Skip to main content

Hi,

In DOP structures there may be many shop orders connected through structure relationships. If the machine shop resources are finite, upon creating a finite schedule for the shop orders, the  relationship between respective parent DOP orders has to be respected also. APB is capable of doing it. The planners are able to schedule DOP header ( demand header) , forward , backward, drag-n-drop or insert : where in any case, the operation relationships, DOP order relationships( structure relationships) and the resource constraints are respected.

Can you share the experiences in using this functionality ( pros and cons). How often this functionality is used?

On the other hand when it comes to Operation Blocks, APB is capable of loading operation block as single object ( along with its operations) but APB does not keep the operation block scheduled space in the resource exclusively for the operation block. The operations in the block can freely schedule in the resource timeline if there are no  resource restrictions.  When planner execute drag and drop scheduling , the operations can be scheduled anywhere in the timeline ( as if any other individual operations). In short, operation block is not considered in APB finite scheduling. 

Is this a big gap in APB finite scheduling. How restrictive an operation block should be in finite scheduling?

example:

Laster cutter resource is used to cut metal sheets 

Lets say there are 10 shop order  operations to cut different parts from mild steel metal sheet

15 shop order operations to cut different parts from carbon fiber sheet.

lets say the first 10 operation grouped as operation-block-1 and the second 15 as operation-block-2

It is highly likely that the block 1 has to perform together ( operations in Parelli or sequential ) then block 2. This can NOT be done in APB ( automatically, the user has to manually create this schedule).

Is this functionality greatly missed? or something good to have?

Thanks in advance

Saman

Dear Saman,

I do not think the need for operation block been scheduled finite would be a need. The super user takes into consideration the scheduling aspect when creating operation blocks. Hence, having the feature would benefit, but not essential. 

This is an excellent topic Saman. 

 

The lack of consideration of operation blocks is the reason we do not use APB. We schedule operations in sequence that use the same machine program and do not require setup changeovers. We group the operations using operation blocks, then sequence the blocks in the operation blocks window. I’ve explored using APB to help schedule more efficiently, but gave up when I learned it does not consider operation blocks.

 

I’m exploring using part characteristics and setup matrixes on the work centers, but this is a daunting task with more than 1000 parts that run across multiple work centers.   

 

 

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings