As a production floor manager, having quick access to crucial manufacturing information is essential: “Which jobs are delayed? How many items can we ship today? Which resources are overloaded?” To get these answers, you might find yourself rushing to an operator, who, in turn, will likely consult an Excel sheet to provide that information.
ERP systems can provide a production overview, but scheduling mixed AM builds and their separate post-processing routes may require additional capabilities or configuration. In this interview, nPower Technologies explains its approach to that problem. The limitations described by the interviewees should not be taken as an assessment of every ERP product.
“Every traditional manufacturer who has an ERP has scheduling software and that scheduling software automatically manages the resources on the entire shop floor. The fact is traditional production software doesn’t address the 3D printer’s requirements. Traditional ERP scheduling software can schedule the entire post processing shop floor. They can even schedule the build plate so long as all the parts on the build plate are homogenous and have the same post-processing routing. But what traditional ERP is unable to do is schedule the divergent manufacturing, which is typical in additive, where a build plate containing heterogeneous parts diverges into multiple, independent post-processing routings. Traditional ERP accounts for material availability that is on site and does not address material availability at each individual printer when determining if there is enough material to print a job at any given time.” David Bennett, CPO and Co-Founder at nPower Technologies told 3D ADEPT Media.
3D ADEPT first covered nPower Technologies in 2024, describing its origins within ProfitKey International. ECI Software Solutions announced its acquisition of ProfitKey on 6 August 2024. These are separate developments; the acquisition announcement does not identify nPower as an acquired business.
Kevin O’Keefe, CEO and Co-Founder, and David Bennett took 50 minutes out of their busy schedule to discuss “inefficient cost scheduling in AM” with 3D ADEPT Media. And the first thing we learned is that all the people from nPower essentially have an ERP and manufacturing background. Aware of all the challenges production scheduling can bring to the manufacturing floor, they realized that a specific “automated production scheduling” will be the best fit for AM.
To understand why, we need to figure out the production scheduling challenges that may be specific to AM operations.
When nesting and scheduling intertwine
Scheduling assigns jobs to available resources over time while respecting capacity, material availability and delivery requirements. In AM, it also involves grouping compatible parts into builds and coordinating their later operations.
Nesting, on the other hand, consists of packing multiple parts into a constrained build area or volume, which corresponds to a batch for each production cycle. Decisions regarding the location and orientation of the parts within the build may lead to more complexity in AM scheduling operations.
“That’s anyway what people are referring to when they talk about nesting”, Bennett said.
That’s the reason why “nesting and scheduling are two issues that are intertwined,” he continued. “These nested build plates then need to be scheduled with several factors in mind. One, the build plate must be scheduled so all parts on the plate can be delivered on time to the customer. Two, each build plate must be scheduled on an additive manufacturing machine that is available (open capacity) and capable (technical and qualification requirements). When people talk about nesting they are referring to optimization and scheduling of parts on the build plate. Nesting addresses scheduling parts only on the 3D printer. Production scheduling schedules all the resources on the shop floor, not only the 3D printer but all the other work centers (deburr milling, inspection, etc.) required to produce the finished parts by the date promised to the customer. Nesting and production scheduling are supportive of each other in the additive manufacturing process. One does not replace the other.”
Indeed, in AM, nesting techniques used in process planning often incorporate scheduling concerns from production planning. For example, during the nesting process, emergency parts with close due dates may be grouped into the same build, impacting scheduling decisions.
“A first look at traditional ERP systems reveals that traditional ERP will schedule the entire shop floor, including the build plate. If the build plate has only a single part on it, it’s easy. Challenges come into play when you must schedule multiple parts on the build plate as well as its post-processing operations,” Bennett explains before going further.
“In reality, scheduling means taking an order and scheduling all the resources required to fulfil that work order on the date it’s required. This can be challenging because, with 100 orders, you must organize all shop floor resources to ensure each order is completed by the customer’s required deadline.”
Simply put, this means there is nesting for AM, scheduling for AM, and nesting and scheduling for AM.
Are these challenges profound when achieving low production volumes or mass production volumes?
At first glance, logic would indicate that the more parts we have in production, the more complex it is to schedule production around them. For Bennett, “it’s a question of mix.”
