No abstract

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is currently a topic of interest for both research and industry. Many administrative tasks in operations consume a vast amount of time and create little value. The possibility that the responsible employees can quickly and easily automate these processes by themselves makes RPA a promising approach for many processes. However, RPA procedures are only able to automate a process in its present form. In this way, redundancies and excessive process steps are incorporated into RPA process flows. Combining RPA with the popular Business Process Management (BPM) approach poses a useful strategy as the as-is process is optimized first. The RPA procedure is then deployed on the optimized process to reach its full automation potential. This paper proposes a methodology to combine RPA and BPM and demonstrates the potential within a case study. Benefits, limitations, and further research opportunities are likewise addressed.

Lot release policies, i.e., the decision which lots to start in production, in what quantity and at what time, have a significant influence on fab performance. Recent research focused on closed-loop policies. However, most studies only demonstrated the feasibility in settings with low-mix or low-volume simulation testbeds. In this paper, we focus on a real-world pre-assembly facility in a high-volume and high-mix semiconductor wafer fab. We conduct an in-depth, deterministic discrete-event simulation in two stages, using real production data and demands. First, we test two existing open-loop lot release policies (random and constant release) against a simple closed-loop release policy. Significant improvements in on-time delivery, bottleneck utilization, and throughput are notable. Second, we compare three closed-loop release policies and indicate which policy provides the best results for certain KPIs like enhanced on-time delivery or reduced tardiness.

Background This study was aimed to investigate if the adjunctive use of erythritol air-polishing powder applied with the nozzle-system during subgingival instrumentation (SI) has an effect on the outcome of non-surgical periodontal treatment in patients with moderate to severe periodontitis. Methods Fourty-two individuals with periodontitis received nonsurgical periodontal therapy by SI without (controls, n = 21) and with adjunctive air-polishing using nozzle + erythritol powder (test, n = 21). They were analyzed for the clinical variables BOP (primary outcome at six months), probing depth (PD), attachment level, four selected microorganisms and two biomarkers at baseline, before SI as well as three and six months after SI. Statistical analysis included nonparametric tests for intra- and intergroup comparisons. Results In both groups, the clinical variables PD, attachment level and BOP significantly improved three and six months after SI. The number of sites with PD ≥ 5 mm was significantly lower in the test group than in the control group after six months. At six months versus baseline, there were significant reductions of Tannerella forsythia and Treponema denticola counts as well as lower levels of MMP-8 in the test group. Conclusions Subgingival instrumentation with adjunctive erythritol air-polishing powder does not reduce BOP. But it may add beneficial effects like reducing the probing depth measured as number of residual periodontal pocket with PD ≥ 5 mm when compared with subgingival instrumentation only. Clinical relevance The adjunctive use of erythritol air-polishing powder applied with the nozzle-system during SI may improve the clinical outcome of SI and may reduce the need for periodontal surgery. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered in the German register of clinical trials, DRKS00015239 on 6th August 2018, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL.

The project iDev40 has received funding from the ECSEL Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 783163. The JU receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. It is co-funded by the consortium members, grants from Austria, Germa-ny, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Romania. It is coordinated by Infineon Technologies Austria AG. The content of this article does not reflect the official opinion of the Joint Undertaking ECSEL. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the article lies entirely with the authors.