# Transfer batches

Separating move quantities from production lots, calculating overlap and preserving release, handling and scheduling constraints.

Reviewed: 2026-11-02

Tags: production, planning, batches

In the **100-piece** example, independent operations ready at time zero run at **1 min/piece** on A and **1.5 min/piece** on B. One **100-piece** transfer finishes at **minute 250**. Four **25-piece** transfers let B start at **minute 25** and finish at **minute 175**. This assumes no setup, moving delay, defects or calendar conflicts. The overlap shortens this order’s elapsed time while B’s steady processing rate stays the same.

Infor LN 2026.x can schedule the next operation before the full production batch finishes. Confirm physical arrival and release separately. [Infor LN, Report Operations Completed](https://docs.infor.com/ln/2026.x/en-us/lnolh/tiolh/help/ti/sfc/tisfc0130m000.html)

## Distinguish the quantities

The process batch shares a setup. A transfer batch is the subset released downstream. A carton, quality lot and furnace load can have different boundaries.

State whether the transfer quantity means produced units, accepted units or a percentage of the production quantity. Infor LN explicitly allows quantity or percentage according to its configured Transfer Batch Method. A value of “20” without that setting and unit is ambiguous. [Infor LN transfer-batch fields](https://docs.infor.com/ln/2026.x/en-us/lnolh/tiolh/help/ti/sfc/tisfc0130m000.html)

The transfer rule should also identify source and destination operations, movement trigger, container capacity, any minimum usable quantity and treatment of the final partial group. A planning field alone does not define those physical arrangements.

## Overlap is a resource relationship

SAP ERP's routing documentation for **6.0 EHP8** distinguishes required overlapping, optional overlapping and flow-manufacturing behavior. It supports minimum send-ahead quantity and minimum overlap time. These are named software semantics; they are not universal synonyms for “move every 20 pieces.” Confirm how the installed scheduler interprets them. [SAP routing overlapping](https://help.sap.com/docs/SAP_ERP/11d857142dba4f27bfbe3c7ce446444b/3586b6535fe6b74ce10000000a174cb4.html)

For a real overlap, both operations need usable resources at the same time. If one operator must perform both tasks without automatic run time, drawing the operations in parallel does not create labor capacity. Similarly, a shared fixture or unavailable transport resource can prevent the proposed handoff.

Infor System21 **3.2**, in its guide published **November 29, 2021**, describes transfer-batch scheduling in terms of starting the successor when quantity is available. It also considers whether that successor can continue without interruption; a shorter downstream duration can cause its start to be delayed. Its field guidance notes the effects of move days, queue time and setups. Thus “earliest material availability” and “a continuous downstream run” need not have the same start time. [Infor System21 Production Definition Management, pp. 122 and 143](https://docs.infor.com/s21/3.2/en-us/useradminlist/Infor%20S21%2032%20MD%20Production%20Definition%20Management%20Product%20Guide_68411.pdf)

## Original example: four transfers through two operations

Assume an invented order for **100 good pieces**. Operation A takes **1 minute/piece** and B takes **1.5 minutes/piece**. Resources are independent and both are ready at time zero. There are no setups, defects, queues, move times, calendar interruptions or capacity conflicts. Each operation processes pieces serially. A completed transfer group becomes available to B all at once.

With a single 100-piece transfer, A runs from minute 0 to 100. B then runs for 150 minutes, finishing at **minute 250**.

With transfer groups of 25 pieces:

| Group | A completes and releases | B starts | B finishes |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| 1 | 25 min | 25 min | 62.5 min |
| 2 | 50 min | 62.5 min | 100 min |
| 3 | 75 min | 100 min | 137.5 min |
| 4 | 100 min | 137.5 min | 175 min |

The whole order finishes at **minute 175**, a reduction of **75 minutes or 30%** relative to 250. Processing work remains 100 machine-minutes at A and 150 at B: **250 resource-minutes** total. Elapsed completion time falls because work overlaps, not because either operation processes a piece faster.

If B releases completed pieces individually, the first good B piece finishes at **minute 26.5**. If the dispatch rule waits until all 25 are complete, the first downstream transfer leaves B at **minute 62.5**. State which completion event matters when comparing schedules.

Under the same ideal assumptions, one-piece transfers would finish the order at **minute 151**: A releases the first piece at minute 1, after which slower B remains supplied for its 150 minutes of work. This is a model limit for these inputs, not a recommendation to move every item separately.

## Original counterexample: faster downstream processing

Keep A at 1 minute/piece and groups of 25, but make B **0.5 minute/piece**. The groups arrive at minutes 25, 50, 75 and 100. If B starts each immediately, it works during 25–37.5, 50–62.5, 75–87.5 and 100–112.5. It repeatedly waits for material; the order finishes at **112.5 minutes**.

For this deterministic example, B can instead start at **minute 62.5** and run continuously until 112.5. The third group, released at minute 75, is already waiting when B finishes its second group at 87.5; the fourth arrives when needed at 100. Delaying B's start changes its waiting pattern without changing the final completion time. Real variability may require a different buffer or release rule.

## Handling, release and traceability

Smaller transfers increase the number of handoffs for the same order. Check travel, labeling, counting, packaging, unloading and damage exposure rather than assuming these activities are free. A process may also require cooling, cleaning, inspection or a minimum equipment load before a partial quantity is usable. Those constraints can defeat the apparent overlap.

Keep each transferred group's identity linked to the originating order, material lot and completed operation. Record accepted quantity, held quantity and destination receipt. A group sent downstream while other pieces remain upstream is not the same event as closing the production order. Confirm that partial reporting and inventory transactions preserve that distinction.

## Evaluate the complete schedule

Compare first usable output, last-piece completion, downstream starvation, waiting inventory, handling effort and actual good output. Do not claim increased long-run bottleneck capacity merely because one isolated order finishes earlier. Likewise, reducing transfer size need not reduce upstream setup quantity or justify a smaller purchasing lot.

Before release, verify calendars, simultaneous resource availability, quality holds, move rules and the final partial batch. Reconcile planned groups to order quantity and check the interpretation of scheduler fields against the installed version. The cited online SAP and LN pages do not provide publication dates; their version labels above are applicability identifiers. The System21 date is printed in its publication information. Sources were reviewed on **2026-11-02 PST**.

## Related reference

[Cycle time](./cycle-time.md) · [Production planning guides](index.md)