by Gary Mintchell | Feb 8, 2016 | Data Management, Operations Management, Software
A friend of mine wrote an editorial recently where he predicted the imminent demise of Layer 3– manufacturing execution –of the Purdue Model of manufacturing technology. He hides behind a paywall these days, so I don’t think I can link. Funny thing is, he’s always been focused on the lower layers of technology. For him to try to create controversy here was, to say the least, surprising.
Perhaps a recap is in order at this point. The Purdue Model has withstood the test of time. It described technology and application layers 30 years ago that are still true. Technology is always fluid, but certain things just have to be done in a manufacturing or production enterprise.
Layers 0, 1, and 2 describe the instrumentation, control, and automation layers. Layer 3 describes what has been known as the MES–or execution–layer. Layer 2 describes the enterprise layer–known as the ERP layer.
My writing has focused at the lower layers for the past 18 years. I have some work on the MES and ERP application systems. Prior to 2014 my work was almost exclusively for controls and automation magazines. There remain no magazines devoted to Layer 3. No advertising or promotion dollars exist for that area–or at least not enough to fund that level of journalism. I thought I would focus on that as a one-person digital media site, but there’s just not enough money or news available there. The ERP level magazines have also mostly folded, but there remain huge sites that cover enterprise applications.
So back to the (non)controversy.
Some people have been predicting (hoping?) that connectors could be constructed such that real-time data can flow directly from production/manufacturing to the ERP layer effectively squashing layer 3.
But wait! All those functions performed at that level still need to be done–inventory, work-in-process, scheduling, laboratory integration, routing, and the like. Yes, ERP suppliers such as SAP, IBM, and Oracle wish that their products could absorb the functions of Layer 3 and therefore they could be a one-stop-shop for all manufacturing and enterprise IT functions.
Just as certainly the suppliers of today’s MES solutions–GE, Rockwell Automation, Schneider Electric (Wonderware, et. Al.), and Siemens (plus many more)–hope that that scenario won’t happen. Unless, I suppose, that they could sell their solutions to one of the big ERP suppliers.
The Real Manufacturing Execution Problem
The real problem at this level has little to do with technology or application. It’s the name. MES evolved from the earlier (think 70s) MRP and MRP II. Thanks to the stellar work of the ISA 95 committee, the term MOM has sprung up. And I read more about “operations management” than I do about “execution”.
Operations management holds a clue to the future. It is not all about the technology or the application any longer. It is all about business benefit–to the customer. New technologies such as the rise of importance of analytics and new visualization such as smart phone interfaces are changing the nature of Layer 3. There is still a Layer 3. It may not look like the Layer 3 I implemented in 1978. It may not look like the Layer 3 of five years ago. But the functions are still required, still being accomplished, and getting better all the time.
My friend sometimes tries more to be controversial than enlightening. Controversial gets page views (OK, so I pulled out an SEO headline myself). But I’d rather spark a conversation.
by Gary Mintchell | Dec 16, 2015 | Operations Management
Two of my favorite thought leaders in the operations management space have been thinking about enterprise applications, ISA 95, and management. Of course I’m referring to Tim Sowell and Stan Devries of Schneider Electric Software (Wonderware).
It’s interesting that these thoughts come when the email reflector for the ISA 95 committee is really heating up with some of the best discussion I’ve seen in years.
Sowell nails the ultimate problem:
For the last couple of weeks Stan and I have been working with a number of leading companies in Oil and Gas, Mining, and F & B around their Operational Landscape or experience of the future.
Too often the conversations start off from a technology point, and we spend the initial couple of days trying to swing the conversation to the way in which they need to operate in the future and what their plans are around operations.
It becomes clear very quickly that there is a lot of good intent, but real thought into how they need to operate in order to meet production expectations both in products and margin has not been worked through.
Thinking about and discussing technology only leads only to futile intellectual exercise (unless you are a technology developer), to quote another smart person, “Full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing.”
Devries had begun the discussion showing how using ISA-95 and TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) together becomes a powerful model for understanding operations.
TOGAF Model
ISA-95 is the strongest standard for operations management interoperability, and its focus is on data and its metadata. ISA-95 continues to evolve, and recent enhancements address the needs of interoperability among many applications, especially at Level 3 (between process control and enterprise software systems). One way to summarize ISA-95’s focus is on business and information architectures.
TOGAF is the strongest standard for enterprise architecture. One way to summarize TOGAF’s focus is on business architecture, information architecture, systems/application architecture and technology architectures. When considered with this perspective, ISA-95 becomes the best expression of the data architecture within TOGAF, and ISA-95 becomes the best expression of portions of the business architecture. Central to the TOGAF standard is an architecture development method (ADM), which encourages stakeholders and architects to consider the users and their interactions with the architecture before considering the required data.
