Information Technology/Operations Technology (IT/OT) for the Oil and Gas Industry

Blog from Stan DeVries

Since 2006, some oil & gas companies have attempted to align what has been called IT and OT with different organization approaches.  It is valuable to consider what these two “worlds” are:

The world of IT is focused on corporate functions, such as ERP, e-mail, office tools etc.  The following key characteristics apply:

•          The dominant verb is “manage”.
•          Systems design assumes that humans are the “end points” – information flows begin and end with humans.
•          The focus is on financial aspects – revenue, margins, earning per share, taxes etc.
•          The focus is also on cross-functional orchestration of the corporate supply chain
•          The main technique is reporting – across all sites in the corporation.
•          One of the methods is to enforce a standard interface between enterprise applications (especially ERP) and the plants/oil fields/refineries/terminals.
•          Policies for managing information are mostly homogenous, and the primary risk is loss of data.

In contrast, the world of OT is focused on plant operations functions.  The following key characteristics apply:

•          The dominant verb is “control”.
•          Systems design assumes that “things” (equipment, materials, product specifications etc.) are the “end points” – information flows can begin and end without humans.
•          The focus is on operational aspects – quality, throughput, efficiency etc.
•          The focus is also on providing detailed instructions for operations areas – to equipment and to humans
•          The main technique is controlling – within a related group of sites or a single site.
•          One of the methods is to accommodate multiple protocols and equipment interfaces.
•          Policies are usually diverse and asset-specific; risk includes loss of data, loss of life, loss of environment, loss of product and loss of equipment.

These two worlds must be integrated but their requirements and strategies must be kept separate.  The following diagram suggests a strategy to achieve this:

The above diagram recommends the following methods to bridge these two worlds:

•          Use a “value generation” metric to justify and harmonize the equal importance of these two worlds.  “Value” can be measured both in terms of financial value (more on this below) and in terms of risk.
•          Reconcile units of measure using thorough activity-based costing, down to senior operators and the technicians which support them.
•          Correctly aggregate and disaggregate information at the appropriate frequency.  Operators require hourly information (in some industries, every 15 minutes).
•          Centralize and distribute information with an approach called “holistic consistency” – allow for the diversity of information structures and names for each area of operation, but enforce consistent structure and naming between sites (or in some cases, between operations areas).
•          Integrate and interoperate with appropriate methods and standards, which must address visualization, mobility, access and other aspects as well as information.
•          Apply a consistent cybersecurity approach across multiple areas of the IT/OT system, allowing for information to flow “down” and “across”.  An “air gap” approach has been proven to be unsustainable, but a multi-level approach called “defense in depth” has been proven to be effective and practical.

Oil and gas companies have implemented a variety of organization structures for bridging these two worlds.  Some companies divide IT into two areas, called Infrastructure and Transformation.  New technologies which are strongly linked to new ways of working are first managed by the Transformation section of IT, and then as these mature, they are transferred to Infrastructure.  The main functions of OT are closely linked to Transformation, because operations can continue without OT – OT is almost always a value-add.  We observe the following organizational approaches:

•         IT reporting to Finance, and OT reporting to Engineering/Technical Services or to Operations
•         OT reporting to Transformational IT, with an operations-background IT executive

Regardless of the organization approach, the objectives are reliable and business-effective improvement, whether in the office or in the sites.

Operational Windows Enable are a basis for Operational Management Experience (IOC)

I have talked about the drive by many companies to reduce “Operational Variation” across plants, teams, and industries. This is core to the journey to "operation excellence" gaining consistency, awareness and early detection of situations. When you look at the table below on the levels of human operational automation, the drive of the integrated operational experience is trying to reach level 5 "Worker management by exception", a big part of this is awareness of current operational process status relative to optimum.   

There are many ways that operational control will be implemented, as pointed out it could be through actions and processes becoming embedded and certainly this will be the big driver in the road to “Operational Innovation”.

But another way is through displaying key operational indicators to a knowledge worker, where  these indicators are mapped within boundary conditions. These boundaries are set up based on the time and relevance to the role and activity/ task the knowledge worker is performing. This sort of “operating Window” enables the knowledge worker the context, and recommendations, knowledge to enable operational decisions in a timely and ever consistent way. This same operational window can be used over multiple sites/ and teams for that role and activity providing consistency control.

The figure below is an example of an operational window.

Where on the left you can see the operational running trend, but you can see the changing boundary conditions of operation based upon product etc., The green shows the area where optimum control, safety, and production performance is. The right hand side you have reasons, and number instances of deviations for periods out of operational control.

