The command module for factory heroes. No cape required
888.317.8807 Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

VMWare – increase disk space

Written by on July 27, 2012 | Filed Under: Implementation, VMWare

Sometimes when I’m using VMWare virtual machines to implement a Galaxy APS solution, I run out of disk space. In order to increase the size of the virtual disk, I follow the following steps:

 

1. Load the virtual machine into VMWare Workstation. Leave it “Powered Off”.

2. Choose: VM > Settings.

3. Highlight “Hard Disk (SCSI)”.

4. Click: Utilities > Expand.

5. Increase the size.

6. Expand > OK > OK.

7. Close VMWare Workstation.

8. Load another machine into VMWare Workstation. Leave it “Powered Off”.

9. VM > Settings.

10. Add > (Yes).

11. Highlight “Hard Disk” > Next.

12. “Use an existing virtual disk” > Next.

13. Browse > (navigate to the desired top -level .vmdk file) > Finish > OK.

14. Power on this virtual machine.

15. Enter the DOS cmd prompt window, and:

a) cd..

b) cd..

c) diskpart

d) list volume

e) select volume 2

f) extend

g) exit

h) exit

16. Shut down the machine.

17. Remove the HD:

a) “Edit virtual machine settings”

b) Highlight “Hard Disk 2″

c) Remove > OK.

18. Close VMWare Workstation.

19. Start the machine with the expanded hard drive and verify that HDD is expanded.

 

 

><<naem>

 

Constraints on your planning process

Written by on May 29, 2012 | Filed Under: Advanced Planning and Scheduling, manufacturing, Spreadsheets

I’m always interested in approaches that don’t involve systems designed for the specific purpose of automating the scheduling process and enabling better decision making.  In particular, use of spreadsheets is pervasive, and often difficult to displace with systems like Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS).  Why is that?

This is a small sample of potential answers:

  1.     Using spreadsheets is “inexpensive” or “easy”
  2.     Spreadsheets can be customized to do whatever you need
  3.     Companies settle into a comfort zone with their spreadsheets

Even when a company decides that improving their production scheduling is a high priority, there are just as many reasons why companies resist APS systems:

  1.     “APS requires too much data”
  2.     “APS is too sophisticated for us to use effectively”
  3.     “APS is not sophisticated enough for us,” also known as “it just won’t work”

A clear discussion about the benefits of one scheduling approach vs. another involves at least these basic questions.

  1.    How effectively does the system model reality, so that decisions are made based on good information?
  2.    How “visible” is that information?  How much work does it take to get good information on a daily basis?  How easy is it to share that information with others in your company (and your vendors and your customers)?
  3.   How well does the system support making changes, and illustrating the impact of those changes analytically?
  4.   What is the true financial impact on profits, operating expenses, inventory, and other measures based on the scheduling options in front of you?

With questions like these, companies can at least start to challenge the assumptions about using spreadsheets, and arrive at the right decision.  Essentially, the “features and functions” required to create and analyze realistic plans and schedules need to be there.  Then, the question becomes one of value: would an investment in a different system reduce expenses, reduce inventory, and/or increase profits?  In this way, what can appear to be a complex decision can be structured and clarified.  It may be that sticking with those spreadsheets is the way to go, but the only way to know for sure is to be honest with ourselves about the pros and cons of the choices available.

*This article was written by APS Expert Pete Nelson

How-To: Redefine an existing optimization rule.

Written by on May 23, 2012 | Filed Under: Advanced Planning and Scheduling, Factory Scheduling, manufacturing, Optimize

In this entry, I’d like to show you how to redefine an existing optimization rule. This technique can be used instead of having to modify the Galaxy APS program.

In this example, I will be modifying an existing integration to the SAP B1 / ProductionOne system.

The intent is to give precedence to jobs that have a U_NB_Stats value of “N” (Not Finished).

 

First, we choose a rule to redefine

1. Click the “Optimize Rules” button:

Optimize Rules Button

 

 

 

 

2. Click the “Edit Rule” button on the “Optimize Rules” tab in the “Resource Configurator” pop-up window:

Edit Rule Button

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. On the “Optimize Rule” pop-up window, select the “Efficiency” tab. On this tab, we will decide which rule to redefine. In this case, we will redefine the “Nearest Higher Setup Nbr” rule. Slide the slide-bar for this rule over to the right so that it has an appropriate weight (a value of 815, in this case):

Nearest Higher Setup Number Weight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now we change the data mappings so that a data item, that can be referenced by this new redefined rule, has the appropriate data stored in it.

4. Click the “Data Mappings” button:

Data Mappings Button

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Jump to the “Resource Operation Mappings” screen in the Data Mappings wizard:

Resource Operations Mapping Screen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. On the “Resource Operations Mapping” screen, we are selecting data from the “APS_Operation” SQL View of the “ProductionOneAPS_Import” database. This mapping is already selecting from this view, and will not need to be changed:

APS_Operation SQL View

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. The data item “U_NB_Stats” has already been loaded into the “APS_Operation” SQL View from the “WOR1″ table of the ProductionOne database. The available items are displayed when the “Refresh Field List and Sample Data” button is clicked:

Refresh Field List And Sample Data Button

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Load the appropriate data into the correct field. We will be loading data into the “SetupNumber” field. We will be using a CASE statement to load a numeric interpretation of the string data that is stored in U_NB_Stats from the ProductionOne database:

Setup Number CASE Statement

 

 

 

 

 

You now have redefined the use of the “Nearest Higher Setup Nbr” optimization rule by loading the U_NB_Stats data into the SetupNumber field for the Resource Operation Mappings within the Galaxy APS system.

 

 

 

><naim>

Volvo – the Truck Industry Revolutionizer

Written by on May 10, 2012 | Filed Under: Automotive, manufacturing

Perhaps it’s with the bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC that automotive and truck industries have been revamping their policies to invest in and produce more efficient and cost-effective means of transportation. More specifically, by improving the infrastructure and reducing the environmental impact of trucks, Volvo Trucks North America is trying to open new ways of increasing highway freight transport productivity. A means of progressing towards this goal would be investing in the use of more productive trucks, claims Scott Kress, Volvo’s senior vice president of marketing and sales. However challenges of safely delivering more freight and being more efficient to support current and future demands remains. While demands of freight transportation has increased with the population and economic growth over the decades, infrastructure investment for highway and bridge system for freight deliver has remained unchanged, resulting in significant freight bottlenecks that cost the US economy tens of billions of dollars per year, says Kress.

Idealistically, if efficient truck production was achieved, productive trucks would consume less fuel, reduce green house gas emissions, and depend less on foreign fuels. With safe performance as Volvo’s core value and foundation of the company, Kress claims that Volvo’s Trucks’ initiative to promote the generation of leaner and safer trucks on the highway is paramount to their success as a leading company of the truck industry. However, it’s not just the production of more efficient trucks a strategy of improving truck transportation that would transform the industry – there is also factors of road infrastructure would aide in the global impact.

So what does this show us? Keeping up to date with the infrastructure could save our economy billions of dollars – an investment surely a worthy of pursuit with this revolution of energy efficiency. Public policy must change to reduce such bottlenecks that are not only caused by the vehicles on the road, but the road congestion the result from poor infrastructure. Nonetheless, with Volvo Trucks North America initiating change, perhaps other companies of this industry can see the benefits in similar investments and start converting their companies to providing more productive trucks on the road.

Bottlenecks and extra expense can be avoided and efficiency can be attained with better management. Does your company face a similar situation? Feel free to discuss with me to further aid your company in finding a solution to become more efficient.

*This post is from our previous blog site FactoryScheduling.com, from May 11, 2009.

 

What is Factory Scheduling?

Written by on April 25, 2012 | Filed Under: Advanced Planning and Scheduling, Factory Scheduling, manufacturing

Factory Scheduling is the production management process by which raw materials, intermediates and production capacity are efficiently allocated to meet demand. It identifies bottleneck resources, anticipates problems and enables real-time communication of schedule changes.
Our old blog site, FactoryScheduling.com will soon no longer be available so we will be moving its valuable content here. And not to worry, we’ll continue to add useful content over time. The purpose of FactoryScheduling.com was to educate production and operations managers on common industry-focused scheduling problems and solutions. The goal was to enable sharing of experiences, ideas, and best-practices for improving productivity through better scheduling processes.
We acknowledge the benefits of global interaction through the internet. Committed to educating industries, producers, and professionals on aspects of industry-focused scheduling and production problems and solutions, we also encourage the development of a community of individuals to share and exchange ideas, options and practices of better scheduling solutions.

