Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Similar to A Schedule Optimization Tool for Destructive and Non-Destructive Vehicle Tests
Similar to A Schedule Optimization Tool for Destructive and Non-Destructive Vehicle Tests (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
A Schedule Optimization Tool for Destructive and Non-Destructive Vehicle Tests
- 1. A Schedule Optimization Tool for Destructive and Non-Destructive Vehicle Tests Jeremy Ludwig, Annaka Kalton, and Robert Richards Stottler Henke Associates, Inc. Brian Bautsch, Craig Markusic, and Cyndi Jones Honda R&D Americas, Inc. ICAPS-SPARK, June 2016
- 2. Overview • Introduction • Scheduling Framework • Scheduling UI • Domain Customization • Methods • Results • Deployment • Conclusion
- 3. Introduction • Create a schedule for testing new and refreshed vehicle models • Only some tasks are destructive • Most tasks are non-destructive but may have other constraints • Test vehicles hand-built • Build order • Not all available at once • Variety of models • Frame, Market, Drivetrain, and Trim • Project end date defined externally • Limited personnel and facility resources
- 4. Constraints • Temporal • Calendar • Ordering • Resource • Build Pitch • Exclusive • Destructive
- 5. Aurora Scheduling Framework • Create a high-quality schedule • Based on a model of temporal, calendar, ordering, and resource constraints • Uses graph analysis techniques and heuristic-based scheduling • Customized for domain • Handle special kinds of tasks • Exclusive, Destructive • Minimize the number of vehicles required • Select the types of vehicles built • Select a build order for the vehicles
- 6. 6
- 7. 7
- 9. Initial Schedule by Resource
- 10. Scheduling Framework Components • Schedule Initialization • Preprocessor • Prioritizer • Scheduling Loop • Priortizier • Scheduler • Quality Criterion • Conflict Manager • Schedule Finalization • Postprocessor
- 11. Differences From Prototype • Testing on more complex models that require over 100 vehicles • Utilizing facility and personnel constraints when creating a schedule • Supporting the transition of the software into the hands of the actual planners
- 12. Domain Specific Customization • User Interface • Wizard • Model Verification during Import • Build Pitch • Manage Vehicles • Long Tasks • Optimization Dashboard • Scheduling Components
- 13. Wizard
- 14. Build Pitch
- 15. Manage Vehicles
- 16. Long Tasks
- 18. Scheduling Component Customization • Preprocessor • Override project end date • Prioritizer • Exclusive Task • Long Task • Destructive Task • Tight Window • End Based • Load Based • Subsequent Duration
- 19. Methods • Actual Model • ~340 tasks • ~4000 days of work • ~30-50 vehicle types • Manual Solution • Not attempted
- 20. Results • Aurora Solution • 60-200 Vehicles • Adhere to all constraints • Represents 6% reduction from best estimate • Prototype found 12% reduction in direct comparison • Schedule created in 2 minutes from model vs. days of labor • Spend time using ‘What-if’ capability further improve the schedule • Time • Build Pitch • Negotiation
- 22. Deployment • Deployed and in use by novice planners • Previous solution no longer used • Integrated with enterprise system • Input data extracted from external data • Results exported to corporate format • Providing huge savings and other benefits with every new test suite
- 23. Conclusion • Complex, real-world, scheduling problem • Added domain-specific heuristics to a general intelligent scheduling framework • Added help for novice planners • Generated schedule for vehicle testing • Significant reduction in the number of prototype vehicles required • Still completed in the given timeframe • Extend to multiple projects in future work
Editor's Notes
- Replace w/ graphic?
- ERROR: Task has a longer duration (90) than the available work days (46). WARNING: Model contains 4043 days of tasks but only 3851 available vehicle-days. This will likely be fixed during the optimization phase.