders, safety stock replenishment | when a demand planner POSTs an MPS with time-phased quantities per item per planning period and submits for approval |
| Control 3 | rough-cut capacity check against key resources before approval | then 201 returns mps_id status PENDING_APPROVAL and rough-cut capacity check results are included |
| Control 4 | frozen horizon enforcement with change-request workflow | negative) when submission requests a frozen-horizon change without a change-request record then 422 FROZEN_HORIZON_VIOLATION. |
| Control 5 | MPS vs. actual production variance tracking | Production commits to a feasible schedule aligned with demand and capacity; customer service levels improve through earlier ATP visibility; schedule instability (nervousness) is reduced via frozen horizons. |
| Control 6 | what-if scenario comparison | Production commits to a feasible schedule aligned with demand and capacity; customer service levels improve through earlier ATP visibility; schedule instability (nervousness) is reduced via frozen horizons. |
Audit evidence is a chain, not a folder.
| Evidence layer | What should be preserved |
|---|---|
| Business event | The demand planner imports sales forecasts and confirmed sales orders into the MPS workbench, which buckets demand by planning period (week/month) per finished good. The planner adjusts quantities against available-to-promise inventory and approved capacity, then submits the MPS for production manager approval. Upon approval, the system freezes the planning horizon and passes the MPS as input to MRP. Any changes within the frozen horizon require a formal change request with impact analysis. The approved MPS drives production order suggestions for the next 13 weeks. |
| Control rules | Time-phenced MPS by item and planning period; demand sources include forecast, sales orders, intercompany orders, safety stock replenishment; rough-cut capacity check against key resources before approval; frozen horizon enforcement with change-request workflow; MPS vs. actual production variance tracking; what-if scenario comparison; ATP calculation per item per period; integration with sales order promising; approval workflow with role-based authorization. |
| Acceptance proof | Given imported sales forecast and confirmed sales orders; when a demand planner POSTs an MPS with time-phased quantities per item per planning period and submits for approval; then 201 returns mps_id status PENDING_APPROVAL and rough-cut capacity check results are included; (negative) when submission requests a frozen-horizon change without a change-request record then 422 FROZEN_HORIZON_VIOLATION. |
| Data record | |
| System event | |
| Lifecycle state | |
The useful version of this workflow is not only fast. It is inspectable. A controller, auditor, or operator should be able to move from source event to system record to state transition to final business outcome without guessing.
Implementation contracts.
Reference data model
`mps_records` { mps_id: string, item_id: string, entity_id: string, period_start: date, period_end: date, planned_qty: numeric, demand_source: enum, status: enum, external_id: string }; `mps_approvals` { approval_id: string, mps_id: string, approver_id: string, approved_at: timestamp }; (reference, product may differ).API and events
`POST /v1/mps` { item_id, periods[] } -> 201 { mps_id, status: DRAFT }; `POST /v1/mps/{mps_id}/submit` -> 200 { status: PENDING_APPROVAL, rccp_results[] }; `POST /v1/mps/{mps_id}/approve` -> 200 { status: APPROVED }; emits `mps.approved` event; idempotent via `external_id`.State transitions
`DRAFT -> PENDING_APPROVAL -> APPROVED`; terminal `SUPERSEDED`; guard: frozen horizon blocks direct edit without change_request_id; APPROVED triggers MRP input loading.Common implementation traps.
Treating the workflow as data entry
If the ERP only stores the final record, the team loses the decision trail that explains how the record became valid.
Hiding exception logic
Exceptions need owners, reason codes, and time stamps. A vague pending state is not a control.
Posting without recovery design
Retries, duplicate submissions, and partial failures must be explicit so the system does not create inconsistent records.
Skipping evidence design
A workflow that cannot produce evidence on demand will eventually push finance teams back into manual screenshots and spreadsheets.
Where Rivane fits.
Rivane is built for finance workflows where automation must stay tied to source documents, approvals, state transitions, ledger impact, reporting, and audit evidence. Use this guide as a checklist for evaluating whether an ERP workflow is merely digitized or actually controlled.
References and source basis.
These sources provide the standards, regulatory, or government context around the flow. They are included so the guide is useful to finance operators, auditors, and implementation teams, not only buyers reading software copy.