by Gary Mintchell | Nov 16, 2016 | Automation, Safety
This is another of a series of posts from the Rockwell Automation show Automation Fair last week. This stop on the tour concerned Safe Machines. The safety team has been active for many years now developing new products and initiatives. Not everything they do is expressly pointed at selling a product. Often they are out in public teaching safe machine practices, risk assessment, and safe machine design.
They showed a BevCorp machine that had been designed with the latest safety advances in mind. The idea involved removing incentives to defeating safeties. One feature is an ultra-wide door that allows access to more of the machine.
The safety system has a “request to enter” function. This is a high inertia filler machine. Activating the function begins with guiding the machine to a slow stop at a repeatable location. Therefore the controls always know status without requiring a reboot. Of course, there is a safe reduced speed mode to allow maintenance without a shutdown.
Integral with the Connected Enterprise philosophy of Rockwell Automation, the HMI and software collects data on who/what stopped the machine, which safety devices were triggered, and the like. From this data, employee behavior can be ascertained.
This leads to the real value of Connected Enterprise–production, engineering and EH&S can come together to evaluate the entire system from all points of view. The goal is to maintain productivity through use of a safe machine.
I’ve followed Rockwell Automation safety for years. In fact, I can remember classes in the 90s before becoming an editor on risk assessment and the launch of safety products. There have been two popular podcast interviews at Automation Minutes one on Safety Automation Builder and the other on the Safety Maturity Index.
This is the last stand where I had a deep dive. Following will be a review of partners who also exhibited at the Fair. Then it will be on to the next conference–which I couldn’t visit in person, but I have some interviews.
by Gary Mintchell | Sep 28, 2016 | Operations Management, Software
I like the push notices of email to tell me that there is new information posted somewhere. But the last email telling me about Tim Sowell’s latest post was sad. He’s stopping his run of thought leadership (truly) pieces at Operations Evolution. Sowell is a Schneider Electric Fellow and VP of System Strategy at Schneider Electric in the Common Architecture team in R&D.
This post will be my final one in this blog, as forum does not seem to be working as it once did, and we exploring new approaches to getting thought leadership out. Thank you for your interest if you feel like we should continue in some form, please post a comment.
Here’s his lead paragraph. Discover the rest of his thinking on the site.
In today’s “flat world” of demand-driven supply, the need for agility is only going to move faster in the next 10 years. This is driving leading companies to transform their operational landscape in systems, assets and culture in a shift to “smart work.” Agility transforms their thinking from a process-centric to a product and production focus, which requires a dynamic, agile work environment between assets/machines, applications and people. Aligned decisions and actions across a multi-site product value/supply chain is crucial, and requires the ongoing push of a combination of automated (embedded) wisdom and augmented Intelligence (human wisdom).
Manufacturing / production companies have accumulated tremendous amounts of data over the past decades. Mostly they do nothing with that data. People like Sowell and Stan DeVries have been making sense of all the applications that can help customers succeed in this new technological reality of actually using the data well.
Media thoughts
It’s hard work maintaining a blog–especially when it’s not your main job. I know. I’ve done this for 13 years.
But the problem for thinkers and companies is–how do you get your information out?
It used to be you could use trade press. But shrinking ad budgets and demand for shorter pieces on the Web (at least that is current thinking in many places) have changed the way companies are relating to traditional publications. If you want to get out your whole message, you need to write it yourself. With the Web and search, you can write it and then try to get links.
I’ve linked to most of Sowell’s posts. Obviously not enough of you have clicked and gone to the site. On the other hand, I think there are inflated ideas of the amount of readers. A typical magazine Website in our industry may get upwards of 75,000 views a month. Or a couple may approach 100,000. Certainly not the millions that get publicized in the general technology press.
But if you drill down, a typical article may only get a few hundred views.
The way my site is constructed, when you visit you see several posts. I’m not really selling “eyeballs”. But depending upon the tool you consult, there are several thousand who at least see the headline if you don’t actually read it all. Since my site has few distractions–just a couple of ads and a few other pieces of information–the writing is emphasized.
So, I don’t know Sowell’s traffic (he’s on Blogspot, not the best platform) and I don’t know Schneider’s expectations. But the traffic was not sufficient.
The other company blogs I follow are informative, but they have changed over time to less blog and more PR-type writing. This one was different. I’ll miss the weekly read.
by Gary Mintchell | Apr 15, 2016 | Asset Performance Management, Operations Management
The overriding benefit we provide to enterprise business as operators of producing plants is production operational continuity—maximum output, greatest efficiency, best product margin.
Too often we get so wrapped up in our technology discussions that we forget the objectives. It’s not all about technology. It is all about using the appropriate technology to help build better businesses that serve customers well.
Editors face another problem writing articles about the industry. Marketing communications professionals delight in lining up interviews with appropriate people in their companies. The person interviewed has a story to tell. But most editors (I guess, I wasn’t one) have the theme and outline of the story already in mind, and they also have limited space. Therefore, they are looking for quotes they can pull out to support their theses, while the actual quote may only be a paragraph gleaned from a 30-45 minute interview.
So, Tim Sowell of Schneider Electric recently talked about an interview:
Basically the editor wanted to understand about “big data” being applied in a particular industry, again it was someone with a technology concept the market is throwing about vs really understanding the business / operational challenge the industry is facing.
But Sowell pointed to his recent theme about business needs:
- Operational Continuity: Maintaining their producing plants at the maximum output, with greatest efficiency, and best product margin
- Agility: to supply the market with the correct product at the right quality, and right price and the right time in an every dynamic market
- Asset Management/ Utilization: This is both fixed, mobile capital assets (non breathing assets, such as plants, trucks, ships) and the human assets (breathing assets).
I have been writing a long white paper focusing on these issues from an interoperable standards point of view. We’re looking especially at the lifecycle of critical assets. These observations from Sowell reflect the trends we’re experiencing.
We find that, as globalization increases, the buying and selling of capital assets increasingly happen, introducing of challenge of how do incorporate existing systems, automation, and practices into your overall value chain to provide the above “Operational Continuity” and “Agility”. Same when the asset is sold how you disengage it cleanly especially with IP in the products and process. Combine this with the dynamic Human Asset landscape where human assets are moving regularly between plants and locations. Causing on a site not to have the required experience to make decisions, but people are in a role of having to make the decisions. YES the asset world for both capital assets and human assets is shifting form traditional stability in both classes for the last 20 years to one of both dynamic.
He makes a crucial point. The importance of tying lifecycle asset management to operational continuity.
What are you doing with asset management?
by Gary Mintchell | Apr 14, 2016 | Technology
We all expect 3D Printing, also known as Additive Manufacturing, to be a disruptive. Or is it everyone who expects it? Will 3D Printing become the next technology to collapse layers in manufacturing just like the software and communications layers I’ve been discussing?
PwC just reported on its 2015 survey of manufacturers’ experiences and attitudes toward the technology. The results are somewhat mixed, as you would suspect given how new the technology is and how rapidly it is gaining acceptance.
PwC’s Robert McCutcheon posted a blog on LinkedIn introducing the latest results. I’m quoting the post here:
There are many different types of technology that are at the fingertips of manufacturers looking to become the next Factory of the Future. But there’s still that hesitation, there’s still the question: Is 3D printing (3DP) just hype?
According to PwC’s recent study, it’s not. In fact, it’s become quite clear that the technology, also known as additive manufacturing, is crossing from a period of experimentation to one of rapid maturation. Industrial 3D printers, once almost exclusively used for prototyping, are now on some of America’s factory floors and being rolled out on production lines.
How do we know?
Two years ago, PwC tested the waters to figure out to what extent U.S. manufacturers were adopting 3DP into their operations and how they expected the technology to play out in the future. In our latest report, we share what’s changed and the three most significant shifts that have emerged:
- More “doing,” less experimenting: Fewer manufacturers (17% versus 29% two years ago) are simply experimenting with 3DP to figure out how to use the technology. Now, just over half are using it for prototyping and final-products versus 35% two years ago.
- Greater expectations: Two years ago, just 38% of manufacturers expected 3DP to be used for high-volume production over the next 3-5 years. Now, 52% do. Interestingly, we saw a drop from 74% to 67% in the number of manufacturers that expect 3DP to be used for low-volume, specialized products.
- 3DP is still disrupting, though how it’s disrupting continues to evolve: Twenty-two percent say it will be disruptive to restructuring supply chains. The same percentage say it will threaten intellectual property.
Eighteen percent believe it will change relationship with customers. Two years ago, the primary concern was how it would disrupt the supply chain.
In “3D Printing comes of age in US industrial manufacturing“, we dive further into these three shifts and uncover sentiment from 2014 versus today. What’s clear is that the growth in 3DP and the range of ways it’s being implemented is demonstrating 3DP will be an important discussion to how manufacturers are assessing, shaping and expanding their businesses.
However, no matter where one is on the adoption scale, there are questions that must be addressed.
by Gary Mintchell | Apr 6, 2016 | Automation, Operations Management, Workforce
Automation and people. Some people think that they are opposed to each other. A zero-sum game.
As I developed the editorial focus of the old Automation World, I wrote about how they actually go together. In the very first issue, I interviewed a Lean practitioner. I had to convince him. He told me that automation was bad. People could do better every time. Wait, I responded. Let’s not go overboard here. There are definitely things I’d rather have a machine and automation do for both consistency and safety reasons.
Sometimes a job is just boring. People lose attention. Either quality or safety suffers.
Smart Work Mindset
Tim Sowell’s latest blog post reminded me of that old discussion. The difference is, well aside from about 100 IQ points and that he’s contemplating while watching the Pacific, that he’s updated the idea while taking it to another level.
Consider:
[At] one company I was engaged with last week their thought pattern was still about replacing the personnel on the plant, going to total automation. While I agree with automation, it is required for consistently and velocity of production. But I struggle with agility.
Two days latter I was at another company and they were all about empowerment of people. They wanted to automate process and operations to free up people to add complimentary agility and “out of the box” thinking. As one C level said to me, our market is changing as fast as we ever seen.
Stepping back and looking at both these companies the second company was more automated than the first, and the second was investing in automation more than the first. But their attitude was to gain consistently and free up people from repeatable tasks, and increase the responsibility of people, and empower people to make decisions fast.
The diagram below really depicts what I started to introduce last week, and what this second company believed in.
Notice how he has applied the idea to agility. The automation mindset looks for consistency over a longer production run. The foundation of Lean is respect for people (and how their ideas improve the process). Sowell’s second company was “all about empowerment of people.”
He continues with the thought:
The key thinkers in the industry are not looking to dependency on 1 to 2 people, they are leveraging the concept of “crowd sourcing” thru a active community of people. As we look at the operational/ automation world of the future the key pillars will be:
-
Ability to capture knowledge and intelligence into the system to automate process, and operations. Key is this is not just traditional automation in PLCs/ DCS etc, it is capturing repeatable knowledge and decisions. So the system must bread a culture of contribution and use natively.
-
Ability to have a community of workers who can share collaborated “naturally” with ease, no matter the location of the users and state. Foundational to this is the ability trust the information, the measures so a common understanding of the situation, and basis for decision can be made.
Check out his blog. It’ll make you think. And that is a good thing.
