Main site

Manufacturing AI agent · Planning

Production-Planning & Scheduling AI Agent

Sequence orders across lines and work centres against capacity, material and due dates, re-plan when something breaks and show the trade-off — a planner commits the schedule, and the agent releases nothing.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Schedule commit
Planner only
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Proposes the schedule, does not release it

In

  1. 01

    Take open and firm orders, forecasts, work-order status and what each line actually ran from the ERP and MES.

  2. 02

    Load routings, cycle times, changeover matrices, calendars, tooling and on-hand and on-order material.

Reason

  1. 03

    Sequence orders across lines and work centres against finite capacity, the bottleneck and the changeover cost.

  2. 04

    Check each sequence against material availability, tooling, qualified operators and the shared constraints named.

  3. 05

    Compare a run against the cycle time and yield the master data claims, and mark where the floor disagrees.

Decide

  1. 06

    Hold any change inside the frozen window, or one that moves a customer commitment, for the planner to decide.

  2. 07

    Route a plan that breaks a modelled constraint or rests on stale master data to a planner instead of proposing it.

Out

  1. 08

    Present the schedule with the trade-off it makes — what is late, what is held, what the sequence costs in changeover.

  2. 09

    Retain the inputs read, the constraints applied, the alternatives rejected and every edit the planner made.

Product statement

The agent proposes and re-plans within limits a planner set. Committing the schedule, releasing work, moving material and changing a customer commitment stay with a planner.

Example workflow

One planning run, end to end

  1. 1Planning run openedA shift boundary, an MRP run, a machine down, a material short or an order the customer changed
  2. 2Position gatheredOpen and firm orders, work-order status, on-hand and on-order material, calendars and what each line is running
  3. 3Constraints loadedRoutings, cycle times, changeover matrix, tooling, qualified operators, shared utilities and the frozen window
  4. 4Sequence proposedOrders placed across lines and work centres, with the bottleneck and the changeover cost priced in

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — gathering, loading and sequencing all finish before a planner is asked to read anything. A change that touches a customer commitment ends that stretch on the spot.

5DecisionSplits on whether the change touches a commitment or falls inside the frozen window
Inside the limits set

Goes to the planner as a proposed schedule.

Moves a commitment or a frozen order

Held with the trade-off for the planner to decide.

Planner or scheduling lead

Reads the proposed sequence, what it costs and what it breaks, then edits it and commits the schedule the plant runs.

Commit · Edit sequence · Send back

Committed — handed back

  1. 6Schedule presented for commitWritten to the ERP or MES only after a planner commits it; nothing is released until they do
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedAttainment against the committed plan, churn, constraint violations and where the master data was wrong

Edits

What the planner changes in the sequence is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Committing the schedule the plant runs.
    • Releasing or dispatching a work order.
    • Promising or changing a customer due date.
    • Moving, issuing or reserving physical material.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Sequence orders across lines and work centres against finite capacity.
    • ✓Price changeover cost, due dates and priorities into the proposed order.
    • ✓Re-plan within the limits a planner set when a machine or a material moves.
    • ✓Show the trade-off, the constraint that bound it, and what it rejected.

    The agent writes a proposed schedule and its rationale. Committing it and releasing work are not its to write.

    • Changing routings, cycle times or changeover values.
    • Overriding a frozen or in-progress order.
    • Deciding overtime, extra shifts or subcontract.
  • Changing planning parameters, lot sizes or safety stock.

Example output

One re-plan after a breakdown, annotated

Everything the agent proposes is attached to the orders, constraints and master data it was built from.

Planning output · one re-plan on one disruption

Illustrative example
Disruption
Press 3 down, 6 h estimate
Orders affected
4, two due Friday
Frozen until
Wednesday
Proposed
Two orders to press 5
Confidence
88%
Commit
Not made by the agent

As received

The machine, maintenance's estimate and the orders it held — read from the ERP and the MES, not inferred.

Evidence used

  • Press 5 tooling free
  • Observed cycle, not standard
  • Same-family changeover

Why this sequence

Press 5 holds the tool and is qualified for the family. One order slips to Monday.

What the score decides

Confidence says how the master data matched the last runs, not whether the plan is right.