To drive this thinking toward action, Sowell notes, “Over and over again we see the need for faster decisions, in a changing agile world, and this requires an ‘understanding of the future’ this maybe only 1/2 hour. It is clear that modeling of future is not just something for the planner, it is will become a native part of all operational systems.”
Does this issue require forecasting or predicting? Devries answers:
- At this stage, we propose a definition of “forecasting”: a future trend which is a series of pairs of information, where the pairs include a value and a time. The accuracy of the values will be poorer as the time increases, but the direction of the trend (trending down or up, or cycling) and the values in the near future are sufficiently useful.
- In contrast, “predicting” is an estimate that a recognized event will likely happen in the future, but the timing is uncertain. This is useful for understanding “imminent” failures.
People tell me that the most important application for the Industrial Internet of Things is predictive maintenance. GE sells that with its jet engines. Companies whose production requires huge, expensive assets are seriously implementing it.
Sowell and Devries take us the step beyond into operations management as well as maintenance.
This is important for manufacturers and producers to digest.
by Gary Mintchell | Sep 8, 2015 | Automation, Operations Management, Software
I have been contemplating what is going on over the past couple of years in the business of HMI / SCADA software.
This thinking was brought to an interim conclusion by the (sort of) announcement of another last-minute Wonderware conference.
I first heard about the Wonderware conference, distinct from the SimSci conference (another Schneider software company through the Invensys acquisiton) also announced for this year, about a month ago. To date, I have not received any official communication from Schneider as a writer/blogger/analyst. They have sent several emails out to me as a result of being on a few magazine subscription lists.
Schneider announced in July a new company formed with Schneider software (unspecified companies within the division) and Aveva with Schneider being the majority owner. Two months down the road there have been no further announcements. The only media relations people listed on the Website are in France. I never heard of any of them.
Meanwhile there are rumblings on LinkedIn that make it appear that Schneider has begun cutting some really talented executive staff.
Big Three
Only a few years ago there was sort of a Big Three with Wonderware, Intellution, and Rockwell Software. Intellution went first to Emerson which took the IP it needed and sold it to GE. That company originally thought it could blend Intellution and Cimplicity, but wound up rewriting its software now called Proficy. Evidently most of its sales are internal to GE, because all competitors claim they never see it in active quotation processes.
Wonderware went to Ivensys then to Schneider then to ??? Under Invensys it lost some of the California software company panache, but was still a major player. What is going on now is anyone’s guess.
Rockwell continues to pick up little companies (and some big ones for the overall software business) and keeps plugging away.
Meanwhile, Schneider, never a software company, picked up Citect through its Australian subsidiary. Then Invensys–now Schneider–picked up Indusoft. Consolidation continues. When the Aveva thing shakes out, we’ll see what other consolidation occurs.
MOM
Each of the Big Three picked up companies in the MES or the MOM space several years ago. They took over the “old boys” club that was MESA and attempted to make the organization into more of a supplier/user collaboration organization promoting the benefits of that layer of software.
There has not been as much movement in that space as I thought there would be a couple of years ago. I thought this new business “Manufacturing Connection” might capitalize on that layer of software. Nothing really happened there.
Question
So what I throw out to you–both of my readers–is just this:
1. Has HMI/SCADA reached commotity status where the business is not as attractive unless run as a cash cow?
2 Will the MES/MOM area remain so complex (there are good reasons for that) that suppliers in the space must maintain many engineers and IT professionals to help customers rationalize their businesses in order to gain the many benefits of the software?
3. Does this situation with the larger MES/MOM companies leave an gap for inroads to the market for smaller companies to begin grabbing market share?
Let me know what you think.
by Gary Mintchell | Jul 23, 2015 | Automation, Internet of Things, Operations Management
Tim Sowell, Schneider Electric (Wonderware) vp and fellow, has been writing a weekly blog that I report on for a while now. His Operations Management Systems Evolution blog is always thoughtful and informative.
Recently, I have discovered another Schneider Electric blog, this one by someone whom I do not know (I think)–Gregory Conary.
Each take a look at the Industrial Internet of Things in these posts.
Conary’s recent post discussed the “business opportunities we are seeing emerge from this megatrend.”
He cites information compiled by LNS Research, in its eBook Smart Connected Operations: Capturing the Business Value of the Industrial IoT. 47 per cent of respondents to its Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM) online survey indicated that they did not expect to invest in IoT technologies in the “foreseeable future”. A further 19 per cent indicated that they did not expect to invest in IoT technologies in the next 12 months.
Conary states, “Frankly I’m not surprised. IIoT seems to bring with it the hype of something that will take a long time to adopt. In some cases I think this can be true. And while we are unclear on what time frame is meant by the term ‘foreseeable future’ referenced above, I believe there are business opportunities that can be capitalized on now and in the medium term. IIoT is more prevalent than we imagine. There are examples and business practices that we often don’t even recognize as being enabled by IIoT – things like increasing industrial performance and augmenting operators are two of the opportunities which can make a difference to your business now.”
Increased industrial performance
“Using data to improve industrial performance by connecting things to each other – this is happening now. How is it happening? Through wireless technologies, low cost sensors and using advanced analytics. In practice, this is a decision support system for complex manufacturing operations.”
I agree with Conary. We’ve had the foundation and platform for the Industrial Internet of Things for a long time. It just continues becoming more robust. As better data analytics algorithms are developed and better ways to communicate and display information are devised, then usefulness to manufacturing operators, maintenance technicians, engineers, and managers will increase dramatically.
Tim Sowell riffed off an article in Wired. “As the Internet of Things (IoT) continues its run as one of the most popular technology buzzwords of the year, the discussion has turned from what it is, to how to drive value from it, to the tactical: how to make it work.
We need to improve the speed and accuracy of big data analysis in order for IoT to live up to its promise. If we don’t, the consequences could be disastrous and could range from the annoying – like home appliances that don’t work together as advertised – to the life-threatening – pacemakers malfunctioning or hundred car pileups.”
Sowell adds this analysis, “This follows on from my discussion 2 weeks ago around the need to avoid just gathering data, vs gaining the proportional amount of knowledge and wisdom, which brings in a term you hear a lot ‘machine learning’.”
From Wired, “The realization of IoT depends on being able to gain the insights hidden in the vast and growing seas of data available. Since current approaches don’t scale to IoT volumes, the future realization of IoT’s promise is dependent on machine learning to find the patterns, correlations and anomalies that have the potential of enabling improvements in almost every facet of our daily lives.”
Sowell concludes, “In the industrial world this more applicable than nearly all industries, and in many cases we are already applying “machine levels” at different levels. A key part in the shift from ‘Information’ to ‘knowledge’ is having the tools to drill into historians based on events and to discover learnings and patterns. Once validated and discovered these are turned into ‘self-monitoring’ conditions to understand the current state of the device, and predict / recognize conditions well before they happen. Providing the ‘insight’ to make awareness and decisions where the machines/ devices are telling you where the opportunities are. But a key part of machine learning is that this knowledge in not a once off step, it is a continuous evolution leveraging the gathering history data and developing increased amounts of knowledge.”
Final thought
Both Conary and Sowell point directly to the new reality and to new challenges. We can now gather much more data than we can make sense of. As soon as we have those tools, we will provide better tools to operations and maintenance to improve plant performance.
by Gary Mintchell | Jan 14, 2015 | Data Management, Manufacturing IT, Operations Management, Software
One of my prognostications from my last post on 2015 prognostications riffing off Jim Pinto’s post, dealt with analytics. I think this will not only be big, it will be essential to making you and your manufacturing enterprise competitive.
Mark Davidson of LNS Research, just wrote about the subject, Enterprise Manufacturing Intelligence (EMI) software, on the LNS blog site.
He asks, “1) What are the business results that manufacturing/production companies are achieving utilizing these software capabilities? And 2) What should you and your company be doing in regard to the opportunities presented by these technologies?”
He correctly addresses the core capability—operational and business performance dashboards that provide timely information to different users and roles.
Are people using these now? “61% of companies in the LNS Research Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM) survey of over 550 professionals indicated that their companies either currently have EMI dashboards or are planning to install them in the next year.”
Here’s why this is important. “The joint LNS Research and MESA ‘Metrics That Matter’ survey uncovered a significant difference in average annual improvements in the costs of producing a unit of goods. Current users of EMI software recorded 24.1% average annual improvements in Total Cost per Unit Excluding Materials versus the 13.1% overall improvement of all respondents.” And, “Companies that have implemented EMI software solutions are experiencing 7.2% higher OEE performance than those who have not. The average OEE for those who have EMI solutions in place was 74, versus 69 for those who do not.”
Make sure your stars are aligned
And, his last thought, “It is imperative that you not only focus on these supporting new technologies, it’s important to also align your organization’s key resources: people and processes, along with your technology strategy.”
Check out Mark’s complete article. Then check out potential partners for implementing EMI applications. Let me know how you’re doing.
