Skip to main content

Hello IFS Community,

 

We have the following scenario at our company:

2 Work Centers

Work Center 1 can build 90% of our part numbers 

Work Center 2 can build 60& of our part numbers

 

Not all parts from WC1 can be build at WC2 and vice versa. So when we want to level our capacities, we encounter issues with APB or any automated planning method. 

What is the ideal solution here? If we create routing alternates for the parts that are able to be build in both WCs, would this solve our issue? Would APB be able to see that there is an alternate when capacity is full at one WC and plan at the other? 

 

I noticed this field in Shop Order Operation: Preferred Resource. Is this only a SO OP field or could this be attached to a Part number level? Because in this case, I would control everything through 1 work center with 2 resources. 

 

Thanks for your input!

A.P.

Preferred Resource is unfortunately only available on the shop order operation, not the routing operation. If you set this on the shop order operation the scheduling logic will try to schedule on this resource given it is available. 

It would be really great to be able to set this also on the routing and then inherit it to the shop order operation. Please consider requesting this from the Idea section of the community!

@Guto Resources are connected to Work Centers. Resources are like machines in the work center and all resources should be identical. As per the design of IFS, you can not say Resource A in Work Center X can build 90% product where as Resource B in Work Center X can build 60%. Resource A should be capable of performing any work that Resource B can perform and vise versa.

On the other hand, preferred resource does not guarantee the assignment of the set resource all the time. It is given the priority but if it is not available but another resource from the same work center is available, the system selects the available resource when scheduling. That is why in the first place the resources connected to a work center should be identical. But of course the efficiencies can vary.

@Björn Hultgren I like your suggestion of having it in the routing. I assume that this feature is included into the SO operation level, solely as a means to balance available capacities rather than as a deliberate planning measure. Just a thought.

Hope this helps !

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings