Anybody using an external scheduling engine?

John,



I think what they are talking about is the ability to schedule multiple
resources to complete an operation contiguously, that is, having one
independent resource pick up where another leaves off. Which is
different from having multiple scheduling blocks assigned which will
assign multiple resources but they'll schedule in a parallel fashion.
In my opinion the biggest downfall of this scheduling engine. If they
fixed it, it would really be a fairly decent one, not a great one, but a
decent one.



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Hatcher, John
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:48 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Anybody using an external scheduling engine?





One clarification: We're using the adv sched module and it does support
multiple resources per operation.

John A. Hatcher
Manager of IS
Versa Products Co., Inc.
(201) 843-2400 x4148
(201) 843-2931 fax


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi,

We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling engine.

If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.

Thanks!
If you’re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it yourself to suit your needs.

Vic

From: vantagenook
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?


Hi,

We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling engine.

If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.

Thanks!





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nope - we're Progress - 8.03.409a

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...> wrote:
>
> If you’re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it yourself to suit your needs.
>
> Vic
>
> From: vantagenook
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling engine.
>
> If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Progress shouldn't stop you from doing anything. You should be able to latch
on to the Web Services or BOs and go to town. Frankly I'd suggest doing that
either way.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, vantagenook <jmcloughlin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Nope - we're Progress - 8.03.409a
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you���re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it
> yourself to suit your needs.
>
> >
> > Vic
> >
> > From: vantagenook
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some
> shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the
> lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more
> than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim
> that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability
> to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes
> due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling
> engine.
> >
> > If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these
> complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>



--
*Waffqle Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking
*
*:: 904.962.2887*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It (Progress) doesn't stop us - developing our own is certainly one option. I'm just wondering if anybody is using another product.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Waffqle <waffqle@...> wrote:
>
> Progress shouldn't stop you from doing anything. You should be able to latch
> on to the Web Services or BOs and go to town. Frankly I'd suggest doing that
> either way.
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, vantagenook <jmcloughlin@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Nope - we're Progress - 8.03.409a
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you’re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it
> > yourself to suit your needs.
> >
> > >
> > > Vic
> > >
> > > From: vantagenook
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some
> > shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the
> > lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more
> > than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim
> > that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability
> > to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes
> > due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling
> > engine.
> > >
> > > If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these
> > complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Waffqle Driggers*
> *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking
> *
> *:: 904.962.2887*
> *:: waffqle@...*
> *:: NO FAXES*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Hi

we went down the road of having Epicor bespoke a scheduling module for us, but we abandoned it after a year, we are now looking at Preactor. Epicor has said they are not interested in importing the new schedule back in. So we are evaluating the possibility of just having Preactor generate a weekly schedule off-line.

erwin

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "vantagenook" <jmcloughlin@...> wrote:
>
> It (Progress) doesn't stop us - developing our own is certainly one option. I'm just wondering if anybody is using another product.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Waffqle <waffqle@> wrote:
> >
> > Progress shouldn't stop you from doing anything. You should be able to latch
> > on to the Web Services or BOs and go to town. Frankly I'd suggest doing that
> > either way.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, vantagenook <jmcloughlin@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope - we're Progress - 8.03.409a
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you’re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it
> > > yourself to suit your needs.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Vic
> > > >
> > > > From: vantagenook
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
> > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some
> > > shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the
> > > lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more
> > > than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim
> > > that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability
> > > to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes
> > > due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling
> > > engine.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these
> > > complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Waffqle Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking
> > *
> > *:: 904.962.2887*
> > *:: waffqle@*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Thanks, Erwin - good information. Any early opinions formed on the product?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "erwin" <erwinjw@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> we went down the road of having Epicor bespoke a scheduling module for us, but we abandoned it after a year, we are now looking at Preactor. Epicor has said they are not interested in importing the new schedule back in. So we are evaluating the possibility of just having Preactor generate a weekly schedule off-line.
>
> erwin
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "vantagenook" <jmcloughlin@> wrote:
> >
> > It (Progress) doesn't stop us - developing our own is certainly one option. I'm just wondering if anybody is using another product.
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Waffqle <waffqle@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Progress shouldn't stop you from doing anything. You should be able to latch
> > > on to the Web Services or BOs and go to town. Frankly I'd suggest doing that
> > > either way.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, vantagenook <jmcloughlin@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope - we're Progress - 8.03.409a
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If you’re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it
> > > > yourself to suit your needs.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Vic
> > > > >
> > > > > From: vantagenook
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
> > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some
> > > > shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the
> > > > lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more
> > > > than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim
> > > > that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability
> > > > to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes
> > > > due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling
> > > > engine.
> > > > >
> > > > > If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these
> > > > complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Waffqle Driggers*
> > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking
> > > *
> > > *:: 904.962.2887*
> > > *:: waffqle@*
> > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
Preactor looks ok, our problem is we run mrp out 16 months, we are a very seasonal business and are already stock building for next end of year, total parts are probably 50\50 stock\bespoke, our scheduling window is 8 weeks. This means our extract to Preactor is 8 weeks worth of jobs, about 2000 jobs. This takes a while to extract, a while to import into Preactor, then it has to schedule them etc etc, This means we couldn't schedule more than once a week. If we then re-imported into Vantage next mrp would wipe all the unfirm jobs and we would be back to the beginning.

