Multi-dimensional impact of a changing Industrial Operational Workspace vs. the Transforming Workforce!

Multi-dimensional impact of a changing Industrial Operational Work space vs. the Transforming Workforce!

This blog has discussed a lot about the changing workforce, but let’s step back and look at the real change that of the industrial work space. The way in which we operate the business, from:

• business strategy to operational execution real-time alignment
• to serving customers
• new product introduction
• to operating across multiple plants and regions
• to collaboration manufacturing
• to speed and agility of manufacturing

Are all changing, at increasing speed, forcing increased volume, quicker, accountability and consistent “actionable decisions”.

There are two significant forces (workforce transformation to dynamic workforce, and the work space transformation) at play. That are “lining up” to drive the most significant transformation in the  business/ operational landscape required in order to be competitive, leveraging the third force available that of technology, (bandwidth, Internet of things, cloud, etc).

This post will focus on the changing Operational Work space as illustrated in diagram below depicts:

Shows that at least four dimensions in which the work space is changing, I suspect there are more around collaboration, sharing, accountability due to regulations. Just looking at this diagram we four dimensions:

• Moving from Multi Layers and vertical integration to flattened org, but a very virtual org, that spreads across the product value chain, not just within a plant. So you can have now a product organization that manages the product business as a whole, new products, delivery, competitive position, etc. across multiple plants, regions, etc. Compared with traditional vertical organization usually based on location.

• Moving from Command and Control to Flexibility and Agility org structures, rise use of matrix organizations, where  vertical local plant and horizontal product lines of business effect combine to drive the goals, and objectives of the personal on a plant. This is a clear evolution as the operational workforce becomes more empowered to make real-time decisions. Their responsibility and accountability increases forcing actionable decisions will require different interactions in the organization structure.

• Transforming from ladder growth/ evolution in an operational team, to a more rotating less structure evolution of a team with changing and evolving roles. As operational processes/ models change, so roles and activities of those roles with evolve. Virtual roles will become more common with the roles has operational responsibility over multiple plants /regions. So too the way in which an operational business can recruit and evolve its operational team will change. An operational team the new personal may come from anywhere, or even be located anywhere as the roles evolve, compared to the tradition ladder where roles have been relatively local and consistent for 20+ years. No longer will roles and role structure be consistent, roles will evolve and be agile to fit the new operational paradigms of the company.

• To correspond with the evolution of roles, and organizations so too HR must evolve from a process to “talent Science” that enables the evolving roles and required skills to map to transforming workforce of skills, locations. A lot of traditional HR methods must go out the door, and workforce evolution is the key to matching the role, and organization evolution, combining this with the Gen Y culture differences.    

I have spoken a lot in this blog about the changing workforce.

In reflection we must not get confused with significantly transforming Operational Work space, and the fact that organizations and roles will also be dynamic in the new world. It is important that we design our operational/supervisory system to be able to transcend the changes in roles. 

The leading thought and practice to address this Operational Workspace transformation, is the operational / supervisory system design must be centered on “activities” vs roles and applications as today.These activities are performed by roles that are changing based on "activities they are accountable for", and the system can be sustained  through the evolutionary management of these “activities” and the associated information, and action.  

Next week we will talk about the other leg of this change the workforce and “Empowering a New Generation of Front Line Workers”.

Managing Variation is Corner Stone of Operational Growth but Requirements Platforms

I wrote about this 2 months ago, but seem to have spent the last two weeks talking and working through this “managing of Variability/ variation” as key. Too many people said that you are forcing standards, but these only come once you have a platform of abstraction on top of variation you want manage or accommodate.

 “How do you manage this Variability, so that production consistency, agility and increased production output are achieved?”   While the concept of everything being a standard would be great, it is not practical and there are variability’s that we must “manage” and others we must “accommodate”.

 “Standardization is not a business goal – it is a means to an end. 

The goal of business is to make a profit.”

