Final Post: The Journey of Data Transformation to Wisdom to Enable Smart Work

Visit my final post until determine new approach to engage.

http://operationalevolution.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/final-post-journey-of-data.html

Here is an extract, click over and review

A Culture of Empowerment: Problem Solving at Source

As we observe the world around us change, and more and more the focus shifts to a “new way to operationally work”, we see leading thought companies start introducing innovations in their culture.

One of these we now seen in two leading manufacturing companies who are shifting to the “New World of Work” and introducing not just technology but key cultural changes. One of these is the “Empowerment Culture” one of the strategies these companies is shifting the problem solving to the source.

This overcomes the delays in decisions through having decisions go up the tree by increasing the skill of the workers closer to action, and empowering them to be able to make decisions. This means skill development, embedding knowledge and experience in the system to help facilitate the correct timely decision.

The diagram below shows the structure 

This allows the different levels, roles, and time horizons to focus on their problem solving optimizing the overall operational agility.

The “edge” worker on the front line is performing situational problem solving relative to production and asset at the NOW.

The plant supervisor have a wider time horizon of hours, and is looking at the plan, and adjusting thru “Systemic” thinking.

While management is then left with the bigger picture of strategic thinking, and problem solving, setting the overall direction.

Now if all decisions came to management they would be ‘firefighting” not free to think strategically and often the decisions would be delayed effecting production, efficiency and safety.

Industry 4.0 Provides a Framework for Agile Manufacturing/ both Discrete and Process

Industry 4.0 is a relevant and significant shift in how industrial automation and operations management software is implemented and used to deliver significant business improvements.  However, it is too simplistic to directly apply the Industry 4.0 concepts to all manufacturing industries, or without considering industrial requirements which are not addressed by this activity.  The following is a set of viewpoints which are discussed in this white paper:

• Industry 4.0 is about the transformation from controlling focusing on process to “controlling the product/ order” and the “product/ order being self aware”.
• Industry 4.0 is about operations transformation, not about technology.
• Industry 4.0 provides a practical strategic framework for “lean” and “agile” industrial operations.
• Industry 4.0 addresses the needs of discrete and batch manufacturing, but it needs some adaptation for the heavy process and infrastructure industries.

Cloud computing and IT/OT convergence are often linked to implementing Industry 4.0, but these needs some adaptation to address “trustworthiness” of the architectures.  One emerging topic is Fog computing.

The functions and requirements of automation and operation management technology are even more relevant than before (contrary to some of the recent vendor claims).

Information standards such as IEC 61850/ISO9506, ISA-95/ISO62264, PRODML etc. are even more relevant than before .

Industry 4.0 is about the transformation from controlling focusing on process to “controlling the product/ order” and the “product/ order being self-aware”

See the full blog on:
http://operationalevolution.blogspot.com/

Blog : Shifted to New Location http://operationalevolution.blogspot.com/

You may have been wondering what has happened to blog.
They switched it to a new location, but many people seem to not have as access, or awareness.

So where is the new link: http://operationalevolution.blogspot.com/

Sorry for the confusion.

ISA-95 and Operations Transformation

Tyhe questions around S95 where and how to use continue to grow, especially as the guidance for operational system alignment, we though it was time to give an update.

The ISA-95 standard has been in place for over 20 years, and recent progress in operations management transformation and Cloud adoption have triggered questions about this standard.  The author offers an observation:

·         ISA-95 is essential for higher performing operations who are implementing sustainable improvements, in conjunction with best practices such as lean.

Higher performing operations often have the capability to achieve and sustain best practices which directly produce best business performance.  A key enabler to this improvement is exchanging operations knowledge in more detail and more frequently.  Examples include:

•          Tracking of containers in high-volume continuous food cooking, so that successfully cooked containers can be recovered after a machinery failure with compliant tracking and reporting.
•          Assessment and tracking of ore grades in mining from the pit to the port, including in the stock piles and in the rail cars, so that yields and prices can be optimized.
•          Assessment and tracking of chemical components in petroleum refining and petrochemical manufacturing, so that yields and costs can be optimized.
•          Detailed and accelerated distribution of new manufacturing instruction in consumer-packaged goods, food and beverage and discrete/aerospace manufacturing, so that new products can be introduced much faster.

Each of the above examples depend upon exchanging “insight” in great detail throughout the manufacturing/processing and its associated supply chain.  Lean principles can be reliably applied, including eliminating wasted work; specialists can reduce time spent on producing useful information and focus on continuous improvement.

ISA-95 provides an information exchange model, and standardizes how activities are defined and relate to each other, such as quality, inventory, maintenance, production and the notion of “work”.  Sets of information are exchanged as “events”, and the relationships between activities and events are standardized.  Without this information exchange model, knowledge workers don’t have a sustainable operations management system, and as a result, the organization doesn’t have sufficiently useful information.

How can architecture decisions be made?  Consider the following information model in light of the 3 implementation options summarized above:

Wherever these functions are implemented in different locations (with or without Cloud), what mechanisms are necessary for requirements such as “business continuity”, “access control” etc.?  How much context must be exchanged between sites and the Cloud to recover from network and Cloud outages?  Only an appropriately detailed and standardized information model can help.

ISA-95 focuses on the functions of operations management; it is independent of the implementation, including technology and location.  It is the foundation of high performance operations management transformation.

Operations Innovation & Transformation – Flexible Teams

The 4 quadrants described in the article “Operations Innovation & Transformation – the 4 Types” positions the lower right quadrant as a strategy for using a team of human assets in a new way.

In this quadrant, teams of specialists (with the same or different areas of specialization) are grouped to provide value improvement to a group of physical assets, and the group of physical assets can be used as a “fleet” or as a “chain”.  This is much more than a passive “help desk”.  One example is where specialists use real-time benchmarking and other tools, working with new business processes with the physical assets and the dedicated workers, to unlock value of themselves and the physical assets.

In the following diagrams, a team is located in different sites at the moment.  This example has 4 physical assets, A through D, and specialist 1 is mobile (working from a hotel, home or in an office within the enterprise), and specialist 3 is in an operations center.  In the left-hand diagram, specialist 1 is supporting or improving the performance of physical assets A and B, and specialist 3 handles the physical assets C and D.  In the right-hand diagram, a change in performance in asset B triggers a workflow and specialist 2, who is on call or is assigned by the team supervisor, handles asset B.  Specialist 1 does not receive workflows for asset B unless the team supervisor changes the assignments.  Overlapping assignments are also used, especially when multiple disciplines or specializations are involved.  Both use the same integrated and federated information, and these specialists become champions to help all like operations and equipment improve performance.

In the following diagram, a workflow “brings the work to the worker”, using the same integrated and federated information, on-line performance applications, and human workflow.  The supervisor(s) can easily change assignments, and the workflow can include escalation, which can be guided by the performance applications’ output compared to thresholds (simple calculations of time to reach a threshold).

The strength of these workflow is to help specialists intervene early enough, using standardized and trustworthy data, focused on trends.  This processing of information is automated as much as possible.

The specialists spend most of their time working on improvements instead of processing data and analyzing previous performance problems, and their decisions.  As a result, major overhauls are safely and reliably delayed, equipment performance is improved, and operators trust the equipment more to help increase performance at each physical asset.

Why is the (Level 2-3) platform key to the future state?

I seem to end up in many discussions between IT/OT, the convergence that is required in order to achieve today’s agility. It is really is the transition of existing operational / business systems from “open Loop” to “Closed Loop”. For many of us from the control world this is just extending the “closed loop” control approaches to the supervisory/ operational architectures, but with longer periods.

As stated many times we have 4 pillars of change occurring:

•        Demand Driven supply driving agility
•        Changing work force to a Dynamic/ collaborative workforce
•        Changing Workspace and process “way of working”
•        Changing technologies with Big data/ Internet of things

Driving the creation of integrated, flexible platform that bridges knowledge management, and information / decision support, while naturally absorbing change through Model Driven Architectures.

The key is applications, and capabilities will constantly evolve, change, this should not restrict the agility of the system to adopt through a platform allows new processes and loops to be put in place, but easily adopted.

The shift to closed loops where a “process” is applied to reducing variation in the speed a decision is made vs the action that is taken, and that the execution of these processes can be monitored and tuned even if it just executed across humans. Correct action maybe improving the transfer of “knowledge” so people or systems involved in the process execution have the knowledge to make the decision and act in a timely manner.  

The required platform between automation/ and business must eliminate:

•        Silos of information and control/ elimination of disconnects.
•        Elimination of disconnects thru contextualization across systems so transparency of understanding can achieved across systems.
•        Elimination of delays thru aligned kpis and targets and decision across the different levels of business control. Removing isolation of decisions and actions through integrated bossiness and control loops.

This does not mean we replace existing automation and operational systems, it means we applying new technologies to federate systems where possible, into a hybrid solution thru standards, and managed processes that can be evolved over time. 

