What should I implement first: APS or MES?

Shop floor production control is a process that has historically been important in industrial management. Productivity, repeatability, Taylor... These are all in the blood of industrial management. MES (Manufacturing Execution Systems) systems have come to enhance the management of production activities, integrating management information from ERP software directly with shop floor resources. Although officially introduced in the 1990s, it was in the last decade that MES software MES more valued and widespread in Brazilian industry, with the ability to manage production execution and material flow quickly and assertively. A great solution for understanding what happened and what is happening in your factory.

Production reporting, one of the outputs of an MESsolution, is a fundamental part of factory scheduling, as we need to know what was executed to avoid reproducing, taking up production capacity that would otherwise be available for another product. An error like this can cause scheduling to be based on a different premise than reality, generating a series of invalid decisions. In other words, having an up-to-date scenario when planning or scheduling is crucial.

In addition to this timing aspect, accuracy can also be critical if it does not reach an ideal minimum level. For both notes and inventory positions and movements, as a wrong registered volume can trigger a request point for replacement at the proper time.

However, this updated scenario premise often raises doubts about the frequency, detail and accuracy that is needed, looking from the perspective of programming . This type of information requirement can give the impression that we need a real -time reporting to be able to program, which is not true. At this point we need to see our current process and what we want for our future to see whether or not we are adequate.

If your company schedules once a day, at 7:30 a.m., this is the time you need to have the executed scenario updated every day. If there's a shift change right before this time and production leadership is organized to have all the notes entered into the system before the change, you'll be able to schedule smoothly. If you have the mesprocess established for an afternoon shift change, you can reschedule at this time as well.

From the perspective of proactive programming, which has a standardized frequency and an initial but robust degree of maturity, the lack of real -time note tends not to generate significant complications in their decisions.

Let's look at the example below, where we have Scenario 1 of an initial schedule, at the beginning of production, and then two scenarios of a subsequent schedule cycle (Scenario 2 with MES inputs and Scenario 3 via ERP). We assume that MES will allow for more frequent production updates, as well as reduce the risk of human error due to manual inputs. Let's analyze the situations under these two scenarios.

[Caption Id = "Attachment_3695" Align = "AligNenter" Width = "725"]

Execution scenarios and notes [/caption]

For the case of greater delay in notes, which is Operation A in R1, in scenario 2, the information is more accurate and we note that there is already an extra point in this scenario than in scenario 3, which has a larger balance to produce yet. However, this did not change the sequence of this feature.
‍

In the case of wrong point, in Operation G in R3, it is noted that in scenario 3 (via ERP) pointed out more than due, generating a balance to produce smaller than in scenario 2. This causes the end forecast to be incorrect with a gap of a few hours. Again, in this specific example, this did not change the logic and programming sequence.
‍

In short, the sequence and logic are the mes. If there's a setup gain in doing ABC, in this sequence, it will be done mesif the tracking is manual and there are some deviations in timing and quantities. Of course, if the tracking error or delay is very high, the sequence will change. Here are some points that increase the risk of this happening:

• Cycle and process times very short, which generates many programming events, greatly increasing the sequence options and their dynamism (for example, an operation of a bottleneck time having 15-20 minutes process times, which will imply a very large volume of programmed orders in one shift);
• Very high volume of operations by order, with similar cycle times. If the factory has many macro operations by order (for example, 10 or more), and they are balanced, any small variation has a domino effect that can be significant. In cases of better -defined bottlenecks, these variations tend not to impact the sequence itself so much, as the system as a whole depends on some more specifically operations.
• Processes with many resource options to perform each operation. With more resource options, more reprogramming possibilities exist as execution escapes from what was planned. If a product in a given operation only has, for example, 2 or 3 machine alternatives, this risk decreases a lot.
• High occurrence of non -programmed corrective and stop maintenance, which can significantly reduce programming adherence compared to what is actually delivered by production.
  ‍

In other words, proactive programming, which has a day and time to occur, can normally be carried out without the presence of an MES , as long as we have a manual record of the work performed at mes frequency as we carry out the programming (normally daily or by shift) .

