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.

Mastering Variety in Industrial Production, Issues a Challenge for Industrial Architectures and Drives the Requirement for Platform Strategies

For many businesses, variety (or choice) is core to the strategy where its effect cascades down to the execution level (as well as upstream in the B2B value chain.) The operational challenge of variety (or variability) is that it can create waste and inhibit velocity. The challenge and opportunity is with companies, especially as they move to unified value chains (multi plant manufacturing). “How do you manage this Variability, so that production consistency, agility and increased production output are achieved?”

“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 Food & Beverage example illustrated on the above) as follows:

• Mastering necessary variety: More brand choices drive the number of order line items (SKUs) and master recipes, which in turn drive the resulting plant-level recipes that must accommodate the variations in process equipment as well as ingredients. This type of variety is necessary and must be mastered in order to survive and succeed against the competition. Other “necessary variability” are material composition variance from different suppliers or regions, raw materials will vary. Location delivery in skus due to language, for example, the same product will have to be delivered to different countries in different language or different quality requirements. All must be mastered to optimized production.

• Accommodating unavoidable variety: Situations like M&A make it difficult to standardize on any single automation vendor, where “rip-and-replace” isn’t economically viable despite engineering’s desire for a more homogeneous environment. The growing one in this area is the “changing workforce” how do have a system that can accommodate a changing, (rotating) workforce while maintaining timely decisions and consistency in actions.

• Eliminating unnecessary variety: Anything other than the above two scenarios would be eligible for standardization.

This challenge is driving companies to adopting “platform strategies” that abstract the variability and can absorb variability while provide a platform of services that enable standards to be built on. Providing the architecture for “sustainable innovation” through managed standards that can evolve over time. The word of 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 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”, eliminating all other variation for efficiency.

Food for thought!

Collaboration with plants and Governance is key to Standards,

There can' t be a week go past that companies do not talk to me about standards leading rapidly to discussion on standards management. Standards are the only way companies can achieve:

1/ Rapid roll out of new processes across plants

2/ Reduced risk

3/ Reduced dependency on key critical experienced resources.

4/ Consistency in operations, information across plants

Yet most companies do not really understand what a standard is and the investment, design, and approached needed so that the standard can evolve over time, and be sustained as a standard.

When you have comments like;

 "You that standards library we built? We now have 45 of them ones for each site."

Losing the whole effect of what a standard is and hamstringing the ability to evolve and react to the market in an agile way.

The culture of a standard is closer to that of “a product" than an “application" yet most companies treat them as an applications. Missing the culture and governance needed to make the standards grow and be naturally adopted.

Culture:

Too often we see it as push from the Center out, with the standards being designed in isolation of the plants, or certainly that is the perception from the plants.

The key is to have a culture where the standards and built with the first site, but with a mind that it will be rolled out across plants. So the design, architecture and approach allow for future capability to be added to it.  Providing the plant teams the ability to contribute, and feeling like they have some ownership, so they will adopt. Plus the culture that sites engineers can contribute improvements back the central governance and improvements will happen.

  

Governance:

Clear ownership of standards management, this could be or multiple people with different aspects of the standard library being managed by different people. Similar to what we do with software products, we have product managers, who gather the feedback, define the vision, and strategy, and then provide direction for improvements from version to version. The same concept Product Management for the standards, listening interacting with the sites, determining what is common and valuable to standard by version. Then making sure there is clear governance process, enforcement in place, and testing of the standard.

Architecture levels:

It is important to have the correct standards and levels, so the Hierarchy levels need to set up, with the correct number so the appropriate changes can be added at the correct level. A good example is below where there are corporate, to site, to area, then plant, each of these allow extensions to that level while sustaining consistency from the top.