Holacracy a New Way of Work can it Apply in Industrial Operational Space

I have spent the weekend listening a reading more on Holacracy, (http://www.holacracy.org/) and attended a training two weeks ago. While the concepts are familiar to me in that it follows the AGILE Software thinking and approach to putting a framework in place that enable :

·         Agility through understanding where you are and what you have to do so you can make changes

·         That enables empowerment of the team, individuals

·         The distribution of authority to enable empowerment to execute

The whole approach makes total sense to the new operational transformation environment, and I believe could be applied to manufacturing. Providing a framework for the more efficient execution, planning of work across an organization.

If you look at the Agile case studies from John Deere where they applied agile , top to bottom the results speak for them selves:

While agile is applied in the software work, what we seeing in industrial operations, is not a transformation in technology (yes it is being enable by technology) but it really is a transformation in the way companies plan, execute, work. This work could be planned work from a business side, to work generated on the plant that needs to followed up a resolved, shifting workers from an average of 35% planned work in a day to greater than 70%.

Holacracy and Agile are systems that transform the way in which work is planned, and executed, with constant empowerment of people to change and evolve the system.

As I look into both frameworks and try to apply them in my own life, I cannot see why they would be a possibility for transformation of culture to achieve better work in the industrial work space.

It is important to note both systems are aligned and they are a framework, they require discipline and execution within the framework to enable the agility. Too often in manufacturing and the industrial space people put technology and systems in as “silver bullets” and expect them to solve everything. But they are only tools, there needs to be an operational cultural transformation as well and combined you gain real change.

If you have not heard about Holacracy and are looking at a transformation in the way your company works have a look at it.  http://www.holacracy.org/, there are many You tubes and discussions on it!

What kind of a “driver” should the front-line worker be in the factory of the future?

This is a question I get asked a lot, and it is valid question. With the change roles, changing scopes of responsibility, and changing demographic / way of working, certainly the generic roles of the past 20 years will not work.

But getting back to the “driver” type of the future no matter role. So many people say why not eliminate drivers and humans all together, nothing new this is “lights out manufacturing” but is it practical. I believe not and the reason is the demanding world of today which demands change. 

Certainly where we have consistent planned know execution automation makes the whole sense, but :

•         our product run sizes are reducing
•          product change overs are increasing
•          new product introduction is increasing
•          Agility is key

The ability to absorb and handle change in operations, products and personal is becoming foundational in our operational system of the future.

The above diagram shows the two sides of the thinking, but the key is you have change on the left, and in the pilot actually  is a combination of “automated and human” capability to provide the effectiveness. Most of the flying activities are automated, freeing up the pilot to work the strategy and situation to apply quick, situation-ally aware actions to control to combat the situation.

In manufacturing our productivity has been increasing significantly as seen below, for a period it tracked human compensation, but in 70’s this changed and productivity continue to rise, but not compensation. You might ask "as what do you mean" this curve is relative to team / role, what has happened in the 70s to 2000s we have increased automation, and increased the scope and work a worker covers for the same compensation. 

But this is going to take another step as the low hanging fruits have been taken, with DCS, robotics and PLCs etc. Now how can you increase alignment and decisions so you achieve that level 5 of automation levels that of “Manage by Exception”. This will require a new level of embedded knowledge, community collaboration, and augmented human interpretation.

Standby as we transition the “Driver” from Semi Manual to an Augmented Pilot, where we can easily move "pilots" between plans (plants) and not loose efficiency, and agility to absorb/ combat change! 

Imagining the possible – if we didn’t have the burden of IT legacy

For years organization, IT infra structure/ architecture have caused silos, and boundaries to be set up between departments and different levels in an organization. The IT/ OT convergence of has been driving to integrate or break these down, but too often it is gluing the existing structure and with this comes a lot of the limitations of the original structure.

Many IT systems have institutionalized the “pyramid and boxes” design…along with its fundamental design flaws that are at the root cause of our integration challenges. The different streams have different time, different context, different language. This drives the glue to how to map these different context/ time slices etc.

Imagine if we took a different approach of “integrated digital streams” aligned centered on the product/ service for the customer/ market. Imagine if you could have a system as shown below:

From static silos of data (low-res snapshots) to integrated digital streams (high-res movies), where the streams of data are aligned , captured for one goal of competitive delivery. 

This requires a different thinking to the traditional IT, and too often when engaging customers they are struggling with gaining this operational agility, often hamstrung by the traditional organization/ and It structures. 

The diagram above provides a vision of if we were freed to think of solutions outside today's boundaries.

