|
|
|
02/26/2013 02:32 PM
|
|
|
Hi Mike,
How much is the Prasad's software, and can you let me know the ease of implementation?
Thx
T.
|
|
|
|
|
02/26/2013 02:32 PM
|
|
|
Hi Devender Mudga,
Can you pls send me your simulation sheet to ms.terricruz@yahoo.com ?
I am facing the same issues on a larger scale, currently in a established machining company. They don't have even the basic tools to get a handle on capacity and scheduling.
Do you know of a consultant group that can train the fundamentals of capacity/scheduling practices for on the job training plus get up jump started in the right direction?
Thanks,
Terri
Edited: 02/26/2013 at 02:32 PM by Lean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
02/26/2013 02:32 PM
|
|
|
Hi Brian, I face the same situation how are you doing currently:
1. different programmers have different strategies for how to approach the machining sequencing.
2. Who then is responsible for developing the time estimates for the routings?
3.efficiency reports results were slower than the initial routings.
4. how is your suggestion working use "master generic parts" to at least get some information into the loop prior to loading the actual parts.
Thanks,
Terri
|
|
|
|
|
02/27/2013 12:23 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: 290145
Hi Mike,
How much is the Prasad's software, and can you let me know the ease of implementation?
Thx
T.
I didn't purchase Prasad's software, just demo'd and reviewed. At the time, our organization wasn't ready to take that step (more low-hanging fruit was available). However, our Scheduling Department Manager and Material Manager did see value in the software.
I've since moved on to a different organization. I do not know my old company's software status. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
02/28/2013 03:52 PM
|
|
|
Hi Mike, Thx, did receive Deveder's simulation spreadsheet for capacity planning? if you could you forward it to me ms.terricruz@yahool.com I'd really appreciate it.
Thx
Terri
|
|
|
|
|
02/28/2013 03:53 PM
|
|
|
Hi Terri,
It's been 10 years since I worked with the company I was referring to, but I gave them a call and here's what I picked up:
A. Since then they've installed several larger machines (5 axis) that can hold 150+ tools. With this they've dedicated specific slots to designated holders and tools (by manufacturer) along with specified speeds and feeds based off metal type.
Changing one of these designated tools to another type of tool requires "higher level approval" as it might indicate attempting to use a non-optimal method.
Along with this their CAD program can look at and identify specific features (i.e. hole - drill, tap, counter) along with tolerances and relate it to the different tools in the machines.
B. A manufacturing engineer is responsible to assign the times to the routings. Unfortunately they still aren't as accurate as they would like.
C. They now have "master generic parts" they can load into the system upon receipt of order to drive the capacity planning function on the ERP system. Again, these are not completely accurate, but they do improve their visibility.
Without revealing too much, they specialize in manufacturing fairly complex custom dies, which can have fairly tight tolerances and well over 50 machined components per unit which is one reason for the challenges of the using the master parts for making new parts.
Hope this helps.
Brian
PS - Maybe Prasad can share some insight how other Job Shop machining environments minimize the "garbage in - garbage out" related issues Capacity Management faces with new products.
|
|
|
|
|
03/01/2013 01:10 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: 290145
Hi Mike,
How much is the Prasad's software, and can you let me know the ease of implementation?
Terri, you may directly contact me at prasad@optisol.biz for the price of our tool (for scheduling and capacity planning in job shops). The Lite version of our too is primarily designed to minimize the implementation effort without bells and whistles. The implementation fundamentally involves the following steps:
Assign due date and priority (optional) to each job
List all production resources (machines, workers, etc) in a table
Assign calendar (shift) and capacity to each resource
Form overlapping or non-overlapping groups of resources by functionality and skills
Identify resource requirements for each operation, preferably in terms of resource groups
Estimate required hours for each operation
Define operation precedence relations among operations for each job if operations are not sequential
Update job status information for each job in progress at the time of scheduling.
It is the resource grouping that gives real strength to our model. Workers may have different skill sets and different skill levels and also different speeds. Some machines may perform several types of operations. However, we try to avoid specific resource names in the resource requirements of operations in input data. If you accept our job shop management paradigm, then you would not find implementation difficult. I can present a live web demo to you if you want to know more about it.