                                                             - Continuous Improvement Leader

Thus, any standardization effort must distinguish between the different types of variety in a way that maximizes profit without constraining the business strategy. Thus, the business challenge can be summed up (using the mining example illustrated in the above) as follows:

1. Mastering necessary variety: When running a mine or plant, such things as Ore Body quality (raw material quality) that varies not according to the ideal plan. Breakdowns of equipment, weather like hurricanes/ cyclones disrupt ports and operations, tides effect ships coming into ports. These are “necessary variability” that all must be “mastered” to optimize production, operations, and you need to put systems in that allow you change plans and strategies as required. I had one workshop last week where the team was looking at long term strategies in the traditional sense. They had not adjusted their thinking to a long term strategy now has to make of shorter operational plans that can be adjusted in “near real-time” due to “master” these “necessary” variability. The operational systems must empower all people to be planners in their time span, to empower actionable decisions that are related to achieving the bigger strategy, and clear impact is understood.  As products, deliverables change and vary more regularly, plans will become shorter and increased volume of plans to achieve a business strategy.
2. Accommodating unavoidable variety: Situations like different automation vendors or implementations across equipment, processes and sites. It is impractical to think a company can acquire new or existing equipment and processes and expect a particular PLC or automation system, the OEM equipment suppliers just make the change to cost prohibitive. In order for companies to grow and be agile, they must “accommodate” natural variety from equipment suppliers, existing sites, but be able to apply their operational standards/ processes across the different equipment.  Another area that that limits operational excellence is the different “experience” levels of the workforce, from shift to shift, from site to site. The operational systems must abstract operational/ or site experience by embedding operational procedures/ actions into the system providing a guidance and consistency of operational decision and action. This starts to generalize the workforce experience enabling significant operational workforce flexibility between sites, and hiring, addressing the challenges of workforce / skill shortage.
3. Eliminating unnecessary variety: Anything other than the above two scenarios would be eligible for standardization.

It is NOT about “rip and replace with standards it is about “mastering and accommodating” these variations while enabling operational excellence growth and continuity by applying operational standards across this variability. Key is “platform strategies” that abstract the variability and can absorb variability while provide a platform for services that enable standards to be built on. Providing the architecture for “sustainable innovation” through managed standards that can evolve over time. Standards can be operational models in supervisory for alignment of context and structure, as well as operational actions to guide users through tasks in a consistent way. Also, configuration of control strategies should be over multiple vendors, where common control standards for process can be deployed over multiple controllers but managed in structured way.

Does this mean one platform? NO, not for the industrial landscape different layers of the industrial operations landscape have different roles. Providing different services and different ability to absorb a variety, but the common services between these platforms must enable them to “tightly aligned but loosely coupled”.

As we have pointed out the key to success in this dynamic but changing world is the ability to “Master Necessary Variety” in your business, while “Accommodating Unavoidable Variation”. Providing a structure to acquire new “brownfield plants” accommodate their existing automation and process. But apply the new companies’ differentiation through applying their operational procedures across these acquired plants.

This is not a new concept, but I seem to explain it a lot now days!!!!

Multi-site standards have to be economically viable, but Operational Value of standards is the driver vs IT requirement

While flexibility allows us to deal with the plant floor reality, it also comes at a cost and thus requires governance. This is typically where the IT and Engineering perspectives tend to clash:

1. Standardization (what Corporate IT desires): How to deploy “out-of-the-box” or packaged solutions that reduce risk and time-to-value in implementation across the plant sites? Increasingly Operational value is driving standards and platforms.
2. Flexibility (what Engineering desires): How to support the various customizations to accommodate the heterogeneous nature of the process within a plant site?

But with the growing demand for agility and ability to absorb new production plans, new product introduction with minimal impact to day to day operations. Combine this the ability to “accommodate variability” in automation systems often from different vendors across multiple plants, or equipment, as well variety in team skills, and experience. The implementation of platforms combined with standards provide the necessary abstraction to “accommodate” this variation. So move to standards is growing driven more from the operational continuity drive than IT (which drove it based upon cost of implementation and sustainability).

To solve the above two seemingly opposable expectations, large enterprise users of a platform use a Center of Excellence approach to centrally manage the template library while helping orchestrate each of the plant’s technology roadmap in a way that is aligned to their Continuous Improvement journey.

The illustration below maps (at a high-level) the governance process of how templates are created, maintained, and modified to support the rollout across a multi-plant standardization effort.

Many of the most successful companies driving standards, are now seeing the rewards and return through agility to absorb new plants into their organization, yet leverage the existing unique automation, plant floor systems.

But so many of them comment to that they learnt the hard way the need for governance, yet site collaboration to make the standards effective and adoption successful. Too many state building standards from the corporate center out seems logical, but in reality so much knowledge is in the field and the need for capturing that experience back into standards is key. Plus the shift with standards away from a project DNA to more of “product” life-cycle DNA is key.