New World of Work will be center to Factory of the Future

Last week at a conference, a couple of my colleagues and I had the opportunity sit and debate the changing world order that will make the “factory of the future”. The three of us are involved in the major opportunities we see in the market and it provides us the real opportunity to engage with companies with transformation plans, and engage with thought leaders. We decided to approach the discussion of the future factory by approaching it from different industries, as well as markets.

Sure enough we ended up aligned on the core to the “factory of the future” will around what two companies labeled “New World of work”. I have mentioned this many times in this blog around “smart operational work”.

We were able group companies who looked at the future thru "new technologies" and how they could apply them, (I seem to visited a number of this type in the last month) vs those companies that we believe will be the leaders with the successful approach of “how they must operation, work” in the new world.

We defined the new world means the next 5 to 10 years with characteristics of:

•       Brand loyalty at customer reducing, so “Brand Promise” is key
•        Agility to satisfy is key
•        Shrinking mid tier market as the larger companies continue to consolidate to address the supply of new products and service markets. (especially in consumer products).
•        Dynamic workforce where workers rotate locations/ roles, experience in a role will be less than 2 years.
•        Supply chains with limited inventory requires transparent/ agile manufacturing across the sites.
•        “Constant Change” in assets, process, people, products is the natural state in the 2020.

The diagram below is an interesting on Agility:

The Sense of time shortening causing the decisions, lifetimes of products and lines and roles getting for ever shorter. The ability to rapidly introduce, change in not just product but also delivery, and supply is key in order to satisfy.

The fact that each of us engaging different industries such as oil and gas / process, to consumer manufacturing saw the core catalyst the leading companies have identified as the transformation in the way their company must react, capture and execute work. Shifting from isolated plants, and people to teams of plants and people that work as an aligned operational team to achieve a goal.

The “New world of Work” is fundamental built on :

• New ways of working with dynamic workers that share, collaborate and are connected but assume experience from the system, they trust the system
• New Processes around agility, new product  introduction that leverage the skills and approach of the “digital Native” collaborative worker, combined with new technologies to enable new processes and operational awareness. The ability to see situations early, continue to learn, and act fast to changing conditions is key.
• New technologies provide the opportunity to deliver these new ways of working, with new processes. The likes of leveraging the data, through “big data” to use the past to determine the future in a natural manner. The industrial internet of things (industry 4.0) will enable smart devices providing new levels of embedded autonomy in machines and processes, shifting workers to “exception based” management, but with greater responsibility.

The diagram below shows this shift, which will require different tools and approaches.

So as you look at your plans, are you stepping back and looking at the way you will work, then understanding the profile of operational team, how they will developing the processes to satisfy this work and required agility, and then looking at what technology you can leverage to accelerate the success in a sustainable and evolutionary way. This last comment is key as the natural state of the new world is one of “change” and the systems and culture must be able “master” naturally.

Is the day of User Guides / Manuals coming to end as Learning and Guides Merge???

I constantly work across teams, and companies, and listen now to challenge of the “dynamic workforce” that is rotating on sites and the challenge of “knowledge management/ transfer” constantly raises it’s self.

I was going to do a this weeks blog on a different topic, but a call this morning and one yesterday from engineering partners and customers around “knowledge transfer” and need to reduce the “time to experience” constantly comes up.  So I decided to chat about this challenge.

We have it within product development, how to transfer knowledge to field and set learning just does not work, so “self service” “E Learning is the big thing. But what the engineering house wanted to discuss was about their traditional project documentation, as they feel they waste a lot of time on documents that get out of date, and in many cases are not used.

This is again the same debate we have internally and I read in the forums as the traditional “User Guides” are giving way to videos, and then people debate what is the difference between E Learning, and user guides.

The question was asked why can’t our user question experience be short e learning's, and then if you have someone who wants to end to end learning these short E learning's and structured for a logical flow.

This is certainly where the software market is going, and seems logical for the Solution market. As the solutions developed on stand product need to evolve to solutions, the “learning experience” has to shift to in line, and native.

We have seen out operator training systems accelerate the retention, of data, and process for success. Shift to experiment and hands on, visual experience has an impact. This leads to the discussion of if video, recordings, , embedded simulation cases need to be part of the knowledge system.

Without a doubt “knowledge transfer” in our dynamic world is key, and maintaining the value of knowledge in a form that can easily consumed.

What is required is a knowledge system that:

·       Enables natural access in the context

·       Access remotely on different devices

·       Ability to easily add new knowledge and information.

