A method and device for making outsourcing decision based on delivery date violation judgment

Abstract

The application discloses a kind of based on the whole order outsourcing decision method and device of delivery date violation determination, the method includes: obtaining the estimated completion time of each candidate factory in the to-be-scheduled work order, and according to estimated completion time from candidate factory preferred factory is selected;According to the comparison result of the estimated completion time of preferred factory and the delivery date of work order, and the outsourcing permission state of work order, generate the whole order outsourcing decision result;If the whole order outsourcing decision result indicates to carry out the whole order outsourcing, mark work order as outsourcing state, and do not write the estimated internal capacity occupation data corresponding to work order into global rough capacity timeline;If the whole order outsourcing decision result indicates not to carry out the whole order outsourcing, then work order is attributed to preferred factory, and the estimated internal capacity occupation data corresponding to work order is written into global rough capacity timeline, avoid the false congestion caused by outsourcing work order virtual occupation internal capacity, guarantee the authenticity of global capacity view and the stability of scheduling decision.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of intelligent manufacturing scheduling and production collaborative control technology, specifically to a whole-order outsourcing decision-making method and device based on delivery default determination. Background Technology

[0002] In multi-factory collaborative scheduling in smart manufacturing, Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) systems typically perform coarse-grained pre-allocation, selecting a preferred factory with the earliest expected completion time for each work order, before proceeding with fine-grained scheduling. However, existing methods have significant shortcomings when the expected completion time of the preferred factory is still later than the work order's delivery deadline. On the one hand, existing outsourcing triggering logic often lags behind the scheduling process and lacks comprehensive judgment on multi-dimensional constraints such as business on / off states and component outsourcing qualifications. This easily leads to either blindly outsourcing and increasing costs, or forcing internal production and causing delivery delays. On the other hand, existing solutions have logical flaws in capacity management: if the work order that determines outsourcing is still written back to the coarse-grained capacity line of the internal factory, it will cause false occupancy of internal capacity, interfering with the scheduling decisions of subsequent work orders. In addition, when the outsourcing conditions are not met, existing technologies often lack a clear rollback mechanism, causing the system to repeatedly recalculate the optimal factory, resulting in performance loss and unstable results.

[0003] In summary, existing technologies are insufficient to efficiently and accurately handle delivery delay issues during the pre-allocation phase, cannot achieve seamless switching between outsourcing and internal factory deployment, and cannot guarantee the authenticity and consistency of overall capacity data. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This application provides a method and apparatus for making whole-order outsourcing decisions based on delivery default determination, which can solve the technical problems existing in the prior art, such as the failure to differentiate the capacity occupancy data after outsourcing decision-making, resulting in the false occupancy of internal capacity and uncertainty of work order attribution.

[0005] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery date default determination, the whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery date default determination includes: Obtain the estimated completion time of the work order to be scheduled from each candidate factory through coarse-grained trial calculation, and select the preferred factory from the candidate factories based on the estimated completion time; Based on the comparison between the expected completion time of the preferred factory and the work order delivery date, as well as the outsourcing permission status of the work order, a decision result for outsourcing the entire order is generated. If the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that the overall outsourcing should be carried out, then the work order is marked as outsourcing status, and the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order is not written into the global coarse capacity timeline. If the overall outsourcing decision indicates that the overall outsourcing should not be carried out, then the work order will be assigned to the preferred factory, and the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order will be written into the global coarse capacity timeline.

[0006] Secondly, embodiments of this application provide a whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery date default determination, the whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery date default determination includes: The selection module is used to obtain the estimated completion time of the work order to be scheduled from each candidate factory through coarse-grained trial calculation, and select the preferred factory from the candidate factories according to the estimated completion time. The generation module is used to generate the overall outsourcing decision result based on the comparison between the expected completion time of the preferred factory and the work order delivery date, as well as the outsourcing permission status of the work order. The marking module is used to mark the work order as an outsourcing status if the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that the overall outsourcing should be carried out, and not to write the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order into the global coarse capacity timeline. The attribution module is used to assign the work order to the preferred factory if the overall outsourcing decision indicates that the overall outsourcing should not be carried out, and to write the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order into the global coarse capacity timeline.

[0007] This application provides a method and apparatus for whole-order outsourcing decision-making based on delivery date default determination. It obtains the estimated completion time of the work order to be scheduled from each candidate factory through coarse-grained trial calculations, and selects a preferred factory from the candidate factories based on the estimated completion time. Based on the comparison between the estimated completion time of the preferred factory and the work order's delivery date, and the outsourcing permission status of the work order, a whole-order outsourcing decision result is generated. If the whole-order outsourcing decision result indicates that whole-order outsourcing should be carried out, the work order is marked as outsourcing, and the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order is not written into the global coarse capacity timeline. If the whole-order outsourcing decision result indicates that whole-order outsourcing should not be carried out, the work order is assigned to the preferred factory, and the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order is written into the global coarse capacity timeline. This solves the technical problems of misjudgment, omission, and unreleased trial calculation resource occupancy caused by the lack of unified outsourcing decision-making rules in related technologies.