Action

CommitEdit sequenceSend back

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every open order

ERP orders, forecast and work-order status

03Sequence & re-plan

Plan against your own constraints

Use the plant's routings, changeover matrix, calendars, tooling and qualification rules, and what the lines actually ran.

01Approved path

Give the planner a costed option

Each proposal arrives with the constraint that bound it and what it cost, so the planner argues with a sequence instead of rebuilding one.

02Human review

Put the disruptions in front of a person

A machine down, a short material or a changed order reaches the planner as a priced re-plan rather than a spreadsheet rebuilt at shift start.

04

Build an evidence trail

Retain the orders read, the constraints applied, the alternatives rejected, the confidence and the planner's edit — on both paths.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • ERP & planning

    • SAP PP/DS
    • Oracle
    • Dynamics 365
    • Infor
    • MRP and MPS records

  • MES & shop floor

    • Siemens Opcenter
    • Rockwell
    • Work-order status
    • machine states

  • Planning master data

    • Routings
    • cycle times
    • Changeover matrices
    • shift calendars

Agent

Production planning & scheduling

  • Sequences orders
  • Prices the trade-off
  • Re-plans on disruption

  • Secondary constraints

    • Tooling
    • operator qualification
    • Material on hand
    • shared utilities

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the schedule

Each control wraps the one inside it. A schedule clears every layer before a planner sees it, and the commit sits outside all six.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeReturn planning to your existing method if attainment or churn signals degrade.Roll back
L5TraceabilityRecord the orders, constraints, alternatives rejected, confidence and the planner's edit.Record
L4Planner gateCommitting, releasing and re-promising stay with the planner the process names.Gate
L3Churn limitsHow often a re-plan may run, and how much of a committed schedule may move.Damp
L2Constraint gateTooling, qualified operators, material and shared utilities are checked before a sequence stands.Block
L1Master-data currencyCycle times, yields and changeover values are checked against observed runs.Verify
Model coreSchedule proposed — sequence, start and finish times, the binding constraint and confidence
L1 – L2
Decide whether a sequence can stand at all
L3
Decides how much of a plan may move
L4 – L5
Keep the commit with a planner, trail intact
L6
Pulls automation back when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole plan — not only the sequence it proposes.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the schedule the planner opens

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the committed schedule survive contact with the shift?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid it read the right routing, calendar and changeover value?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read the right orders, stock and work-order states?
  4. E4Master-data accuracyDo the cycle times and yields match what the runs actually did?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does the plan hold across families, changeovers and shifts?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow much of the plan was attained, and how much of it churned?

Floor — the plan the floor actually runs

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes plotted against the five stages of the agent lifecycle. None of them commits a schedule, releases work or moves a customer date — the planner's commit, the frozen window and the plant's own change control are the controls that stop them. If one gets through and the floor has already run to it, the orders, constraints and rejected alternatives held in the record are what the re-plan, the customer notification and the material recovery are built from.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    2 modes

    • PP-01

      Inventory the floor cannot find

      Stock the system holds is not on the rack.

    • PP-02

      Cycle time the line never hits

      The routing standard is not what the line runs at.

    Stage gathers

    Orders, stock, work-order states and the calendars

  2. 02 · Constraint model

    2 modes

    • PP-03

      Constraint nobody modelled

      A tool, a qualified operator or a shared utility.

    • PP-04

      A plan with no slack in it

      It only works if nothing goes wrong for a week.

    Stage models

    Capacity, changeover, tooling, labour and material

  3. 03 · Sequencing

    1 mode

    • PP-05

      Optimal sequence, missed date

      Cheapest changeover order, late for the order that mattered.

    Stage sequences

    Orders across lines against the binding constraint

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • PP-06

      Promise on capacity already spent

      A date given against capacity an unreleased order holds.

    Stage presents

    The schedule and the trade-off the planner reads

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • PP-07

      Re-planning churns the schedule

      A parameter change moves it faster than the floor reads it.

    Stage tracks

    Model, parameter, master-data and routing changes

  • Sev-1 · a customer commitment is put at risk
  • Sev-2 · the plan cannot be run as written
  • Sev-3 · the floor stops trusting the schedule
See the complete Manufacturing failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

A new SKU is not the same planning problem

Two orders on the same line are not the same problem to plan. A family that has run for two years has master data the floor agrees with; a new SKU on its first run does not. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
New SKUs, first runs6.8%3.7×Review
Long-changeover families5.1%2.8×Review
Re-plans after a breakdown3.4%1.8×Watch
Mature family, settled line1.3%0.7×Normal

Bar: planner-edit-rate lift vs. mature-family baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks 2.0×

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

A plan the floor could not run becomes a constraint

What the planner edited, and what the shift actually ran, come back as constraints and master-data corrections the next schedule has to respect.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Attainment falls or the planner's edit rate climbs on a family, a line or a shift.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    Traced to a cycle time, a yield, a changeover value, a constraint never modelled or a re-plan trigger.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The master data or the constraint model is corrected under your change control, with a named approver.

  4. 04

    Verify

    Replayed against the weeks that went wrong, then run in parallel before a planner commits from it.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The unmodelled constraint enters the planning model and the wrong standard goes back to industrial engineering.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. A routing or cycle-time correction is a master-data change — it is approved and recorded before planning runs on it, not after.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, master data and access, the constraint model and sequencing, evaluation, then parallel running and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Planning-workflow discovery and boundaries.Week 1
  2. 02Routing, cycle-time and yield data review.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03ERP, MES and calendar access assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Order, stock and work-order state ingestion.Week 2
  5. 05Changeover matrix, built with your setters.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Constraint model — tooling, labour, utilities.Week 2, Week 3
  7. 07Sequencing against finite capacity.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Frozen-window and commitment guards.Week 4
  9. 09Re-plan triggers and churn limits.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Evaluation suite and replayed bad weeks.Week 4, Week 5
  11. 11Planner review and schedule-commit workflow.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne line, one product familyProductionProduction ERP and MES integrationAdvancedMulti-line / multi-site
Introduced at Pilot
Proposed sequence for one line✓✓✓
Finite-capacity and changeover modelling✓✓✓
The trade-off shown with every proposal✓✓✓
Schedule committed by a planner✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Master-data accuracy against observed runs—✓✓
Constraint model — tooling, labour, utilities—✓✓
Re-planning within limits a planner set—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Family and changeover-type slices——✓
Multi-line and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on lines and families in scope, the condition of your planning master data, ERP and MES integrations, constraint complexity and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

  1. 01Your routings, cycle times and yields exactly as they stand

    Routing, cycle-time and yield data review

    Week 1

  2. 02Access to ERP orders, MES work-order states and shift calendars

    ERP, MES and calendar access assessment

    Week 2

  3. 03Changeover times from the setters who actually do them

    Changeover matrix, built with your setters

    Week 3

  4. 04The constraints nobody wrote down — tooling, qualified operators, shared utilities

    Constraint model — tooling, labour and utilities

    Week 3

  5. 05Your frozen window, priority rules and what a commitment means here

    Frozen-window and commitment guards, then churn limits

    Week 4

  6. 06The weeks that went badly — breakdowns, shortages and expedites

    Evaluation suite, replayed bad weeks and failure-mode testing

    Week 4

  7. 07Named planners who commit the schedule today

    Planner review and commit workflow, then parallel running

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries both the replayed bad weeks and the first schedules your planners commit from.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Planning-workflow discovery, routings, cycle times and yields

W2ERP, MES and calendar access, then orders and work-order states

W3Changeover matrix, constraint model and finite-capacity sequencing

W4Evaluation suite, master-data accuracy and commitment guards

W5Replayed bad weeks, first parallel schedules and churn limits

W6Your planners commit from the agent's plan, then Agent Care starts

Reading the band
Master-data accuracy is measured in week 4 against runs the plant already did — before any schedule is put in front of a planner in week 5.
At the end of W6
The agent has planned in parallel with your existing method and been read by the planners who commit from it, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Manufacturing AI agent

Build a planning agent around your own constraints.

Show us one line, its routings and changeover times, and a month that went badly — the breakdowns, the shortages and the expedites. We'll sequence those weeks again on your own master data, name the constraint behind every order, and mark the standards the line no longer runs to.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your planning stack
Schedule commit
A planner, always
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Production planning & scheduling

AGT-MFG-01 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a production-planning agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your setup

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.