·       Knowledge Management is key to tune, clean up knowledge, so the system is effective 5/ Rich search ability

The key here is an open system that enables crowd sourcing of information from many different roles, from within the company and from outside, but those who can contribute. The challenge in the industrial world traditionally contribution from roles was limited, this was due to main reasons;

·       The culture and atmosphere have not promoted the sharing, contribution

·       The systems did not enable natural, easy contribution, to one place that enables effective information.

Both of these factors are in transformation:

·       The systems / technologies are now available for knowledge, information systems to common, and easy to use and contribute. A notable example is Wikipedia that has millions of people contributing, and millions using. Key is it is simple to add new and extend knowledge posts from where ever you are. But they have a common hosted system, and they have a team of people reviewing and managing the information, so the system' s value is maintained. But I doubt the “word” is the best mode for rapid intake.

·       The culture of gen y is decidedly different to baby boomer even early gen x, they naturally search, share and contribute. Without this cultural transformation,  the concepts of Wikipedia and Facebook would not have worked, and grown to become such a natural part of the modern lifestyle.

It is time that the concepts of a Wikipedia / Youtube capability become a natural part of the industrial landscape, where the tagging of knowledge can provide the context and linkage with the supervisory system. The supervisory system must naturally call this knowledge system, passing context, and the natural ability to contribute and search.

All operational people no matter device should feel, like they do on Facebook, to add comment, capture events, capture experience from the system, and tag with context to increase search ability and use.

So will we have user guide/ solution manuals or will evolve to online learning, that is adhoc, and evolving vs a “snapshot” in time.

Operational Continuity Foundation is Rapid / Early Decisions by Systems and People.

I was involved in an interview last week for an article in a magazine, like so many of these we had an expectation of the subject the editor wanted but as started it was clear that subject and expectations where different. 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.

It did not take long for us to evolve the conversation into the number the main things companies must harness:

• 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). 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 dis engage 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.

This comes back to conversation I started last week around “Achieving Consistent and Right Results in an Agile World” and the need for systems that have both:

• Embedded knowledgeand experience: key in this system is have a culture and system that naturally enables knowledge to captured and arranged, managed to be current and while native consumption of this knowledge is simple.
• Augmented Collaboration of Experience: That in this dynamic world the need for a community of human assets of different experience in role and locations to contribute naturally to a decision in real time, augmenting the embedded knowledge. 

This calls for a system that enables people and systems, all of different levels of capability, and experience to work in coordinated way to reach a decision and act. The above diagram is a simple one of the core items of Action orientated Augmentation system.

Unconditional to success is:

• Detect the situation requiring attention as early as possible, pin pointing the location and cause as best as we can. The traditional alarm, “as is” is too late. This does not apply just to process situations but also operational/ supply chain situations that effect “Operational Continuity”.
• Understanding:This means the right person, or people, or system is notified with the required context of the situation. To often transitional systems are application based, so you alarm to control room, or SCADA system. There needs to shift to notify to people and roles, with acknowledgement of acceptance so that correct people are investigating and acting. Yes this will mean systems require unique logons, and shift to named users as people will be connected more, across applications and devices, and accountability in a team situation is fundamental so tasks do not get dropped. But core to understanding is the ability not to be just notified but to investigate, from the provided context the situation based on the workers experience, to collaborate fast with peers, and contribute an opinion.
• Decide: Based on the incoming opinions from systems, and people, and raid decision can be determined based upon experience, knowledge, and technology. The decision could be made by a system or person based upon the inputs.
• Actions: The appropriate actions and process to resolution can then taken across people (one or many) and across systems.

All the way along the system will rapidly manage the process of detect, understand, decide and act, and then track the success and increase the embedded knowledge. 

This is not a question of a new technology like "big data" it is about having a framework that works across your operational landscape to empower people, and systems to leverage existing knowledge and experience to evolve the Operational Success of the company.

Achieving Consistent and Right Results in an Agile World

As Sunday draws to a close, I sit out looking over to pacific the waves crash, and birds fly, it is my time of reflection.

Last week I talked about some of the observations from the last month on the road. But this week I debated with a number of thought leaders and we all aligned on the challenge of a dynamic workforce, and dynamic operational/ business environment, means that chance of “Lights out Manufacturing “ are slim.

One company I was engaged with last week their thought pattern was still about replacing the personal 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, and

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.

That they needed to design their systems and people to play “natively in the dynamic world”, and they have realized that “embedded Intelligence and knowledge” will be key and must grow proportionally with increasing data. They also realized that with agility comes the changing operational environment and situations which will require “augmented intelligence” with the human brain can work out. 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.

Leading to natural decisions, and action paradigm across the team as seen below. I will expand on this more next week.