The important learning is that standards are part of a program, they part of learning, but return is significant now not just IT point of view but from an “Operational side” and this is where the significant economical returns are seen through operational consistency, and agility. Understand that standards is a program, clear understand the required governance to succeed long term, and investment up front with the field so the standards will be adopted. Combine this with clear kpis to understand the reason why your implementation a platform and standards so the value can be measured for the long term, as this is a long term initiative that must enable sustainable innovation.

Cost of Delay: Realtime Actionable Decisions Critical at all Layers in Industrial Operations

In a number of recent discussions with people when they have listened to sessions on the operational transform and the concepts of people and team transformation, they incorrectly feel the focus is only on the  “operator”. While the operator is the closest person to the “coal face” a fundamental concept of the operational transformation are the shifts to:

·         Actionable decisions performed as early as possible

·         Collaboration across the operational team in making the decision, and taking the action

·         Sharing of current situation and experience

·         Awareness of the situation as early as possible.

As seen in the diagram below if a situation is left then by the time it hits the weekly report even daily report the cost of the situation is significant.

Not all actions belong to the operator, some should be detected in control system, acted upon in that system, this is where apply some real time optimization tools is key like APC ( Advanced Process Control). Other actionable decisions may be on quality, safety issues or  maintenance issues that need to act upon early, and the escalation of the system should directly to the responsible role.

No longer is an alarming system good enough we need a intelligent notification system that brings awareness to responsible role, and immediate access on what ever device to the detail and ability to see situation and act.

The diagram below I talked about before but it continues to critical to understand that an alarm is “as is” situation, the cost of detection vs action is significant. The bottom axis is time, and the vertical axis is value/ cost. If we are able to move all roles to the “to be” state where decisions and actions are seen early and corrective best practice action is taken early.   

The cost of delay, unawareness is huge especially when cost is a measure of “operational continuity” and growing the production output. So when we talk about the Operational Transformation, the goal is to enable the operations to become more agile, and efficient, and this can only happen when business strategy / operational execution, and emergent situations are all acted upon is well “oiled real time machine” with each level role and application/ human acting in a timely manner, and consistent manner. 

Taking a Lead from the Human Body with Reducing risk through an Enterprise Nervous System for Industrial Architectures

For the last couple of weeks I have been travelling in what seems hundreds of meetings with many people. However, last week I had a number of presentations on the direction of Operational/Automation systems, and challengers of the 7 to 10 years.

Twice a question was asked around flat vs. layered architecture, similar question around one platform vs. multiple platforms.

•       Layers allow me to contain change

•       Layers allow me to manage complexity, divide and conquer

•       Inter-operable layers reduce technology lock-in and increase options for clients

•       Federated means lower level has autonomy but cannot violate higher level rules and principles.

Too often people put forward ONE platform/layer, but actually the world is made up of layers of information, interaction, and decisions. It is important to optimize across a layer, so interaction with the “things” at that layer is focused, efficient, and in context of that layer in content and time. As you transverse layers so does the context of information, the interaction between different “things” and complexity or focus change.

In the industrial automation/ operations control has it’s layers of executing with the different equipment components in the process unit, requiring speed and tight coupling. As we go up the layers to supervisory then MES and Information, the context changes, responsibility for decisions increases, but time context changes. The “things” interacting change, combined with more complex messages with more context.  

The diagram above illustrates some of the concepts between the natural layering in humans, and the corresponding concepts in industrial information systems, and the required isolation, focus of sectors is key.    

Bio-mimicry is an emerging science that adopts nature’s designs to solve human problems. Moreover, the concept of federation, which enables central coordination but local autonomy, is part of nature’s design for information management.

If we think about it – the human nervous system has over a billion neurons spread throughout the body to help control its various functions. If the brain had to deal constantly with a billion signals, it would “crash” the system. Thus, nature has designed a system where functions are layered in an architecture that helps create a robust sense-and-response mechanism.

Autonomous functions (layers) which have Interoperability is key for fast relevant actionable decisions to take place with the most efficiency. So why do we ask about one, when we should design in layers but understand the layers the context, things, and actions. But understand how the layers must be “loosely coupled but aligned” so that operational execution aligns with business strategy in near real time.