Placing this sort of operational window where the operational boundaries come from the business strategy but in context of the role and activity no matter where in the plant operational team, but the feedback and running side is real-time from the plant. This window is place adjacent to  current control/ HMI screens the operator is using, or the maintenance or process screens the users are working, and you start the transformation to a knowledge worker. 

The Changing Landscape of Supervisory Systems from HMI, / Common Control Room, to “Distributed Multi Point Operational Landscapes” !!!!!

For the last couple of years we have seen the changing supervisory solutions emerging, that will require a rethink of the underlying systems, and how they implemented and the traditional HMI, Control architectures will not satisfy! Certainly in upstream Oil and Gas, Power, Mining, Water and Smart Cities we have seen a significant growth in the Integrated Operational Center (IOC) concept. Where multiple sites control comes back into one room, where planning and operations can collaborate in real-time. Initially companies just virtualize their existing systems back, and then they standardize the experience for operational alignment and effectiveness, and then they simulation, and model, not many have got to this last step.

But in the last couple of weeks I have sat in discussions where people talk about this central IOC, which is key. When you start peeling back the “day in the life of operations” the IOC is only the “quarterback” in a flexible operational team of different roles, contributing different levels of operational. Combined with dynamic operational landscape, where the operational span of control of operational assets, is dynamically changing all the time. The question is what does the system look like, do the traditional approaches apply?

When you look at the operational landscape below, you can see 100s of operational control points where humans will have to interact with the system, with different spans of control, and operational points will be manned and unmanned on regular basis.

Traditionally companies have used isolated (siloed) HMI, DCS workstation controls at the facilities, and then others at the regional operational centers and then others at the central IOC, and stitched them together. Now you add the dynamic nature of the business with changing assets, and now a mobile workforce we have addition operational stations that of the mobile (roaming worker). All must see the same state, with scope to their span of control, and accountability to control. 

Since the 1990’s, control system technology has enabled a flexible delivery of work, where workers can support both “normal” and “abnormal” situations from multiple locations, either in the same room or across the world.  This mechanism has to be reliable, easy to implement, and easy to maintain.  Some customers have applied this mechanism to more than 5 different “points of operation”, which range from equipment panels, mobile devices and local control rooms to regional and national operations centers.

The requirements have become the following:

1.        “Transparency of Trusted Operational State”: with real-time operational actionable decisions becoming key, the ability to monitor, the system raise the situation automatically through operational, asset self-awareness. So there is transparency to whole operational landscape situational state.
2.        “Point of operation”: the implementation must support a configuration where one of the multiplepoints of operation uniquely can operate, which includes responding to alarms.
3.        Simultaneous “point of operation”: the implementation must also support a configuration where more than 1 worker canoperate, which is rarely more than 2.
4.        “Span of operation” flexibility: each “point of operation” can be an individual PID, start/stop or device, or it can be a broader “span” of operation.  This “span” must be assignable in a flexible manner, where the “span” can be adjusted to become narrower or broader.  Example conditions include night time or overhaul conditions for some operations.
5.        Ownership visibility: each possible point of operation must have a simple and clearly visible indication that it doesn’t have ownership, and reinforced indication when it does have the ownership. Clear visibility across the operational landscape as who has point of control, and as a team accountability is understood to respond to the situation promptly.
6.        Management of alarms: it is essential for safety, legal, environmental and health requirements that new alarms animate, suppress/shelve, annunciate and trigger display changes only at the point(s) of operation, and only the workers using the point(s) of operation can acknowledge or silence new alarms. This means all alarms from asset to process, operational, but scope of alarm responsibility is aligned with span of control, but as a team there are “no blind spots” and alarm, situational awareness is escalated based on responsiveness, and situation. Assumption of control,and someone doing something must be removed.
7.        Manage of operational events across different points of operation;Example operators want to be able to set operational limits/events across different operations? How is this managed and governed?
8.         IT/OT seamless integration;Operating, monitoring, trending, alarming and integration with other islands of information to enable the teams to make informed decisions.
9.         Reliability, upgradable, cyber security, network architecture, cloud;
10.      One problem cannot bring down the whole operations!!
11.      Assignment of operation: an authorized worker must have an easy and reliable means to assign and adjust the spans of operation.  The following diagram shows examples of transferring the span of operation between a roving user, a local control room, and a remote operations center:

In the above diagram, Areas or Sites “A” through “D” require supervision by different users or by the same user in different locations.  This scenario also applies to multiple operations consoles or desks within the same room.  The span of operation varies with the operations situations.  The span of operation can overlap among multiple users and multiple locations.