On the Road Discovering and Listening: Again Operational Work Transformation Leads the change

Sorry, I have not been home for a month, and need to just listen to what people are trying to do, explore new opportunities.
While I found many new thought leaders, and opportunities, when you investigated the core goal, outcome of the project or theme of the people it was a "CHANGE IN WORK EXECUTION".

Much of what I have written about over the last year came up over and over again. Very few people articulated the project as a transformation in the way they work, but when you applied "Outcome Driven Innovation techniques" it was clear two things where happening:

• They wanted to execute a "functional job" faster and more consistently now moving to that job decision and action been taken by a community / circle of people.
• 
  
• They expected more jobs to executed by the same team, and in the same period, this aligned with the increased responsibility that operational teams where taking on.

Again the driving strategies and challengers people where seeing are:

•  Transparency with trust to see/ understand the current situation of the operational landscape across sites as if one operational plain. Note the word trust, this particularly was on data and information, moving away from local excel, or reports to trusted data that is in context and validated.
• 
  
• Embedded Experience/ knowledge to enable faster decisions but more importantly consistent actions across a changing demographic of workforce.

But an interesting point came up a couple of weeks ago in discussion or capturing knowledge, one group made clear that "embedding experience and knowledge into the system was the ultimate goal" but that this was not reality, and that Augmented Experience will come from a combination :

• Embedded knowledge and experience, but it was clear that this was not just a system, but the culture of workers contributing in context regularly is a major step in the knowledge journey for companies.
• But also a "community of experts, contributors" who can be tapped into in real time. They are able to see the situation in real-time, in context and with trust on what they seeing, and can then apply their own experience to enabling the decision. This again needs new thinking in how to enable, and culture to work in teams.

While this is not new to this blog it was good to continue to validate as I traveled, driving the energy needed to create potential solutions for this space.  
  

Operations Innovation & Transformation – Fleet Management

We saw the expansion of control system, operation system extending beyond the fall walls of plant(fixed plant), in mining, oil and Gas, and Food and Beverage, and a month into this year we have this trend growing. The challenge being placed is how can we bring, apply the same approach found on fixed plant to fleet, or mobile plant. This blog takes a look at the network of fleet management across plants, next week we need to move to mobile plant.

  

The 4 quadrants described in the article “Operations Innovation & Transformation – the 4 Types” positions the lower left quadrant as a strategy for using a “fleet” of physical assets in a new way.

In this quadrant, a group of similar industrial operations (2 or more) adapt their performance objectives, business processes and accompanying hiring and information strategies to optimize the “fleet”.  The move is to unifying the industrial enterprise over multiple sites (in groups or as a whole), with a more holistic view in terms of operating strategy and performance management.

This innovation can be limited by the distribution flexibility among the locations, but several corporations have achieved success with this.  One example is keeping most of the locations operating at a constant or “base” portion of the combined market demand, and using the more agile locations to deliver the “swing” or variable portion of the demand.  Another example is allowing all locations to serve their local markets without contribution from any other of the “fleet”, but they all adapt their operations to meet a shared performance objective, such as yield or efficiency.

A key method used to sustain this strategy is the increased automation of work.  This is a significant step beyond scorecards, dashboards or rigid workflows.  The following 2 examples show how real-time performance measures (different from traditional KPI’s) and proactive procedural automation sustain this differentiation:

•  A “fleet” of similar industrial operations have some distribution flexibility so that they can deliver a portion of each other’s market demand.  Each operation delivery point and each operating shift for that segment are benchmarked with the others, and all delivery points and their shift performance carry a real-time performance score.  Some delivery points are more agile, and some operator shifts have fewer errors than others (quality, over/under delivering, reworks).

Coordinators (different industries have different names for this function) use workflows to negotiate upcoming changes in demand and the operating shift and the coordinators use the same visual demand, using a “tram line” display.  Information to the right of the center dashed line is forecast and planned.

•          A “fleet” of similar industrial operations within a single location or nearby locations has distribution flexibility, but they only share in real-time benchmarking (such as efficiency) and online performance guidance.  The following is an example when all physical assets are used, with equal output at this point in time:

• All of the physical assets share real-time benchmarking performance on efficiency and availability.  Now consider what can happen differently when supply or demand changes suddenly, such as an unplanned outage within the industrial operation or within a client’s operation:

In the left-hand diagram, losing capacity can cause all of the “fleet” to shut down, if fast and accurate guidance isn’t available and used to either import capacity (if feasible) or negotiate reductions in demand with one or more of the customers.