[0008] The beneficial effects of this application are as follows: by differentiating the logic for writing capacity occupancy data for outsourced and internal production work orders, it achieves the technical effect of outsourced work not occupying internal production lines while internal production truly occupies capacity. On the one hand, for outsourced work orders, the step of merging temporary capacity occupancy data generated during the trial calculation phase into the global coarse capacity timeline is skipped, releasing falsely occupied internal coarse capacity, avoiding false congestion on internal production lines, and enabling subsequent work orders to perceive the true available capacity status, thus improving the utilization rate and scheduling accuracy of internal capacity. On the other hand, for internal production work orders, the trial calculated capacity is officially fed back into the global timeline, ensuring that subsequent work orders can accurately perceive the occupied capacity during trial calculations, avoiding capacity over-scheduling conflicts. Simultaneously, based on the joint decision-making of delivery default and outsourced permission status, it can promptly trigger full-order outsourcing when delivery defaults occur and business conditions permit, and ensure that work orders still have a definite internal factory placement path when outsourcing is not possible. This guarantees the necessity and compliance of outsourcing triggering, optimizes the overall production resource allocation while ensuring delivery dates, and ensures that subsequent work orders can perceive the true coarse capacity occupancy status through capacity feedback. Attached Figure Description

[0009] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of the whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination in this application; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the functional modules of an embodiment of the whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery default determination in this application. Detailed Implementation

[0010] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present application, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present application, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present application.

[0011] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this application clearer, the embodiments of this application will be described in further detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0012] In the first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery date default determination.

[0013] As a preferred embodiment, before executing the overall outsourcing decision-making process of this application, the method further includes a pre-check step, specifically including: reading the status of the multi-factory load balancing master switch; if the multi-factory load balancing master switch is in the enabled state, executing the overall outsourcing decision-making process; if the multi-factory load balancing master switch is in the disabled state, the overall outsourcing decision-making process is not entered, and the factory allocation of the work order is handled by the preset main process.

[0014] For example, the status of whether the multi-plant load balancing master switch is enabled is recorded as follows: , The multi-factory load balancing master switch is in the enabled state. The status of the multi-factory load balancing master switch comes from the system's pre-configured or runtime configuration items. The system reads this configuration item when the work order scheduling is executed; if the configuration is enabled, the value is 1, otherwise the value is 0. Its function is to control whether to enter the multi-factory balanced pretreatment process, which is a preliminary environmental condition rather than a judgment condition for outsourcing decisions.

[0015] It needs to be understood that only when The entire order outsourcing decision-making process (re-pass) of this application will only proceed when the value is 1. In other words, the prerequisite for executing the entire order outsourcing decision-making method of this application is that the multi-factory load balancing master switch is already in the enabled state. Therefore, in this embodiment... It is an implicit premise that does not explicitly participate in the conjunction operation.

[0016] Through the above settings, this embodiment enables flexible management and control of multi-factory functions. When an enterprise does not require multi-factory collaborative scheduling, it can directly skip the entire order outsourcing decision-making process by turning off the multi-factory load balancing master switch, and the main process will handle work order allocation in single-factory mode, avoiding unnecessary calculation overhead. When an enterprise requires multi-factory collaboration, turning on the multi-factory load balancing master switch will automatically enable the outsourcing decision-making and capacity optimization logic of this application, improving the system's configurability and adaptability.

[0017] In one embodiment, reference is made to Figure 1 , Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the first embodiment of the whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination in this application.

[0018] like Figure 1 As shown, the whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination includes: Step S1: Obtain the estimated completion time of the work order to be scheduled from each candidate factory through coarse-grained trial calculation, and select the preferred factory from the candidate factories according to the estimated completion time.

[0019] In one embodiment, selecting a preferred factory from the candidate factories based on the expected completion time includes: Step S101: Compare the estimated completion times of each candidate factory and select the candidate factory with the earliest estimated completion time as the preferred factory. Here, all candidate factories are internal factories.

[0020] For example, the set of candidate factories is denoted as F, and a candidate factory is denoted as f∈F. For instance, a work order may be produced in factories A, B, and C, then F={Factory A, Factory B, Factory C}. The system will perform coarse-grained trial calculations to obtain the estimated completion time of the work order when it is placed in factories A, B, and C, and then select the factory with the earliest estimated completion time as the preferred factory. .

[0021] Coarse-grained trial calculations refer to placing a work order into a specific factory for production, and then estimating the approximate completion time of the work order based on the factory's existing coarse-grained capacity, process sequence, resource capabilities, and other conditions. This yields the estimated completion time. It is assumed that the upstream has already completed the processing of each pending work order and each factory... Coarse-grained calculations were performed to obtain the estimated completion time of the work order at the candidate plant level. Then it can be done through the formula:

[0022] Select the preferred factory for work order o. Among them, This represents the estimated completion time obtained from the trial calculation of work order o under factory f.

[0023] Step S102: If multiple candidate factories have the same expected completion time and are all the earliest, then one of the multiple candidate factories is determined as the preferred factory according to the preset stable sorting rules.

[0024] Specifically, the candidate plant list is derived from plant identifiers in the resources and sorted by plant identifier. When multiple candidate plants have the same minimum expected completion time, the preferred plant is determined according to a preset stable sorting rule, such as selecting plants in the order they are sorted by plant identifier, thereby ensuring the determinism of the scheduling results.

[0025] As a preferred implementation, the process of selecting the preferred factory in step S1 further includes: when performing coarse-grained trial calculations, if the candidate factory has no available resources or the key process cannot be scheduled, the estimated completion time of the candidate factory is set as a sentinel constant value, wherein the sentinel constant value represents the maximum value of no feasible solution; if the estimated completion time of the preferred factory is the sentinel constant value, or if the preferred factory does not exist, the work order is recorded in the statistics of unsolvable work orders.

[0026] For example, the sentinel constant can be represented by a very large number, denoted as M=+∞ in this embodiment. If a candidate factory has no available resources, its critical processes cannot be scheduled, or it is found to be infeasible during the rough calculation process, the estimated completion time corresponding to that factory can be recorded as this sentinel value, indicating that the candidate factory cannot obtain a valid estimated completion time. By setting the sentinel value, the system can naturally exclude infeasible factories from the normal candidates when comparing multiple factories, and thus will not be selected as the first choice factory with the earliest completion.

[0027] Based on this, when selecting the preferred plant, if the estimated completion time of all candidate plants is a sentinel constant, the estimated completion time of the selected preferred plant will also be a sentinel constant. Or unable to select a preferred factory This indicates that no feasible internal factory trial calculations were found, and the work order is determined to be unsolvable. If a work order is determined to be unsolvable, it will not continue into the overall outsourcing trigger and return-to-factory analysis process of this case. Instead, it will be recorded as unsolvable in the main process and skipped from subsequent processing, such as updating the unsolvable work order counter. .

[0028] Through the above processing, this embodiment can distinguish between unsolvable and delivery default scenarios, avoiding the mistreatment of unsolvable scenarios as delivery defaults, and also avoiding the incorrect writing back of plant type or capacity occupancy data when there is no candidate plant base, thereby reducing system operation risks and ensuring the accuracy of decision data.

[0029] Step S2: Based on the comparison between the expected completion time of the preferred factory and the work order delivery date, and the outsourcing permission status of the work order, generate the overall outsourcing decision result.

[0030] In one embodiment, the outsourcing permission status includes: whole-order outsourcing switch status. Bottleneck linkage switch status The system also includes the outsourcing eligibility status of each part within the work order. If the expected completion time of the preferred factory is later than the work order delivery date, and both the overall outsourcing switch and the bottleneck linkage switch are enabled, and all parts within the work order are eligible for outsourcing, then a decision to outsource the entire order is generated; if any condition is not met, a decision not to outsource the entire order is generated.

[0031] For example, the system first obtains the delivery date of the work orders to be scheduled. Next, read the estimated completion time corresponding to the preferred factory. The specific expression is ,in This indicates the current work order. This indicates the preferred factory selected from the candidate factories based on the expected completion time. This indicates the expected completion time of the work order at the preferred factory.

[0032] Based on this, by constructing a delivery default indicator function and evaluating its value along this path, we can quantitatively determine whether a work order can be completed on time under the internal preferred factory. Specifically, we define the following three indicator function variables: This indicates that the preferred factory's estimated completion time is later than the work order's delivery date, which constitutes a delivery delay breach. This indicates that the work is expected to be completed exactly according to the work order's delivery date. This indicates completion earlier than the work order delivery date. This embodiment introduces the aforementioned judgment variables to facilitate the subsequent merging of multiple judgment conditions using logical formulas, forming a unified decision-making logic.

[0033] It should be noted that this step does not change the scheduling path; it only generates the basic decision variables. The state change is reflected in the writing. , , The determination value. Only when When =1, it indicates the existence of room for external contract pricing due to delivery time constraints. This means the system has already calculated the fastest-completing internal preferred factory, but even if production is placed in this preferred factory, the estimated completion time still exceeds the customer's or planned delivery date. Only in this case is it necessary to further consider triggering full-order outsourcing. If = 0 indicates that there is no delivery delay breach, or at least the preferred factory can complete the delivery on time or just on time. In this case, there is no need to outsource the entire order due to delivery delay breach.

[0034] Through the above steps, a unified input for external decision-making is achieved, avoiding subjective threshold drift. Compared to related technologies that rely on experience to determine whether an item is overdue, this solution is quantifiable and traceable. Furthermore, this step serves as the foundation for subsequent triggering chains; if the input is read incorrectly, the entire subsequent triggering chain will be distorted, thus ensuring... and Accurate reading is crucial.

[0035] In this embodiment, the permission for external links is further determined by reading the status of multiple configuration switches. Specifically, the following three switch variables are defined: Multi-factory load balancing switch status Its function will not be elaborated here. The status of the switch for the entire unit or the entire order outsourced. It determines whether to allow a work order that meets the conditions to be upgraded to full-order outsourcing. If this switch is off, even if the work order is overdue, it will not be automatically outsourced as a whole. Bottleneck linkage switch status : Indicates the status of bottleneck-related switches. It is also a configurable business switch used to control whether to allow the linkage of outsourcing strategies under bottleneck or delivery pressure scenarios.

[0036] , , All values ​​come from pre-configured or runtime configuration items. The system reads these configuration items when the schedule is executed, and if the configuration is enabled, it takes 1; otherwise, it takes 0.

[0037] The link permission indicator is calculated based on the above switch, denoted as g. The logical relationship is as follows: .because and They can only take the values ​​0 or 1, so when = 1 and When g = 1, g = 1, indicating that the outsourced link is allowed; as long as =0 or =0, g=0 indicates that outsourcing is not allowed. In other words, the whole-order outsourcing switch and the bottleneck linkage switch must be turned on simultaneously for the system to allow the delivery delay default to be further escalated to whole-order outsourcing.

[0038] It's important to understand that this step involves authorization verification and does not affect the eligibility of outsourcing work orders. Compared to solutions that only consider a single switch, this solution has a lower probability of false triggering, ensuring that outsourcing actions comply with business governance policies. Optionally, this embodiment can also add a planning cycle or a customer-level switch as supplementary verification criteria.

[0039] Furthermore, after confirming the link permission, the parts in the work order also need to be qualified. The outsourcing probability of part p is denoted as... , The corresponding parts can be outsourced. (Not eligible for outsourcing). Calculate the work order-level outsourcing qualification variables based on the part's outsourcing qualification status:

[0040] Where q represents the outsourcing qualification status of the work order. The calculation logic is as follows: iterate through all parts sets Parts(o) under work order o, and only when all parts are qualified... The outsourcing qualification status q of a work order is only equal to 1 when none of the values ​​are 0. If there is even one non-outsourcing part, then q equals 0, and changing the entire work order to an outsourcing-forced path is prohibited.

[0041] In this step, outsourcing of the entire order is only permitted if all parts within the work order are eligible for outsourcing. The preferred technique is to iterate through all parts by default and perform conjoint checks; optional strong constraints on critical components can be introduced. Eligibility and delivery date determination are parallel conditions. Status changes are reflected in the write-in of the eligibility variable 'q'. Incomplete eligibility checks may lead to subsequent execution failures or rework. Compared to a sampled parts determination scheme, this scheme is more rigorous, avoiding rule conflicts where some parts are ineligible for outsourcing yet the entire order is outsourced.

[0042] Based on the above steps, the system defines the outsourcing decision characteristic for the entire order, denoted as y. The logical formula is:

[0043] Explanatory, because in engineering implementation only when Only then will the entire pre-pass process, including this decision, begin. If you need to explicitly write out the four-dimensional conjunction, you can also denote it as... .

[0044] This embodiment achieves multi-dimensional conjunctive decision-making for outsourcing through the above steps. First, the linkage between c2 and c3 ensures that outsourcing actions comply with business governance strategies, preventing erroneous outsourcing triggers due to a single condition. Second, full component eligibility conjunctiveness avoids execution failures or compliance risks caused by limitations of some components. Third, a unified trigger criterion y ensures consistent, quantifiable, and traceable input for outsourcing decisions. Fourth, clarifying the preconditions of c1 decouples system-level switches from business-level judgments, improving system configurability and adaptability. If input is read incorrectly or logical judgment fails, the entire subsequent trigger chain will be distorted, potentially leading to erroneous outsourcing or resource waste. Therefore, this solution ensures the accuracy, security, and auditability of the entire outsourcing decision-making process through rigorous switch verification and eligibility conjunctiveness.

[0045] Step S3: If the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that the overall outsourcing should be carried out, then mark the work order as outsourcing status, and do not write the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order into the global coarse capacity timeline.

[0046] In one embodiment, if the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that overall outsourcing should be carried out, the work order is marked as outsourcing status, including: setting an overall outsourcing lock flag for the work order; traversing all tasks under the work order and setting an outsourcing forced processing flag for each task.

[0047] For example, the system first marks the status of the work order and the task. The system then sets a lock flag for the entire outsourcing of the work order. This identifies the work order as an outsourced work order.

[0048] Next, iterate through all tasks under this work order, and for each task... Set a mark for mandatory outsourcing. This flag is used to drive the subsequent main scheduling process to select an external resource path from the resource candidates. By setting the entire order externalization lock flag and the task forced externalization flag, it is ensured that the work order will not be incorrectly assigned to an internal factory in subsequent execution phases.

[0049] Secondly, a zero-occupancy submission operation is performed. The system does not merge the internal capacity occupancy data generated during the coarse-grained trial calculation phase of this work order back into the global coarse capacity line. Understandably, the system does not initially write the work order into a factory's global capacity line; instead, it first copies the current coarse capacity status and simulates what would happen if the work order were placed in a factory on this temporary state. If it is decided to outsource the entire order, the system will not write the trial calculation result back into the internal factory, because outsourced work orders should not continue to occupy internal factory capacity. By skipping the step of writing into the global capacity timeline, the false queue of the work order's coarse capacity occupancy within the factory is released.

[0050] In a preferred embodiment, if an instruction is given to outsource the entire work order, the outsourcing counter is incremented by one.

[0051] For example, this embodiment uses This indicates the number of work orders that trigger full-order outsourcing. When a work order meets the conditions for full-order outsourcing and is marked as such by the system, Its function is not to participate in the decision-making of individual work orders, but to count how many work orders in the current scheduling have entered the whole-order outsourcing path due to delivery delays and meeting the outsourcing conditions.

[0052] The technical advantage of this embodiment is that it ensures that outsourced work orders do not continue to occupy the plant's raw capacity. Compared to related technologies where outsourced work orders remain occupied, this solution avoids false congestion. This solution ensures the authenticity of internal capacity data through zero-occupancy submission, allowing subsequent work orders to perceive the true raw capacity occupancy status. After this step, the next work order is processed directly, and the status change is reflected in the writing of Ω(o), ξ(t), and ν1. Optionally, this embodiment can also record the outsourcing reason code for subsequent tracing of the specific basis for outsourcing decisions.

[0053] Through the above implementation methods, this application achieves accurate status flow and capacity release after outsourcing decision-making, which not only meets the business needs of outsourcing execution, but also maintains the consistency of internal capacity planning, effectively improving the accuracy of multi-factory collaborative scheduling and resource utilization.

[0054] Step S4: If the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that the overall outsourcing should not be carried out, then the work order is assigned to the preferred factory, and the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order is written into the global coarse capacity timeline.

[0055] In one embodiment, if the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that overall outsourcing should not be performed, the work order is assigned to the preferred factory. The method further includes: setting the factory identifier of the work order to the identifier of the preferred factory; for parts under the work order that are not bound to a factory identifier, completing their factory identifier with the identifier of the preferred factory; and disabling other candidate factory options in each task under the work order besides the preferred factory.

[0056] It is worth noting that this embodiment provides specific implementation logic for factory placement and candidate narrowing under non-outsourcing paths, as well as logic for crude capacity reinjection and statistics.

[0057] For example, when the overall outsourcing decision indicates that overall outsourcing should not be carried out (i.e., decision variable y=0), the system executes the internal factory placement process. This step handles two situations: one is that the expected completion time is later than the delivery date ( =1) but the external link license or part qualification is not met ( Another type is where the expected completion time is earlier than or equal to the work order delivery date. For all the above situations, the system will still use the preferred factory obtained in step S1. Write back to the plant type, and no longer introduce the quadratic optimal plant selection calculation.

[0058] For example, assigning a work order back to the preferred factory includes the following operations: the system sets the factory identifier of the work order to the identifier of the preferred factory, denoted as . For each part under the work order Check its factory markings If the part factory identifier is empty (i.e. If the factory identifier is not specified, then the factory identifier should be completed with the identifier of the preferred factory (i.e., ...). ).

[0059] Explanatory: If a work order does not trigger outsourcing of the entire order, but instead determines that the internal preferred factory will be selected. For production, parts under a work order that haven't yet been assigned a factory must also be added to the preferred factory. For example, the system has already decided that work order 0 will be produced by factory B. If work order 0 includes part x, and part x didn't originally have a specified factory, then the system will also set part x's factory to factory B. This is to ensure consistency between factory affiliation at the work order level and at the part level, avoiding situations where a work order is assigned to factory B, but some parts don't yet have a factory. It's important to note that in this embodiment, the rule is to only add a factory if it's empty. If some parts already have their factories manually or via upstream rules locked, this step doesn't emphasize overwriting existing locked values.

[0060] Each task in the work order includes factory-specific candidate options. Conduct an inspection: If the factory corresponding to the candidate... Not empty ( And it is not equal to the preferred factory ( If it is unavailable, then mark it as unavailable (i.e. The factory options here. This can be understood as candidate resources with factory attributes among the available resource options for a task. Once the system has decided which resource to assign the work order to... After that, subsequent detailed scheduling should not select resources from other factories. Therefore, the system will check the candidate resource items under the task: if a candidate resource belongs to... If a candidate resource is assigned to a specific factory, it is kept available; if a candidate resource belongs to another factory, it is marked as unavailable; if some candidate resources have no factory restrictions, they can continue to be processed according to the implementation rules. In other words, after a work order has been assigned to a preferred factory, candidate resources that are not assigned to that factory are excluded to avoid subsequent detailed scheduling assigning the task to other factories.

[0061] For illustrative purposes, if this step does not meet the requirements for outsourcing the entire order, the selected factory will be used for implementation without further optimization. The preferred technical points are used by default. Optional manual priority locking rules can be added. The effect is to ensure process convergence and avoid the overhead of repeated solutions. Peer comparison shows that this solution is more stable than repeatedly reselecting a plant after the deadline.

[0062] Furthermore, after the work order is assigned, the system executes a rough capacity injection along the non-outsourcing path. Specifically, it records... This is the set of factories involved in this work order; for each factory in the set... Perform a recharge operation: This will recharge the global coarse production line. Update to the capacity data saved during the trial calculation phase. .in Temporary production capacity data saved for coarse-grained trial calculation in step S1.

[0063] Through the above implementation methods, this embodiment achieves deterministic factory placement and capacity closure under non-outsourcing paths. Firstly, by utilizing the selected preferred factory... Furthermore, disabling other candidates ensures process convergence and avoids system instability and redundant solution overhead caused by repeated factory reselection after the deadline. Second, by supplementing the part factory without overwriting locked values, consistency between work orders and part attribution is ensured. Third, through coarse capacity backfeeding, subsequent work orders are ensured to perceive the true coarse capacity queuing status, avoiding distortion of the capacity view. Fourth, through a comprehensive statistical mechanism, it serves operational reports and rule optimization, forming a complete business closed loop. If the rollback path is missing or capacity is not backfeeded, the work order may be stuck in a pending state or cause subsequent scheduling conflicts; this solution effectively avoids such risks.

[0064] As a preferred implementation, if the instruction is not to outsource the entire order, the coarse-grained estimated completion time of the preferred factory is compared with the work order delivery date: when the estimated completion time is earlier than or equal to the work order delivery date, the internal production counter is incremented by one; when the estimated completion time is later than the work order delivery date, the internal production counter is incremented by one.

[0065] For example, this embodiment defines an on-time internal production counter. and delayed internal production counter When the estimated completion time of the preferred factory is earlier than or equal to the work order delivery date, the internal production counter will be activated on time. Add one (i.e.) This represents the number of work orders that are expected to be completed on time after being placed in an internal factory (not outsourced). In other words, the system ultimately assigns work orders to internal factories for production, and the optimal factory's rough completion time does not exceed the delivery date. When the expected completion time is later than the work order delivery date, the internal production counter will be delayed. Add one (i.e.) This indicates the number of work orders that are not outsourced, are internally located, but are still expected to be overdue.

[0066] At the same time, the system updates the global capacity timeline. The state change is reflected in the update of the global coarse capacity timeline. and statistical counters or This embodiment achieves closed-loop management of production decisions, ensuring that subsequent work orders can perceive the actual queue and maintain consistent statistical standards.

[0067] The outsourcing decision-making method for whole orders based on delivery default judgment provided in this application unifies outsourcing triggering rules through multi-dimensional concurrency criteria, reducing the risk of misjudgment and improving the accuracy and interpretability of decisions. It adopts a dual-path processing mechanism: zero-occupancy submission during outsourcing avoids false congestion caused by vacancies in internal capacity and ensures that scheduling perceives real capacity; deterministic factory placement and capacity reinjection during non-outsourcing avoid system oscillations and ensure stable work order attribution, while distinguishing between infeasible and delayed scenarios. In summary, this method achieves controllability of outsourcing triggering and determinism of factory placement paths, effectively reducing decision-making risks in production collaborative control.

[0068] Secondly, embodiments of this application also provide a whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery date default determination.

[0069] In one embodiment, reference is made to Figure 2 , Figure 2 This is a functional module diagram of an embodiment of the whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery delay default determination in this application. Figure 2 As shown, the whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery default determination includes: The selection module is used to obtain the estimated completion time of the work order to be scheduled from each candidate factory through coarse-grained trial calculation, and select the preferred factory from the candidate factories according to the estimated completion time. The generation module is used to generate the overall outsourcing decision result based on the comparison between the expected completion time of the preferred factory and the work order delivery date, as well as the outsourcing permission status of the work order. The marking module is used to mark the work order as an outsourcing status if the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that the overall outsourcing should be carried out, and not to write the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order into the global coarse capacity timeline. The attribution module is used to assign the work order to the preferred factory if the overall outsourcing decision indicates that the overall outsourcing should not be carried out, and to write the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order into the global coarse capacity timeline.

[0070] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the selection module is further configured to: The estimated completion time of each candidate plant is compared, and the candidate plant with the earliest estimated completion time is selected as the preferred plant. If multiple candidate plants have the same expected completion time and are all the earliest, then one of the candidate plants will be selected as the preferred plant according to a preset stable sorting rule.

[0071] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the outsourcing license status includes: The status of the overall outsourcing switch, the status of the bottleneck linkage switch, and the outsourcing qualification status of each part in the work order.

[0072] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the generation module is further configured to: If the expected completion time of the preferred factory is later than the work order delivery date, and both the whole order outsourcing switch and the bottleneck linkage switch are in the enabled state, and all parts in the work order are qualified for outsourcing, then a decision result indicating to outsource the whole order will be generated. If any condition is not met, a decision result indicating that the entire order should not be outsourced will be generated.

[0073] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the device is also used for: Read the status of the multi-factory load balancing main switch; If the multi-factory load balancing master switch is in the enabled state, execute the whole order outsourcing decision-making process; If the multi-factory load balancing master switch is in the off state, the whole order outsourcing decision process will not be entered, and the factory allocation of the work order will be handled by the preset main process.

[0074] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the device is also used for: When performing coarse-grained trial calculations, if a candidate plant has no available resources or its critical processes cannot be scheduled, the estimated completion time of the candidate plant is set to a sentinel constant value, where the sentinel constant value represents the maximum value of a non-feasible solution. If the expected completion time of the preferred factory is the sentinel constant value, or if the preferred factory does not exist, then the work order will be recorded in the statistics of unsolvable work orders.

[0075] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the marking module is also used for: Set a lock mark for the entire outsourcing of the work order; Iterate through all tasks under the work order and set an outsourcing forced processing flag for each task.

[0076] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the attribution module is also used for: Set the factory identifier of the work order to the identifier of the preferred factory; For parts that are not bound to a factory identifier under the work order, their factory identifiers are completed with the identifier of the preferred factory; Disable the candidate factory options other than the preferred factory in each task under the work order.

[0077] Furthermore, in one embodiment, the device is also used for: If the instruction is to outsource the entire work order, then increment the outsourcing counter by one; If the instruction is not to outsource the entire order, then compare the coarse-grained estimated completion time of the preferred factory with the work order delivery date. When the estimated completion time is earlier than or equal to the work order delivery date, the internal production counter will be incremented by one. When the estimated completion time is later than the work order delivery date, the internal production delay counter will be incremented by one.

[0078] The functions of each module in the above-mentioned order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery date default determination correspond to the steps in the above-mentioned order outsourcing decision-making method embodiment based on delivery date default determination. Their functions and implementation processes will not be described in detail here.

[0079] It should be noted that the sequence numbers of the embodiments in this application are for descriptive purposes only and do not represent the superiority or inferiority of the embodiments.

[0080] The terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this application are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, system, product, or apparatus that includes a series of steps or units is not limited to the listed steps or units, but may optionally include steps or units not listed, or may optionally include other steps or units inherent to such process, method, product, or apparatus. The terms "first," "second," and "third," etc., are used to distinguish different objects, etc., and do not indicate a sequence, nor do they limit "first," "second," and "third" to different types.

[0081] In the description of the embodiments of this application, terms such as "exemplary," "for example," or "for instance" are used to indicate examples, illustrations, or explanations. Any embodiment or design described as "exemplary," "for example," or "for instance" in the embodiments of this application should not be construed as being more preferred or advantageous than other embodiments or designs. Specifically, the use of terms such as "exemplary," "for example," or "for instance" is intended to present the relevant concepts in a concrete manner.

[0082] In the description of the embodiments of this application, unless otherwise stated, " / " means "or". For example, A / B can mean A or B. The "and / or" in the text is merely a description of the relationship between related objects, indicating that there can be three relationships. For example, A and / or B can mean: A exists alone, A and B exist simultaneously, and B exists alone. In addition, in the description of the embodiments of this application, "multiple" means two or more.

[0083] In some processes described in the embodiments of this application, multiple operations or steps are included in a specific order. However, it should be understood that these operations or steps may not be executed in the order they appear in the embodiments of this application, or they may be executed in parallel. The sequence number of the operation is only used to distinguish different operations, and the sequence number itself does not represent any execution order. In addition, these processes may include more or fewer operations, and these operations or steps may be executed sequentially or in parallel, and these operations or steps may be combined.

[0084] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms. Of course, they can also be implemented by hardware, but in many cases the former is a better implementation method. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium (such as ROM / RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk) as described above, and includes several instructions to cause a terminal device to execute the methods described in the various embodiments of this application.

