When Sarah looked up from her phone, Henning had just flipped a slide. His presentation showed just four icons.
“Over the years, I’ve developed a framework for understanding production scheduling software and differentiating scheduling software categories. I call it the Four Horsemen—not because they bring apocalypse, but because most manufacturers I work with encounter all four types at some point in their journey.”
Sarah opened her notebook, ready to take notes. This time, though, she left her elaborate spreadsheet closed. Marcus nodded from his seat beside Henning, clearly familiar with this presentation.
“The four scheduling software categories are,” Henning continued, “Simple Visual Schedulers, Standalone APS Systems, APS with Standard ERP Connectors, and Purpose-Built ERP Scheduling Solutions. Each has its place, but understanding the trade-offs is crucial. And more importantly, understanding what you actually need—not just what features sound impressive—is how you make the right choice.”
He paused and looked around the room. “This morning, you tried to evaluate features without understanding the fundamental approaches to scheduling. This afternoon, we’re going to reverse that. We’ll understand the approaches first, and then the features will make sense in context.”
Category One: Simple Visual Schedulers
Henning clicked to his first slide. “Category One: Simple Visual Schedulers. These are essentially digital whiteboards. They give you a Gantt chart interface where you can see your jobs and resources visually, drag and drop to reschedule, and get a prettier picture than magnetic strips on a wall.”
He pulled up a demo video showing a colorful scheduling interface with bars representing jobs on a timeline. “The advantages are obvious—they’re intuitive, relatively inexpensive, and easy to learn. Your team could probably start using one within days.”
“That sounds promising,” Klaus said. “What’s the catch?”
“The catch is that they’re manual,” Henning replied. “Yes, they’re digital instead of physical, but you’re still doing all the capacity calculations in your head. The software shows you conflicts—like when you’ve scheduled two jobs on the same machine at the same time—but it doesn’t help you resolve them. It’s essentially a visualization tool, not a scheduling engine.”
Sarah thought about her weekend scheduling marathon. “So I’d still be doing what I did last weekend, just on a computer screen instead of at my kitchen table?”
“Exactly. You’d have better visibility into what you’re scheduling, but you’d still be manually figuring out the sequence, checking capacity, and tracking dependencies. For a company your size with your complexity, I don’t think that’s enough of an improvement to justify the effort.”
Otto spoke up. “So it’s like replacing our whiteboard with a digital whiteboard, but we still have to do all the thinking ourselves?”
“That’s a perfect way to put it,” Henning said. “These tools are great to make the first steps into digitizing scheduling processes. In that regard, they would be a very good fit for you. However, likewise, they are especially ideal if shops are either small or are characterized by stable processes. You will agree that this is not true for you guys. Hence, I suggest that Alpine has outgrown that category. “
Category Two: Standalone APS Systems
Henning advanced to the next slide of his scheduling software categories presentation. “Category Two: Standalone APS—Advanced Planning and Scheduling systems. These are the heavy hitters of the scheduling world. Sophisticated algorithms, complex optimization engines, can handle thousands of constraints simultaneously.”
He showed examples of APS interfaces with intricate mathematical models and optimization parameters. “These systems can do things like multi-objective optimization—balancing machine utilization, setup minimization, and delivery dates simultaneously. They can model incredibly complex scenarios and find heuristically optimal solutions.”
Patrick leaned forward with interest. “That sounds like what we need.”
“Maybe,” Henning said carefully. “But there are significant trade-offs. First, their ability to handle complexity comes at a cost. In that case, by ‘cost’ I mean time. Often, these algorithms take a long time to calculate. I know cases where the calculation gets triggered after hours, and then users have the final scheduling result first thing the next morning. Second, these systems are ERP-agnostic—they don’t care whether you use Business Central, SAP, or Oracle. They treat the ERP as just a data source. That means you need custom integration work to connect them.”
“How custom are we talking?” Patrick asked.
“Very custom,” Marcus interjected. “I’ve implemented several of these. You’re looking at months of development work to build interfaces that extract data from Business Central, transform it into the APS format, run the scheduling engine, and then push the results back – in a way that none of your Business Central processes break. And every time Business Central gets updated, you risk breaking something.”