As a growing community of bloggers focusing in different verticals of the manufacturing industry, each individual blog provides informative ideas and unique perspectives. If there are any questions or suggests in regards to production scheduling or blog-related topics, we encourage any comments and messages from our readers and guarantee prompt responses!

Grouping jobs by material thickness.

Written by on April 20, 2012 | Filed Under: Advanced Planning and Scheduling, manufacturing, Material, Optimize

Material Groupings & Optimization Rules.

Here are the steps involved in grouping jobs by material attributes. In this case, jobs will be group based on their material thickness attribute.

The intent is to reduce setup time associated with reconfiguring the resource to handle different material thicknesses.

For this example, I will optimize the grouping of jobs using material in the material grouping called “Fin Stock”. Any jobs in the “Fin Stock” material grouping will be grouped by the material’s part number. The “Fin Stock” material group includes parts that have a thickness associated with their processing by a Fin Press resource. If material isn’t in the “Fin Stock” group, then we won’t want the optimizer to worry about it.

Material Grouping will not be the only optimization rule in effect, so we will also see how the relative weights of each of the rules will affect the outcome of the job grouping after optimization.

Material Grouping is a standard feature in Galaxy APS and is covered elsewhere. For this example, assuem that the material groupings are already in effect.

Now, to optimize the FP12 (Fin Press) resource:

1) Right-Click the resource and choose “Optimize Rule…”:

Rt. Click a resource and choose "Optimize Rules"

2) Select the Material Groupings tab in the Optimize Rule pop-up window. In this example, the Material Group called “Fin Stock” is given a maximum weighting. Other material groupings can be chosen from the subsequent drop-down menus:

Choose Fin Stock from the Material Groupings Drop-Down menu.

3) To see an item’s material grouping, select “Items, Warehouses and Inventory” from the Data tab:

Click "Items, Warehouses and Inventory" from the Data tab

4) We can select specific material grouping categories from the drop-down menu of the Group field. In this example, “Fin Stock” is chosen:

"Fin Stock" material grouping

5) Items in the Fin Stock group are shown:

Fin Stock group

6) Now we will look at the rules in the Optimize Rule pop-up window, and see the relative weights of the existing rules:

Optimize Rules and relative weights

 

Note: This information can be misleading. The Fin Stock Material Groupings rule has a weight of 1000, and the Least Setup Hours Efficiency rule has a weight of 706, but that 706 value is multiplied by the number of Setup Hours. So, if a job would have 2 hours of setup, then the 2 is multiplied by the 706 to get a weight of 1412, which is higher that the Fin Stock weight of 1000, and therefore the job that would incur 2 hours of setup has precedence. To avoid confusion, these “weights” should be normalized.

7) The Ranges tab of the Optimize Rule pop-up window allows you to normalize the weight values:

Normalize the weights of the optimization rules

In the case of “Setup Hours”, pick a maximum value for the setup hours field. Let us say that the most setup hours for any fin press is 4 hours, then the weight applies to the range of setup from 0 to 4 hours. In other words, the job that had a setup time of 2 hours is thought to be 50% of the range from 0 to 4. This 50% is multiplied by the rule’s wight of 706, giving a value of 343. So the job with setup hours of 2 yields a setup hours optimization rule value of 353, which is compared to the job whose material grouping optimization rules value is 1000. The jobs with the same material will take precedence over jobs with 2 hours of setup.

 

All good?

All good.

 

 

naem><<

 

 

Adding Operation Notes from a User Defined Field in SAP B1 / ProductionOne

Written by on March 23, 2012 | Filed Under: Uncategorized

In this post, I’d like to discuss creating operation notes using values from a user defined field (UDF) imported from the ProductionOne add-in associated with SAP B1.

The UDF in this example is called “U_NB_Stats”. It will be placed in the operation notes, and the operation notes will be displayed on the Gantt’s tool-tip and job/operation label.

This process can be referred to as mapping. Follow these steps:

1) Determine which field to map. In this case we are mapping U_NB_Stats from the WOR1 table in the ProductionOne SQL Database.

