7 myths about APS

Something that catches the attention of the academic and professional audience is the lack of bibliography that specifically discusses the APS subject. And basically what is on the internet are commercial bias materials (bias that we seek not to harm content like this on our blog, but finally, here we are). The natural consequence of this fact is the limitation of the public's knowledge of the subject, which ends up in the APS in two ways basically: in practice, actually using and/or implementing such a solution in his work with the help of an expert consultancy; Or in Boca-a-Boca, talking to the people of the first group or even watching a lecture at an event. And that's how myths arise. Let's see some of them: 1. With APS, I will stop delaying my orders and generate inventory ruptures. Unlike the joke that teaches us how to put 50 clowns inside a taxi, a factory has no infinite capacity. Possibly APS great trick is to really work with finite capacity, that is, consider the limits and restrictions of a productive system to evaluate what will be possible within the desired or not. At the same time the APS will seek to do this optimally within the chosen heurististics, which really generates more efficiency and allows you to do more with it (or less). Because this last advantage does that some people think the delays will simply disappear, as well as the ruptures of those who produce for stock. In some cases there is clearly a lack of capacity and, even optimizing factory programming, it will not be enough to meet the demand. In these cases, APS will eventually be useful to simulate capacity increments in specific sectors and assist in capacity planning planning so that in the medium/long term actually delays and ruptures are eliminated. 2. APS will schedule my factory alone every time there is some unforeseen production in my production throughout the day. The programming process within APS software is something is constantly improving, which is part of a practical and effective process for PPCP to have agility and good results from the use of use, and gradually evolves with automations that are only captured from the continuous use of the solution. At the limit, we can reach the point of generating a totally autonomous programming, which does not depend on human intervention. However, this is a long way and yet it is a discreet process with limits. In the vast majority of cases, the APS user performs the programming once a day, and when there is a big unforeseen event in the factory, whether a machine break or a parachute order. It is even important that there is no constant reprogramming minute by minute, otherwise the programming is, as we call it, very “nervous”, changing sequence at all times. In this sense, it is good to have a frozen program horizon and seek to avoid continuous changes in it. In the end, if there is a short-term punctual problem on the ground floor, who will solve this will be the factory itself. 3. APS only works if we have 100% of updated and correct engineering records. This finding is possibly the most recurring and the one that will never be true. No industry will always have 100% of their correct and updated registrations (here we talk about engineering records such as manufacturing itineraries with process times and resource alternatives, as well as product structures). As a factory is also constantly changing, even a great study may be outdated after just 3 months. To minimize the impacts of these intrinsic imperfections to reality, the ideal is to control the adherence of the programming, ie how they are performing what is being programmed. If this adherence is low, the main reasons may be misconception rules, corporate ground resistance to follow the programming for power dispute, incoherent production performance indicators, inefficiencies, or times and groups of resource with registration problems. Isolating the other reasons, it is possible to identify where your registrations can be more problems and perform task forces to solve them. Last, the use of APS is also very effective in identifying problems because it is very visual. If, for example, a production time is far above what it should be, Gantt's own graph will already indicate the problem in the catch, showing an operation higher than others.

If you depend on all records before you start, you will probably never start. [/Caption] 4. APS will help me analyze my historical efficiency (OEE) and diagnose what problems I have in production. The word “programming” already infer that this is the future time. An APS system is focused on programming orders/demand in the future period. That is, in this process, the past is not protagonist. Of course, it can help, especially the short -term past. Neo uses short-term corporate floor notes to generate programming adherence visions (KPI commented on the previous item), which is extremely useful. But it cannot be expected that APS will store a history of years and bring detailed analysis of this history. Technically, it is totally possible, but it is already another solution scope, much more focused on production control and MES (Manufacturing Execution Systems) systems. 5. APS only works if it has a production control solution (month) in use. A month system is important to have a panorama of real -time production (or the most up -to -date possible), but as it was in myth 2, the programming is usually performed once twice a day. That is, if Key-USER program at 08h and 13h, what really is necessary is that the scenario of what has been produced so far is up to date, not that everything is updated at all times. Thus, notes at specific times of each shift, or notes for units of movement (pallet, coil, etc.) are already enough for good fine programming in the APS. 6. APS is not useful for automotive assembly lines. A automotive assembly line really does not configure the traditional use of APS, but there are advantages that can be very positive with the use of it. There will be no synchronization between very complex resources and operations caused by cross -produced flows that occur in other segments, but there are critical material synchronism problems. And the APS performs this synchronism and helps all the processes adjacent to the assembly lines to serve it in the best way possible, identifying when inputs are needed in each line operation, as well as when it is essential changes in the line due to labor restrictions, which can cause stops on the line and are treated in the APS. For material synchronism and restriction control is very useful.

Automotive line [/caption] 7. I don't need APS because here we implement Lean Manufacturing System. Incredibly, concepts that should add synergistically, are often confused and understood as conflicting. In addition to Lean Manufacturing System being something beyond a methodology, but a philosophy, it can collaborate a lot with the PHC and vice versa. The very example of myth 6 already shows us this by inserting APS into an environment that traditionally breathes Lean. At the same time, the grip analyzes we saw in myth 3 can be raw material for the organization of a kaizenblitz; Quick tool exchange can constantly update the Setup times used by APS, and so on. At the same time, Lean alone does not treat increasingly frequent dynamic bottlenecks in productive environments where the volume of skus and product diversification increases, causing, depending on the mix to produce, one industry can be overwhelmed and an idle. This dynamism requires a quick and intelligent response that only an expert system is possible to provide, with heuristics and a simulation power that can adapt to each situation and time of factories. This is the APS. Of course, these are just some of the myths (yes, there are many more!) And that their "believers" do not always defend them with nails and teeth. But we note, whether implicitly or explicitly, that are questions that surround the minds of those who study or practice the APs. The reflection is worth understanding what not to expect and what does not fear of it. Have you heard any other myth?! Share with us here! [NOPTIN-Form ID = 2822]