What Makes Dynamic Nesting "Dynamic?"

Dynamic Nesting is one of those ubiquitous terms that often has different meanings depending on who you are talking to and what their previous experiences have been. The term “dynamic” can point to three different attributes of the nesting process – 1) the shape and variety of parts, 2) the management of due dates and priorities, and/or 3) the mixing of  orders.

Optimizing Sheet Metal Sizes and Inventory

Managing sheet inventory is one of the many ongoing challenges for fabricators.  They don’t want to consume their cash flow and floor space with too much inventory.  Likewise, no one wants to impede production by not having what is needed readily available.

Specifically, the first challenge is to have sufficient sheet quantity on hand.  The second challenge is to have the right sizes available.  The right size is defined as sheets sufficient in area to meet the need, but not too large or ill shaped that there is excessive scrap.

Engineers and programmers have struggled with this problem since the dawn of fabrication.  And there isn’t an easy solution to it, unless or until you turn to nesting automation to provide the answers.

The Case of the Shipbuilders

The right-sized sheet problem plays out on a very large scale for builders of ocean-going vessels.  Here’s the challenge they face.  The plate material they are cutting is 0.1-8” thick.  Because their product is mostly steel, raw material expense is very high – so there is no room for waste.   In order to reduce the waste, they order custom plate sizes directly from the steel mill.  There is a six month lead time from order to delivery for their material.   Their process is to first complete the design of the metal parts of the ship and nest these parts while the remainder of the design details is being completed.   This allows them to customize the plate size to the nest with a special feature called plate cutback.   This feature starts by providing the nesting system with hundreds of discrete plate sizes to pick from.   The nesting software  picks the best plate size for the parts being nested and then if there is any waste at the edges of the plate, it cuts the plate back to a perfect fit.   This process helps attain the highest possible material efficiency, but at a cost that only very large volume producers can afford.   First the plate sizes are custom and will cost more per pound than standard sizes.   The second cost is that the plate must be tracked from receiving into production to make sure the correct parts are cut from the plate.   Finally, this process requires long lead times be built into the production process; in the case of shipbuilding, this is not a problem, but most products are produced in much shorter time frames.

This planning process allows them to know what size and how many plates the parts they want to cut will need long before the torch is fired up and parts are cut.

The Sheet Size Selector

It is possible to do something similar and avoid the some of the problems of the ship building model.   The extra cost for sheet and plate sizes are mostly associated with the width of the material.   This is due to the fact that steel mills like to produce in quantity and offer best pricing on standard width material.   Most flat steel begin as a coil of a certain width.   Sheet stock is produced by a cut-to-length process that sets the length of the sheet.   This cut-to-length process is often done after the coil leave the steel mill.   The cost of changing a length is small compared to the cost of changing the width of a coil previously produced.   This means that custom lengths are much more cost effective that width changes.

Using this fact, a strategy of allowing the nesting software to select the optimal length is a practical way to determine what lengths with standard width should be inventoried.

If you are lucky enough to have a cut-to-length coil line, it is even possible to customize the length for every nest.   If not, you can select an optimal set of lengths from a large range of lengths that fit you machines and your parts optimally.

Selecting from standard widths is also included in this process.   The result is a set of sheet sizes that fit your part set optimally.

One drawback of this process is that you must know the part mix you will be produce for long enough to purchase and stock the raw material.

Working with Your Steel Service Center

Another approach is to build a relationship with your steel service center where they keep the various coil widths you need in stock.   If the steel service center can deliver quickly, order the optimal width and custom lengths as you need them.   If delivery times are too long, select a group of sizes and keep the minimum amount of inventory of each size and reorder as you use each size.   The nesting software will pick the optimal size from your available stocked sizes.   As you nest on material, the sizes you use most will be replenished as you reorder; this will allow you to keep a low inventory on site that is dynamically replenished by your steel service center.   The result will be an optimal mix of raw material.

In Summary…

There is no need to guess about something as costly as material inventory when there are tools to quickly and easily get the answers you need to make informed decisions.

How about you?

How do you forecast material needs?  What tools do you use?  How is it working for you?

If Optimation can be of assistance in better managing your material inventory, contact us.

This manufacturer has several options to resolve his capacity issue.  Maybe you can think of a number of them.  We’ll review some options here, and you can decide for yourself, what would be the best solution.  Finally, let’s assume that turning the business now isn’t an option.

Capacity Solutions for Sheet Metal Production

1.  Outsourcing – The lifeblood of all job shops is their ability to extend capacity on demand for and manufacturer.  And it is certainly an option here.  The OEM would need to assess the costs, turn around time, and quality of any outside vendor before pursuing this choice.
2. Adding Equipment – If sheet metal fabrication is the bottleneck, then possibly adding more equipment and more production lines would alleviate the problem.  That is assuming the machine cycle time and not the programming (order and geometry / code inputs and nesting) is the bottleneck, then more equipment would be a possible solution.  The OEM would need to look at floor space, the capital investment budget, and lead time for installation and training before moving on this.  Further, he would need to be certain that the demand is sustained so to justify the investment over time.
3. Getting More Capacity from Existing Equipment – Another approach, and this may be the first one before any steps are taken, would be to determine if the existing equipment is at full or near capacity.  Is it running at 80-90% of its duty cycle – barring time for maintenance?  Most manufacturers we speak to find that this isn’t the case.  Even if they don’t keep meticulous records, they can tell if the CNC equipment is running 30, 50, or 70 percent of the time.  If this is the case – and most often it is – there is a golden opportunity to improve capacity by improving cycle time.  Look at the turret changes, the delay or wait time for programs, the load/unload time, and/or the downtime for machine breakage as areas for improvement.
4. Using Automatic Nesting Software to Increase Capacity – One of the best tools to help increase the capacity in general and specifically of existing equipment is through efficient use of automatic nesting software.  It can improve the duty cycle up to 90%, thereby creating one of several outcomes depending on the manufacturer’s needs for improved throughput or cost reduction.  Automatic nesting software can help improve capacity many ways.

• It can improve actual machine cutting time
• Implementing Common Punching or Common Edge Cutting, which shortens the cut time – and the material use.
• Efficient tool path management (a logical, linear path from one sheet edge to another), which again shortens the cut time.
• It can reduce operator interaction with the setup
• Intelligent Tool Management with the use of preferred tool sets, which minimizes tool changes and turret movement
• It can improve load/unload time
• With intelligent remnant management, minimizing the use of remnants
• Smart skeleton cut up and disposal, making disposal of the skeleton quick and easy
• Managed part unload with trap doors and automatic unloaders, also making removal and sorting of finished parts quick and simple.
• It can eliminate wait time for nest program
• Automatic order entry
• Automatic batch or JIT nesting
• Automatic or batch input of geometry

What does more capacity mean?

Greater capacity can mean a lot of different things to different manufacturers.  What they do with the extra capability is all dependent upon the economics of their situation.  Here are a few examples.

• More product can be produced with the existing equipment
• More can be accomplished with fewer machines and a smaller fabrication footprint freeing floor space for other operations
• New machine purchases can be put off until the demand is really warrants them
• Superfluous existing machines can be decommissioned or reserved for capacity peaks only.
• In the case of shearing before punching, the shearing operation can be minimized or eliminated, freeing up floor space, manpower, and speeding throughput.

In Conclusion …

The choice of how to increase capacity is a decision that will be unique for each manufacturer.  What we have discussed today is that there are a number of solutions – including automatic nesting software – as tools that can add more “floor space” and get more product out the door.  It is the savvy manufacturer that considers his options and chooses wisely.

How about you?

How are your capacity challenges handled?  What solutions have you implemented?  What advice would you give to someone in this situation?  Let us know.

If Optimation can help you explore nesting software as a potential solution, let us know.

Cutting Delivery Time with Nesting Process

We recently met a manufacturer, who struggled to get product out in a timely fashion.  If that sounds familiar, read on.  Here is his story.

Before: Order to Delivery in About A Week

This manufacturer of large industrial equipment had an established shear-to-blank, then punch process that went something like this.

An order would come in for 50 of the same part.  The part blanks would be sheared from 10 very large sheets.  This means the shear operator would 1) make two trim cuts per large sheet to square the raw material, 2) measure and cut the first blank, 3) make sure it is square and accurate, 4) repeat four more times per large sheet.  Then he would move and stack the 50 small sheets beside the punch ready for punching the internal holes.  Are you seeing how this could be time consuming and slow delivery times?

Note that on each of the 10 sheets there was room for 5 part blanks.  What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that there was a large trim or salvage strip at the bottom of each of the 10 sheets.  That was discarded.  Scrap.

Next, the programmers would send down to the machine operator the single part program to finish the interior of the part. The machine operator would run that one single part program 50 times on the turret punch – once per part blank.  He would pick up the small sheet and load the punch 50 times – one sheet at a time.   Then he would unload each of the small parts from the punch 50 times.   On and off the punch over and over 50 times.

Because of all of the material handling and single part programming, product orders typically took about a week to make it from sales order to delivery.

Problem #1:  Changing the Nesting Process 

The problem this manufacturer faced was a time consuming process that slowed down delivery. The process involved too much material handling and a shearing process that was unnecessary.  Everyone from the programmers to the machine operators were asked to look at punching sheets a different way.

The solution included a process change.  They looked at the large raw material sheet as the basis for a nest as a means to handle that one sheet just one time.  Instead of shearing to size, then punching the blanks, the fabrication team decided to create a nest that punched the exterior and interior of each part in one streamlined operation.  This eliminates lots of time-consuming material handling of shearing then punching, and it sped up the process considerably.

Process change ultimately meant the programmers embraced automatic nesting, and the machine operators handled whole sheets and unloading nests instead of single parts, saving time and effort.

 Problem #2:  Changing the Nesting Paradigm 

The other problem this manufacturer faces was programming and punching one part at a time. Previously, the production mindset focused on individual part creation by single part programming and producing many of the same parts at once.  The solution also involved a paradigm shift.

If they could do all of the punching and shearing on the turret, then they could mix parts and part orders and use common edge punching.  And if they could do this, then they could – with automatic nesting software – create the nests of many parts at once quickly and keep production moving fast.

The programmers take a “order bucket” full of all of the parts needed for a particular material that are the highest priority or have the nearest due date, then use the automatic nesting software to create the nest, do the tooling, add the tabs and create the tool path.

The transition meant the programming time was cut significantly, and the parts and orders moved through the shop much faster.

After: Part Order to Delivery in 8 Hours

When the team turned to creating dynamic nests on full sheets using common edge punching, they doubled their throughput.  And their turnaround time was cut to one shift – 8 hours.

Solution #1: Less Programming

The programmers didn’t have to create individual part programs.  The automatic punch nesting software created “multiple” part programs all at one time and in just minutes.  It assigned the tooling, created the tool path, completed the common edge punching, and inserted tabs as needed – all quickly and without human intervention.