Galaxy APS - map field U_NB_Stats from WOR1

2) Determine the appropriate APS View that references the ProductionOne table. In this case, we want to have U_NB_Stats associated with the APS_Operation view. The APS_Operation view is created by importing data from both the APS_OperationHelper and the APS_OperationPrimary views. The APS_OperationHelper view gets data from the ProductionOne table WOR1. In the APS_OperationHelper view, we need to select “U_NB_Stats” from WOR1 to be passed through to the APS_Operation view.

Galaxy APS - SQL Database Diagram showing table linkage

3) In the APS_Operation view, we select “U_NB_Stats” from APS_OperationHelper. (assuming that the APS_OperationHelper view has this item already included, if not, add it).

Galaxy APS - APS_Operation view with U_NB_Stats selected

4) Now the field “U_NB_Stats” is available to the Data Mappings in PlanetTogher’s Galaxy APS software system. We need to go to the “Data Mappings” section in Galaxy. We need to go to the “Resource Operation Mappings” page in the Data Mappings wizard. This page of the wizard shows that we are selecting data from the “APS_Operation” view.

Galaxy APS - Mapping Wizard - Operations - Select From APS_Operation

5) After clicking the “Refresh Field List and Sample Data” button, we can see that the new field

Galaxy APS - mapping - operations - new field U_NB_Stats

6) Now, to map U_NB_Stats to a field in Galaxy APS, just drag it from the Field List (shown above), and place it in the desired Galaxy APS field. In this case, we are moving it to the “Notes” field.

Galaxy APS - mapping - operations - Notes Field

7) Now it is “Mapped” in Galaxy APS. Next we want to display the value in the “Tool-Tip” associated with the operations displayed on the Gantt. We click the “Labels” button on the Gantt view of Galaxy APS. Then we will click the “ToolTip Text” button.

Galaxy APS - Gantt view - Labels - Tool-Tip Text

8 ) In the Tooltip Text pop-up window, type text into the “Label” panel. In this case we typed in “Note/U_NB_Stats: “. Then select from the “Available Fields” panel or type in the name of the data item that you would like displayed. In this case we are using “ResourceOperation.Notes”. This will display the value of the Notes item of the Resource Operation Mappings directly after the “Note/U_NB_Stats: “ text. The data item needs to have at least one space or before it, and after it if another item or text will be displayed.

Galaxy APS - Tool-Tip text editing

9) Close and restart PlanetTogether. The new tooltip text should be displayed.

10) A “CASE” statement can be used to give a interpretation of the data being mapped. In this case, if U_NB_Stats is “N”, we will display “not finished”. The CASE statement is entered in the appropriate Data Mappings page as follows:

Galaxy APS - mappings - CASE statement

11) The tooltip now displays the interpreted value of U_NB_Stats:

Galaxy APS - Tool-Tip - showing notes

12) The information can also be displayed in the job label by clicking the “Labels” button on the Gantt view, then clicking “Label” on the “Activity Display Options” pop-up window, then adding text and data items in the “Label” panel of the “Block Label” pop-up window.

Galaxy APS - Labels - add text

13) The new information is displayed in the job’s label:

Galaxy APS - Labels - showing text

 

That’s it for now.

Any questions?

 

 

naem><<

Projects Are Not Fine Wine

Written by on March 14, 2012 | Filed Under: Advanced Planning and Scheduling, Implementation

Projects, unlike fine wines, do not improve with age.

It’s a standard rule of project management that the success rates of projects are inversely proportional to the length of time they take. Key personnel move to other projects, the project loses steam, and other personnel return to their pre-project methods.

At PlanetTogether we have initiated a two phase project estimating plan to more accurately lay out our project plans. We will go into a client site for 2 days in discovery mode to get to know the client, its desired success factors, current issues and current bottlenecks. This short visit lets us better estimate the overall project time and help ensure we keep our project on time and on budget.

Balancing the Old and the New

Written by on March 9, 2012 | Filed Under: Advanced Planning and Scheduling, Implementation

One of the inherent challenges in implementing an automated system (including an Advanced Planning and Scheduling system) is determining which functionality requirements are suitable to the implementation.

