by Gary Mintchell | Dec 11, 2014 | Automation, Interoperability, News, Operations Management, Technology
I started another Website called Physical Asset Lifecycle last year to discuss interoperability.
Two things happened. The reason to have a separate Website evaporated into the vacuum of failed business ideas. I also ran out of time to maintain yet another Website.
So, I will be reposting the work I did there and then building upon that work as an Interoperability Series.
There are key technologies and thinking when it comes to interoperability. The foundation is that we want to break silos of people and technologies so that applications can interoperate and make life easier for operations, maintenance and engineering. This will also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Much of the work so far is led by MIMOSA.
Interoperability demo
Two years ago, the foundation came together in a pilot demo at the ISA Automation Week conference of 2012. Here is the report from then.
After years of preparatory work, the OpenO&M Initiative participants organized a demonstration pilot project of information interoperability run like a real project building a debutanizer. It demonstrated the full lifecycle of the plant including all the facets of plant from design through construction to operations and management. The demonstration was held two days at the ISA Automation Week Sept. 25-26, 2012 in Orlando.
A panel of some of the people who worked on this project presented their work and showed live demonstrations.
One of the most important advances in the project was that now the three major design software suppliers–Aveva, Bentley, and Intergraph were all involved with enabling export of design data to a standard interface.
EPC for the project was Worley Parsons. Cormac Ryan, manager, Engineering Data Management, Americas, explained the development of the P&IDs using Intergraph’s Smart Plant P&ID generator. It produced a traditional P&ID. Not only a diagram, it is a database-driven tool containing lots of reports and data. The data was published in ISO 15926 format and made available to the rest of the team.
Jim Klein, Industry Solutions Consultant from Aveva, used a schema similar to the Intergraph one. It acted as a second EPC duplicating the data with the object-based database behind the drawing. It can store and link to an engineering database that contains much more data. For example, clicking on a pump diagram can show specifications and other important design information. This data was published out to instantiate the object in a maintenance management system or to create new data as it gets revised during the engineering process. Information can communicate to a “MIMOSA cloud” server.
George Grossmann, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Advanced Computing Research Centre, the University of South Australia, explained a transform engine using Bentley Open Plant received in 2 formats–owl and ecxml. These data go to iniSA 15926 transform engine. This engine takes input from all three suppliers, exports in ISO 15926 then to MIMOSA standard exports in CCOM XML.
Next up Ken Bever, with Assetricity and also CTO of MIMOSA discussed the transform from CCOM XML to the Assetricity iomog register, assuring that information was mapped to the asset and then sent to IBM’s IIC application in a standardized way. The information was then sent to OSIsoft PI historian. From PI, data is then accessible to maintenance management and operations management applications. All data references back to the ISO 15926 ontology.
Bruce Hyre, from IBM, explained how the IIC application is a standards-based platform that federates data and provides analytics. It takes CCOM, feeds it into a model server, which then provisions tags in OSI PI server. His demonstration showed the actual live P&ID from the EPC. He added, “But our focus is on the data supporting that P&ID–the tag list/model tree. You can subscribe to a tag, see information from the upstream systems.” Therefore the demonstration showed that data have gone end-to-end from design to the PI server to provision the tags with the live data from the design. 1092 tags were provisioned in this demonstration.
A video of the presentation can be found on the MIMOSA Website.
Program manager is Alan Johnston. Contact him for more information or to lend your expertise to the effort.
by Gary Mintchell | Mar 21, 2014 | Operations Management, Software
Tim Sowell, who is an Invensys (Schneider Electric) vice president and Fellow, has been writing a series of blog posts on Third Generation Manufacturing Execution System (MES). He has been discussing configuring systems from building blocks rather than custom coding as a wave of the future. In his latest post on model-driven MES, Sowell posits a few benefits:
- Enable evolution of operational practices by capturing the best practices
- Rapid product introduction and evolutions
- Ability to scale over multiple sites in a sustainable way with common product definitions across the sites
- Transparency across site and multi site, eg, the value chain
- Empowerment of decisions in the NOW and consistency of actions across different roles, shifts
Some of these items, such as transparency across a site and multi-site have been accomplished by a few companies that I have run across and written about. But stories of successes have not been plentiful. When the economic benefits are tabulated, though, those benefits are high.
Sowell noted two feedbacks this week relative to the modern operational system:
- MES functionality as defined by Mesa and ISA95 is a commodity
- Assume operational/ production change
- Assume operational workforce, people transition and evolution
Sowell calls these key comment when considering a Third Generation MES “based upon core MES functionality in a scalable architecture naturally extended with model driven (workflow) operational practice capture.”
He says he’s shocked upon hearing people still talking about developing a custom MES/MOM system. “Why,” he asks, “waste the energy on a mature technology?” Sowell’s endgame: “Focus your energy on differentiating through the capture and embedding of operational practices and actions, while empowering decisions in the NOW across the operational community in the organization?”
I think his thoughts are going the right direction. I see similar initiatives in other areas where people are focusing on interoperability of systems through use of standards and the use of models.
There remains much room for progress in operations management.
by Gary Mintchell | Jan 8, 2014 | Automation, News, Technology
Collaboration and consolidation/integration seem to be the new year’s keywords for manufacturing software. This solution appears to be more in the genealogy of Germany’s “Industry 4.0” digital manufacturing than the US “Smart Manufacturing” initiative. But either way, it’s a step forward for manufacturing.
Here, GE Intelligent Platforms have announced an acceleration in their joint effort to bring to market a solution that helps manufacturers close the loop between product design and production execution on the shop floor.
Beginning immediately, GE will resell the PTC Manufacturing Process Management software in combination with GE’s manufacturing execution system (MES) software. While manufacturing information can be passed directly from the PTC Windchill solution to the GE Proficy for Manufacturing Discrete product today, the companies expect to deliver an expanded closed-loop integrated solution in 2014.
PTC and GE share a common vision of an “Industrial Internet” where the future of manufacturing is transformed by the surge of smart, connected products. As a result, the two companies kicked off a series of joint sales, marketing, services, support, and product development initiatives designed to collaboratively meet this fast-growing market demand. GE and PTC are integrating offerings that are based on industry best practices for product lifecycle management (PLM) and MES business processes.
The joint solution will manage a closed loop of product information among engineering, manufacturing production and service. Product structures and 3D product representations defined by engineering become the basis for manufacturing routings and manufacturing bills of materials (mBOMs) which are then used to manage shop floor activity and coordinate with ERP systems. Shop floor information, such as the “as-built” BOM, can also be shared with PLM and ERP systems to complete the closed loop with engineering. The complete view of a finished product can also be shared with a company’s service organization to optimize service delivery and performance. Customers of the integrated offering could achieve faster time to deployment and lower total cost of ownership.
“Manufacturers place a premium on their ability to introduce products faster, keep production costs low, and keep product quality high,” said Jim Walsh, general manager, Software and Services, GE Intelligent Platforms. “Essential to meeting these goals is ensuring that products are built precisely as they were designed. PTC’s PLM solution is the best complement to our GE Proficy solution and our organization is energized by the opportunity to offer a truly differentiated solution to solve one of our customers’ most significant challenges.”
The “Industrial Internet” rapidly increases the complexity of creating ever smarter, connected products. By closing the loop between early-stage engineering design activities, production processes on the plant floor and the service organization, manufacturers can reduce errors, increase flexibility in how they manage late-stage engineering changes, reduce work-in-process, and, ultimately, accelerate new product introductions. “The seamless flow of information across a discrete manufacturing organization, from design to manufacturing to service, is the dream of all executives,” said Jim Heppelmann, president and CEO, PTC. “That dream becomes a reality with the GE-PTC solution and we are excited to be deepening our relationship with GE to address a real market need.”
by Gary Mintchell | Jan 3, 2014 | Operations Management, Software
I saw this enterprise software news item on GigaOM recently. “News emerged this morning that Avon Products is scrapping a planned roll out of an SAP order management system and taking a charge of $100 million to $125 million. This should remind all of us that while everyone talks about the consumerization of IT, and while we understand the need to make our mission-critical applications as easy to use as iPhone apps, that’s a very tough job. After all, enterprise-resource planning (ERP) software — or in this case, order management — is not for the faint of heart. Avon Products disclosed the charges associated with the failed roll out in an 8K filing with the SEC.”
Most of have witnessed casualties of ERP implementations. I have no experience implementing those applications, but I did work on a precursor of MES receiving some very good training from IBM in the process.
There are things I have learned from experience, observation and listening to those who have been there (both supplier side and client side).
IBM taught that the client must understand their systems and have solid procedures in place before implementing a big system. I’ve recently held an in-depth conversation with an experienced MES implementer and he as much as said the same thing. If you don’t understand where you are, implementing a big system is doomed.
Another thing to understand that most of these huge enterprise operations management software system implementations require clients to change their business processes to conform to the vision of the software developers. There exist a cadre of large integration companies ready and willing (for a rather large price) to help you install the system and then learn how to conform to it.
CIOs may understand much of this. But what of other executives? If their knowledge of software is traced to consumer apps, no wonder they have no patience for all the upfront work needed to make things work.
The story quoted above went on to talk about all the finger-pointing about blame when the project went south. Been there, done that, have the closet full of T-shirts to prove it.
Let’s just go back to step one. Every engineer knows that preparation and understanding before implementing is essential. Yet, few of us really take that time in the rush to performance. I bet it’s in the way the project was sold–both by the supplier, but also then to management.
Think that it’ll ever change?
by Gary Mintchell | Jan 2, 2014 | Automation, Operations Management, Software, Technology
Tim Sowell is a vice president and fellow at Invensys Operations Management as well as a blogger. His blogs are always thoughtful and forward looking. I’ve written from the blog on August 27 and October 7 of last year. He has recently posted a couple of trends and observations pieces that I’ll riff off of.
But first, thinking about Invensys leads to the mystery of 2014 in our market niche–what will Schneider Electric do with it? There is little overlap with existing business, so leaving it alone as an operating division within the company makes sense. Schneider more or less has done that with Square D and APC. However, the automation business it acquired from Modicon was pretty much buried in internecine warfare at the time.
I’m betting on the former. But corporate managers are always a mystery. At any rate, I’ve already heard of managerial layoffs due to the acquisition. Hopefully they don’t need many to pay for the purchase.
Transformation year
Sowell writes, “2014 has a real opportunity to be a transformation year in the Operational Management space, with many of the seedlings of trends and direction becoming increasingly adopted as we accelerate into new requirement of agility.”
He offers this list with which I agree–and which I intend to build into the new editorial directions of my two properties, The Manufacturing Connection and Maintenance Technology & Asset Performance.
- Increased use of the “internet” as a natural part of the operational / automation architecture
- increased adoption of the cloud combined with the expect rapid expansion “managed industrial services”
- Increased transition from central to distributed, in all aspects of architecture and operational approach to plants
- Increased role of energy and environment as big factors in operational/ automation design
- Change in operational Experience to accommodate the transition of workforce to Gen Y and to a more operational team
- Shift to the “Internet of Things” where smart strategies will increase the distributed landscape of operations, and control
Operational solutions
Sowell’s post this week picks up the theme of designing new “operational solutions.” You need to follow the link to read his entire thought process, but here are a few snippets.
- With the drive towards more and more agility and rapid deployment of products to markets, the alignment of multiple plants,and their operational/automation systems with the business strategy/ applications is a key area.
- The other key area of critical concern is the operational workplace. With rapid agility,comes the requirement for more alignment, and more complexity, combined with key / rapid decisions to be made in real-time, and as a result the new operational team collaboration, and operational workspace will be critical.
- Some people throw technologies around like Cloud, wireless, and mobile, and begin looking for how to apply them, instead of stepping back and looking at “how they will be Operating, based upon the business, market and both capital and human assets”. This requires developing a plan and landscape to satisfy this future operational state.
Welcome 2014! Hope it’s a good one for all of us.
