Skip to main content
Solved

APB: Modelling a finite trolley/bank constraint across multiple shop order operations

  • July 16, 2026
  • 7 replies
  • 48 views
D
Do Gooder (Customer)
Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • DanE
  • Do Gooder (Customer)

Hi all,

We use IFS Applications 10 and schedule shop orders using APB.

I’m trying to model a finite physical constraint: we have a limited number of trolleys, which we call banks, that carry material between operations.

Example routing:

  • Operation 10 — Work centre A01, fixed 2 hours
  • Operation 20 — Work centre A02, 1 minute per unit

Material is loaded onto a bank at Operation 10. The same bank then moves with the material to Operation 20 and is only free again once Operation 20 is complete.

So the bank should be constrained from:

Operation 10 start → Operation 20 finish

not just during each individual operation.

For example, if we only have two banks, APB should not allow a third order to start Operation 10 until one of the first two banks has completed Operation 20.

I tried modelling this as a tool:

Tool ID: BANK
Instances: B01, B02
Required on Operation 10 and Operation 20

But APB releases the tool after Operation 10, then allocates a tool again for Operation 20. It does not appear to hold the same instance across both operations or through the queue time between them.

Has anyone found a standard APB setup or workaround for this type of finite carrier/trolley/pallet constraint?

Interested in any experience with tools, resource setup, operation blocks, compress operations, maintain resource assignment, or custom validation.

Best answer by Lakshan Thiranagama

Hi Dane,

Why not model the Bank as the primary work center and define two resources within that work center (Bank1 and Bank2)?
You can then configure the existing work centers as Tools. In this setup, each Tool ID would represent a single tool instance associated with a specific machine.

This approach would allow APB to plan and schedule more effectively because it would recognize the Bank as the key capacity constraint. Since the Bank is the most critical and valuable constraint in your process, modeling it as the work center ensures that APB prioritizes and optimizes around that bottleneck.

Thanks!

Lakshan

7 replies

Pavani Haputhanthri
Do Gooder (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+3

Hi DanE, 


Would it be possible to create a dummy work center for the trolley and add a new operation between Operations 10 and 20 to represent the travelling process? This way, APB will treat the trolley as a scheduling constraint when generating the schedule.

 

Thanks!

    Lakshan Thiranagama
    Hero (Former Employee)
    Forum|alt.badge.img+8

    Hi Dane,

    Why not model the Bank as the primary work center and define two resources within that work center (Bank1 and Bank2)?
    You can then configure the existing work centers as Tools. In this setup, each Tool ID would represent a single tool instance associated with a specific machine.

    This approach would allow APB to plan and schedule more effectively because it would recognize the Bank as the key capacity constraint. Since the Bank is the most critical and valuable constraint in your process, modeling it as the work center ensures that APB prioritizes and optimizes around that bottleneck.

    Thanks!

    Lakshan

    Lakshan Thiranagama
      D
      Do Gooder (Customer)
      Forum|alt.badge.img+1
      • DanE
      • Author
      • Do Gooder (Customer)
      • July 21, 2026

      Thanks ​@Pavani Haputhanthri and ​@Lakshan Thiranagama. That’s an interesting way around it.

      We had tried a ‘dummy’ operation than ran in parallel on a ‘Bank’ work centre. APB was treating this operation independent of 10 and 20 so it wasn't giving the desired results. However modelling the current work centres as tools is an interesting idea.

      We have modelled many of our processes on the existing recourses being a work centre, however I’ll do some testing.
       

        D
        Do Gooder (Customer)
        Forum|alt.badge.img+1
        • DanE
        • Author
        • Do Gooder (Customer)
        • July 21, 2026

        Hi ​@Lakshan Thiranagama,
        I tried your approach, with the Bank setup as the work centre, with two resources and the present work centres setup as tools. The effect I now see in APB is that Operation 10 and operation 20 on the same work centre swap resources.

        ie:
        Operation 10 on work centre ‘Bank’, resource ‘Bank1’
        Operation 20 on work centre ‘Bank’, resource ‘Bank2’

        Is there a way to keep operation 20 on the same resource that operation 10 used? If there is, I think this solution would work.

        Lakshan Thiranagama
        Hero (Former Employee)
        Forum|alt.badge.img+8

        Hi Dane,

        There is no out of the box solution to do it with APB. 

        However, you can try different workarounds to do that.

        Option 1

        Using resource efficiency. - Set a higher efficiency for one Bank. (like 95 % for one and 105% for other) Then APB will prioritize that most efficient resource when scheduling. Then there is a possibility of getting same resource for all operations based on it’s availability. So other one will be used only when most efficient one is not available.

         

        Option 2

        You also can use preferred resource option in Shop Order operations. You can set the preferred resource as same resource ID for all operations in same shop order. You can add a minor customization in IFS cloud end to set it automatically (as Bank1 or Bank2) when creating new shop orders. Then when you are scheduling with APB create the schedule shop orders maintaining resource assignment. Then APB will maintain the resource assignment given by shop order infinite scheduler even when creating the finite schedule.

        You can also think of similar other options as well. Good Luck! 

        Thanks!

        Lakshan

        Lakshan Thiranagama
          D
          Do Gooder (Customer)
          Forum|alt.badge.img+1
          • DanE
          • Author
          • Do Gooder (Customer)
          • July 22, 2026

          Thank you ​@Lakshan Thiranagama, you help has been amazing.

          I think this will get me 80% there and the rest can be managed manually.  Modelling the Bank as the work centre does produce better results in APB. I’ll need to do some large data testing to see if it’s worth changing our current work centre model. We have other systems to consider which are based on this model.

          Thanks again,

          DanE

          Lakshan Thiranagama
          Hero (Former Employee)
          Forum|alt.badge.img+8

          Thank you ​@Lakshan Thiranagama, you help has been amazing.

          I think this will get me 80% there and the rest can be managed manually.  Modelling the Bank as the work centre does produce better results in APB. I’ll need to do some large data testing to see if it’s worth changing our current work centre model. We have other systems to consider which are based on this model.

          Thanks again,

          DanE

          You're very welcome! I'm pleased to hear that APB is producing better results with that approach.

          Thanks for the feedback, and feel free to reach out if you come across anything interesting during testing. Happy to help. 😊

          Lakshan Thiranagama
          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement