SCOR DS · Transform · caselet
What spills, where, at what cost: a line over commitment
Line 2 is committed to 112% of demonstrated capacity for the week. Overtime, alternate routing, or re-promising — the agent prices all three and recommends a blend.
The situation. A packaging plant’s Line 2 runs the week’s premium SKUs. A late large order plus a maintenance carryover leaves the line scheduled at 112% of its demonstrated weekly capacity — the plan, as written, cannot happen.
The signal. The Production Planning agent compares released schedule against demonstrated (not nameplate) capacity and flags the overcommitment before the week starts, not after the misses. Systems consulted: MES (demonstrated rates, changeover history), ERP (released orders, due dates, margins), and maintenance schedules.
The decision. Three levers, none free. Full overtime: two extended shifts across the week, $18,000, with operators already at six-day weeks. Re-promise: push two mid-tier orders a week — free, but it spends customer reliability. Alternate routing: Line 5 can take the two compatible SKUs — about 8% of the week’s volume — after a six-hour changeover ($3,000), at a one-day delay. The agent recommends the blend: route the compatible SKUs and add a single overtime shift (~$9,000) on Line 2, which also absorbs the maintenance carryover. Every promise date holds, at a cost of about $12,000.
The write-back. Revised production orders and routings in the ERP/MES; the changeover scheduled; the overtime shift posted to workforce management.
The outcome.
| Metric | Blend (chosen) | Full overtime |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule adherence | 98% | 97% (fatigue risk) |
| Orders re-promised | 0 | 0 |
| Incremental cost | ~$12,000 | ~$18,000 |
The takeaway. Capacity problems announced on Monday cost money; capacity problems discovered on Friday cost customers.
Representative scenario; lines and figures are synthetic. SCOR is ASCM’s framework.