The programmers enjoyed creating automatic nests with a dynamic selection of parts instead of lots of individual part programs.  Their work was made easier.

Solution #2: Less Material Handling

Because of the nests with multiple parts per sheet, the machine operators touched each sheet and each part only once.  The shearing process was eliminated.  And the time the product was on the shop floor was cut significantly.

The machine operators realized the bonus of handling less material every day.  Their work was made easier.

In Conclusion…

The manufacturing facility made a conscious choice to change.  In the end they adopted a process change, a new way of programming, and new technology.  They gained better throughput for the company and a better quality of work life for the programmers and operators.

How about you?

Would change make a difference in your plant?  Could looking at the way things are done offer some insight that would prove helpful?  Let us know what you’re thinking.

If automatic nesting and the help of some engineers that are adept at process change might help you or someone you know, contact us.

Increasing Nesting Software Integration Over Time

One of the advantages of automatic nesting software is the ability to integrate with the existing order management or scheduling system (MRP/ERP) creating a seamless upstream and downstream information flow.

One of the concerns some manufacturing engineers have is what does this functionality mean to me if I’m not using an MRP/ERP system.  Is it more than I need? Or can I start with a simpler method and work up to something more sophisticated with full integration and/or JIT?

The Four Automation Levels of MRP/ERP and Automatic Nesting Integration

The good news for all manufacturing engineers is that order entry integration with automatic nesting isn’t an on/off switch.  There are levels of integration that you can dial up or down to suit your needs.  Further, as your operation gains sophistication, you can keep up with it without making software changes.  Automatic nesting software with MRP integration is a scalable tool that can grow with you and your needs.

1. Level #1 – Manual Order Entry – Users familiar with work orders or travelers as the method of communicating orders to the shop may feel most comfortable with this approach.  The programmer or machine operator can simply key in the part number, quantity, and choose the material from a drop down or key it in for each order from any paperwork available.  If warranted, additional information, such as job number or due date, can be also be entered with the order.  The upside is a lot of control over the process.  The user can independently set the priorities or production sequence as the orders come through.  The downsides are the time consumed and the opportunity for error – a quantity of 5 parts can easily be 55 with one key stroke.
2. Level #2 – File Download – Some manufacturers have a bill of materials system or a spreadsheet where the orders and schedule are managed.  Most, if not all, of these have the ability to export their part order data into an ASCII text file which is similarly formatted to and can be opened in a Microsoft’s Excel® program.  Any and all of the information mentioned above – part ID, quantity, material, due date, etc. – can be captured and downloaded with the orders into the ASCII file from the Excel or Bill of Materials System. With this data extracted to a file, the user can easily – without rekeying it – import it into the automatic nesting software. The entire order entry process for hundreds or thousands of orders can take a matter of seconds or minutes.  The process does need to be manually initiated and managed.  Often fabricators do this once or twice a day depending on the volatility of orders.  However, it is exponentially faster and more error-proof than manual order entry.
3. Level #3 – MRP/ERP Integration – The next step in our scalable continuum is integration with the MRP/ERP system.  For those fabricators leaning toward a JIT fabrication model and JIT nesting, this may be the process best for you.  In this model, the automatic nesting software queries the MRP/ERP system at set intervals (every hour, shift, day) as set by the users, for new orders that appear in the MRP/ERP system.  If new orders are found, they are downloaded to the nesting software for processing.  The orders – again with the same information as above – are triaged based on either arbitrary priority settings in the MRP/ERP system or by due date.  This ensures that the hottest parts are handled first, while at the same time the material efficiency, and order cohesion are maintained as well. 
4. Level #4 – Full JIT Integration – For the fabricator fully embracing the JIT model, full JIT integration between the MRP/ERP system and the automatic nesting system would be a strategy worth investigating. In this model, the information flow is not only from the MRP/ERP system to the nesting software but the reverse happens, too.  The nesting software reports back to the MRP/ERP software what parts have been nested and material used.  The quantities used are then deducted from the “quantities needed” for both parts and material inventory.  And in a real-time manner all systems are current with the realities on the shop floor.

In Summary….

So, the solution for any one fabrication operation may be different or as is likely with most organizations it may be an evolving process.  The best solution for most is a product that can meet you where you are with your systems and needs today, and grow with your needs as your operations change.

How about you?

What kind of order entry system do you have?  Is it manual or automated or some combination thereof?  Is it working?  What would you like to see?  Join the conversation.

In the meantime, if you’d like to pursue this conversation, contact us.  We’d be happy to talk.

Common Edge Punching for Turret Punches

Automatic nesting with common edge punching is a fairly recent development on the market.  You may already be familiar with automatic common edge cutting for lasers.  This is a similar concept; however, it is applied to CNC punch nesting.

What is Common Edge Punching?

Common edge punching is the punching of two adjacent parts with one tool hit within a nest.  The idea is to save machine time by eliminating the second tool hit and to reduce material scrap by eliminating the skeleton otherwise between the two adjacent parts.

How Does Common Edge Punching Work?

The process of common edge punching is fairly involved.  In sum, here are the steps.

•  Identify parts that share sufficient entity (part edge) length and arc to warrant common edge punching.
• Align the parts adjacent in the nest.
• Eliminate the tool hits that are redundant between the two adjacent parts.
• Leave enough material or space between hits to create tabs to maintain sheet integrity.
• Tool the part(s) for punching.
• Program the tool path to make the remaining hits.

As you might imagine doing this manually can be quite time consuming and error prone. Most programmers or engineers find it cost-prohibitive to venture into manual common edge punching.  The time and risk involved is simply not worth the material saved.

Unless you’re doing common edge punching automatically.

How is Automatic Common Edge Punching Different?

Automatic common edge punching accomplishes all of the above tasks based on the preferences of the user – automatically and without user intervention.  For example, the user may choose to common edge punch a particular part with itself or “same part,” with other parts whose common edge is included (shorter than) the part or parts that share the same length entity.  The automatic common edge punching then selects the appropriate tool, tools the parts, eliminates redundant hits, and creates the tool path.  Everything is completed in a matter of seconds.

The secret to success is in the software logic.  It can and does “thinks” through the nesting problem just as a human would.  In a matter of seconds it has the optimal nest with common edge punching based on the rules for cutting the programmer has put in place.

The rules would include which parts are eligible for common edge punching and when and where tabbing would be applied.

What are the Benefits of Common Edge Punching?

There are two main benefits to automatic common edge punching.

1. The first, and maybe the most obvious, is material savings.  When common edge punching, the skeleton typically left between adjacent parts is removed.  That extra material is then available for more parts netting a higher material efficiency.  As a result there is usually significantly less scrap.  We’ve seen manufacturers save several percentage points in material utilization with just common edge punching applied.
2. The second is machine time.  With fewer hits and a shorter tool path, the nest can be cut more quickly.  This would improve cycle time and throughput for the machine.

What Does it Take to Do Automatic Common Edge Punching?

The tools that need to be in place for effective automatic common edge punching are CNC turrets, a CAD software package, and an automatic nesting software capable of managing the turret, tool path, and common edge cutting properties intelligently.  After the pieces are in place and the rules set, the process can flow uninterrupted with little if any intervention.

How about you?

What are your experiences with common edge punching?  Have you tried it manually or with software?  Join the conversation.

About Optimation’s Common Edge Punching

If you’d like to know more about this automation tool, contact us.  We’d be happy to discuss it further with you.

Comparing Nesting Software with Benchmarks

When researching nesting software, most manufacturers turn to a benchmark as an objective, analytical tool to compare products.  This article is a primer on benchmarks – what are they, how are they best used, and what every manufacturer should know going into a benchmark.

What is a Benchmark?

A benchmark is a “test run” of sheet metal software using your parts, quantities, materials, guidelines.  It is a perfect opportunity to try out nesting software before you buy.

How is a Benchmark Done?

The manufacturer collects a real world, production-ready set of parts, order quantities, due dates, materials, and cutting or punching requirements.  That is, he is assembles everything necessary to simulate the cutting of these parts.  The manufacturer sends this data to the nesting software company  to do a trial run or simulated run of these parts through their software.  The results are returned to the manufacturer for comparison with their software and other nesting software products.   

What Do You Look for in a Benchmark?

A benchmark is a tool, where you can get “proof of concept.”  That’s a fancy term for seeing if the sheet metal software will do what you want it to do. Will it accommodate your unique needs – your parts, machines, orders, and timelines?   How long does it take to create the nests? Tip: Ask to see the nest compile in real time.  How fast do the nests run?  What kind of material efficiency can the software provide?  How does the software company achieve the material efficiency it demonstrates?  Can it handle changes in part revisions, hot orders, new quantities? How does it do it?   Can the software handle different manufacturing scenarios, i.e. with or without common edge cutting?  What is the difference in efficiency? How automatic is the nesting process?  How much manual intervention is needed?  A benchmark will answer these questions.

How are Benchmark Results Presented?

Typically benchmark results are presented in an online meeting forum where you and any associates can see the nests, ask questions, and evaluate the results.  Additionally, copies of the nests and summary data can be provided for further analysis or distribution internally.

What Do You Do with Benchmark Information?

Benchmark data, in addition to providing comparative information among nesting software providers, is ideal for use in a financial justification of the purchase.  There’s no better way of demonstrating financial justification or return on investment than a benchmark. Why? Benchmarks are excellent at contrasting the material use or time expenditures over your present approach.  Here are a couple examples of how this is typically done.

• Improved Material Efficiency through Common Cutting / Punching
• One way to demonstrate justification for a purchase is through increased material efficiency.  The money saved with new nesting software, which can offer better material efficiency, can typically pay for the investment in the software in a matter of months.  So, let’s say your current solution can’t do safe, effective common edge cutting or punching.  With a benchmark you can demonstrate the use of this tool with your parts and see precisely how much material this feature can save per material, per month or year.  Then you can draw a straight line from material savings to cost justification in your proposal.

• Improved Throughput through Nesting
• Another way to demonstrate savings is by benchmarking a single part programming cutting process against nesting.  Often with dynamic nesting, you can put many parts on a sheet, put parts in the trim strip, put parts inside of parts, and common edge cut/punch parts.  By going this direction, programming and cutting time are cut significantly and production out put is increased.  Here you can draw a straight line from the greater production to the cost justification in your proposal.

These are just two ways to build a financial justification using benchmark data.  There are as many approaches to this as there are manufacturing companies.  The important thing to remember is that benchmarks are a valuable tool when compiling a justification for nesting software.

What Not to Do When Benchmarking

Creating a useful benchmark result is really a partnership between the manufacturer and the nesting software provider.  It is truly a team effort to create a set of results that have meaning and relevance to the manufacturer.  With this in mind here are a couple “dos” and “don’ts” to be cognizant of throughout the process.

