Digital Transformation of Production Planning and Control in Manufacturing SMEs-The Mold Shop Case
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Method Description
- The MQTT adapter (implementation of the MQTT client protocol) transforms non-MQTT devices into MQTT-enabled devices. It transforms data from arbitrary formats (XML, JSON, binary signals) into MQTT messages. The body of such messages follows a JSON format, and its model is dictated by the IDAS IoT Agent.
- MQTT Broker is an essential component for transferring data fast, efficient and reliable from shopfloor (connected IoT devices) towards an arbitrary number of client devices.
- An IDAS IoT Agent configured to serve as a proxy between the MQTT protocol (supported by the mosquito MQTT broker) and the NGSI protocol (supported by the ORION context broker).
- ORION Context broker supporting the NGSI standard.
- The context listener component is a client of Context Broker which uses the NGSI protocol to access context-related information and provide them towards the main backed application through its dedicated ESB.
- Enterprise Service Bus (ESB): The communication channel for data transfer from the “Data Acquisition” (see Figure 1) system towards the “Business Layer”. (implemented using Apache’s Camel and Active MQ)
- MES/ERP Interface: A generic Interface to communicate with MES/ERP systems. The solution provides an API for production schedule creation and management. The API is implemented through a set of Rest Services exchanging JSON formatted data.
- Data Services: This component provides the API for accessing the data managed by the backend system. Again, these services/API are implemented as Rest services (JSON) and are utilized to develop the “apps” in the Frontend layer.
- Notification & Alerts Service: This module provides the Frontend layer with simple and complex events generated by the CEP component. The CEP component is precond to fire complex events from the IoT data that each third-party application (in our case the Front-End apps) can be registered to receive and act upon.
- Complex Event Processing (CEP): This component is connected to the ESB to retrieve events from sensors and combined with historical information from the “Data Access Layer” generates alerts and notifications. The generated events are preconfigured through a rule-based system and upon their creation are propagated to the registered services through the HTTP protocol as JSON messages.
- Data Analytics: This component is a group of services that produce high-level information from the low-level shop floor and production data like business KPIs.
- Shopfloor Operator Support App: This app (see Figure 3) is used to guide an Operator to perform a “task”. Upon reaching a workstation, he scans his badge, and a list of “products” and corresponding “machines” are presented to select and start/finish a process. This application utilizes the assignments monitoring functionalities of the backend system along with the work order configuration to get a list of assignments and present the end user with the status of a product allowing them to advance it (further process the product). Functionalities include:
- a.
- Production plan monitoring
- b.
- Location of products on the shopfloor (user interface only, it utilizes backend system functionality of sensor monitoring)
- c.
- User Interface for Operator Support (personalized production plan per operator)
- d.
- Alerts from the shop floor. Mainly information about machine breakdowns derived from installed sensors.
- Production Schedule App: This application (see Figure 4) creates a production schedule that is fed to the backend system services for monitoring. It provides capabilities for facility configuration, bill of processes configuration and finally workload definition. The core of the scheduling application has been based on advanced search [29] which has been utilized also in other cases (e.g., [30]). The output is a set of work orders to be released to the shop floor.
- Shopfloor Status App: This application (see Figure 5) provides the management personnel with a view of the shopfloor activities. It provides information about where each product is located on the shop floor, what task each machine/resource is currently running and finally metadata for the product, like what processes each product has already finished (from the Bill Of Processes) and what would be the expected time of the product to be available to be shipped to the customer.
4. Industrial Pilot Case
4.1. Industrial Pilot Case Description
- Planning & scheduling: There is no planning or scheduling taking place other than the rough manual prioritization of the jobs in progress. Senior engineers and management have a deep understanding of each project and the efforts required to complete it and give instructions to the shopfloor personnel. Once a job is close to completion, or finished on a specific resource or department, a decision is made about which job is going to be processed next. Usually, to stay efficient and avoid resources staying idle, waiting for instructions, departments are assigned to be occupied with the same project, and engineers undertake projects personally so that they can manage them efficiently. All instructions to the shop floor, and work assignments, are orally provided, and the only information available is the order confirmation date and required delivery time.
