How Real are we Treating the State of Connectivity in Your Operations relative to Success of the Business?

Control over your business across different sites, the supply chain, and targeted markets is key to survival. Control ensures that you are delivering the correct “Rights” in order to maintain the “shelf space” therefore access to the customers and market position and potential growth.

But as time moves forward the requirement for control over a wider value chain, and tighter control is key, and becoming critical. This directly relates to the “connectivity” within your business especially over the “value chain” including supply chain, manufacturing/ production, and then distribution. With increased regulations set by government, or the public/ market, brand integrity is core as brand loyalty has gone.

Consistency in decisions, consistency in actions, real-time awareness drives the operational world towards “self aware” production, and “self Aware” products that enable the timely awareness and action.

Connectivity means real-time alignment between People at all levels, with focus, and the value chain assets relative to their current production/ operation. The diagram below shows how the world is changing how control is becoming key, yet if connectivity and that means not data but “knowledge” and "Wisdom" is key.

Will you let opportunities pass, due to un-awareness, or the inability to be agile even if you do have the data, can you act on it with the current operational systems or operational culture?

In mining, oil and Gas we seeing strategies with the “integrated operational centers” to take a paradigm shift in the operational connectivity between the key functions like planning, experts and operational control over multiple assets by putting them in a common room. No longer is it a call, or meeting, in real-time people can cross the room and talk, review each others situation, call small adhoc decision meetings. The returns have been significant, when you then combine this with “trusted data” and total transparency in real-time in context across the Value Chain decisions can be made.

Take that one step further with a “self aware” system, that knows what it is meant to be doing, at what efficiency and safety level, and can see into immediate operational future through embedded simulation, that the system can draw awareness to critical decisions that can be acted on. If the system knows the collaboration it requires to move to a resolution and maintain operational continuity then it can interact with other systems, key people in real time with the correct context of their contribution.

Can we not deliver this, can we competitive without connectivity?

Transforming the way should view integration?

Even though this seems to be clear the levels of worker engagement, but in many cases the true impact on the solution design has not been considered. I thought the diagrams below introduced the concepts of integration in relation to worker empowerment. These are very important in design for the “new world of work” or “smart Work”, too many of us talk mobility, or delivery anywhere, this should be just assumed in the system, not a feature.

There are important distinctions of how we should view about integration, not to actual connection but relative to how that integration will be used by the worker/ users. Too often we look at integration on how the linkage is happening, but there are key requirements on the integration based upon user. 

Data Integration, the users expects to see the access to data across all systems/ sources in a transparent access with assumed reliability.

Process Integration: Is the data is transformed into information relative context to asset, and process at the time in a trusted form, but is presented in an open loop dashboard as decision support.

Performance Integration: Data as been transformed into context driven information for decisions, but now aligned to activities of the time, place and role, so that actionable decisions can be taken. But key to a closed loop actionable decision is timely delivery of knowledge, and associated actions, with accountability, this will in many cases require collaboration in order to accelerate the repeatable actionable decisions.

Again so many of the discussions in designing systems for the next 10 years a beyond are shifting from applications, to “activities” that will be required to deal with new work no matter if engaging with human assets, capital assets or applications. The above discussion on re thinking “integration” relative to how the results of that integration will be used aligns with transformation in solution design.

What are the hurdles to Real-Time Operational Excellence?

I see a significant increase in “operational Transformable projects” , but too often it is talk, or dreaming, and when we discuss the ideas people like, but they really miss the challenge. Too often they fall back into the traditional approaches can we get access to information, through reports and dashboards. 

Born out of the frustration to gain the transparency to “what is going on NOW”. Yes it is a journey for “operational excellence “ and it will not be done once or ever over in this ever “speeding , agile world”.

Taking a step back and understanding the hurdles to getting to “Managing by Exception”. I thought the image below simplified the discussion.

Understand where you are, and set a vision of where you want to be, and this goes back to shift towards “activities” design vs application or even role.