Avoid the pitfalls that have befallen many project managers by having reliable, comparable data with which to evaluate your benchmark results.  For a benchmark to be effective, useful, comparable, or valuable in a discussion of financial justification with your boss – and maybe his boss – it is imperative for the project manager to have an apples-to-apples comparison of nests.  The most helpful is to have a set of parts for  that is reflective of a slice of real production.  (As mentioned earlier, this can be a day or a week’s production – whatever is a representative variety of parts.)  Then give the nesting software company these parts, due dates, materials, cutting/punching process, part constraints, trim requirements, etc. that you used in your slice of real production run.  Now you can compare the results, and they will be meaningful.

How to Select the Right Parts for a Benchmark

Sometimes manufacturers pick “any old parts” for a benchmark because they are busy, doing their jobs and simply don’t have the time and energy to give concerted thought to planning a benchmark.  This is completely understandable, but not recommended.  A few quick guidelines could keep this process still quick & easy but will deliver much more actionable results.

1. Don’t pick sheet-sized parts, unless you’re looking for a proof of concept for single part programming.  There’s no art or technology that would be tested to nest one, single, large part.
2. Don’t pick lots of rectangles, unless all you have is rectangles.  This is a baseline sheet metal function.  Any simple nesting software can do rectangular nesting.  Using rectangular parts exclusively won’t discriminate among competitors.
3. Pick enough parts & orders to fill multiple sheets – using 10-20 sheets is a good place to start.  This way you can tell how much time it took to program the parts and create the nest.  This will also provide the sheet metal software the opportunity to work with many combinations of parts and quantities to demonstrate real material efficiency with advanced nesting algorithms.
4. Let the sheet metal software company know if there are particular constraints on certain parts, i.e. grain constraints, fixed leads, or long & skinny parts, which need to be across the slats. Let the nesting software company know about these rotation constraints, so you can see how it performs under real world conditions.
5. If at all possible, set aside 15 minutes to talk through the benchmark with the sheet metal company before they start on the benchmark.  Let them know what you’re hoping to achieve, what you’re looking for, and where your current challenges are.  Without a clear direction of where you’re going, they will be hampered to give you the most relevant answer. Then let them come back with results to meet your needs.

In Conclusion….

Benchmarking is an excellent tool, free to project managers and provided by nesting software vendors, to provide the real world analysis  needed to make an informed purchase decision.  Don’t be shy about asking for a benchmark, you have a right to know how any nesting product will perform with your parts.

How about you?

Have you had a benchmark performed?  What kind of results did you get?  What was the process like?  Weigh in on the conversation.

If you’re shopping for nesting software and would like to have a benchmark performed with Optimation software, just let us know.

Increasing Yield on Sheet Metal Remnants

Sheet metal remnants (a usable piece of material remaining after parts are cut from the sheet, often referred to as “drop”) are the bane of every programmer and shop’s existence.  They are a pain to inventory, difficult to handle because of their odd shape, and a constant reminder that they need to be used or wasted.

This article offers some hope to the beleaguered programmer and operator.  There are ways to avoid having remnants in the first place, and if all else fails there are tools to help quickly dispose of them with little effort.

Here we go.

How to Avoid Creating Sheet Metal Remnants

As we all know the best remnant is no remnant.  In a perfect world all the parts would fill every sheet completely, and we wouldn’t have to deal with this challenge.  A zero-remnant reality may not always be possible, but there are two strategies that help avoid creating remnants in the first place.

1.      Using Filler Parts to Manage Sheet Yield and Reduce Remnants

Filler parts are parts with a less than urgent priority.  They are parts that can be made now but are made from scrap or material that would be a remnant.  There are three strategies commonly used to manage filler parts.

Filler Part Strategy #1 – Part Inventory

Creating part inventories from scrap or remnant material is the first strategy for filler parts.

Sometimes manufacturers carry part inventories of stock items to reduce setup costs or order response times. Alternatively, their production line may integrate a Kan-ban system, where part orders are cued when the part “card” indicates a need to replenish the stock.

In either approach, these parts are ideal filler parts. When a nest has unused material, extra space on the nest or material that would otherwise be a remnant can now be filled in with parts that will be used for inventory without preventing urgent parts being produced first.

Intelligent nesting software will report back to the order or scheduling system the number of parts created for each stock item. The scheduling system will then update the “quantity needed” before any additional parts are ordered to avoid overproduction.

Filler Part Strategy #2 – Higher & Lesser Grade Materials

Many manufacturers use multiple grades of material; some more costly than others. In the case of a manufacturer of industrial kitchen equipment, he may use brushed stainless steel for the exterior, visible surfaces of the cabinets and a plain finished stainless for the unseen back panels and interior parts. The brushed stainless is more expensive, but it has the same structural properties as the plain finish, so it is more than adequate as a replacement (filler) material for the plain finished stainless.

The second filler part strategy is to make good use of all of the higher grade material scrap whenever possible. To do this the manufacturer can use the scrap or remnants of the higher grade material to make parts that would otherwise be made of a lower grade stock by treating them as filler parts for the higher grade stock. In the case of the kitchen equipment manufacturer, he would make back panels and interior parts out of the brushed stainless – only when the material would otherwise be a remnant or scrapped – to prevent the expensive material from being wasted. At the end of the nesting process, the nesting software would know how many of the secondary filler parts were and were not nested.  It would return the remaining quantity to their normal, not filler, order status on the plain material.

Expensive, high grade material destined for the scrap bin has been salvaged and made into usable product components.  And expensive, high grade material remnants have been avoided.

Filler Part Strategy 3 – Future Orders

Consider a nesting environment where the engineer wishes to produce all of the parts due today only. In the case of batch nesting (creating a series of nests for multiple sheets of material from one set of part orders), as nests are built, the number of parts remaining gets smaller and smaller. Toward the end of this nesting process there will be fewer parts to nest and the nest efficiency will decrease; this is known as tail-off.  It’s also where remnants are created.

To increase the material efficiency, the programmer can allow the nesting software to look ahead at tomorrow’s orders and treat them as filler parts. The nesting software will only include the filler orders in locations in the nest where material would otherwise be scrapped, such as a remnant. Today’s orders will be the priority and will be nested first, and tomorrow’s orders will fill in the scrap areas.  This strategy blends the end of today’s production with the beginning of tomorrow’s production in a smooth and material efficient series of nests. And the opportunity for remnants is minimized.

2.      Using JIT (Just-in-Time) Nesting to Avoid Remnants

JIT Nesting is all about creating nests just as the machine that will produce the parts is ready for them – just in time.  The architecture behind this process is a never ending, always filling, real time order bucket reflecting the most current production demand.  As new orders come in they fill the order bucket.  As the machine (punch, laser, plasma, etc.) is ready to produce, the nesting software empties the bucket.  Orders and products are coming in and out in a constant flow of production – meeting needs just-in-time.

How this helps minimize or avoid remnant production may not be self-evident. The secret is constantly keeping the orders coming in so that there is never a tail-off of orders, which usually creates a remnant.

JIT nesting in practice is similar to the Future Order Filler Part strategy when used with batch nesting.  The difference is the “future orders” for JIT nesting are the orders needed for the very next nest.  Whereas the “future orders” for batch nesting may be the 2^nd shift production or tomorrow’s orders.  The window for “future” with JIT nesting is a very tight single machine cycle.

Therefore, each nest will have the advantage of pulling from the greatest pool of orders to provide the optimal sheet material efficiency.

How to Optimize Sheet Metal Remnants

As mentioned earlier, it’s hard to imagine a zero-remnant world.  So, in those cases where remnants are inevitable, here are two strategies to best manage them and make the most of this extra material.

3. Automatic Remnant Management

Advanced nesting software has the ability to automatically manage remnant creation, nesting, and use for the programmers and machine operators.  The process starts when a sheet is identified by the software user as having sufficient material to create a remnant.  The user can tell the nesting software to then generate an electronic remnant with a straight edge cut or a stepped-edge cut (see image above) to free it from the consumed, nested material.  The software then creates a unique material ID for storage among the material available to nest on.  When more parts are ordered the user or the software can “call down” the remnant by its ID, nest parts on it and send the finished nest to the machine operator as normal.

With this approach remnants aren’t lost in the system and risk damage or being scrapped.

4. Irregular Remnant Management

Not every remnant can be squared-off to a rectangular or stepped-rectangular shape.  Sometimes there are irregular-shaped remnants that result from a very large, odd-shaped part being extracted.  In these circumstances, automatic nesting software can treat the irregular shaped remnant in the same manner as a regular-shaped remnant by storing it, labeling it, and retrieving it when needed for use.  For more on irregular-shaped remnant management, see this article.

In Conclusion…

There is no reason remnants should present the problem that they often do.  There are sizable material efficiency gains to be had with effective remnant management and the application of dynamic nesting software.

How about you?

Are remnants an issue in your shop?  How do you manage them?  What’s working, and what isn’t?  Do you have any creative solutions?

If you’d like to talk more about the remnant strategies discussed here, contact Optimation.

Material Waste - Programming Time - Inventory Expenses

I recently heard about a manufacturer, who had an extraordinary material efficiency.  They consistently got 90-95% material efficiency on every sheet they ran.  Further, this was achieved with exceptionally complicated patterned/grained material.  It was an amazing feat!

First I’ll tell you how they did this and the problems they encountered.  Then I’ll walk through an easier solution.

How did they get the material efficiency?

The first question is, naturally, how did they do it?  They could be doing manual nesting and spending a great deal of time on each nest, but that’s only half the equation, they still need the right part selection to make a highly efficient nest.  They could be running lots and lots of the same or rectangular parts which lend themselves to static nests with high efficiency.  Or they could be making very large sheet-sized parts that have very little waste.

But as it turns out, none of that was the secret to their amazing material efficiency solution.  Although, they did have large parts, there was still plenty of trim. And they did do manual nesting, but even with the time spent that really didn’t account for the minimal waste.

Their solution to nesting efficiency

The very ingenious programmers tackled this problem – to get the greatest material efficiency from the expensive material with two tools.

Step 1. Use Filler Parts

The use of filler parts is a clever nesting strategy that leverages smaller parts that aren’t of a first priority nature to “fill in the holes” or use up the scrap left by other, larger parts.  Filler parts can be used applying one or more of three strategies.

1. Part Inventory – Filler parts can be those smaller piece-parts that you keep on hand or in inventory because you use lots of them, and it doesn’t make sense to do a whole run (nest or multiple sheets) of just these parts.  They make excellent parts to fill in the gaps on a large sheet, then throw in the “bucket” for future use.  Stocking a KanBan system would be a perfect application of filler parts used for inventory management.
2. Future Orders – If your nesting software can be sensitive to part order due dates, you can use parts with a future due date as filler parts.  Let’s say you fill your nest with parts due today; however, you have an unsatisfactory amount of scrap left.  You can “pull forward” orders due tomorrow or even next week as filler orders to be used when and only when there is room in the nest.
3. Premium Materials – Most shops have different grades of material – some “good stuff” and some “okay stuff.”  The good stuff is naturally more expensive than the okay stuff.  In the case of filler parts, parts designated for manufacture out of the okay stuff, could be made from the good stuff – if and only if there is sufficient scrap in the good stuff to warrant its use.  This can be easily done in the case of using brushed stainless steel for the back panel of a cabinet instead of the regular material.  The cabinet customer gets an upgrade and the better quality material is not wasted.

Inventory Problem

This manufacturer took used filler parts to supplement part inventory (option #1 above).  But there was a problem.  It seems that a quick check of the filler part inventory led them to discover that they had a 6.2 -year inventory of some parts.  And while using the filler parts is great for material efficiency, what is it doing to their cash flow and inventory costs to see that much money literally sit on the shelf?

Step 2. Use Static Nests

The programmers took the time, energy and effort to create very tight static nests (a nest that is created once, saved, and run multiple times without change) with very high material efficiency. This also contributed to the material efficiency.

Static Nest Problem

However, the problem they encountered is not unusual for static nests.  Because they are by definition static, there isn’t much if any room for change or adaptation as circumstances change – which they always do.  For example, they created a nest with parts 001, 002, & 003.  Then Part 003 gets damaged, and they need a new one.  However, this manufacturer created a whole nest with all of the parts (oo1, 002, & 003)  to get a new “Part 003.” Now they have the “Part 003” they needed, plus two extra parts – 001 & 002.  What do you do with the extra parts 001 & 002?  Put them in inventory.  [I’ve heard of another manufacturer, who had a similar situation.  His solution was to remake the whole nest, but to scrap the additional parts 001 & 002.]

The Nesting Solution

The solution to the problem is to first look at all of the costs – sheet material efficiency, programming time, and inventory – and assess the best approach to managing all of the costs at one time.  It’s very easy and naturally human to sacrifice the “off book” costs of inventory and programming time, which often aren’t as transparent and as accountable, to the much harder cost of material.  This may mean a reassessment of policies and or procedures beyond the actual tools of nesting software.

The next step is to turn to an automatic nesting software that can handle the grain pattern on the material and nest dynamically to eliminate the problem of schedule rigidity inherent in static nesting.  Dynamic nesting considers a variety of parts for each nest, and evaluates them based on several qualities including urgency, order cohesion, and material efficiency. Dynamic nesting would enable this manufacturer to create a Part 003 – and only a Part 003 – as it is mixed with other priority parts in the next nest or batch of nests.  They would not need to superfluously recreate parts 001 & 002 and put them in inventory.

Finally, if the approach of filler parts still seems viable based on the above reassessed policy, part of the solution may be using this automatic nesting software to automatically fill nests with filler parts – and track the quantities used and needed – to prevent excess inventory.

In Conclusion….

The lesson for most of us is that manufacturing is a fluid, dynamic process, which juggles many priorities and often warrants a nesting software  solution with similar fluidity and adaptability. For a perfect solution, which is in tune with the needs of the plant, the nesting solution needs to be calibrated to the environment it which it serves.  It needs to honor material efficiency, programming time, and the flexibility to change.

How about you?

Does this story ring true?  Have you or someone you know been in a similar situation?  Let us know and share your story.

If we can be of assistance in improving the fluidity or efficiency of your nesting process, let us know.

Static Nesting vs Dynamic Nesting

What’s the difference between dynamic nesting and static nesting?

They are two nesting strategies frequently used in 2D or sheet metal fabrication.  Both strategies speak to the means and method by which the parts are ordered, arranged or laid out and produced on the laser, punch, plasma, router or other fabrication equipment.

Although they serve the same need of nesting, the differences between the two approaches are striking.

Let’s Review.  

1.  Part Selection – The first characteristic that stands out is the part selection.
• In static nesting, the user selects one part or a few parts and creates one nest or unique part layout.  Then he uses that “static” or unchanging pattern of parts repeatedly in cutting one or often many of the same sheets.  The net result is a large quantity of the same parts.
• Conversely in dynamic nesting the user works with a large variety – often fluid – selection of parts over an unlimited number of nest or sheets.  Each sheet may hold a unique combination of parts – reflected both in their quantity and orientation.
2. Part Priority – This is the urgency or immediacy of need for any part and how that priority is reflected in the nests.
• With static nesting, order priority is a secondary or lesser concern.  Single parts are produced en masse, as a function of material efficiency or aggregate need.  For example, if a quantity of one of a particular part is needed, a whole sheet or many sheets of that single part or a few parts are produced.  If more are produced to fill out a sheet than are needed the remainder are scrapped or inventoried.
• With dynamic nesting individual part priority is evaluated – automatically – along with the need for material efficiency.  The part orders are managed to insure that the highest priority, often the nearest due date, order is handled first and selected to get optimal material efficiency.
3. Response to Change – Change in fabrication or manufacturing comes in many forms.  There can be a design change to a part, and order priority change as in a new due date, a sudden rework or hot part, or an equipment problem.  Any of these circumstances impact the nests and the users ability to respond to change.
• With static nesting, responding to change can be very difficult.  If a part with a new revision  is needed, the whole nest needs to be reassembled and reprogrammed.  The old, reliable static nest is of no use.  If a hot part is needed, it is either run as a single part on a sheet or the static nest is modified to incorporate it.  Most often these steps are taken manually or interactively causing delays in production.
• Dynamic Nesting, on the other hand,  is built about absorbing fluid nature of production.  If there is a new revision, a hot part, a down machine, the problem is addressed in the next nest to be created reflecting the current demand for parts if Just-in-Time nesting.  There isn’t an “existing nest” to modify or rebuild.  Each new nest is created based on the current circumstances at the time. If Batch Nesting, where a queue of many nests are lined up, the operator can delete any nests not yet produced, the changes integrated, and the nests reassembled in minutes with little or no disruption to production.
4. Speed of Nest Creation – This factor is all about the time it takes to create nests.  How long does it take to bring in the parts, assemble the orders, layout the parts and create code for the machine?
• With static nesting – and probably the basis for its creation – the static nests can be reused over and over again with little or no time expense.  The big time expense is in the – frequently manual – first creation of the nest, and any modification made to it thereafter in responding to change (see point #3 above).
• With dynamic nesting, the process is automatic.  The nests can be created in seconds or minutes and still reflect current demand, order cohesion, and material efficiency.  The user isn’t tied to creating each nest separately.  He can create a batch of nests for a production run, a shift, etc. or can have the machine operator call down one nest at a time (JIT), which reflects current demand.  Again, each nest may have a completely unique selection and orientation of parts and part quantities.
5. Part Orientation & Quantity – This speaks to the granular nature of the layout of each nest  – how many parts, how many different parts, what quantity of each, what’s the orientation of each part, etc.
• Static nesting means the parts are rigid or set in their layout.  Per nest the quantity, variety, and orientation are set.  They will not vary from run to run of that particular nest.  If there are grain constrained parts to be considered, they are locked in place when the nest is built.  If there is a large quantity of one part needed, it may be the only part on that nest.
• Dynamic nests are created uniquely.  Unless the volume of parts merits several sheets be made with the same nest, the nest pattern isn’t repeated.  This opens up the opportunity to change the quantity and orientation of each part on each nest to optimize material efficiency, to retain order or kit cohesion or to meet other demands.
6. Automation – This is about how much human interaction necessary to complete the task of nesting.
• Static is well suited for a human or manual creation process.  If the nest is considered as a puzzle, it is pretty straight forward to lay out five or fifty of the same part on a sheet.  Even if a few parts are introduced into the mix it can still be manageable.  It takes time, but it is doable.
• Because dynamic nesting can take into account a much, much larger bucket of parts, look at individual due dates and priorities, evaluate material efficiency needs, consider a full 360° rotation for each part, honor and respect grain constraints on each part, and manage tooling and / or tabbing, it is well beyond the capabilities of most human or manual interaction.  The need for nesting automation is essential to juggle all of these needs in a timely fashion with optimal results.

In Conclusion….

So there you have it, a contrast between the nature and process of static and dynamic nesting and their relative applications.  We often find that static nesting is a method born of necessity to cut the programming time and still have a respectable material yield.  It is only when inventory spirals out of control, or scrap is too high, or changes comes too fast that this work-around becomes unfeasible.  Enter automation with dynamic nesting software.

How about you?

What is your nesting strategy?  Do you use static or dynamic nesting or a combination?  What led you to this choice?

If there is an interest in automation through dynamic nesting, contact Optimation.  We can help think through the process and the possibilities with you.

10 Ways to Cut Material Waste with Nesting Software

Nothing cuts into cash flow or is a profit drain like wasted raw material.  And nothing is more frustrating than seeing huge piles of scrap go out the door.  It is these real, tangible costs that, with some foresight and creative thinking, can be turned into rewards.

Here are a few tips to start you down the road toward material savings.

1. KNOW YOUR MATERIAL USE RATE

It is surprising in this age of technology how many manufacturers don’t know their material use rate. They cannot easily answer the question, “How much of each sheet of material is used for parts?” or “What percentage of your raw material is scrap?” In some cases they need to grab a pencil and paper and do some quick estimates.  And that’s fine if that’s where you are.  At least it is a start. The best place to start when reigning in your material waste is getting a handle on what kind of scrap rate you currently have. When calculating, be sure to look at a large enough production sample to extrapolate use over six months or a year to get a truer picture of reality.  Remember you can’t change what you can’t measure…at least when it comes to material waste.

2. DETERMINE A MATERIAL USE GOAL

What would be a reasonable goal to achieve? If you are currently getting 70% actual efficiency, is it possible to get 75%? What is a reasonable expectation for the processes – punch, laser, plasma – you are running? What would a 5% increase in material savings translate in to cost savings?

3. IDENTIFY SAVINGS CONSTRAINTS

What things hold you back from gaining more savings?  Do you have really large parts that don’t lend themselves easily to nesting?  Are you working with a grained material that impedes rotation on a nest?  Is there a limit to the amount of time you can spend (manually) nesting to achieve higher efficiencies?  Do hot parts and rush orders mess up your efficiencies?  Are you shearing blanks? Make a list.

4. IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR SAVINGS

Now look for ways to reduce raw material costs. Have you evaluated all of the opportunities? Could savings be achieved with a smaller inventory on hand and ordering as needed (just in time)? Is it possible to purchase fewer sheet sizes in greater quantities and get a better price on standard sheet sizes? Is it possible to get better use out of your more costly materials? Would there be savings opportunities if your production time window was opened to include more future orders? Could nesting automation improve your efficiency?