- Monitoring & control: Since there is no schedule or production plan, following a project during its execution can be very demanding. There is no overview of which job is being processed in which machine since this information is dispersed among the operators and responsible engineers and requires person-to-person communication. Possible delays are identified only when it is already too late to respond. The timesheet-based system of documenting efforts spent on each project is considered of low quality and provides insight only after the completion of a task.
- Uninformed decision making: Given the lack of scheduling and monitoring of the manufacturing operations, a lot of personal and team efforts are required, to maintain the system functioning. Priority conflicts are daily resolved informally on a personal level or with short meetings of every stakeholder involved, and adaptations are being made constantly. The impact of those adaptations is impossible to consider in detail and to meet deadlines, a lot of extra working hours are required, leading to extra costs, which again cannot be quantified. The same applies to each new order coming to the shop floor since delivery times have already been agreed upon with little consideration of the available capacity of the current period.
4.2. Validation and Lessons Learnt
- Two client workstations (PCs) to monitor the process execution by retrieving information from the operators of the machines close to each of the workstations. A touch screen was installed in each client workstation to allow for interaction with the operators. A standard web browser (Google Chrome) was used for providing access to the functionality of the apps.
- One Zigbee-enabled sensor for collecting energy consumption data from one production machine.
- A server for local, on-site installation of the proposed solution. The backend part of the solution was installed on the server side.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chryssolouris, G. Manufacturing Systems: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Alexopoulos, K.; Sipsas, K.; Xanthakis, E.; Makris, S.; Mourtzis, D. An industrial Internet of things based platform for context-aware information services in manufacturing. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2018, 31, 1111–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-L. Value creation by SMEs participating in global value chains under industry 4.0 trend: Case study of textile industry in Taiwan. J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 22, 120–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Smart Industrial Remoting: Remote Working in Non-Digitalised Industries—Pilot Project, Gap Analysis Report. 2022. Available online: https://ppmi.lt/storage/app/media/docs/sird2gapanalysisreportvpublication.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2022).
- Moeuf, A.; Pellerin, R.; Lamouri, S.; Tamayo-Giraldo, S.; Barbaray, R. The industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 1118–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mourtzis, D.; Vlachou, E.; Xanthopoulos, N.; Givehchi, M.; Wang, L. Cloud based-adaptive process planning considering availability and capabilities of machine tools. J. Manuf. Syst. 2016, 39, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajgar, M.; Calligaris, S.; Calvino, F.; Criscuolo, C.; Timmis, J. Bits and Bolts: The digital Transformation and Manufacturing; OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krüger, J.; Wang, L.; Verl, A.; Bauernhansl, T.; Carpanzano, E.; Makris, S.; Fleischer, J.; Reinhart, G.; Franke, J.; Pellegrinelli, S. Innovative control of assembly systems and lines. CIRP Ann. 2017, 66, 707–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolakis, N.; Senington, R.; Sipsas, K.; Syberfeldt, A.; Makris, S. On a containerized approach for the dynamic planning and control of a cyber—Physical production system. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 2020, 64, 101919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borangiu, T.; Trentesaux, D.; Thomas, A.; Leitão, P.; Barata, J. Digital transformation of manufacturing through cloud services and resource virtualization. Comput. Ind. 2019, 108, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchis, R.; García-Perales, Ó.; Fraile, F.; Poler, R. Low-Code as Enabler of Digital Transformation in Manufacturing Industry. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Butt, J. A Conceptual Framework to Support Digital Transformation in Manufacturing Using an Integrated Business Process Management Approach. Designs 2020, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexopoulos, K.; Anagiannis, I.; Nikolakis, N.; Chryssolouris, G. A quantitative approach to resilience in manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 4342–4360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Fast-Berglund, Å.; Paulin, D.; Thorvald, P. Exploration of digitalized presentation of information for Operator 4.0: Five industrial cases. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 168, 108048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Varona, J.M.; López-Paredes, A.; Poza, D.; Acebes, F. Building and development of an organizational competence for digital transformation in SMEs. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2021, 14, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieretto, E.; Hinterhuber, A. Digital transformation of manufacturing firms: Opportunities and challenges for SMEs. In Managing Digital Transformation; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 211–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prashar, A.; Tortorella, G.L.; Fogliatto, F.S. Production scheduling in Industry 4.0: Morphological analysis of the literature and future research agenda. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 65, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cañas, H.; Mula, J.; Campuzano-Bolarín, F.; Poler, R. A conceptual framework for smart production planning and control in Industry 4.0. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 173, 108659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumann, A.; Hajji, A.; Rekik, M.; Pellerin, R. A model for advanced planning systems dedicated to the Engineer-To-Order context. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 252, 108557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, M.J.; Ham, A. Energy-aware flexible job shop scheduling under time-of-use pricing. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 248, 108507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coito, T.; Firme, B.; Martins, M.S.E.; Costigliola, A.; Lucas, R.; Figueiredo, J.; Vieira, S.M.; Sousa, J.M.C. Integration of industrial IoT architectures for dynamic scheduling. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 171, 108387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owida, A.; Galal, N.M.; Elrafie, A. Decision-making framework for a resilient sustainable production system during COVID-19: An evidence-based research. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 164, 107905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, W.; Li, Y.; Tang, D.; Wang, X.; Yuan, M. Using real-time manufacturing data to schedule a smart factory via reinforcement learning. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 171, 108406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, G.; Dong, X.; Dong, Q.; He, Y.; Zeng, P. Context-aware scheduling and control architecture for cyber-physical production systems. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 62, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolakis, N.; Sipsas, K.; Makris, S. A cyber-physical context-aware system for coordinating human-robot collaboration. Procedia CIRP 2018, 72, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.H.; Lee, S. Deep reinforcement learning based scheduling within production plan in semiconductor fabrication. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 191, 116222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousefnejad, H.; Monfared, M.S. A control algorithm for a non-stationary batch service production system using Kalman filter. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 207, 117916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cugno, M.; Castagnoli, R.; Büchi, G.; Pini, M. Industry 4.0 and production recovery in the covid era. Technovation 2022, 114, 102443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chryssolouris, G.; Lee, M. An Approach to Real-Time Flexible Scheduling. Int. J. Flex. Manuf. Syst. 1994, 6, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexopoulos, K.; Koukas, S.; Boli, N.; Mourtzis, D. Resource Planning for the Installation of Industrial Product Service Systems. In Advances in Production Management Systems. The Path to Intelligent, Collaborative and Sustainable Manufacturing; Lödding, H., Riedel, R., Thoben, K.D., von Cieminski, G., Kiritsis, D., Eds.; IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; p. 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
# | Challenge | Business Impact |
---|---|---|
1 | Planning, scheduling and rescheduling |
|
2 | Shop-floor operator support |
|
3 | Monitoring and control |
|
4 | Uninformed decision making |
|
Functionality | KPIs | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increase Resource Utilization | Decrease Extra Working Hours Spent on Scheduling/Rescheduling | Decrease Non-Added Value Activities for Engineers | Reduced Delays in Projects’ Delivery Time | Reduce Human Errors that Lead to Quality Problems and Delays | Reduce the Cost of Documenting Efforts | Improve the Quality of the Documentation of Effort and Time Spent on Each Project | |
Production Planning/Scheduling | High | High | High | Average | - | - | - |
Support of the employees working on the shop floor | Low | - | - | - | High | - | - |
Location of products on the shop floor | - | - | High | Average | Average | High | High |
Location of operators on the shop floor | - | - | High | Average | Average | High | High |