Every implementation requires changes to the customer’s business process. One of the important steps during the implementation is for the team to discuss and agree upon a “To-BE” business process that includes the newly implemented system. This can be an uncomfortable task especially if the customer has adopted and enjoyed their original process for many years, with experienced employees knowing every rule and exception front to back. In order for the transition to be a smooth one, the team as a whole must come to an agreement on the functionality requirements the system must satisfy in order to justify its place in the new business process.

Often a functionality requirement exists because the task has been handled manually based on the team’s knowledge and experience. This can result in two types of situations. The first is a process characterized by extreme flexibility with no consistency, whereby a “rule” is immediately followed by a laundry list of exceptions. Such requirements are difficult to satisfy with an automated system which functions based on defined rules.

The second situation results in a requirement born out of a rigidity, whereby a process has been put in place to simplify what would otherwise be an unfeasible task for mere mortals, due to the tremendous amount of time necessary to accomplish it.

Seeking to satisfy such requirements may hinder the customer from truly enjoying the benefits of an automated system, since such rules may only be necessary if a human is handling the task manually, wherein spotting irregularities or exceptions can be more difficult and time consuming. If, however, an automated system can assist the task by processing the number crunching for us, it would allow value added times for users to spot exceptions and make decisions only a human mind can accomplish (at least until artificial intelligence comes along).

PlanetTogether consultants utilize years of experiences in implementation to advise each customer in order to execute the best approach to developing a planning and scheduling model that will maximize the benefit of having an automated system while preserving — as much as possible — the business rules already in place so that the users can experience the transition comfortably. Of course, this isn’t possible without the consultants working together closely with the customer team, which is why we approach implementation as a team effort.

 

Handling Schedule Variation

Written by on March 6, 2012 | Filed Under: Advanced Planning and Scheduling, manufacturing

Heads-up: this article will have more questions than answers. But I do think it will be a good platform for thinking about working solutions to difficult questions. The main question considered here is “What options are there for handling uncertainty in schedules?”

One line of thought focuses on the idea of buffering time, resources, and/or inventory in the schedule. These buffers are added on top of the time standards and lead times on items. It seems that there is widespread agreement that creating a schedule – that is, promising delivery dates to your customers – without allowing for some extra time in the schedule will lead to some disappointed customers. Interestingly, not factoring in variation on time estimates also increases the variation on delivery dates for other work in the schedule as adjustments are made to the rest of the work in the plan.

Some opportunity exists for being more scientific about setting the size of any buffers. Using data distributions and statistical tools, it might be possible to determine what the “correct” buffers should be for a given process. This approach, however, faces the obstacles of collecting this data and verifying its usability in your environment. Whenever buffers sizes are assessed, a more vital question might be: “What financial impact do buffers have on our company?” It would also be worthwhile to explore the underlying assumptions behind the buffers that are already in place.

A second line of thought for reducing uncertainty might show some promise. In this case, focus can be placed on controlling how early work on a job can begin. This is also known as controlling the release dates for when work is made available to the manufacturing floor. Run times and setup time standards will certainly vary from whatever their specified values are, but variation can also be introduced by having too much open work on the floor. Most of us know this as work in process inventory or WIP. More WIP often means longer lead times to customers and difficulty in prioritizing and tracking down current progress on jobs.

Reducing WIP generally means a smoother flow for all work. Think about this situation: if the CEO asked that a product be made right now and carried through the whole process, most likely that would take a lot less time than the average lead times the current schedule is providing. That higher velocity flow can be achieved by delaying the start of work, allowing production steps to move more quickly from one to the next.

Delaying release of work to the shop floor also seems like a viable idea, but there is risk in waiting too long and missing due-dates. There is also the question of when to order materials to begin the job – although manufacturing might be able to wait to begin work, most companies will not want to take a high risk that their vendors won’t be able to supply the needed materials in a just-in-time environment.

I don’t see an easy answer to the question I started with. It does seem worthwhile to start to quantify aspects that affect these decisions:

  1. How much WIP is on the floor on average? Has this been increasing or decreasing?
  2. How reliable are the delivery dates quoted to customers?
  3. What expenses are incurred in scrambling to meet due-dates when variations hit the schedule?

With this information, a number of potential answers can be explored and the approach that produces the best results can be applied.

«Older Posts
Kiva empowers individuals to lend to an entrepreneur across the globe. By combining microfinance with the internet, Kiva is creating a global community of people connected through lending.