In the right-hand diagram, a client’s unplanned outage causes some or all of the “fleet” to operate in zones which might be unstable and trigger unplanned outages, if fast and accurate guidance isn’t available and used to either shut down one of the physical assets or export some of the product (at a discounted price).

Composite Frameworks What are They, the shift to Model Driven vs Custom: How do they Play?

As we look at MES and Operational solutions the role of the consistent operational execution and experience is key to achieving operational consistency. No matter the product at the back end the "operational experience" must be role based and transverse the products in the back end, and transform the experience from application configuration to "task/activity" based experience.

Traditionally companies have built User Interfaces to an API, with the calls needed to execution actions and transactions; these have worked well especially within a plant. But a key to operational systems being effective and agile is their ability to adapt on a regular basis, this requires a sustainable and evolving system. This is especially important in form/ transaction activities where information is provided and where actions/ data input, and procedures  that need to be carried out. But the challengers of operational procedures:

1. Operational Process cross-over functional domains and applications
2. Lack of governance
3. AgilityResponsive manufacturing business processes
4. Increase the performance of their people assets
5. Too much Custom Code, making it unmanageable and evolutionary

So like the Business System who started introduce BPM (Business Process Modeling) leading companies in the industrial space are looking and asking why they cannot apply the same techniques in the Industrial/ production sector.

There is no reason why not! Yes the time line is more real time, triggers are real-time, and we many roles with different time dimensions. But this also aligns with what the industrial world is very comfortable world with that of “stable in control loops” we do this in automation with feedback (information) and correction (actionable procedures), what we are looking at are “operational loops”.

Providing a graphical configuration environment for the capture and defining of operational process including the validation of data input, and guide actions, working inline with the user Interface/ forms etc. Providing a framework for building of reusable forms, and reusable procedures that can be managed as templates and standards to enforce consistent operational practices. Empowering the operational domain people to develop, evolve and manage their procedures.

Most of all empowering the different roles in the plant, that operational close loop moving to an “activity” centric system where information, and action is driven from a consistent operational model and practices.

Does the concept of Con-Current Licensing have a place in modern Operational Solutions?

Concurrency licensing has always been a request for clients, especially in reporting and view clients. Allowing the “pooling” of a set of licenses that are used on a first come basis. Often a very effective way of buying licenses at usage cost.

This makes a lot of sense in the transitional systems and architectures where people really only accessed the system when at work and within the 8 to 5 pm working day.

But a discussion last week with a customer who struggling with the shift to people being connected “all the time” thru their mobile devices and even connected when at home. Even if they not working, the new generation under 45 expect to be able to go online, and connect to the plant, system and access some “insight” to make or support a  decision. They do not expect to go online and find a message that there are no available licenses, wait for someone to free up a license.

The IT department is still asking for con-currency as a cost effective way of buying licenses, but the operational officer I talking with was struggling with the reality that they needed the “Named User” license allocated to a person no matter where he is and allowing the user to be connected to multiple devices at the same time.

Another challenge with the traditional licensing he is finding is that the users do not logout, or disconnect before leaving work, so their desktop at work is still connected, but now they are remote in the plant, or outside the plant and need to access thru their mobile. So the modern approach needs to apply of allowing multiple connections for a user at any one time.

What fascinated me was that this was reality, we have been going down this path for a while, expecting the change, and it was interesting that this customer wanted to talk about new models, to suite the new world.  

Food for thought as you design the new "operational System". 

Closing the “Last Mile” of Efficiency

Performance Management holds different priorities for corporate management and plant-level stakeholders. Corporate stakeholders tend to emphasize technologies that provide visibility so they care more about the “I” as in Manufacturing “Information” Systems. In contrast, plant-level stakeholders tend to emphasize technologies that provide control so they care about the “E” as in Manufacturing “Execution” Systems (MES) capabilities. These two perspectives converge when both stakeholders realize the need for an integrated approach to tackle the “last mile of efficiency.”

What we have observed is that the vast majority of companies have put in place good practices. Although many of these practices are largely manual or paper-based, they have made progress in their efforts to reduce waste. But these paper-based processes often “hit a wall” when they reach the 90% mark on the three “OEE pillars” because losses at this point often result in “micro-stoppages” that are akin to profits “bleeding by a thousand paper cuts.” Two core challenges must be addressed: Knowing (seeing events in context) and Acting (to recover in a timely manner.)