Above you can see how not having the data in context, or even accessible is key, this is seen in the two bottom challengers. As one customer said last week, how do eliminate cleaning data every 3 months. The answer is simple, capture data as close to the source, validate and structure it as close to source as possible, so now you are storing valuable, trusted information, and you can depend upon it.
But now you have the information people put it into reports, and dashboards, for decisions to be made, but did it get to correct person, did it get decided upon in timely manner, why it did not escalated, or collaborated to accelerate the decision. The system must provide this framework for escalation, and ability ask/ share.

With the changing roles, and people on plants, and the horizontal structure, do we know the decision was made, “accountability” is important when something is sent. Too often tradition alarms, notifications have no accountability, the only way a team works is that they understand their role, and responsibility for decisions.

Then you come to final hurdle “what do I do having made the decision”? This needs to consistent processes across different workers of different experience. Also the system has to shift to a “crowd sourcing” culture of continuous improvement and everyone is empowered to contribute.

This may seem so simple but it is fundamental to the “transformation in Work” yet so many programs are missing these basics.

I will follow this up next week again on why “People and Processes” are key to take the automation to the next level.

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”.

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.    

Real time information Platform vs. traditional historian, Why it is Key to Pushing “Actionable Decisions”, foundational to the “Industrial Internet of Things” and Empowering the Teams.

Again last week I was presenting to a set industrial companies in water, food, and mining, and the topic of a "real time information platform" many questions.

My immediate answer is “what are you trying to do? " " who are the users targeted to interact with the system, and what decisions and actions are they expected to take?". These last two questions usually leave a complex blank expression on people's faces.

Many are engineers who have been asked to investigate, and they centered on the traditional approach of a "data centric" historian centered  world, leading with a technology strategy. The question of what people will use the data for, what roles and actions to be taken are secondary in their minds! 

Why is this when if someone had wanted a "historian" they would have asked for it. So why a platform, what does real time mean, and key is information.

It all comes back to one of the quadrants we talk about in the "operational transformation" around networking a series of assets, plants into a a "trusted" information system. That "actionable decisions" can be taken by a ever increasing community of operational people across the operational landscape.

To me it is understanding this community of consumers and what their requirements, uses are is key:

1. What activities, decisions, and actions they are expected to take?
2.  Their roles, skills, and approach is their time frame, location relative to the data
3. Their context and understanding of the plant, asset or process in question, as their is a growing trend of highly educated skilled people on assets, process. With little or no practical experience on the asset, and more than likely will not have visited site.

On investigations you find you have the traditional process engineers, who need the trend analysis and discovery of potential improvements. 

However, there is a growing tribe of people who need to make actionable operational decisions. They will not monitor the system must best "self-aware, and living" (exception based) capture the data, transformation  it into information.  Apply experience and knowledge, clear understanding of the situation, and what are typical actions with "best operational process" provided to take action.

This is very different to everything getting data stored and then extracted, yes in this new world there is history as it provides the history for reliable knowledge and basis for wisdom or " application knowledge".

The real key is the change in approach from “predictive to prescriptive” which embeds the “actionable decisions into the model. Empowering the operational team, no matter the location or experience with decisions and associated actions.

Understanding this maturity curve and evolution is what we see as foundational to the success of “industrial Internet of Things”. Through the embedded practices provides a basis for the changing workforce to act and make decisions in a timely manner.

However, these two communities in the industrial landscape are interlocked for success. The two communities are:

• Community 1: Process, performance, optimization team that accesses the data with trending, analysis, and predictive tools. Identifying the trends, conditions by applying their experience combined with “big data” techniques allows these conditions, to be seen in the “to be state”. If captured in a managed configuration framework, that will allow roll-out over sites and sustainable evolution. These become embedded into the system, for adoption by the operational team.

• Community 2: Operational Team: This is the dynamic team, from roaming people on the plant to central operational teams, to virtual expert teams, collaborating together in real time to enable “actionable decisions” no matter role, location, and experience.