5. MAKE USE OF THE TRIM STRIP

The trim strip on any piece of sheet metal is a golden  opportunity to improve material usage. By placing additional parts in what could be a 3-4” strip the length of the sheet or nesting beneath the clamps, you can increase your material usage significantly. Be certain to make accommodations for the clamps and any repositioning necessary.

6. NESTING PARTS IN HOLES

Any part with a void or “hole” is an invitation to increase efficiency. Take every chance to place suitable parts in the holes. Doing so can make excellent use of scrap material and realistically take your actual efficiency for the sheet over 100%.  Look for opportunities to mirror parts or create 180° pairs to increase the compactness of the part and fit additional parts in the holes.

7. COMMON EDGE CUTTING

By placing parts with similar straight edges together in a laser cutting environment you can save not only material but cycle time with common edge cutting. The reduction in material between parts can save as much as 15% on a sheet of material. Be certain to program the part path to avoid freed parts and potential head crashes.

8. COMMON EDGE PUNCHING

In the same manner as with laser cutting, parts with similar straight edges or like radiuses can be punched simultaneously saving material and tool wear. By programming the same tool, i.e. a 4-way radius or rectangular tool, to strike two part edges with one hit, the material that would otherwise be between the two parts is eliminated. Common Edge Punching

9. FILLER PARTS

Filler Parts take advantage of non-priority parts to make excellent use of sheet material and reduce waste. There are many strategies to make effective use of filler parts, but here are a couple.

Alternate materials – when creating a nest on a high grade material, i.e. brushed stainless, take advantage of parts that would otherwise be created on a lower grade material to fill in the balance of the nest or sheet. The result is less of the higher grade material is wasted.

Stock Inventory/KANBAN – If you regularly produce stock inventory of small parts, such as brackets, introduce them into your nesting process. The inventoried parts can be nested amongst the active orders to reduce waste. The key to this process is keeping track of your inventory part levels and knowing what quantities to produce when.  Nesting software can aid with that.

Future Orders - In a perfect world each sheet of material has 100% or greater efficiency using only the most urgent parts due today. But that isn’t always possible. However, material waste can be significantly reduced by looking forward in time at the orders due tomorrow, next week, next month and bringing those part orders into the current sheet layout. You are not only meeting deadlines on those parts in advance of their due dates, but you’re increasing material efficiency.

10. REMNANT MANAGEMENT & NESTING

A remnant is a large segment of sheet material left over after parts have been cut from the sheet. This can easily account for significant waste if not handled effectively. Ideally,  each remnant should be saved and identified as a unique material (type & size).

Then as the next opportunity for creating a nest on that material arises, the remnant is given primary consideration for use. The faster the remnant is consumed, the less chance there is of sheet damage or loss.

BONUS POINT

11. BATCH NESTING

It goes without saying that the greater the part selection in a dynamic nesting environment the more opportunities a programmer or nesting software will have to find optimal part combinations and thus increase material efficiency.  That’s exactly the concept behind batch nesting.  Throw a bunch – a batch – of your most urgent parts in an “order bucket” and nest.  Make lots of nests.  And they will inevitably have a higher efficiency than creating a nest with a smaller dynamic part selection.  Don’t want to be locked into running a series of nests in case something happens and you need to change something?  Run the batch. Toss (delete) any nests that haven’t run on the machine.  Make the change.  Batch nest again.

How about you?

What are your approaches to getting the most from each sheet of material?  What’s working?  What isn’t?  Share your ideas.

If you’d like to talk more about any of the ideas above and how they may work in your shop, contact us.

Choosing the Right Nesting Software Vendor

So, you’re thinking about nesting software – either using it for the first time or possibly changing providers.  Great.  You’ve come to the right place for help.  You may have searched the Internet and found lots of companies that sell nesting software.  But how do you choose?  Who does what?  What’s the difference among these companies?

There is a lot to digest when you explore nesting software.  However, the first thing you need to know is that not all nesting software vendors are alike.  Yes, they all sell nesting software, but they come at it from very different approaches.

• The products are sold with different marketing objectives.
• They create very different products – all under the name “nesting software.”
• The products are designed to offer uniquely different user experiences.
• And the products produce  different results to address different manufacturing needs.

Let’s look at three broad approaches of companies who sell nesting software, and I’ll show you what I mean.

Machine Tool Companies that Sell Nesting Software

If you own a CNC fabrication tool (laser, punch, router, Waterjet, etc.), you purchased it directly from the manufacturer or an authorized dealer.  The manufacturer may have included or offered nesting software with the product – bundled or sold separately.  This is nesting software produced by the manufacturer – or affiliate company – and is typically dedicated to the operation of this machine and/or brand.

The objective of the manufacturer or dealer, understandably, is to sell their equipment.  The equipment is their main line, their focus, and frankly the basis for their profits.  The nesting software, on the other hand,  is a secondary product line, kind of like an add-on to a car.  The car dealer is in the business of selling cars, and he is happy to add-on an extended warranty or super-sized stereo to go along with the car.  The manufacturer like the car dealer – isn’t in the business of selling the add-on product.

This nesting software is a “necessary utility” to make your investment in the machine functional – not optimal – functional.  As a result, the nesting software has utility-like functions, capabilities, and delivers utility-like results.  Think of this like like WordPad, which comes as an accessory with your PC.  You can type a document in it, but most of us don’t use it because it lacks the robustness we need to produce quality-looking documents.  For most of us, we turn to something with more power.

“All Software” Companies

The next type of nesting software is a dedicated software company.  They don’t make any physical equipment, per se; they focus on software.  They typically focus specifically on manufacturing software.  The advantage here is that they are a one-stop-shop for virtually any type of manufacture-aiding software you would like.  They create a design (CAD) software, bending software, estimating software, inventory management software, DNC software, process management and nesting software.

These companies are like a supermarket or WalMart® of manufacturing software.  They operate on scale – selling lots of products in large quantities.  They offer tremendous internal integration among their products.  This is a huge benefit if you only ever want to use their products throughout your shop forever.  For example, I know guys who are diehard “Ford®” or “Chevy®” truck owners.  They will never purchase anything else because they are so brand loyal.  And that’s great if Ford or Chevrolet always offer everything they need.  But that’s a tall order and tough to live up to for any company.  The same would apply to the “all-software companies.”

Looking at it from a different angle, these software companies started their business with one product line, and then added others.  It is that initial product line where they have the most competence, deepest functionality and best support.  Every other product was built to support and extend their initial line of products and extend their profits.  Imagine being really good at producing tool boxes, then going into the business of creating tools to fill the box. It’s a great marketing approach to sell the box and the tools.  But building a box and a wrench are two different processes using two different sets of expertise.  It would be really hard to be a “best in show” at both box and wrench technology at the same time and consistently.  The savvy buyer would be wise to know where their competency lies, and be willing to accept secondary quality on the “add-on” product.

Nesting Software Companies

You may now think that going with a nesting software company would be the way to go.  I’ll certainly leave that to you to decide, but first you need to know that not even all dedicated nesting software companies are alike.  Where those previously mentioned may be distinguished by their marketing – what they sell and how they sell it – the nesting software companies are more readily distinguished by their design of the software and what that means to the user’s experience and the end results.

There are two general types of nesting software produced by nesting software companies.

Manual Nesting Software Companies

The first nesting software company type is manual software.  The design is built around the premise that the human user uses his or her time, talents, and decision making abilities to drive the software and create the nests.  And to varying degrees this is what many nesting software companies sell – the capability for the user to do all of the work.   They sell a tool that can either be used online (software as a service) or downloaded that offers the you, the user, the ability to bring in orders yourself, bring in CAD designs yourself, create nests yourself, and generate code yourself.  There is an exceptional amount of control with this approach to the nest.  You have total control over every operation that you do yourself.

Automatic, Dynamic Nesting Software Companies

The other nesting software company approach is to design automatic and truly dynamic nesting software.  This approach – rather than sacrificing personal control found in a manual process – explodes with nesting flexibility giving the user even more options and control.  With this approach the user has at his finger tips the ability to choose the nesting strategy or strategies as he sees fit – batch nesting, interactive nesting, JIT (just-in-time) nesting, kit nesting.  Further, he can calibrate the system to best meet his nesting priorities – material efficiency, programming time, order cohesion, material inventory, throughput – without sacrificing one for the other.  Once the system is commissioned to his specifications, the nesting software is tasked with automatically carrying out the day-to-day operations of building the nests and creating the code.

In Conclusion…

Selecting a nesting software vendor – partner – is a big decision.  It’s important to know the lay of the land, who the players are, frankly where they are coming from in their approach to nesting software and the manufacturing industry.  It’s a critical step in making the best decision and finding the best fit for your specific manufacturing needs and goals.

What have you seen in the nesting software market?  What perspectives have you experienced?  Let us know.

In the meantime, if an automated approach with nesting strategy flexibility is an approach you would find helpful in your business, let us know.  We’d be happy to work with you to design a solution best suited to your needs. Contact Us.

Steps to Evaluate the Nesting Process

This post concludes our series on evaluating the nesting process.  We’ve established a foundation for a process review, reviewed the CAD to CAM process, and looked at the order entry side of the equation.  Now we’ll turn to the heart of the nesting process, the actual creation of nests and output of tool paths to the equipment.  This is often the make-or-break element in the process that determines efficiency (material and time), throughput and the overall effectiveness of the sheet metal fabrication process.

Again, we’ll follow our method of first describing the status quo, evaluating it critically, then looking for alternatives.

Creation of the nest and tool path

Describe the nesting process

1. How are nests created?  Who is involved?  What software is used?  When is the nesting done, each morning, once a week, as needed?
2. What nesting strategy is employed?  Single part programming (one part at a time)?  Batch nesting (a series of nests at a time)? Grid nesting (many of one part)? Just in time nesting (one automatic nest at a time)? Manual (drag & drop by human)? Static nesting or dynamic nesting?
3. What are the nesting objectives? Material efficiency? Machine uptime? Order cohesion? Throughput? Do you sacrifice one objective, i.e. material efficiency, for turn around time?  How about achieving great efficiency through building a huge inventory of secondary or filler parts?
4. How many programmers are tasked with this responsibility? More specifically, what’s your ratio of programmer to machine?
5. How are the nesting decisions (spacing, tabbing, leads, trim, common cutting, tooling, part rotation, parts in parts, etc.) made? Human driven or software driven?
6. How long does it take to create a nest?

Evaluate the nesting process

1. Why was the nesting strategy in use chosen?  Are other strategies available with your current process and /or software?  Is it the best alternative?  What, if any, are the costs and benefits of using this process?
2. Is the nest creation speed acceptable? Is it creating a bottleneck or do you need to create nests days in advance to keep the equipment running?
3. What’s the material efficiency? How is the efficiency achieved, i.e. static nests, manual creation, filler parts, etc.? Is that acceptable?
4. How is a change order (hot part) handled?  How is that working?
5. How are kits/units/assemblies nested?  Is order cohesion well managed on the shop floor?
6. How is the nesting process meeting the nesting objectives – time, material efficiency, order cohesion, productivity?  Is one objective sacrificed for another?  If so, what does that mean for the programming time, shop floor experience, and overall customer satisfaction?
7. Where is there room for improvement?

Evaluate nesting alternatives

1. What impact would a change in nesting strategy have on the results, on the process or on the personnel?  What would the upsides and downsides of that choice be?
2. Could material efficiencies be gained with an alternative?
3. Could programming time be saved through automation and/or integration with a CAD or MRP system?
4. Could inventory (material, work-in-process, or finished product) be reduced?
5. Could a JIT (just – in – time) strategy be employed?
6. How about responsiveness to a customer – could turn-around time be improved? 

Output of the Tool Path to the CNC Machine

Describe the Output Process

1. How does the nest program get to the CNC equipment?  Are nests sent one at a time or in batch?  Do you need to send them in drip mode?
2. Are the nests machine-specific or process-specific?
3. Does the nest reflect the manufacturing capabilities of the machine (tooling, clamps, reach, repositions, slats, offloading)?
4. How long does it take to get a nest to the equipment?  Who makes the decision to send the program?  When is that decision made?
5. What happens if the nest is sent and a change is needed on a part?  Where is that change made (design or shop floor)?  How is the change made?
6. What happens if one or multiple machines goes down?  Is the equipment on the network or a stand alone unit? Can the nest be rerouted to an available machine?
7. Do you need to edit the code at the machine?
8. What’s working and what isn’t working?

Evaluate the Output Process

1. Why are the nests sent as they are (batch, singularly)?
2. How long does it take to make a part or order change?  Why?  Is there a better option?

Evaluate Output Alternatives

1. What would a change look like?
2. What would you like to improve or accomplish?
3. What would it take to make the change?
4. What challenges would arise if the change was implemented?
5. What are the solutions to challenges that arise from change?

In Conclusion

We’ve really only scratched the surface of a thorough evaluation of the sheet metal nesting process.  There are many more details, steps, and options that can be drilled into as your situation dictates.  The message today is that this is doable and well worth the effort.  You can prevent problems down the road, improve efficiencies, and frankly make the day-to-day work better for all concerned with a review, a plan and action.

What we’ve learned over the years, is that applied in the right measure and in the right places, advanced sheet metal software can be the answer you’re looking for to many of the process questions brought to light above.  And the good news is we’ve done this many, many times before with manufacturers just like you.  So you have a partner in the process to guide you from here to there.

Have you reviewed your sheet metal nesting process?  What did you find?  Were there any surprises?  Leave your comments to continue the conversation.

If you’d like to chat in person, please contact Optimation.  We welcome the opportunity to talk “process” with you.

Happy Holidays from Optimation

Automated Nesting v. Automatic Nesting

To the uninitiated manufacturing professional the two terms “automatic” and “automated” as they apply to nesting and nesting software can whiz by undifferentiated in a conversation.  That’s perfectly understandable because our everyday experiences afford us no reason to assume there is much difference between the two terms.

Ah, but it is in that distinction where an important mistake is made when it comes to looking at nesting processes and nesting software.  There is a difference, indeed, a big difference between the two terms as they are applied to the nesting process.  The big difference boils down to the amount of human interaction, human time, human decision making, human-driven errors, and human effort you can expect from each process.

As we know there are many, many steps in the process of creating a nest and CNC code to drive a laser, punch press, router, etc.  Those steps include – but are not limited to – importing and cleaning the geometry, identifying the order quantity and material, laying out the parts based on some formula or set of priorities, and, finally, creating the machine-specific tool path.

Automatic and automated nesting approach these processes from two completely different perspectives.

Let me explain.

Automated Nesting

Automated nesting begins with the manual nesting process and looks to create short cuts to make the manual process easier, faster. Automated nesting looks at each of the discrete steps (listed above) and applies macro-like software tools to speed up the human interaction.  There are still copious amounts of human interaction, but it is – or should be – faster than doing the process manually.

Here’s an example.  Automated nesting will give you the tools to clean geometry (remove redundant lines, connect entities, eliminate irrelevant points) yourself.  You have the graphical tools on the screen to make part changes to enable manufacturing.   Along the same lines, automated nesting gives you the ability to interact with the part to set a grain constraint or identify bend lines post-design, pre-manufacture.

The nesting the parts is at the heart of the nesting process.  Automated nesting will create a nest with the philosophy and tools that the engineer or programmer will come in after the fact and edit the nest.   Automated nesting doesn’t seek to create the optimal nest independently, just a nest sufficient to act as a starting place for editing.  What do we mean by “editing?” You’ll hear of editing terms like “bump” and “drag.” This is the manual process of squeezing, rotating, deleting, adding, re-arranging parts to improve the nest that the automated nesting software created.

As may be coming evident, the automated software acts as a lever to amplify the human strength, which in this case is the time and mental energy spent to create the nest, part programs and tool path (cnc code).  It still takes human involvement, human interaction and opens the possibilities to human-generated errors, but it is faster than creating a nest manually.

Automatic Nesting

Automatic Nesting, in the truest sense of the term, stems from a different philosophy.  Its goal is not to amplify human daily interaction, but to minimize or eliminate it using intelligent, logic and rules-driven software settings pre-set and defined by the human engineers.  Automatic nesting creates an intelligent decision-making foundation based on human intelligence during a one-time set up. Then it acts as the human engineer or programmer would, making decisions as the human would, creating nests as the human would – all without the daily efforts and tedium of human interaction.  The human (engineer) retains total control of the nesting process by creating the automatic environment to his/her liking, then delegates to the software to act on his/her directions.

What does automatic nesting look like?

Imagine bringing in those same unedited, not-ready-for-manufacturing parts as mentioned above into the CAM software.  Automatic nesting software knows the tolerances you prefer for connected entities, redundant lines, etc., because you’ve told it them – once.  Automatic nesting software then looks at each part as it is libraried and cleans the part itself.  Only when and if a part comes through that exceeds your tolerances, does it raise a flag and the human engineer needs to review the part.  Indeed, automatic nesting can be about bringing in lots of unique parts at one time as in a batch.  Simply import the files as you would any other program where there is an import function, but the software – behind the scenes – clears the parts ready-for-manufacture.

Automatic nesting, when it comes to the actual nesting process, is so much more powerful than an automated process.  You’ve told the automatic nesting software your preferences for how you want your nest created. (It’s kind of like asking for “salad dressing on the side” at a restaurant.)  You’ve told it when, where and how you would like common cutting done.  If there are parts that fall between the slats, you’ve told it to look for them and orient them automatically based on your size preferences.  It knows how to create a tool path that avoids loose parts.  It knows how to create optimal nests using your part priorities (due dates or arbitrary settings), your needs for order cohesion, your material efficiency minimums, your trim allotments, your tooling, and on and on.  Then given your “rules” it performs the nest creation process quickly and efficiently.

Automatic nesting is a tool that you program – once – to act like you.  To nest like you would nest.  To create part programs like you would like to do. To meet manufacturing requirements (scrap rate, throughput, programming time) that you are required to meet.  Then you push the “start button.”  And walk away.  No editing, no cleaning, no massaging, no re-running, no rework.  It’s a process that you can trust because you set it up to think and act like you would do…if you wanted to manually do the nesting.

So, in sum, there is a notable difference between automated and automatic nesting.  It’s a little known difference, but one that without understanding can create unexpected results down the road.

To ask about automatic nesting and the difference it can make in your process, contact us.

Meanwhile, let us know what you think.  What nesting process – automated or automatic or something else – are you using ?  How’s it working for you?

Steps to Evaluate the Nesting Process

In the last two blog posts we’ve first laid a foundation for evaluating a process, then applied that foundation to the CAD to CAM process or geometry acquisition and data cleaning and storage steps.  As you know the nesting process takes input from two areas – design and scheduling.  Now we’ll turn to the other side of the equation (parts + orders = nests), and evaluate the order entry and order communication process as it relates to nesting.

Every manufacturer has a capturing and communicating order information approach.  It can be a paper-based system with travelers and making use of the “sneaker-net” to transfer the information.  It can be an Excel spreadsheet with a list of customer orders and associated parts, or it can be a sophisticated MRP/ERP system which is updated in real time.  Regardless of the tools in place, there are fundamental process requirements that can be described, evaluated, and compared to alternatives.

Here we go.

Collection or input of orders

The order name, part name, quantity, material, due date, priority among other data is collected somehow, by someone, and stored somewhere.  Here we drill down to describe exactly what that process is.  You may be surprised to discover some gaps or oddities in your process.

Describe the order capture and processing process

• What information (part #, due date, quantity) is captured with each order?
• Where are the orders created, stored? Are the orders in a digital format? Paper format?
• Are the orders in a MRP/ERP system?  Excel file? Is the information (quantity, material) in the CAD file?
• Who has access to the orders?
• How many orders are there?  Does it require a lot of manpower just to keep up, or is it a steady or infrequent trickle of orders?
• How frequently do new orders arrive?  How quickly must they be addressed?  Hours?  Days?  Does it depend on the type of customer? Do some customers get priority service?
• How are orders communicated to manufacturing? Is it a paper and/or verbal system that delivers the “word” to manufacturing?
• How are “hot” orders, change orders, or rework orders handled?  How and by whom is the order priority set?   How and by whom does the order management system get updated – by the machine operators, design, scheduling, programming?
• How do kits/assemblies/units remain together when manufactured? Or is order cohesion sacrificed to meet efficiency numbers or delivery deadlines?  Is order cohesion even important?
• Do the orders reflect a make-to-order process or make-to-inventory process?  Is it a Kanban system?  How does the order system reflect or not reflect these processes?

Evaluate the process

It is very easy to get comfortable with a process. It’s also easy to fall back on the reason, “that’s the way we’ve always done it” as justification.  Take a look at each step in your process and ask, “Why?”

•  Among the data captured with the order, is there information missing that would be helpful downstream?  Why?  If due date or priority, for example, is missing from the information transferred, does that cause a problem or put someone in the position of asking or making a decision without the information?
• Are orders handled in a timely fashion? Are the right order priorities assigned? Are any orders lost or mis-communicated (wrong material, quantity, revision)? Is there a wait downstream for orders?  Why or why not?
• Are parts from different orders mixed together?  Why?  Why not?
• How well are hot orders or change orders reintegrated to the process flow? What does a rapid response to the orders do to material efficiency?
• What makes a hot order “hot?”   Why?
• Is there a feedback loop from the sheet metal software to the MRP software to communicate nested parts & materials consumed? Would this be helpful?

Evaluate alternatives

Finally, after describing and evaluating the process, look for policy, procedure or technology tools to bridge gaps or fill in holes in the process.