Production plan monitoring | Average | - | High | Average | Low | High | High |
Business Process (BP) | Business Objectives (BO) | Business Process Indicator (BPI) | BPI “As Is” Value | BPI Target “To Be” Value | BPI Actual Value Measured | Comments |
Production scheduling | Increase resource utilization | Percentage of resource utilization | 80% resource utilization | 95% resource utilization (+20% increase) | 90% resource utilization measured | Increase in resource utilization due to efficient, knowledge-based, automated scheduling and rescheduling. |
Production scheduling | Decrease extra working hours spent on scheduling/rescheduling. | Percentage of time spent on scheduling/planning | 30% of working time is spent on scheduling and planning tasks | 6% of working time is expected to be spent on scheduling planning tasks (−80% decrease) | 0.8 h per 10-h shift, which is 8% of the total time spent on scheduling/rescheduling | Reduction of extra working hours spent on scheduling/rescheduling due to automated scheduling and rescheduling. |
Production scheduling Monitoring of the production process | Decrease non-added value activities for engineers | Percentage of time spent on non-added value activities for engineers to document production monitoring information | 30% of engineers’ time spent on documenting production monitoring information | 3% of engineers’ time is expected to be spent on documenting production monitoring information (−90%) | 0.5 h per 10-h shift→5% of time spent for documenting production monitoring information by the engineers | Reduction of time spent in documenting efforts. |
Production scheduling Monitoring of the production process Shop-floor operator activities/tasks | Reduce delays in projects’ delivery time | Percentage of projects that meet the delivery dates but with additional effort (overtimes) | 12.5% of the projects meet the delivery dates with additional effort | 8.75% of the projects will meet the delivery dates with additional effort (−30% decrease) | 10% of the orders/ projects are “delayed” in the sense that additional effort (overtime) was utilized. | Reduction in projects failing to meet delivery times because of improved scheduling and awareness of the current status (e.g., identify machine delays when they occur) |
Shop-floor operator activities/tasks | Reduce human errors that lead to quality problems and delays. | Percentage of quality issues due to human error to the total quality errors | 70% of human-related errors to the total number of quality issues | 60% of human-related errors to the total number of quality issues are expected (−10% decrease) | 2 parts out of 32 parts have a forgotten step by the human, which corresponds to the 66.6% of the total quality issues measured. | Reduction in human-related production errors because operators will be operators be provided information about their workplan on the shop-floor |
Monitoring of the production process | Reduce the cost of documenting efforts. | Percentage of total time spent on documenting efforts | 5% of total time spent on documenting efforts | 1% of total time spent on documenting efforts is expected (−80% decrease) | 6 min per person, that is 1% of the total time spent on documenting efforts | Reduction to time spent on non-added value activities for engineers to document production monitoring information due to automated monitoring functionality |
Monitoring of the production process | Improve the quality of the documentation of effort and time spent on each project. | Percentage of erroneous data records | 10% of data records from monitoring the production process have errors | 1% of data records from monitoring production process are expected to have errors (−90% decrease) | 1 erroneous record per 10 days has been measured which is less than 1% | Data is automatically recorded and not manually inserted. |
Major Obstacles |
|
Key Learning |
|
Best Practices |
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alexopoulos, K.; Nikolakis, N.; Xanthakis, E. Digital Transformation of Production Planning and Control in Manufacturing SMEs-The Mold Shop Case. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10788. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122110788
Alexopoulos K, Nikolakis N, Xanthakis E. Digital Transformation of Production Planning and Control in Manufacturing SMEs-The Mold Shop Case. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(21):10788. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122110788
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlexopoulos, Kosmas, Nikolaos Nikolakis, and Evangelos Xanthakis. 2022. "Digital Transformation of Production Planning and Control in Manufacturing SMEs-The Mold Shop Case" Applied Sciences 12, no. 21: 10788. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122110788
APA StyleAlexopoulos, K., Nikolakis, N., & Xanthakis, E. (2022). Digital Transformation of Production Planning and Control in Manufacturing SMEs-The Mold Shop Case. Applied Sciences, 12(21), 10788. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122110788