“The volume is not as critical as the mix”, O’Keefe points out. This means, it’s all about the variety of parts and the number of post-processing operations required for them.
“The number of different parts you are going to schedule is more critical than the actual volume itself. Furthermore, complexity arises when the number of operations in the manufacturing chain increases. So, if you’ve got many different parts to build, and the parts that you have require multiple operations, that’s really where production scheduling has the highest value,” the CEO states.
“The nesting challenge may or may not be more complicated with higher complexity parts. However, production scheduling is very difficult because of the challenge of scheduling all released work orders in such a way as to delivery all the parts on time to the customer. Production scheduling challenges are more prominent with higher product mix and greater post-processing operations. The higher the mix on the build plate and the higher the volume of post-processing operations in the manufacturing process, the greater is the scheduling challenge in a very exponentially difficult way”, The CPO completes.
The importance of automated production scheduling
Managing workflows is not a new topic in AM but its complexity might increase depending on the operations you want to achieve. One thing is certain, whether you’re a 3D printing service bureau or an AM user, you will have to manage requests, plan and schedule production, as well as track and manage delivery timelines.
While multiple software solutions can handle these issues, one should keep in mind that different software tools can result in manual re-entering of data – making it fastidious for the operator.
O’Keefe and Bennett suggest that inefficient production scheduling can, in some circumstances, triple costs. The interview does not supply a quantified case, baseline or calculation supporting that multiplier, so it should be read as their assessment rather than a measured industry-wide result.
Automated scheduling can be assessed by comparing its implementation effort with measurable changes in delays, resource utilisation and administrative work. The result depends on the production environment and the quality of input data.
nPower describes its Scheduler as ERP-agnostic, using production data to plan builds and subsequent operations. This is the supplier’s product description, rather than a guarantee of compatibility with every ERP installation.
In the demonstration presented by Bennett, a graphical interface helped visualise shop-floor jobs. Integration with an existing ERP requires checking available data, interfaces and the site’s production model.
“The nPower Scheduler™ is the first, true production scheduling solution for the entire additive manufacturing process, from build plate through post-processing to shipment. Its KPI dashboard provides schedulers/expediters the key data they need to manage by exception the shop floor. This scheduler is unique in that is the only scheduler capable of scheduling a divergent additive manufacturing process, where parts on a build plate branch out into independent post-print processing operations. Crucial to the quality of parts, it schedules build plates based on material availability at each print and on each machine’s capability to produce all the parts on them. Characteristic of the additive world is the need to produce parts only on qualified machines. Uniquely, our solution auto selects machines based on qualification as well as availability (load v. capacity). As setups and changeovers on work centers are non-value add to the production process, the nPower Scheduler can also group operations with like setups to reduce the overall changeover times and increase throughput through the work center,” O’Keefe said.
The claims of being the first or only solution are attributed to nPower. This interview does not include a comparative market study that would independently substantiate them.
nPower positions its offering as complementary to other AM software providers, including Materialise, Oqton and Authentise. Their offerings extend beyond a single common nesting function, so the integration scope needs to be assessed product by product.
“Our goal is not to replace any of these products, but help manufacturers understand that in addition to those products, they need a production scheduler to automatically schedule all the resources on the shop floor,” O’Keefe clarifies.
At the time of the interview, nPower describes a subscription-pricing model. No price or implementation cost is specified here; affordability and return on investment depend on the customer’s requirements.
The practical question is which scheduling capabilities are missing from an existing workflow and whether an additional tool can address them with a measurable benefit. This requires evaluating both the scheduling model and its integration with production data.
This article was initially published in the January/February edition of 3D ADEPT Mag.
THE 3D ADEPT WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
The industry moves fast. Stay ahead.
Every week, the latest additive manufacturing news, in-depth features and real-world applications, straight to your inbox. Plus, be the first to know when a new issue of 3D ADEPT Mag is out.
Free · One email a week · Unsubscribe anytime
Clicking loads our email provider’s sign-up form, including its analytics and Google’s anti-bot protection. You’re only subscribed if you complete the sign-up. Read our privacy policy.