The diagram below shows the this maturity of capturing this “applied knowledge” as Managed “Actionable Discussions” that interact with people, assets and process as key, very different a traditional historian approach.

The “Real Time Information Platform” provides a real-time "living" model that is self-aware that captures validates the data with rules aware of it is current state. Storing this data in context and rules and calculations in that provide motivation, embedded operational process, and awareness to correct people. Fundamental is the "trust" worthiness of the information, without impacting current automation systems. The ability to have sustainable evolution and scalability, through managed components that represent the assets and processes (actionable decisions) to the model is available on storage side in history and real-time.

You cannot do this with Historian (data centric) architecture and solution. Make sure you looked at who the communities of users you are satisfying now and in the immediate future?

Effective Situational Awareness (Actionable Decisions) requires “Engineers to evolve to Artists.”

Industrial situational Awareness is a key concept for the future of supervisory/ operational systems. Moving beyond ASM (abnormal situational Management standards) which have had mixed success, not due to standard, but due to implementations. Understanding this subtle difference in implementation is when we start talking “engineers evolving to an artistic, human factor aware.”

This image shows a traditional process screen with photo like images, and the right hand image shows the intensity of eye focus based upon color and drawings. The issue is the awareness of the alarms up the top or indication symbols up the top are lost, this is where the ASM brings a cleaner view, as seen in the image below where this same screen has been evolved to ASM. Yet even that design can be improved.

Last week we had the Australian User Conference combining old Invensys and Schneider Electric, many productive discussions. However, one that stood out was with a college Rik De Smet around the effective situational awareness. Rik like me has been involved in a number of operational centers most notably one in Oman across 70 existing DCS systems . Where the project applied ASM (Abnormal Situational Management concepts) but derived from human factor experts in Holland, where they looked not just the effect of grey, but went well beyond into understanding the tracking of a user’s eye. The results drove screen layout, color and application of awareness.

The conversations last week went beyond this, to the fact that now many companies have released ASM based graphic libraries, and how many engineers are applying them without the full thought. Yes, it brings improved results, by de-cluttering the experience, but there is another level of operational value. It has been proven in upstream oil and gas, transportation, mining that well applied “situational awareness” (ASM) applied at graphics, and alarms regularly provides 30 to 40 % improvement in awareness and responsiveness over traditional screens with photo generic and many colors.  

Rik has been taking this to a new level with tools to evaluate engineered screens and to see where the focus is, and to provide feedback to designer. These tools, track the eye focus and intensity of eye focus (distraction) to a spot or image. Providing valuable feedback for the designer to adjust the layout and effect. With good examples of what appeared to be an effective ASM type screen, with some managed tools taking into account “human factor.” A heat map showing that same screen with actual eye focus, and it was clear that tuning was required in order to gain that early awareness that was expected.

This image is now showing a typical ASM screen applying standards in ASM, and alarm borders around critical equipment. Many people would be satisfied with this, but when you now apply the eye intensity tool, to that same screen, you do see focus on the critical equipment in the middle. But you also see a loss in focus to the bottom, navigation buttons and even company logo, all of which are not important in awareness of the plant state.

This insight brought a new level of true “human factor” and effective “artistic” side to play in the design, to enable a step up in results to the next level of value. For me, it brought reality to a factor I suspected that the system engineers going forward from today, need extra tools, or someone in the project requires the expertise. There are online human factor tools coming available, and these services will become vital in the next few years.

We combine this “early awareness” to enable decisions, but the real requirement is to go to “actionable decisions” that empower the user to lead to a decisions, and action very rapidly that is a best operational practice. In another conversation my mind went back to Hudson River plane landing, where the pilots did not speak for 3 minutes, that took roles, made decisions, and action ed out well trained operational procedures that enabled rapid success. The two pilots had not met prior to that take off, but they were able to combine to execute. The only way we can bring this into industry through the changing of operational approach, embedding experience and process, so we do not just enable decisions, but “actionable decisions.”