According to an article on Dingjie’s official website on August 9, 2026, an anonymous manufacturing company in Zhejiang adopts the FxE service model in multi-category and small batch scheduling: the solution team forms a prototype, the delivery center FDE completes production line deployment and tuning, and the product team precipitates the scheduling module. The article also stated that the overall model is in the verification stage with the first batch of customers. This article is based on the manufacturer's self-reported research and has not verified the customer identity, algorithm and income.
First discuss which difficulty needs to be improved most on site
The following is ChinaOPC’s independent analysis of scheduling issues. The examples do not represent the original customer’s actual production line. When companies say they "want to have a better schedule," they may want to reduce delays, they may also want to reduce frequent line changes, or they may want to respond more conveniently to temporary orders. Different arrangements may be given for different purposes. You need to ask the business staff to explain which situation is most difficult to accept at the moment.
For example, moving an urgent order forward may squeeze the time of other orders; processing the same type of tasks together may also make another delivery later. The system can help calculate and present candidates, but the client still needs to explain which constraints must be met and how it is prepared to decide on priorities if all wishes cannot be met simultaneously.
Scheduling discussions also need to go back to the data actually available to the business. Whether equipment is available, when materials will be in place, and which tasks have started will affect whether the plan has a basis for execution. When data are temporarily incomplete, it can be made clear which results depend on the conditions to be confirmed, and a neat-looking schedule cannot hide these gaps.
Let business personnel see why the plan has changed
A set of approved samples can be used to compare the original arrangement with the alternative options, and discuss which orders are brought forward and which are moved back, and what the basis for the changes is. By only giving an overall score, business personnel may not be able to judge whether the results are compatible with customer commitments and on-site habits. The explanation should be as close as possible to the task relationships that can be discussed.
When a requirement conflicts, different possible options and their implications can be demonstrated. For example, retaining the order of tasks that have been started may mean that urgent orders require another arrangement; adjusting tasks that have not yet started may affect subsequent connections. These trade-offs should be judged by people who are familiar with the site and based on the company's existing rules, and the model recommendations cannot be directly used as on-site execution instructions.
Dingjie’s original article did not disclose the details of the model and scheduling algorithm, and this article does not describe it as a large language model completing the scheduling alone. On-site data, rules, optimization calculations and personnel decision-making may each undertake different tasks. The specific composition needs to be confirmed by returning to the actual project materials. These differences cannot be omitted just because the name contains AI.
After temporary changes, first locate the affected parts
After order adjustments or resource situation changes, you can first explain where the changes occurred and which tasks in the current plan may be affected. For tasks that have been completed, are in progress, and are waiting to be started, follow-up arrangements should be discussed based on their actual status to avoid treating all work as a blank time block that can be moved freely.
When a small team participates in a similar project, they can first help the customer organize relevant information and impact descriptions around a type of recurring change, and then discuss the candidates with appropriate business and technical personnel. If the data can only support partial analysis, state the local scope clearly; do not promise to cover all factories and production situations with one pilot result.
The productized precipitation mentioned in the original article still needs to retain applicable conditions. When changing to another company, delivery habits, resource relationships, and existing arrangements may be different and need to be re-understood. The speed data disclosed in the case did not provide enough original data for ChinaOPC to re-examine, so this article did not use it, nor did it identify large service providers as OPC.
Extended reading: How enterprises start doing FDE from a real task and How to agree on a limited scope for paid trial orders to understand the connection between on-site problems and initial trials.