Method for production planning

Abstract

The invention relates to a production planning method using a plurality of manufacturing devices (INTMA) according to which tasks (TD) of a work plan (BOP) are compared (MA) with manufacturing capabilities (SD) of the manufacturing devices (INTMA) and, depending on the one or more results (MAQ) of said comparison (MA), at least one or more manufacturing devices (INTMA) are commissioned to match their manufacturing capabilities (SD) with the task(s) (TD).

Claims

1. A method for production planning using a plurality of manufacturing devices, the method comprising: comparing, by a processor of a production control system, tasks of a work plan with manufacturing capabilities of the plurality of manufacturing devices; and instructing, by the processor, at least one manufacturing device of the plurality of manufacturing devices to match at least one of the manufacturing capabilities with at least one of the tasks based on a result of the comparison; instructing, by the processor, one or more manufacturing devices of the plurality of manufacturing devices to perform matching when no manufacturing devices of the plurality of manufacturing devices have at least one manufacturing capability for at least one of the tasks of the work plan; and transmitting a result of the matching to the production control system, wherein the matching when no manufacturing devices of the plurality of manufacturing devices have the at least one manufacturing capability for the at least one of the tasks of the work plan comprises matching, by a manufacturing device of the one or more manufacturing devices, using at least one movement planning, or at least one internal simulation and the at least one movement planning, such that a missing capability description for the manufacturing device is addable based on the at least one movement planning, or the at least one internal simulation and the at least one movement planning; and manufacturing a physical product, the manufacturing comprising executing, by at least the manufacturing device, the at least one of the tasks of the work plan based on the transmitted result of the matching.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the comparison is effected semantically, such that a description of one or more of the tasks is compared with a description of one or more of the manufacturing capabilities.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the comparing, the matching, or the comparing and the matching are effected by logic expressions, by constraint-based comparison, or by logic expressions and constraint-based comparison.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the matching of the at least one of the manufacturing capabilities with the at least one of the tasks based on the result of the comparing involves a description of the tasks, a context description that is presentable being transmitted to the respective manufacturing device, at least one planning algorithm being used, or any combination thereof.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein manual matching is effected in the event of at least one nonpositive matching for at least one manufacturing capability.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein when the result of the comparison is that all of the tasks of the work plan are assignable manufacturing capabilities of the plurality of manufacturing devices in an association, the result of the comparison, the association, or the comparison and the association are recorded as a result for the method.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein when more manufacturing capabilities are available than required by the work plan, the work plan for the product is refined.

8. The method of claim 3, wherein the comparing, the matching, or the comparing and the matching are effected by description logic, predicate logic of first level, multiattributive comparison, or any combination thereof, by solving a constraint satisfaction problem, or a combination thereof.

9. In a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors of a production control system for production planning using a plurality of manufacturing devices, the instructions comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, tasks of a work plan with manufacturing capabilities of the plurality of manufacturing devices; and instructing, by the one or more processors, at least one manufacturing device of the plurality of manufacturing devices to match at least one of the manufacturing capabilities with at least one of the tasks based on a result of the comparison; instructing, by the one or more processors, one or more manufacturing devices of the plurality of manufacturing devices to perform matching when no manufacturing devices of the plurality of manufacturing devices have at least one manufacturing capability for at least one of the tasks of the work; receiving, by the one or more processors, a result of the matching, wherein the matching when no manufacturing devices of the plurality of manufacturing devices have the at least one manufacturing capability for the at least one of the tasks of the work plan comprises matching using at least one movement planning, or at least one internal simulation and the at least one movement planning, such that a missing capability description for the manufacturing device is addable based on the at least one movement planning, or the at least one internal simulation and the at least one movement planning; and manufacturing a physical product, the manufacturing comprising executing, by at least the manufacturing device, the at least one of the tasks of the work plan based on the received result of the matching.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 shows a flowchart for a first exemplary embodiment of a method in a basic outline; and

(2) FIG. 2 schematically shows a system architecture including the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 1 in a basic outline.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

(3) The exemplary embodiment depicted in FIG. 1, for the method according to the present embodiments, shows a flowchart for a production control system MES of a manufacturing installation, which is not depicted explicitly in the drawing. The manufacturing installation includes a plurality of manufacturing devices. The respective manufacturing devices have manufacturing capabilities for the manufacture of products. The manufacturing capabilities of the manufacturing devices are recorded in a capability description SD. The production control system MES contains a work plan including task descriptions TD that the manufacturing installation is to execute in order to manufacture a specific product. In addition to the task descriptions TD, the work plan also includes context descriptions C for the task descriptions. The context descriptions C include the technical context of the respective task (e.g., the temporal relationship with preceding tasks or subsequent tasks of the work plan). In further exemplary embodiments, not depicted separately, which otherwise correspond to the one depicted, the context descriptions C may be dropped without replacement.

(4) In order to plan the manufacturing process, the production control system MES is to compare the task descriptions TD and the capability descriptions SD with one another.

(5) Such a comparison MA may fundamentally take place in different ways.

(6) For example, in the exemplary embodiment depicted, a comparison MA is effected by “complex semantic matchings” (see, for example, S. Grimm, B. Motik, C. Preist: “Matching Semantic Service Descriptions with Local Closed-World Reasoning,” ESWC 2006, pages 575-589 and Noia, Tommaso Di et al.: “A system for principled matchmaking in an electronic marketplace,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8.4 (2004), pages 9-37), where the capability descriptions, the task descriptions, and the context descriptions are provided by logic expressions (e.g., by description logic or by predicate logic of first level).

(7) In further exemplary embodiments, it is instead or additionally possible for a comparison MA also to be effected by multiattributive comparison (“multi-attributive matching”) (see, for example, Veit, Daniel: “Matchmaking in electronic markets: An agent-based approach towards matchmaking in electronic negotiations,” vol. 2882, Springer Science & Business Media, 2003), where the task descriptions, the capability descriptions, and the context descriptions are lists of attributes, and a separate comparison function is defined for each type of attribute; the comparison function is configured as a semantic comparison function and/or as a character string operation and/or as mathematical equation, for example.

(8) An example in the style of a pseudocode for a multiattributive capability description SD is formed by a capability description for a robot arm, which forms a manufacturing device:

(9) TABLE-US-00001 { Capability: “Pick & Place” Degrees of freedom: 6 (number) Payload: 0 to 3 kilograms }.

(10) The multiattributive description may also contain further details pertaining to the robot arm (e.g., serial numbers, manufacturer, type designations, etc.).

(11) The task description TD, illustrated as a pseudocode in the present case, reads as follows, for example:

(12) TABLE-US-00002 { Piece length: 200 millimeters Piece mass: 0.5 kilogram Task: transport }.

(13) The multiattributive comparison MA assigns a semantic expression to each relative attribute pair. The semantic comparison is performed for each task and manufacturing capability pair. This is accomplished using background knowledge that formally keeps a record of the relationship between expressions. By way of example, for processing functions, a knowledge base that defines two functions and a relationship between these functions is used.
Knowledge base={transport, pick-and-place, pick-and-place.Math.transport).

(14) Based on the knowledge provided by the knowledge base, it may be inferred that the pick-and-place function is a specific manifestation of the more general transport function. In this way, it may be established that there is a match between task and manufacturing capability.

(15) Instead of a or all or in addition to a or both of the aforementioned types of comparison MA, a comparison MA may also be effected by constraint-based comparison (e.g., constraint-based matching); the comparison is effected by virtue of a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) being solved.

(16) The comparison MA may give different results MAQ.

(17) If all of the task descriptions TD of the work plan have corresponding suitable capability descriptions SD of the manufacturing devices of the manufacturing installation, then the result MAQ of the comparison MA is “true”.

(18) If a task description TD and a capability description SD of the manufacturing devices of the manufacturing installation do not go together, then the result MAQ of the comparison MA is “false”.

(19) If a suitable capability description SD exists for each task description TD, but, beyond the number of task descriptions TD, there are also additional capability descriptions SD that have no associated task description TD, then the result MAQ of the comparison MA is “overdetermined” ovd.

(20) Accordingly, the result MAQ of the comparison MA is “underdetermined” if, although a suitable task description TD exists for each capability description SD, there are also, beyond the number of capability descriptions SD, additional task descriptions TD that have no associated capability description SD.

(21) If the result MAQ of the comparison MA is “true” or “false”, then the result MAQ of the comparison MA is output as result RES using the output tof.

(22) If the result MAQ of the comparison MA is “overdetermined” ovd, it is established that there is an incomplete match IM. In this case, it is either demanded that the work plan be refined by an update UAL, so that the thus adapted task descriptions TD may be taken as a basis for obtaining a result MAQ as “true” or “false”, or else it is stipulated that the associated capability descriptions SD are always compatible with the applicable task description TD, so that in the event of an incomplete match IM, the result MAQ “true” or “false” may always be derived solely from the existing incomplete match IM. In this case, the result MAQ is likewise communicated to the production planning engineer as a result RES by the output tof, as described above.

(23) If the result MAQ of the comparison MA is “underdetermined” (e.g., there are task descriptions TD with which no capability description SD may be associated on the basis of the present data), then the capability descriptions SD of the manufacturing devices are possibly not known in sufficiently granular fashion or specified sufficiently completely to conclusively determine the result MAQ of the comparison MA as “true” or “false”.

(24) Consequently, the manufacturing devices are instructed to perform matching NEG in order to match suitability of the manufacturing devices for the task description TD with the task description TD. This will typically be the case, for example, for complex and flexible manufacturing descriptions for which the capability description cannot be specified completely without recourse to the product actually to be manufactured or to the manufacturing pass actually required (e.g., in the case of robots or in the case of machine tools).

(25) The task description TD and the context description C that may be present are transmitted to the respective manufacturing device for the matching NEG. The matching is accomplished by evaluating a local matching function LM (e.g., one based on the respective manufacturing device) that may assume the values “true” or “false” or “unknown” unk. The matching function LM uses internal simulations or movement plannings or other planning algorithms, for example. If the manufacturing device is able to add the missing capability description and therefore determine a “true” or “false” result for the matching function LM, then this result is output as result RES for the method by the output tof. If, however, the matching function LM gives an “unknown” unk result despite the matching, then a manual resolution MAR is initiated.

(26) In consideration of an incomplete match IM, it may be assumed as standard that a task description TD is complete and all additional capability descriptions SD that cannot be matched to the task description TD are ignored. A “true” result MAQ may therefore be obtained immediately and communicated to the production planning engineer as a result by the output yes. To keep a transparent record of the ignored capability attributes, the ignored capability attributes are entered into a list of prerequisites that is regularly updated by an update UAL. This list of prerequisites may later be used to provide details of the production specification and the work plan.

(27) The global system architecture is shown in FIG. 2.

(28) The production control system MES obtains the task descriptions TD from the work plan BOP and the parts list BOM. The work plan BOP and the parts list BOM come from the production plan/production specification PPD.

(29) The task descriptions TD are compared with the capability descriptions SD at the level of the production control system MES by a comparison unit PPM. In the event of incomplete matches IM, the matching of capability description SD and task description TD that the manufacturing device INTMA performs by a matching device PP of the manufacturing device INTMA is transmitted to individual manufacturing devices INTMA. The manufacturing device INTMA returns the result of the matching by the matching function LM to the production control system MES.

(30) The production control system MES adapts the production plan/production specification PPD if needed based on the results MAQ of the comparison MA by the comparison unit PPM.

(31) The elements and features recited in the appended claims may be combined in different ways to produce new claims that likewise fall within the scope of the present invention. Thus, whereas the dependent claims appended below depend from only a single independent or dependent claim, it is to be understood that these dependent claims may, alternatively, be made to depend in the alternative from any preceding or following claim, whether independent or dependent. Such new combinations are to be understood as forming a part of the present specification.

(32) While the present invention has been described above by reference to various embodiments, it should be understood that many changes and modifications can be made to the described embodiments. It is therefore intended that the foregoing description be regarded as illustrative rather than limiting, and that it be understood that all equivalents and/or combinations of embodiments are intended to be included in this description.