[0085] The above are merely preferred embodiments of this application and do not limit the patent scope of this application. Any equivalent structural or procedural transformations made using the content of this application's specification and drawings, or direct or indirect applications in other related technical fields, are similarly included within the patent protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. A whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination, characterized in that, The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery delay default determination includes: Obtain the estimated completion time of the work order to be scheduled from each candidate factory through coarse-grained trial calculation, and select the preferred factory from the candidate factories based on the estimated completion time; Based on the comparison between the expected completion time of the preferred factory and the work order delivery date, as well as the outsourcing permission status of the work order, a decision result for outsourcing the entire order is generated. If the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that the overall outsourcing should be carried out, then the work order is marked as outsourcing status, and the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order is not written into the global coarse capacity timeline. If the overall outsourcing decision indicates that the overall outsourcing should not be carried out, then the work order will be assigned to the preferred factory, and the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order will be written into the global coarse capacity timeline.

2. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The step of selecting a preferred factory from the candidate factories based on the expected completion time includes: The estimated completion time of each candidate plant is compared, and the candidate plant with the earliest estimated completion time is selected as the preferred plant. If multiple candidate plants have the same expected completion time and are all the earliest, then one of the candidate plants will be selected as the preferred plant according to a preset stable sorting rule.

3. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The outsourcing license status includes: The status of the overall outsourcing switch, the status of the bottleneck linkage switch, and the outsourcing qualification status of each part in the work order.

4. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 3, characterized in that, The process of generating a complete outsourcing decision based on a comparison of the expected completion time of the preferred factory with the work order delivery date, and the outsourcing permission status of the work order, includes: If the expected completion time of the preferred factory is later than the work order delivery date, and both the whole order outsourcing switch and the bottleneck linkage switch are in the enabled state, and all parts in the work order are qualified for outsourcing, then a decision result indicating to outsource the whole order will be generated. If any condition is not met, a decision result indicating that the entire order should not be outsourced will be generated.

5. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Before implementing the overall outsourcing decision-making process, this method also includes: Read the status of the multi-factory load balancing main switch; If the multi-factory load balancing master switch is in the enabled state, execute the whole order outsourcing decision-making process; If the multi-factory load balancing master switch is in the off state, the whole order outsourcing decision process will not be entered, and the factory allocation of the work order will be handled by the preset main process.

6. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The method also includes: When performing coarse-grained trial calculations, if a candidate plant has no available resources or its critical processes cannot be scheduled, the estimated completion time of the candidate plant is set to a sentinel constant value, where the sentinel constant value represents the maximum value of a non-feasible solution. If the expected completion time of the preferred factory is the sentinel constant value, or if the preferred factory does not exist, then the work order will be recorded in the statistics of unsolvable work orders.

7. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 1, characterized in that, If the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that overall outsourcing should be carried out, then the work order is marked as an outsourcing status, including: Set a lock mark for the entire outsourcing of the work order; Iterate through all tasks under the work order and set an outsourcing forced processing flag for each task.

8. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 1, characterized in that, If the overall outsourcing decision indicates that overall outsourcing should not be carried out, then the work order is assigned to the preferred factory. The method further includes: Set the factory identifier of the work order to the identifier of the preferred factory; For parts that are not bound to a factory identifier under the work order, their factory identifiers are completed with the identifier of the preferred factory; Disable the candidate factory options other than the preferred factory in each task under the work order.

9. The whole-order outsourcing decision-making method based on delivery default determination as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The method also includes: If the instruction is to outsource the entire work order, then increment the outsourcing counter by one; If the instruction is not to outsource the entire order, then compare the coarse-grained estimated completion time of the preferred factory with the work order delivery date. When the estimated completion time is earlier than or equal to the work order delivery date, the internal production counter will be incremented by one. When the estimated completion time is later than the work order delivery date, the internal production delay counter will be incremented by one.

10. A whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery default determination, characterized in that, The whole-order outsourcing decision-making device based on delivery default determination includes: The selection module is used to obtain the estimated completion time of the work order to be scheduled from each candidate factory through coarse-grained trial calculation, and select the preferred factory from the candidate factories according to the estimated completion time. The generation module is used to generate the overall outsourcing decision result based on the comparison between the expected completion time of the preferred factory and the work order delivery date, as well as the outsourcing permission status of the work order. The marking module is used to mark the work order as an outsourcing status if the overall outsourcing decision result indicates that the overall outsourcing should be carried out, and not to write the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order into the global coarse capacity timeline. The attribution module is used to assign the work order to the preferred factory if the overall outsourcing decision indicates that the overall outsourcing should not be carried out, and to write the estimated internal capacity occupancy data corresponding to the work order into the global coarse capacity timeline.

Images