Another important aspect to consider when implementing an MES , which consequently affects the frequency of recordings, is the decision on which data collection points will be used. It's often unfeasible to monitor all processes. To achieve this, it's important to understand which processes are most critical in terms of capacity and reliability ; these are likely the ones that require greater control and deserve investment. The remaining processes often receive recordings using backflush , which assumes that if a subsequent operation has already been recorded, then the previous one, which doesn't have its own recording point, has also already been executed. The ideal minimum is to position these recording points so that a production order never goes more than one shift without receiving a recording at any stage .

Still, meswith stable proactive scheduling, we want to be able to reschedule at a different time when an unexpected demand or supply issue arises, which we can call reactive scheduling. This type of scheduling is useful for resolving unforeseen situations, identifying all the impacts that a change to a Production Order can have on a factory as a whole. However, it shouldn't be frequent, especially if we're making changes to the frozen short-term horizon, which should be altered as little as possible, as constantly making substantial changes to the plans we bring to the factory makes scheduling "nervous." We use this term because if the scheduler keeps changing production priorities hourly with shop floor leaders, the reliability of that plan will be lost, and confusion and potential errors will increase significantly. In other words, it's the kind of alternative that requires a "use sparingly" label.
‍

A programming process shouldn't be established with its primary focus on reactivity to very short-term unforeseen events. Typically, those who need to trigger this type of (re)action excessively have a larger underlying issue that generates this unpredictability, whether it's a flawed maintenance plan that causes numerous machine breakdowns, or a lack of coordination between Sales and PPC , causing constant shifts in priorities. The involvement of the APS generally helps stabilize these processes that involve multiple departments, and for this reason, it starts with a lower frequency to allow all parties to acclimate to the new model .

Meswith these precautions, as you gain maturity, a quick and assertive decision on demand at a critical moment is very valuable. But now, for reactive scheduling, do I need to have a MES in place? Many industries already have a standard procedure for recording (via ERP) at the end of each movement unit (pallet, coil, box, etc.) or mesthe end of each operation in a Production Order. If the cycle times of the processes we want to monitor are not very long, to the point where the complete processing of an order operation exceeds 2-3 hours, it is very likely that on-demand rescheduling is already possible. You won't be assertive 100% of the time, but you will be the vast majority (remembering the example of the 3 scenarios we showed).
‍

An MESsolution, in addition to its intrinsic advantages of providing greater control, provides greater speed, accuracy, and control over this entire process, allowing us to rely on assertive rescheduling with increasing frequency (if this increase makes sense and is productive). At mestime, this doesn't exclude our traditional process of daily and/or weekly scheduling, in which you'll build your plan in a more proactive and structured manner. Thus, MES improves reactive scheduling, but it isn't essential for proactive scheduling. Below, we can see a graph showing the evolution of scheduling with increasing maturity and the introduction of an MESsystem.

Where to start?

But then, mesknowing that we don't need one to implement the other and vice versa, where do I start? This question is frequently asked.
‍

The answer is easy to find by understanding the company's priorities. Within an OEE analysis, if the productivity focus is on performance, the MES will be able to show where you're falling short and why. However, if your biggest problem is availability, with long waiting times, high setup times, and imbalances, the APS will be the solution to address these issues. If you have very critical maintenance issues, the MES can be a great way to work with predictive maintenance. If you have significant demand fluctuations and need to simulate scenarios, the APS will do the trick. If you're experiencing productivity issues, unsure of the location of your factory's problems, unsure of their magnitude, and seeking a comprehensive diagnosis, start with the MES. But if you already know where these problems typically lie and want to know what to do, proactively informing decision-making, start with the APS.
‍

Factories are usually managed by engineers. And engineers have a control craze, they want that diagnosis in the comma. My tip is to pay attention to this perfectionism, as it is worth a regular biopsy with a concrete prognosis than a perfect autopsy.

‍

Want to learn more about APS and MES ? Access our FREE and COMPLETE ebooks mes !