Preactor has about 30 algorithms, and the results so far look encouraging.

Have you looked at any solutions or were you thinking bespoke?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "vantagenook" <jmcloughlin@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Erwin - good information. Any early opinions formed on the product?
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "erwin" <erwinjw@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > we went down the road of having Epicor bespoke a scheduling module for us, but we abandoned it after a year, we are now looking at Preactor. Epicor has said they are not interested in importing the new schedule back in. So we are evaluating the possibility of just having Preactor generate a weekly schedule off-line.
> >
> > erwin
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "vantagenook" <jmcloughlin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It (Progress) doesn't stop us - developing our own is certainly one option. I'm just wondering if anybody is using another product.
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Waffqle <waffqle@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Progress shouldn't stop you from doing anything. You should be able to latch
> > > > on to the Web Services or BOs and go to town. Frankly I'd suggest doing that
> > > > either way.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, vantagenook <jmcloughlin@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope - we're Progress - 8.03.409a
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you’re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it
> > > > > yourself to suit your needs.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vic
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: vantagenook
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
> > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some
> > > > > shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the
> > > > > lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more
> > > > > than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim
> > > > > that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability
> > > > > to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes
> > > > > due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling
> > > > > engine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these
> > > > > complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Waffqle Driggers*
> > > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking
> > > > *
> > > > *:: 904.962.2887*
> > > > *:: waffqle@*
> > > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
We're certainly not looking for Epicor to develop a solution for us and I don't even see how it is possible to "re-import" the resulting schedule back into Vantage due to the fact that the Vantage system "still" does not accommodate multiple resources scheduled to the same operation detail, as one example.

We're looking at a number of different options (to include a new ERP system that allows us to schedule our shop appropriately).

Thanks for pointing me to Preactor - will definitely check it out.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "erwin" <erwinjw@...> wrote:
>
>
> Preactor looks ok, our problem is we run mrp out 16 months, we are a very seasonal business and are already stock building for next end of year, total parts are probably 50\50 stock\bespoke, our scheduling window is 8 weeks. This means our extract to Preactor is 8 weeks worth of jobs, about 2000 jobs. This takes a while to extract, a while to import into Preactor, then it has to schedule them etc etc, This means we couldn't schedule more than once a week. If we then re-imported into Vantage next mrp would wipe all the unfirm jobs and we would be back to the beginning.
>
> Preactor has about 30 algorithms, and the results so far look encouraging.
>
> Have you looked at any solutions or were you thinking bespoke?
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "vantagenook" <jmcloughlin@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Erwin - good information. Any early opinions formed on the product?
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "erwin" <erwinjw@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > we went down the road of having Epicor bespoke a scheduling module for us, but we abandoned it after a year, we are now looking at Preactor. Epicor has said they are not interested in importing the new schedule back in. So we are evaluating the possibility of just having Preactor generate a weekly schedule off-line.
> > >
> > > erwin
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "vantagenook" <jmcloughlin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It (Progress) doesn't stop us - developing our own is certainly one option. I'm just wondering if anybody is using another product.
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Waffqle <waffqle@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Progress shouldn't stop you from doing anything. You should be able to latch
> > > > > on to the Web Services or BOs and go to town. Frankly I'd suggest doing that
> > > > > either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, vantagenook <jmcloughlin@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope - we're Progress - 8.03.409a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you’re fortunate to be a SQL customer, consider rewriting it
> > > > > > yourself to suit your needs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: vantagenook
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:42 AM
> > > > > > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: [Vantage] Anybody using an external scheduling engine?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We've been talking in-depth with Epicor for a number of months about some
> > > > > > shortcomings with their scheduling engine, specifically with regard to the
> > > > > > lack of multi-shift scheduling capability and the inability to assign more
> > > > > > than one resource to a given operation detail record. Although they claim
> > > > > > that they are getting a significant number of requests to add the capability
> > > > > > to handle these issues, they are unwilling to commit to making those changes
> > > > > > due to the fact that it would require a complete rewrite of the scheduling
> > > > > > engine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If anyone is using something outside of Vantage that handles these
> > > > > > complexities I'd be interested in hearing from you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Waffqle Driggers*
> > > > > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking
> > > > > *
> > > > > *:: 904.962.2887*
> > > > > *:: waffqle@*
> > > > > *:: NO FAXES*
> > > > >
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
One clarification: We're using the adv sched module and it does support
multiple resources per operation.

John A. Hatcher
Manager of IS
Versa Products Co., Inc.
(201) 843-2400 x4148
(201) 843-2931 fax



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]