•  What’s the most important aspect of this process?  What are you trying to achieve….in terms of adding value to the product? How can it be improved?
• Does every step add value?  If not, how can it be eliminated or improved?  Would automation help?
• Would better communication help?  Would technology help smooth communication links?
• Would instituting an MRP system help?  Could it be integrated into the current system?
• Would a CAM to MRP software integration make things run smoother?
• What would you hope to gain of any change? Would it benefit the bottom line, reduce stress, add value?

Now you have an arsenal of questions with which to tackle your order process.  When you take a good look at it, you may find opportunities for improvement.  Some improvements may be a process change, some may involve new technology and some may take a greater strategic review and involve policy changes.  Wherever this discussion leads you, just take one step at a time and keep in mind your ultimate goals – adding value, cutting costs, or whatever you deem most appropriate.

And let us know how it’s going.  Touch back and offer your insights or comments here.

In the meantime, if Optimation can be of assistance to help review your process or discuss automation technology that may be helpful, just give us a ring.

Steps to Evaluate the Nesting Process

In the last blog post we laid out an architecture by which we can critically evaluate a nesting process.  To review, our evaluation process starts with a clear and detailed description of the nesting process, they we ask “why” about each of those defined steps, finally we look for constructive alternatives. Our goals in sum are identifying challenges, means to improve the process, and overall opportunities for efficiencies.

Today we’ll apply our evaluation architecture or system to the processes we’re most familiar with in nesting – collection of part geometry and creation of the part program.

We start at the beginning of the nesting process for most manufacturers, which is creating, identifying, moving, cleaning, and all around getting the geometry from where it is to a place – literally and figuratively – where it can be manufactured. 

Collection or creation of part geometry

This is the process of converting and migrating CAD work product to the CAM department for production.  What does that process look like in your operation?

Describe the CAD to CAM process

• Look at all aspects of the process – who is involved, where are the decision points, what’s the information path, what is the timeline, what are the expectations?
• Are the parts supplied by the customer? Created in house?
• How are the parts created? Is each  unique or are they parametric modifications of a standard shape?
• Are all the designs able to be manufactured? (angles, tolerances, reliefs, spacing, part sizes)
• Are the CAD designs in 3D model form?  How are they unfolded?
• Are the formed features, i.e. bend reliefs, able to be manufactured?
• Do you use one CAD package or multiple? If multiple, is one appended to (same brand) the CAM package and used as a port of entry forCAM?
• Are there legacy CAD files in an old CAD software proprietary format?
• Are there part revisions? How are they managed and who has the authority to make changes? When can changes be made in design and/or on the floor?
• Does the artwork ever need cleaning? Who is responsible for design or design editing?
• How is data transferred and with what expectations for design quality and integrity of the recipient and the sender?  What decisions are made about the geometry and by whom?
• Where are the manufacturing directives – leads, tooling, grain direction, common cutting – set and stored?

Evaluate the CAD to CAM process

Now break down the above described process and question – really look hard – at each point.  Why are things done as they are?  What bottlenecks or lag time is created? Who is inappropriately in or out of the information loop?

• Are there redundant efforts – two sequential CAD packages, or cleaning geometry in two places?  Why or why not is this the case?
• How well is revision management working?  Does it create manufacturing errors – wrong part, wrong quantity, wrong material?
• How are the lines of communication working between CAD & CAM departments working?  Is there room for improvement?
• Is there confusion among the stakeholders about who is responsible for what and when?
• How long does it take to bring in clean geometry to the sheet metal software? Is that acceptable?
• Are the manufacturing directives communicated clearly?  How’s that working?

Evaluate CAD to CAM alternatives

In step #2 above, we cracked open a whole bunch of issues that may signal some red flags for change.  Triage the above list creating a list of priorities – items that could be changed now, later.  Then look at alternatives.

• What changes could be made to improve this situation?
• How could it be changed?
• Would that change involve process or policy changes?
• What’s the upside of change? Can efficiencies in time or materials be gained?
• Would training or retraining be helpful?
• Is new technology warranted? Is there an opportunity to automate the process?  Is there an opportunity to integrate systems?
• What would be the expected result of the change?  How would you know it worked?

Step two is simply a matter of repeating the same process as applied above to the next step in the nesting process – part programming.

Creation of the part program

Once the CAD file is cleaned and ready to go to production it still needs to be converted or programmed for nesting.  The nesting software needs to convert the graphical lines and arcs of a CAD file to the bits of programming code needed to nest and create a tool path.

Describe the part programming process

• Are the parts programmed – in advance of arriving at the machine tool?  (Sometimes parts are programmed at the machine controller.)
• How are parts programmed? What are the steps?
• Is this done manually or automatically? Is there software involved?
• Are the parts programmed one large at a time (single part programming)?  Per order? Per material? As needed? In batches?
• How do parts get tooled (punch applications)?
• How are leads added or not (contour applications)?
• How are cutting techniques (common cutting, grain constraint, etc.) ascribed to the part?
• Are they programmed for one machine or one cutting process?
• Where are the part programs stored? Who has access?
• What happens if there are revisions after a part is programmed? Who has the authority to make changes?

Evaluate the part programming process

• Why are the parts programmed as they are (one at a time, batch, etc.)?
• Are their particular programming challenges, i.e. beveling, that cause a problem?
• Are there efficiencies that could be had, i.e. common cutting, that aren’t taken advantage of because of the programming challenge?
• How long does the programming take? Is there a time-related opportunity cost?  Could resources be better spent elsewhere?
• What is the chance of error in creating a part program?  Does that chance for error create a problem?  Is it a significant problem? How is the problem resolved now?
• How does the programming process impact the nesting strategy?  Does it create or limit options?

Evaluate part programming alternatives

•  In a perfect world, what would be the process?
•  Does that “perfect world” imply less time spent, fewer errors, better communication?
•  What solutions might aid in achieving that goal?
•  Could programming automation make a difference?
•  Could better integration with your CAD system help?
•  How could this process be improved?
•  Are there processes or policy changes that could relieve structural strain?

Now armed with an arsenal of good, probing questions, you can start reviewing your own process.  You may be surprised in what you’ll find.  You may not realize all of the steps in a process, understand the impact those steps may have on results or other processes, or know why it’s done this way.  You’re not alone.  As mentioned before, most manufacturers don’t take the time to look at the processes in this manner, so these helpful surprises are never uncovred.  However, when you do – and make the changes for the better – you will stand among the select few truly efficient manufacturers with insight into their process.

If you’d like some help reviewing your processes or if you think applying truly efficient part programming and nesting automation software may be a tool for you, contact Optimation.  We’d be glad to help.

In the meantime, what’s working for you?  What’s not?  Let us know and start the conversation on better management of nesting processes.

Steps to Evaluate the Nesting Process

Most would agree that sheet metal nesting is process.  There are steps; some sequential, some parallel. The activities flow; sometimes well, sometimes not so well. Decisions are made, information is shared, and actions are taken.  The sum of which is a process.

Even though there is significant value to looking critically at the process, most manufacturers rarely review the it unless there is a mandate to begin a Lean Initiative, a major problem, or an alternative sheet metal software solution is under consideration, which is sometimes indicative of a major problem.   Why? Because the day to day management of the process is all consuming.

That being the case, I would encourage you to take a step back and give some constructive, considered thought to what is your nesting process, why is it that way, and how would it benefit from change.

What do you gain from reviewing your sheet metal nesting process?

Let’s start with a clear understanding of why this undertaking has value.  As with reviewing any process a number of benefits arise.  It may not be pretty to see the “dirt under the sofa” but understanding the current process first is the only way to methodically make improvements without unintentionally disrupting or impairing production.

Here is what you can hope to gain by taking a serious look at the status quo.

• Identify process-related problems and take proactive, corrective action.
• Find occasions for new efficiencies – time and material.
• Reduce or eliminate redundant effort.
• Unearth error-producing steps.
• Find opportunities for training or cross-training.
• Look for opportunities for automation or integration – which may or may not be available with your current sheet metal nesting software.

The Evaluation Process – An Architecture for Process Change

Any process can be evaluated by breaking it down into each of its component steps and then putting those steps under a microscope.  One can review a process with three easy steps. We’ll break down the steps involved in evaluating any process, then we’ll use those tools to scope in on the CNC nesting process.

Step 1. Describe the process –

There is a lot of opportunities for insight in just describing what you know – and don’t know – about how the process works.

1. Who is involved this process?
2. How is it done? What steps are involved? What is the sequence of steps?
3. Where are the decisions made and by whom or how?
4. How is data transferred? What are the communication links?  Are those points of communication critical or informational?
5. Who knows this process and/or where is the data and process routine documented?  Is it tribal knowledge (information in someone’s memory and not written down)?
6. Are there any red flag triggers?  What happens when a red flag is triggered?

Step 2. Evaluate the process –

With a clear map of the who, what, when, and where of a process, I will turn now to “why” and “how come?”  It’s important to stay focused on the process itself here.  This isn’t about people or personalities.

1. Is the process working or not working?
2. Why is it done this way?
3. If it’s not working, what’s the root of the problem – policy, process, personnel (training)?
4. Is the problem structural or situation-based?
5. What challenges arise from this set of circumstances?
6. Does the process impede stated goals?  Does the process take too much time or create error?
7. Are there resources left idle or underutilized because of a process bottleneck?

Step 3. Evaluate alternatives –

Now – and only now – that there is clarity on what the process is and the issues uncovered is it time to look for solutions.  Any sooner and you may very easily solve a non-problem, or worse  yet, make the situation worse.

1. What would happen if there was a change?
2. What would it take to make the change?
3. What challenges would arise if the change was implemented?
4. What are the priorities in choosing an alternative?
5. What are the pros & cons of each alternative solution?  On what basis should they be evaluated?  Are there conflicting interests among the decision makers , and how will they be reconciled?

In the upcoming blog posts we’ll apply this three step method of evaluating a process to each of the steps in nesting.

1. Collection or creation of geometry
2. Creation of the part program
3. Collection or input of orders
4. Creation of the nest and tool path
5. Output of the tool path to the CNC machine

You can expect a list of hard questions to help describe what you’re doing now, evaluate each step, and look at alternative solutions.

In the meantime, let us know what you’re thinking.  What is your process?  How is it working?  What would you like to see happen?

For more information on a sheet metal nesting process that works, contact Optimation.

Does the nest meet all production requirements?

When sheet metal nesting every parameter, machine setting, order sequence, or part layout choice impacts nesting productivity – time & material.

There are countless sheet metal fabrication requirements to be considered when placing parts on a CNC punch, laser, plasma, waterjet or router.  The design, the fabrication requirements, and the order sequence can have a significant impact on the quality of the nest.  How well those requirements are respected when compiling a  nest is at the heart of an effective sheet metal nesting strategy.