Brian, you said, "Maybe Prasad can share some insight how other Job Shop machining environments minimize the 'garbage in - garbage out' related issues Capacity Management faces with new products".
Our capacity planning functionality is based on a mathematical model, which works with estimates of operation durations and the above said resource grouping. It is naturally subject to errors in estimation but gives some idea of shop capacity and resource-constrained workflow.
You said, " Again, these are not completely accurate, but they do improve their visibility". That is exactly what our model also does. For decision making, many people use inference from statistical applications although the inference is not 100% reliable (as statisticians say). The same holds for our model.
Prasad
Optisol
|
|
|
|
|
03/01/2013 02:45 PM
|
|
|
Prasad,
Enjoyed reading your comments and had a couple questions.
A. Why I think I understand your comment:
"Define operation precedence relations among operations for each job if operations are not sequential"
I'd prefer not to assume I understand it, and was wondering if you could share a quick example.
B. I personally am not a big fan of finite scheduling, as the company I referenced was implementing an ERP system back then that finite scheduled and I would have preferred infinite scheduling, for reasons which I will share.
After reading your comments, I was intrigued enough to look at your website and I noticed Optisol uses finite scheduling.
My concern with finite (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that if you're a two shift operations, it will schedule up to 80 hrs for the week, then push additional orders to the next week, which will then reschedule the earlier components.
My preference would be to include the "hand of man" and see a report that indicates
we have scheduled 96 hours into an 80 hour week 4 weeks out, then allow (force) the scheduler to decide what action to take which might include schedule on a different machine. (ex move from a 5 axis to a vertical milling machine) or work overtime the prior two weeks and that week to make up the difference.
My guess is that you'll indicate that Optisol gives you the visibility and capability to do that, I'm not sure how it would trigger the communications to the scheduler "hey, we pushed these orders back to the next week which also rescheduled all these other orders, you might want to look at them to see if you'd prefer a different option."
That's only my preference and I don't want to discourage anyone from looking into finite scheduling. I'm not sure, but I think there are some Theory of Constraint practitioners who lean towards finite.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
03/01/2013 05:02 PM
|
|
|
Hi Brian,
Example of operation precedences:
Consider a simple example of making 3 different parts from the same material. In the first step, you may cut material for all parts from one cutting plan (to save material) as a single operation, bend the three parts into different shapes in any order and assemble the parts into a single final product. I see 5 operations in this production. The bending operations 2, 3 and 4 on three parts can be done in any sequence in this example. But they must be done only after the common cutting operation. Similarly, the final operation can start only after the three bending operations are completed.
Our finite capacity scheduling (FCS) software optimally schedules workload within the available hours of resources. If the schedule (generated in a fraction of a second) pushes work into future against our wishes, we have an option to relax available hours for some or all resources so that the schedule will not push the work into future. This is part of short term capacity planning. The software provides strong what-if analysis of schedule with respect to changes in resource available times and capacities. The scheduler can look at job completion times in the finite schedule and determine when to give overtime to certain resources to complete any selected jobs by their due dates. You may be imagining that our software is an old, inflexible FCS tool. The technology may change but our perceptions may remain the same for long time.
I can demonstrate all this over a web meeting if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
03/04/2013 02:34 PM
|
|
|
Prasad,
Thanks for the clarification on operations precedence.
Your comment on technology change has some merit. It's kind of funny that while I lead implementation of my first ERP (MRP II) system in the mid-80's and I'd love to get involved in another implementation before hanging it up, the place I've dedicated the majority of my efforts the last several years is a High Volume - Low Mix operations involving 99.5%+ customer supplied product with quick turn-around where we can we apply Deming's "avoid technology to solve problems" philosophy. Our material control is achieved with a combination of visual management and Kanban bins along with self-written Access and Excel queries, reports and spreadsheets. Simple, effective but not as exciting as complex purchased technology.
Good luck.
Brian
|
|
|
|
>
Community >
Forums
Send to a Friend