Henning nodded. “The third challenge is data quality. Remember what I said about optimization requiring stable, accurate data? These systems are unforgiving. If your routing times are estimates, if your BOMs have inconsistencies, if your shop calendar isn’t perfectly maintained, the algorithm will generate beautiful schedules that have no connection to reality.”
Sarah thought about the state of their master data. “And we established last week that our data isn’t ready for that level of precision.”
“Right. The fourth challenge is the learning curve. These systems are complex. Your schedulers would need significant training—weeks, not days—to understand all the parameters and how to interpret the results. And if the algorithm makes a decision you don’t understand, troubleshooting becomes difficult.”
Klaus looked skeptical. “So these systems are powerful but impractical for us?”
“I wouldn’t say impractical,” Henning replied. “But you’d need to invest heavily in integration, data cleanup, and training before you could use them effectively. And even then, the question is whether mathematical optimization actually helps in your dynamic environment. When your bottlenecks shift weekly, and your order mix changes constantly, the algorithm’s optimum from Monday might be irrelevant by Wednesday.”
Category Three: APS with Standard Connectors
“Let’s look at category three of the scheduling software categories,” Henning continued. “It tries to solve the integration problem. These are powerful APS systems that have developed standardized connectors for popular ERP systems, including Business Central.”
He showed a diagram of data flow between Business Central and a scheduling system. “The advantage is that you get sophisticated scheduling capabilities without the months of custom integration work. The connector handles the data exchange automatically—pulling production orders, routings, and inventory from Business Central, and pushing schedule updates back.”
“That sounds better,” Sarah said. “What’s the trade-off?”
“The trade-off is that standardized connectors make assumptions about how you use Business Central. They work great if your processes fit the connector’s expectations. But if you’ve customized your Business Central implementation—and most companies have—you often find that the connector doesn’t quite match your reality.”
Marcus added, “I’ve seen cases where companies had to change their Business Central processes to fit the connector’s limitations, rather than the software adapting to their needs. That’s backwards.”
“The second issue,” Henning said, “is that these systems still have the optimization complexity I mentioned. You’re getting easier integration but not necessarily easier operation.”
Category Four: Purpose-Built ERP Scheduling Solutions
Henning clicked to his final slide. “Category Four: Purpose-Built ERP Scheduling Solutions. These are scheduling applications specifically designed for Business Central. They’re built using the same technology framework as Business Central itself, so integration is native rather than connected. For your reference, Patrick: they are literally developed in AL code and render their visual frontends within standard Business Central pages.”
He pulled up a demo showing a scheduling interface that looked similar to Business Central’s familiar design. “The key advantage is seamlessness. Users work within an environment that feels like Business Central because it is Business Central. Data flows naturally—production orders, BOMs, routings, shop calendars—everything is already there.”
“So no integration work?” Patrick asked.
“Minimal,” Marcus confirmed. “These solutions extend Business Central rather than connecting to it. The technical term is ‘apps’ or ‘extensions’. They share the same database, the same security model, and the same user interface conventions. If we update Business Central, the scheduling app updates with it.”
Henning continued, “The trade-off is that these solutions typically offer less sophisticated optimization than standalone APS systems. They focus on good scheduling rather than optimal scheduling—helping humans make better decisions rather than replacing human judgment with algorithms.”
Sarah found herself intrigued. “That actually sounds more aligned with what we need. We want visibility and decision support, not a black box algorithm telling us what to do.”
“Exactly,” Henning said. “These systems typically use heuristics—practical rules of thumb—rather than complex optimization. Schedule forward from today, or backward from due dates. Respect capacity constraints. Show conflicts clearly. Make it easy to adjust when reality changes.”
Otto nodded approvingly. “So the computer helps me see what’s happening and make good choices, rather than trying to be smarter than me?”
“That’s the philosophy,” Henning confirmed. “And because these solutions are purpose-built for Business Central, they understand the quirks of BC manufacturing. They know how production orders work, how to handle make-to-order versus make-to-stock, how routings connect to work centers.”
Emma wanted to say something, but Henning continued, “And, before we conclude this comparison, let me emphasize two points. First, all these integrated solutions focus on the key parameter of time. They neither consider the cost nor the revenue implications of the various scheduling options. In my understanding, this is absolutely fine. Scheduling is only one operational discipline. Implementing a comprehensive, company-wide EBIT optimization approach based on this discipline would be neither effective nor would it make sense. Especially, if you consider my second point:
Implicitly, these scheduling products support everything that you might have heard about the Theory of Constraints. They are designed to help you increase your throughput. And one thing is so obvious that I am a bit reluctant to say it. Increased throughput always translates into earning more money.”
The Comparison
Emma had been listening carefully to all four software scheduling categories. “Henning, can you help us understand how these would work specifically for Alpine? Maybe walk us through a scenario that mirrors our use case?”
“Good idea,” Henning said. He pulled up a spreadsheet showing Alpine’s actual production data that Sarah had provided. “Let’s use the Agrar-Tech expedite situation from last week. Remember—you needed to move a complex order up by a full week while dealing with delayed materials and a machine breakdown.”
He projected the scenario on screen. “With a Simple Visual Scheduler, Sarah would drag the Agrar-Tech job forward on the timeline, see the conflicts it creates, and then manually figure out how to resolve each one. Better than the whiteboard because she can see everything digitally, but still a manual puzzle-solving exercise.”
Sarah nodded. That was essentially what she’d done with paper and whiteboards at her kitchen table.
“With a Standalone APS System,” Henning continued, “you’d input the new requirement, and the algorithm would recalculate the entire schedule. It might find a heuristically optimal solution that minimizes overtime while maintaining delivery dates. But—” he emphasized the word “—the algorithm doesn’t know that machine seven makes funny noises, or that Müller isn’t feeling well, or that you have a relationship with Agrar-Tech worth preserving even if it’s not mathematically optimal to prioritize them.”
Klaus frowned. “So the optimal solution might not be the right solution?”
“Precisely. With an APS with Standard Connectors, you’d get the same algorithmic approach, but with easier data exchange with Business Central. Still the same context problem though.”
“With a Purpose-Built, BC-specific Solution,” Henning said, “you’d see the Agrar-Tech job in your existing schedule, drag it forward to the new date, and the system would immediately show you all the downstream conflicts—which jobs get pushed, which capacity constraints are violated, which material timing issues arise. Then you’d use your judgment, informed by Otto’s knowledge and your customer relationships, to decide how to resolve them. The system gives you automation, visibility, and options, but you make the decisions.”
Sarah felt a wave of recognition. “That’s what I needed last weekend. Not someone to tell me the answer, but a way to see all the consequences so I could make an informed choice.”
The Difficult Questions
Emma looked at the comparison on screen. “So it sounds like Category Four—purpose-built solutions—might be best for us. Why wouldn’t everyone choose that?”
Henning smiled. “Because different companies have different needs. Large manufacturers with stable, repetitive production might benefit from sophisticated optimization. Companies with strong IT teams might prefer standalone systems that they can customize extensively. Every situation is different.”
“But for Alpine?” Emma pressed.
“For Alpine, I think Category Four makes the most sense, yes. But—” he held up a hand “—that doesn’t mean choosing the software is the hard part. The hard part is preparing your organization to use it effectively.”
He pulled up a new slide showing implementation phases. “Remember what I said about twenty percent software, eighty percent process improvement? That’s true regardless of which category you choose. You’ll need to clean up your master data. Define clear scheduling processes. Train your team. Change how different departments communicate.”
Sarah thought about the work ahead. “So choosing the software is actually the easier decision?”
“Much easier,” Henning confirmed. “I can help you evaluate specific products within Category Four, and we’ll probably find two or three that would work well. The real question is whether you’re ready to do the operational work to make any of them successful.”
The Reality of Choice
Marcus spoke up. “I want to add something about the integration aspect. I’ve worked with all four categories, and Emma asked a good question—why don’t all Business Central customers choose purpose-built solutions if integration is so much easier?”
He pulled up a technical diagram. “Some companies need capabilities that only standalone APS can provide. Maybe they have extraordinarily complex constraints, or they run operations across multiple ERP systems and need something that can orchestrate all of them. For those companies, the integration complexity is worth it.”
“But,” he emphasized, “for a focused manufacturer like Alpine, using one ERP system, with primarily machine and labor scheduling needs, the complexity usually isn’t justified. You want something that works well with Business Central, not something that merely connects to it.”
Klaus had been taking notes. “So we’re really talking about a trade-off between optimization sophistication and operational practicality?”
“Exactly,” Henning said. “And in my experience, companies like Alpine—SMB manufacturers with high-mix, low-volume, dynamic environments—get more value from practical tools they actually use than sophisticated algorithms they struggle to understand.”
Otto raised his hand like a student in class. “Can I ask a dumb question?”
“No question is dumb,” Henning said.
“All this talk about algorithms and optimization—at the end of the day, don’t we just need to know what to work on next? And when we finish that, what to work on after?”
Henning’s face lit up. “Otto, that’s the smartest question I’ve heard all day. Yes. That’s exactly what you need. You need a system that helps Sarah create a sequence that makes sense, communicates that sequence to the floor, updates when reality changes, and helps everyone understand what’s happening. Everything else is secondary to that core need.”
Preparing for the Next Step
Emma stood and walked to the window, looking out at the shop floor below. “Alright. I think I understand the landscape now. We’re looking at Category Four solutions—purpose-built for Business Central, focused on practical scheduling rather than theoretical optimization.”
She turned back to face the room. “What’s our next step?”
“The next step,” Henning said, “is to identify specific products within Category Four that we should evaluate. I can give you some recommendations based on my experience. Then we’ll want to see demos, ideally using your actual data so you can see how each system would handle your real scenarios.”
“How many should we look at?” Sarah asked.
“I’d suggest three, maybe four at most,” Henning replied. “More than that, and you’ll get confused trying to remember which system did what. Fewer than three and you won’t have enough perspective to make a good choice.”
Marcus added, “And we should involve the actual users in the evaluation. Sarah, obviously, but also Otto and any supervisors who would work with the system day-to-day. They need to feel comfortable with whatever we choose.”
Emma nodded. “Sarah, work with Henning to identify which products we should evaluate. Set up demos for next week if possible. And make sure we’re not just seeing pretty screenshots—I want to see how these systems would handle real Alpine scenarios.”
“I’ll take care of it,” Sarah said, already making notes.
“One more thing,” Emma said. “I want everyone to understand that we’re not just buying software. We’re committing to changing how we work. That means time, effort, and yes, probably some frustration as we learn new ways of doing things. But we’re doing this properly, not looking for quick fixes.”
The Evening Reflection
That evening, Sarah sat at her kitchen table reviewing her notes from the day. Tom was at football training, and Miguel was picking him up, giving her a quiet hour to process everything she’d learned.
Her phone buzzed with a text from Miguel: “Training running late. Tom scored three goals in the scrimmage! Home by 7.”
She smiled at the message. Tom was thriving on the football field, finding his rhythm and confidence. Maybe there was a metaphor there—sometimes you needed the right framework and support to succeed, whether it was a ten-year-old playing football or a production scheduler trying to manage complexity.
Her notebook was full of diagrams and comparisons. Simple Visual Schedulers. Standalone APS. Standard Connectors. Purpose-Built Solutions. A week ago, she hadn’t known these categories existed. Now she could see how each approached the same problem from different angles.
What struck her most was Henning’s emphasis on matching the tool to the need. Not the most sophisticated solution, not the cheapest solution, but the right solution for Alpine’s specific situation. They were a mid-sized manufacturer with good people, complex processes, and a need for practical tools that helped rather than hindered.
She thought about Otto’s question—don’t we just need to know what to work on next? In all the technical discussion about algorithms and integration, that simple truth had almost gotten lost. They needed visibility, clarity, and the ability to adapt when reality didn’t match the plan.
Her phone buzzed again. Another text from Miguel: “Tom wants to know if you can come to his game on Saturday. His team is currently place 5. They play against the top-of-the-table squad. Tom said they want to ‘kick ass’ them 😉.”
Sarah looked at her calendar. Saturday was clear. No weekend scheduling marathons planned. No crisis management sessions. Just family time.
“Absolutely,” she typed back. “Wouldn’t miss it. Tell him I’m proud of him.”
As she closed her notebook, Sarah realized that the path forward was becoming clearer. They had a framework for evaluation. They had expert guidance. They had management commitment. And most importantly, they understood that the software was just a tool—success would depend on how they used it, not what features it offered.
Tomorrow, they would start identifying specific products to evaluate. But tonight, she could rest knowing they were asking the right questions and heading in the right direction.
