With regard to production resources:
- Current resource allocation
- Availability of means of transport and other resources
- Cleaning and maintenance times
- Availability of quality assurance resources (e.g., test stations,
laboratory capacities, etc.)
Therefore, for the selection (and subsequently, the parameterization)
of an MES, it is important to clarify these influencing factors.
Only when these factors and their priority are clearly known can
effective sequence planning be carried out, leading to an improvement
of the entire production system.
For sequence planning for a larger order pool with the goal of
meeting all delivery dates of customer orders (the delivery date is greatly
significant compared with all other boundary conditions mentioned
earlier and therefore is relevant for most production environments),
the MES must ensure the following:
- Synchronization of the process chain by means of the parameters
in the work plan to minimize processing time. This
means, among other things, avoiding idle times and waiting
times (e.g., minimizing storage costs for the production
warehouse) while simultaneously considering resource
requirements.
- Collision-free planning of an order pool in the respective time
container, taking into account the specified priorities and
rules for optimizing sequences.
5.4.4 Strategies for Sequence Planning
and Planning Algorithms
In addition to the requirements shown thus far in this chapter, the algorithms
used for sequence planning are the deciding factor. For simplification,
we speak of an algorithm in this context, although the planning
system may include a complex set of rules, a simulation system, or even
an expert system with self-learning software components.
The use of simulation tools is essential for optimal planning. The
reasons for this are obvious—simulation tools are already used in the
factory-planning phase for coordinating machines, equipment, and
logistics processes. As a result, the most important boundary conditions
are mapped in these systems. The simulation tools for planning
an order pool are different from those used in factory planning and
product development. With the latter, the following parameters are
emphasized: quantity, date, calendar, shift model, alternative machines,
and variants.
The simplest variant of planning is the interactive control station.
Here, planning is carried out on a classic planning board. The planning
data transferred from the ERP system are imported and visualized
graphically, and in the event of capacity overload of individual
machines or equipment, capacity equalization is carried out through
manually delaying orders. Thus no independent planning algorithm
exists in the MES, but instead, the humans assume planning with all
the advantages and disadvantages this entails. In particular, planning
for preliminary products from in-house production mentioned earlier
is difficult here because the entire process chain (and parts list) is
not resolved by the MES.
In order to avoid this "emergency solution through manual
delay," a planning algorithm must be able to resolve and synchronize
complex process chains and to carry out collision-free planning of a
time container with a large number of orders, taking resource availability
into account. Changes to quantities, dates, or shift models are
entered manually. The algorithm determines the rest. The planning
result then is displayed, for example, as a Gantt diagram. This planning
then is contrasted in turn with actual production data.
Gantt Diagram
A Gantt diagram, or bar chart, is an instrument of project management
named after the analyst Henry L. Gantt (1861–1919) and represents the
chronological order of activities in a graph in the form of bars on a time
axis.
In contrast to a network plan, the duration of the activities in a Gantt
diagram is clearly visible. One disadvantage of the Gantt diagram is that
the dependencies between activities can be displayed only in a limited
manner. This, in turn, is the strength of the network plan. [SYSKA 2006]
5.4.5 Forward Planning/Reverse Planning/Bottleneck
Planning
For the optimization-based planning of orders, there are different strategies
that are described briefly here. The appropriate strategy should be
selected depending on the initial situation and boundary conditions
(Fig. 5.3). The individual production orders consist of subassemblies
A1 and A2 and B1 and B2, respectively. The hatched areas represent
setup processes of the respective production steps.
Normally, the strategy of reverse planning is used. If the process
chain for fulfilling an order extends into the past, a planning system
must switch automatically to forward planning.
In forward planning, the MES is provided with the earliest possible
production start based on the material resource planning (MRP) run
(verification of material availability). Planning is carried out based on
this date and beginning with the lowest production level (secondary
requirements). All necessary production steps are scheduled moving
forward in time. However, this is not always the suitable method. If
the final product is finished too soon, higher warehousing costs may
arise owing to the added value of the end product, and it is also possible
that raw materials used could have been better directed to an
urgent order.
If the customer has been given a delivery date, or if it is possible to
deliver only on certain dates, for example, because of shipping schedules,
reverse planning of the production order is recommended. In this
case, planning is done based on the finish date of the production order
with the highest production level (primary requirements). Here, the
individual production steps are scheduled using reverse planning.
Often, production steps for different products arise that all must be
carried out on a particular machine. In this case, bottleneck planning is carried out based on the bottleneck resource. The production steps are
scheduled using a combination of forward and/or reverse planning.
5.4.6 Collision-Free Planning of a Time Container
In the production industry, planning an individual order tends to be
the exception. Generally, there are a large number of orders that need
to be fulfilled "simultaneously" as per the requested dates using limited
resources and capacities.
Here, the aim is to find or calculate an optimum for the sequence,
cycle times, and storage costs. The calculation algorithm must be
capable of planning the sequence according to priorities and rules
without collisions and with minimal gaps.
Collision-free calculation with a manually established sequence
of individual orders requires more effort from the planning algorithm.
Every order consists of various operations, and the MES therefore
must schedule a large number of operations. Then a possible
delivery date can be stated for every customer order. The speed of the
calculation depends largely on the number of operations to be planned
in the time container. For this reason, it is advisable to consider the
shortest possible periods of time. If the planning period of a time container
has expired, open orders must be listed in order to move these
into the next time container.
In accordance with the parameter settings made and the sequence
method, an algorithm determines collision-free planning with minimal
gaps and exact delivery dates. In the example, 10 orders for the same
article with a quantity of 100 pieces and the availability date 20/12/2007
at 14:00 are placed in the time container. The planning algorithm calculates
the individual delivery dates of the 10 orders based on the planning
strategy selected; these are provided as an overview (see Fig. 5.4).
5.4.7 Setup Optimization and Warehousing Costs
The result of the planning also should include an exact determination of
planning costs that takes not only the calculation of direct costs but also
the allocation of overhead and warehousing costs related to the product
into consideration. This calculation should show how a sequence optimization
affects setup costs and, in parallel, storage costs. A complete
MES should include this function. For example, it could be that the savings
achieved through setup optimization increase the warehousing
costs to such an extent that setup optimization is not practical. Such and
similar situations should be clarified by the MES in order to show the
responsible parties the most economical alternatives.