When companies approach this “last mile” threshold, it changes how they view the scope of the solution because they realize visibility (even if it is real-time) isn’t enough – real-time control is equally important to enable real-time KPI management via a closed-loop process. Specifically, work process integration becomes critical to empower front-line workers to “fix problems at the source” as illustrated below:

We have found that there is “maturity” journey that companies go on in order to achieve efficiency.  We developed the following framework as our internal assessment – it is meant to give an idea of where a company could be in their evolution.

Too often companies are not align on where they are relative to systems, culture, and alignment between the different aspects of the company.

Performance Management Maturity Model

As we have stated many times Operational Excellence is not a project it is journey, and we have found having a framework built on experience as the best way set up the path for companies.

Where do you fit in this maturity road. 

2016 the turning point in the Operational Work Transformation!!

Will this statement stand true to the operational execution world we live in, probably only time will tell, but based on the trends I outlined at the end of 2015, and looking forward I believe 2016 provides the opportunity.

By the way, welcome to 2016 may it be an exciting and productive year!

The holiday break it provides a time to reflect and discuss, and in one conversation my last blog was raised and really “how much transformation was happening?” Initially, I thought it was a comment against the trend we are seeing with the “Operational Transformation”, but this was a friend working in a major food manufacturing company. His comment was actually the momentum of change is well underway, and happening at increasing pace.

There were 4 areas that he felt his business and associated industry where trying grapple with to stay ahead:

1/ Agility of effective, valued productsand brands to the market (which he stated was regional, eg specific tastes of similar products changed by region and so your go to markets, packaging, etc. His example was around cheese how the tastes in say Mexico for cheese are totally different to Australia, and then Italy. This leads the increased importance of regional new products vs global new products, and effective speed and cost of innovation, execution and introduction.. So the challenge of “new product Innovation” and then “New Product Introduction” and delivering it to the market at the correct margin to be competitive in timely manner is a whole focus. His comment was this is the core competitive advantage that his company identifies, and must keep driving while dealing with the other transformations happening.    

2/ Operational Workforce transformation: He agrees with me that too much focus has been on the “aging workforce issue” and that most of HR and Operational teams have missed the bigger transformation, and that is the one of new generation work methods and transformation in workspace that goes with it. He felt like his company woke up to this mid way thru last year when they could not just not fill positions, but are having significant challenges in retaining talent, not within the company but in roles. He felt like initially people thought that would just get a transition to a new workforce yes younger of different experience. But they had not realized that way in which people will work, think, interact, and gain satisfaction will also change.

3/ “Planet Awareness, Image”: this one was an interesting discussion, as he raised it as a real strategy for evolving the brand of the company to been seen as proactive to the environment, to attract further “feeling satisfaction” of customers. He also stated that government regulation, and increasing costs of disposing of waste, and energy costs also are now seen a significant bottom line costs, and must be managed more efficiently. But during this discussion, it was also clear that the perception of being “proactive to the environment” in use of energy, carbon footprint, environment etc was also a key strategy for attractive talent to work in the company.

4/ Transparency across the total product value chain, “end to end”. This strategy was about tractability and making sure they happy with brand all the way to customer, but also about cost as they were “outsourcing” increasing amounts of the value chain. But this did not mean they lost responsibility for product while in “outsourced manufacturing partners” execution. The transparency across the supply chain enables increased flexibility and lower costs through inventory reduction.

These 4 strategies are combined with the current strategies to increase plant performance utilization and lower cost of materials through waste /loss reduction.

When you sit back and look at these strategies a constant set of pillars came up in the Operational Solution approach:

·       Everyone having access to information and knowledge no matter their state or location, this means internet becomes a part of the solution backbone.

·       Cyber Security is very much top of mind, both in strategy to secure,  manage, to contain cost and risk.

·       Data validation/ and contextualization, if transparency and faster decisions are required how do you gain consistent information across different sites. \

·       Delivering a new “operational Workspace/ experience” that has embedded knowledge that does not get stale, and enables imitative learning for a dynamic and collaborative workforce.

As the night conversation went on it was clear that the 4 strategies was really about changing the way in which the company manages and executes operational work, no matter how big or small. But becoming in control of not just the planned product work, but the day to day, minute to minute work at the different levels of the operational loop.

Based on the trends of 2015, this long conversation, I wonder if we will see 2015 as the year people recognized that needed to rethink how they handling “Operational Work”. With 2016 becoming the year where momentum continues to grow on projects turning to programs, that span plants, and value chain and an increasing amount of companies put teams, strategies and programs in place to evolve their operations to transform the way handle “operational Work”!

You might ask what about “big data” and the “internet of things” but these are technologies that will be part of the enabling system for a  new operational solution.