1
CRITICAL MANUFACTURINGSIMULATORS COMPARISON
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
1
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
2INDEX
Intro
Detailed Evaluation
Requirements
1
2
3
Conclusions4
1
SIMULATORS COMPARISONINTRO
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
3
1INTRO
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES
Create a simulation tool that allows the user, after loading
data from MasterData, to specify
– Materials by product, processing time of a material, ...
And simulates:
– Stops, machine malfunctions, DataCollection, material rework, ...
Make that simulation tool able to run in multiple machines to
perform stress tests;
Export from database the data needed to create the
MasterData file (and create it);
1
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
5INTROCHOOSEN TOOLS
FlexSim
AnyLogic
Simul8
2
3
4
In-House Solution
Arena1
5
1
SIMULATORS COMPARISONDETAILED EVALUATION
© 2013 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
6
1
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
7DETAILED EVALUATION SOURCES
Trials/DemosExperimenting the software, doing some examples and demos.
Direct ContactDirect contact with the vendors in order to get informations they don’t provide in the website.
Information from SiteEach product website has some relevant information about the software.
Web SearchMore but discarded solutions were found through web seacrh.
Papers and JournalsConsulting some papers and journals in the field was one of the best methods to gather information.
GuidesTo learn how to proper work with the software, the application guides and some videos were studied.
1DETAILED EVALUATION
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
8IN-HOUSE: PROS AND CONS
Advantages Limitations
Allows WCF communication Solution that doesn’t have market proofs
Can be adapted to meet all Critical needs and requirements
High risk of developing software from scratch
Solution adapted to the Critical coding guidelines
Can become obsolete if not upgraded regularly
Can be adapted to each new product developed by Critical
Will not have the level of functionality compared to a commercial-off-the-shelf product
1DETAILED EVALUATION
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
9TASKS’ PRICE
ID Name Description RiskCost (in
man/hours)
T01Technologies’
Study
An initial study of the technologies to be used has to be made. This includes the study of cmNavigo, the programming
languages to be used, the Stress Test and MasterData already developed and the
different simulators in the market.
High 64 - 8 days
T02Architecture
Design
Since this is a one man job, the arquitechure will serve more to explain to the client what’s the global vision of the solution, nevertheless this is an essential
step of every project.
Low 32 - 4 days
T03Technical
Requirements
The requirements already agreed are only macro-tasks, the technical ones are yet to
be discussed.Medium 16 - 2 days
T04Model
Development
In order to achieve the best simulation possible, it’s necessary to have a robust simulation model behind. So is devoted
enough time to choose the best approach, as well as the design of the
model for that approach.
High 80 - 10 days
1DETAILED EVALUATION
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
10TASKS’ PRICE
ID Name Description RiskCost (in
man/hours)
T05Solution
Development
Design and development of the simulator and respective integration with
cmNavigo. This macro-task will be divided as specified on T03.
High 360 - 45 days
T06Tests with Test
Data
It is important to validate the application with test data to be able to understand if each module is operating correctly. There will be two stages of validation with test data, the first one to validate the model and the second to validate the simulator.
Medium 40 - 5 days
T07Tests with Real
Data
The validation will only be completed when it is possible to simulate a real
factory with precision. In order to do that it’s necessary to test the solution with
data from a real company.
High 80 - 10 days
T08 Documentation
The final documentation is the final step of every project. All of the steps that lead to the development of the solution have to be documented and an user-manual
has to be written.
Low 64 - 8 days
1
SIMULATORS COMPARISONREQUIREMENTS
© 2013 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
11
1REQUIREMTNS
© 2013 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
DETAILS
ID Title Definition MoSCoW
RF01 Model of Production LineThe client must be able to model his production line in the simulator through the loading of the
MasterData.Must
RF02 Load MasterData The application must load data located in an excel file, called MasterData, into the simulator. Must
RF03 Save MasterDataThe application must save the data at the end of the simulation into an excel file, creating a
MasterData.Must
RF04 Save ModelThe application should permit the user to save the actual model so that he can use it in another
environment.Should
RF05 Load Model The application should let the user load an existing model into the simulator. Should
RF06 WCF Communication The application must allow WCF communication so that cmNavigo can be integrated. Must
RF07 Simulate System The client must be able to simulate the operations that cmNavigo can do in his production line. Must
RF08 Data AnalysisThe application should allow the client to analyse some data extracted from the simulation, either in
real-time or at the end.Should
RF09 Production Line Visualization The application must permit a visualization of the clients’ production line through the use of fabLive Should
RF10 Stress TestsThe simulation should be able to perform stress tests to the client’s current and modified production
line model.Should
RF11 CRUD OperationsThe application should allow the user to perform CRUD operations in the objects of the production
line model.Should
RF12 Real-Time Visualization The application could permit a real-time visualization of the simulation while it’s running. Could
RF13 Performance AdvicesThe application could suggest the user some improvements to his current production line, based on
the simulation just performed.Would
1
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
REQUIREMENTSCOMPARISON
Arena FlexSim AnyLogic Simul8 In-House
RF01
RF02
RF03
RF04
RF05
RF06
RF07
RF08
RF09
RF10
RF11
RF12
RF13
1
SIMULATORS COMPARISONCONCLUSIONS
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
14
1CONCLUSIONS
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
DIRECT COMPARISON
Commercial
Price + Maintenence
Company Support
Wait for Upgrades
Ready to Use
In-House
Man/Hours
In-House Support
New Features Whenever
Still Developing
1CONCLUSIONS
© 2014 Critical Manufacturing S.A. All rights reserved.
WHAT TO CHOOSE
All commercial simulators have the same big issue: they don’t allow direct communication with cmNavigo, but some can work with dll’s.
• Is it better to invest in an off-the-shelf product that has market proofs or develop one from scratch that is built arround cmNavigo?
• Will CM be dependent of an external company if choose a commercial simulator?
• Can an one-man-simulator have the power of one built by one large company?