LiftOrbitDefine the process you actually use
For this exercise, assume orders move through forming, drying, glazing, firing and packing. A real ceramic process may use different steps or multiple firings; replace the example route with the route used in your workshop. Processing and cooling durations must come from your own validated process, not from this article.
Give each operation a predecessor and a resource requirement. A kiln is not interchangeable with a forming station, even if one is idle while the other is busy. A weekly total across both would hide the resource that limits the plan.
Decide what occupies each resource
| Step in this exercise | Resource to model | Planning question |
|---|---|---|
| Forming | An eligible forming station and any required operator | Is duration per piece, per batch or a combination? |
| Drying | A defined drying area or unit | Does the whole batch occupy limited space while drying? |
| Glazing | The relevant workstation | Does changing glaze require cleaning or preparation? |
| Firing | A compatible kiln | Does the occupied time include loading, processing, cooling and unloading? |
| Packing | Packing station and staff | Can packing begin for a partial order or only a complete batch? |
Waiting and occupation are different. If pieces leave a dryer and wait on an unlimited rack, that wait may not consume dryer capacity. If pieces remain inside a kiln while it cools, the kiln is still occupied. Use the same interpretation in every scenario you compare.
A small bottleneck calculation
Assume three separate batches need the same kiln. For this arithmetic example only, each batch occupies it for ten hours, including all work that blocks the next batch. The selected planning window offers 24 usable kiln-hours. Demand is 30 hours, leaving a six-hour overload.
An idle packing station does not remove those missing kiln-hours. Nor does a faster forming operation automatically make the three kiln batches fit. To change the outcome, you need a valid change to the kiln plan: another compatible resource, more usable kiln time or a different commitment.
Do not simply merge the three batches to make the numbers fit. Shared firing requires compatibility and physical capacity checks. This example assumes separate batches and does not claim that LiftOrbit automatically validates ceramic recipes, kiln-loading geometry or product compatibility.
Add materials and preparation
Record starting material quantities and expected deliveries. Determine which operation consumes each material. A delivery on Thursday should not make an operation on Monday appear supplied. For glazing, define whether a product-family change occupies the workstation and for how long.
Use the changeover example to see why grouping similar products can save preparation time while delaying another order. The objective is not simply the smallest number of changes: it is a plan you can execute with the priorities and constraints you chose.
Evaluate the plan in LiftOrbit
Use the ceramic demonstration as a learning environment, then model a small sample of your own process. Review the initial Gantt for operation order, resource occupation, setup blocks and material timing. Only after those are credible should you compare optimization results.
Change one assumption at a time. Add an order, change a processing duration or move a material delivery; rebuild the plan and check the resource affected by that change. Keep the previous input snapshot when recording a comparison so you know what the results refer to.
For an aggregate check of identical machines, use the production capacity calculator. It does not model a multi-stage ceramic route or shared kiln batches; the capacity planning guide explains that boundary.