Let’s look some of the real world demands that these requirements place on a programmer when nesting, and more significantly, the tools and techiques available improve your numbers today.

Can the equipment produce the nest as programmed?

If the programmer does not take into consideration the machine requirements (reach, repositions, tooling stations, kerf allowances, etc.), the production may be stalled or halted to address unforeseen problems.  Part quality may suffer, the machine may be damaged, and certainly production time will be lost. Creating a quality nest means taking into consideration the ability to produce it.

Best Practice: You can test a part or a nest’s ability to be manufacturered using the principles of concurrent engineering and test programming and nesting a part before it ever gets to manufacturing.

Does the tool path retain enough material integrity to hold the sheet together throughout the machine cycle?

If the skeleton falls apart before the parts can be off loaded, a potential hazard is created.  Parts can come loose, tip up, fall through slats and get damaged.  Parts or the machine can be damaged or personal injury can occur to the operator.   Ideally, the tool path should be intelligently programmed to accommodate any manner of offloading with no risk.

Best Practice: Intelligent tabbing can be automatically achieved on a part by part basis or by using a minimum size parameter, i.e. all parts under X width get tabbed, to avoid mishaps.

Does the nest reflect the most priority parts?

Material efficiency is often an important priority when nesting.  But sometimes, a “hot part” trumps material efficiency in terms of priorities.  And even when material efficiency is the priority, are “hot parts” still effectively addressed in the nest?  Optimal nests consider the real world manufacturing environment with all of its often competing priorities.

Best Practice: With automatic batch nesting a series of nests – not yet produced – can be discarded, a hot part inserted in the order bucket, then the batch is rerun.  Achieving both material efficiency and responsiveness.  Another approach is JIT nesting, where each nest is made in real time and reflects all current demand.

Are the individual parts within an order held together in the same or successive nests?

Order cohesion can be critical to managing the downstream production flow.  If parts in one order are spread over multiple nests, which could be cut hours apart, the opportunity for part damage or loss increases.  A nest should keep parts within one order together and have supporting documentation that identifies the status and location of each part and order for the operator.

Best Practice:Intelligent order management using smart sheet metal nesting software knows which parts belong together in an order and which orders have priority. The software can keep track of whether an order is new, complete or a work in process.   Further, and taken to the next level, JIT Kit Nesting addresses the needs of keeping all of the parts of a single assembly together, so they can flow through the shop as a unit.  Through intelligent nesting, the material efficiency can be managed to eliminate the end-of-kit efficiency tailoff and additionally reduce material waste.

Does creating the nest pose any potential physical hazards?

Slugs. Loose parts.  Floating Scrap.  These are all machine operator nightmares and an invitation for machine downtime.  If the nest is not created to prevent their occurrence, any savings gained in material efficiency will be lost in rework and repair.

Solution: Again, strategic, automatic tabbing and intelligent nesting with collision avoidance can overcome these obstacles for the programmer and the machine operator.

Did the time spent programming the nest the justify results? 

Sometimes programmers spend from 5 to 15 minutes to up to several hours programming a nest.  The truth is the programmer’s time is valuable and comes at a cost.  Is an extra hour or two creating or manipulating a nest worth the additional material savings?  Is there more value-added activities that he or she can be doing that makes a greater contribution to the value of the product?  Depending on the cost of the material and the opportunity costs of the programmer’s time, it may be justified.  But it is important to weigh all costs – including programming time – when evaluating a nest.

Best Practice: Programming time is just one of the many costs involved in nesting.  Automatic nesting can drastically reduce that time and open up other opportunities to improve production with better use of the programmer’s time.

Is the nest meeting the ideal balance between all production requirements (material efficiency, programming time, throughput)?

When looking at the nest, it should reflect the priorities you have set for your production.  And each manufacturer has unique standards.  If material efficiency is the only criteria, then it should be the most material efficient nest possible.  If programming or shop time, throughput, inventory management, or overhead are important, it should reflect these production demands as well.  The challenge for sheet metal software is to find that perfect balance based on the priorities – all fo the priorities – you’ve set.

Solution: The optimal nest is a function of all of your priorities – response to change, efficiency, programming time, order priority, order cohesion, and more.  Intelligent sheet metal software can dynamically balance these objectives and still keep you in control.

Is the nest material efficient?

I’ve mentioned it a couple times, but it merrits repeating because  material efficiency is an important criterion.  Does the nest make use of all material saving opportunities?  Does the nest calculate part rotations at fixed angles (90, 180 degrees) or does it take full advantage of all angles, i.e. 123.574 degrees, to find the best part orientation. Does it create mirror parts, 180-degree pairs, or parts within holes?  Does it take advantage of common cut or common punch situations to save material?  Does it take advantage of trim strips through – in the case of punch – clamp repositioning? How does it handle tail off? Even a small percentage increase in material can return large savings.

Best Practice: You should be able to rely on your sheet metal software to answer these questions to your satisfaction.  And at the heart of that question is really the power of the nesting algorithm.

In Conclusion

At first blush the concept of a nest may seem simple – just layout the parts on the material, then cut.  The art and science of producing the nest in an optimal manner to achieve all of these goals is where the real complexity lies.   But, if you’re thinking broadly, taking in to consideration all of the variables, and relying on good, solid tools including a quality sheet metal software package, the complexity can be tamed and your results will meet or exceed your expectations.

What challenges do you encounter when sheet metal nesting?  How’s the process working for you?  Let us know what you think.

For more information on sheet metal software that thinks about all of these considerations – automatically – talk to Optimation.

Preparing for a Nesting Software Demo

It seems natural to start requesting demonstrations of nesting software when you begin your research for a nesting software package.  The objective seems obvious. You want to know what the nesting software does and how it works.  And one of the best ways to answer those questions is to see a demo.

Stop.  Before you pick up the phone or fill out that online form to request a demo, there are several things you can do first to make the demo a productive use of your time.  Trust me on this one.  We’ve done a bazillion demos, and the manufacturers who were well prepared came away with clear action items, a clear idea of how it would benefit them, and a shorter, less-stressful acquistion timeline.

So here’s the formula for watching nesting software demonstrations success.

1. Reserve space and time for the demo  It’s always hard to break away from the day-to-day routine to sit down for a demo, but you do yourself a disservice by not devoting a dedicated time and space for it.  Reserve the conference room.  Close your office door.  Unplug your phone.  You’ll be able to focus and get the answers you need when the time is reserved.  Also, let the software company know how much time you have for the demo.  They should do everything they can to accommodate your schedule.  Additionally, ask how long the demo should take so you can plan accordingly.
2. Online Demo? Check for internal access.  Many demos these days are conducted online using services like GoToMeeting or WebEx, which means you need to have Internet access and an available long-distance phone line.  Check in advance to make sure these tools are available for you in the space you’ve reserved for the demo.  Some companies, especially military or defense related companies, have restrictions on Internet access, so it’s always good to check.
3. Prepare your technical shopping list.  When you’re watching the demo, have a “shopping list” in mind or at hand.  What are trying to evaluate when you see the software?  Divide your shopping list in two – “gotta haves” and “wish list.”  Are you looking for certain features?  This is important – what would those features do for you?  Retain existing capabilities?  Improve time or material use?  Knowing why you want something is just as if not more important than knowing what you want.  A good recommendation is to visit the software company’s website before the demo and review what they say about their products and services.  This should prompt ideas for good questions to ask.
4. Begin to plan your purchase justification strategy.  Nesting software is unique in that it is not just a utility software that helps automate a process.  It is a money saving, money generating tool.  And as such its purchase can often be justified by the dollars saved in material and time saved in programming.  Before you go to the boss to make your pitch – and before you sit down to see the demo – start thinking about how you’re going to sell this to the decision makers.  If you’re at a loss on how to proceed, talk to the nesting software company.  They work with manufacturers all the time to make these justifications.  They will have good suggestions.  If they don’t, move on to the next software vendor.  In the demo, ask about the features they show and how they can be used to justify the purchase.  For example, does the vendor do common cutting?  How can that help justify the purchase? (answer: material savings, programming savings, throughput increase)
5. Gather the team.  Are you doing the first round of preliminary shopping and then you’ll gather the rest of the team for a second look?  Or should someone from design, estimating, IT, or the executive team sit in on this demo?  If others are involved in the decision making process, ask them to bring their “shopping list” to the demo, and encourage them to ask questions.
6. Communicate in advance your process interests.  Are you interested in seeing a punch, laser, router, or other demo?  Or would you most like to see just a laser demo?  Sharing your equipment list and your processing priorities (we do everything on the laser or we’re getting a new punch) is most helpful in targeting the demo to your needs, and it will keep from wasting your time needlessly on features and functions that have no interest to you.
7. What’s your fabrication process like?  Have a quick conversation with the people doing the nesting software demo before the demo day.  Let them know what your day-to-day process is like.  Do you run in JIT mode or do you single part program?  Is your order entry manual or are you “wired” to a sophisticated ERP system?  What in that process is working; what would you like to change?  That’s another big point.  Regardless of the new nesting approach you choose, there will be some changes – probably related to how you get parts in to the software, manage orders, create part programs and/or interface with the machine.  Knowing what you like and don’t like about your current process is a great place to start when you investigate the probable changes that come with new nesting software.
8. Come with an open mind.  You may see new ways of doing something that you’d never considered before.  It’s best to keep an open mind and ask questions.  Maybe this new process, technology, feature, tool could make a real difference in your operation.
9. Know what your next step is.  When planning the investigation and possible purchase of nesting software, it’s always a best practice to think a few steps in advance.  So ask yourself, after the demo, then what?  What happens next? If you like what you see, what’s your next step in the process?  (possible choices: another demo, a benchmark, a quote, or talking to customers)  If you have questions after the demo, how do you want to proceed? (possible choices – internal meeting, follow up discussion with the vendor)  And how fast do these things need to happen to be consistent with your timeline?  Note: having a timeline – and sharing it with the vendor – is a good thing.

Demos are a perfect opportunity to do quality discovery work to make an informed decision about your purchase.  It’s the ideal time to ask lots of questions, explore new ideas, and learn about best practices and industry standards.  There isn’t a better learning time.  The take away here is that that learning time is best taken advantage of when you do your homework in advance.  If you set your own expectations in advance of what you want to see, do, and learn, you will know what a good demo looks like when you’ve gotten your answers, and have clear objectives after the fact, your shopping process will run very smoothly.  I guarantee it.

Bonus Tip 

And here’s the bonus tip, if you have your plan in place as described above you’ll be far less subject to the direction the software vendor may want to take you – which may not be in your plan.  It’s very easy to get caught up in the “bells and whistles,” if you don’t have a focus on what you’re trying to achieve.

What’s your experience?

Do you have a demonstration story to tell of a lesson learned or a great tip to pass along?  Share your ideas.

For more guidance on a productive discovery process or to discuss a demonstration of Optimation software contact us.