We need one system, but multiple operational points, and layouts, awareness so the OPERATIONAL TEAM can operate in unison, enabling effective operational work. Below is a high-level diagram of the operational team by the situation, you will have multiple skills in each situation, people will move through the situational state, but the diagram shows the merging operational work characteristics.

This emerging dynamic multi-point operational landscape is big topic that I will explore over the next few weeks, as traditional thinking, traditional architectures, and traditional implementations will not enable the transformation in operational work needed to satisfy effective agile operations.

Can we have the internet of things with operational data management?

We all talk about data from different devices etc. This is well and good but can you really have effective information if the data is not in context?

The challenge is how you gain this context and then sustain this context over many devices (things) without significant impact on the devices, how do add, remove and evolve devices (things). The role of an operational data management system that is a “yellow pages” of the system, providing the context, and relationship between devices and the operations.

Providing the ability to register new devices and associated data, input the associated context, while maintaining the detail in the device, but provide the bigger operational process alignment. This will also provide the association, other naming of that device so other applications, roles can find and interact. Often other systems, machines have a different outlook on the process and will use different naming and referring for the device. The Operational Data Management capability provides this association and ability to align many devices without having change the underlying applications or devices.

From a data to information point of view it provides the contact to gathering of data to shift it to information, so that big data analysis and other tools can be applied transforming that information into “knowledge”. Providing a pattern for contextualized operational data (e.g.: production, quality, machine status, etc.) integrated to templated collaboration activities (ODM) and ultimately broader supply chain management.

Without this companies have a real opportunity of just gathering significant more data without creating or having the ability to create the associated proportion of Information, knowledge and eventually wisdom. The diagram above shows the knowledge management pyramid and how on the right hand side companies have not go the top one which is blow out in data without the associated knowledge. The leaders will put architectures and systems into place which enable them to gain the contextualization while providing the “plug and Play” ability for devices and things to be added to the solution.

Which path are you on, how are you addressing this ODM concept?

Participation architecture and culture key to Innovation

For the last couple of weeks I have been travelling in South Africa, visiting and talking with customers, and listening. But last week at I listened to a talk given by the Ex CEO of Google South Africa (Stafford Masie), and the core of the talk really resonated with what I have been talking about and seeing.

The key was the you need to open up your cultures and architectures to naturally allow participation in your companies evolution from members within the company and outside. Too often our traditional cultures and systems have closed the strategy, innovation of ideas to evolve companies’ offerings in products/ services to a few. But in the software industry we have developed programs that promote innovation from all corners of a company, Google does this using Friday’s for “my innovation”. Key is the culture to enable innovation and then the framework in the company for promoting ideas and selecting valuable ones to be invested in to be evolved.

Stafford Masie's thoughts took this a step further into general industrial space using examples where companies have opened up their products/ offerings to external groups to provide a different, free thought for evolving the offering, to enable certain break through.

In the past I have spoken about “Operational Innovation”, too often people look at innovation as purely technology, but I believe the greatest return on investment is on “operational innovation” in improving the operational processes and efficiency for producing products and services. Requiring companies to develop a culture and architecture that enables:

• Capturing and understanding current operational processes. Across the industrial assets/ plants making certain products. Providing the opportunity for identification of common best practices, both inefficiencies and efficiencies.
• Promotion of participation across the company from workers, operators and others to contribute operational improvement to processes they work on.
• An architecture and environment where operational processes can be tested, in safe area, so innovation can happen through constructive failure and environment to promote trying. A good example of this is where people can try operational procedures in simulated situations and results captured. Something like an Operator Training System used for both training, and “operational innovation” is valuable environment for safe constructive operational process innovation.
• An environment / architecture that allows ideas to improve to be entered there and then in the system, while the idea is “fresh” and context can be captured, but the idea result in evaluated and feedback to the contributor.

Below is a diagram I have commented on before but shows how companies that embedded process after a lean improvements program far exceed those who just manually implemented process improvement. But the real opportunity for improvement comes when people apply continuous operational innovation (red line). Not being content with their current process but have implemented abilities to understand process performances both machine to machine, people to people, and people to machine. Because they have embedded the operational procedure in the system, over multiple sites, they have everyone acting the same way, so improvement is possible.

Core to success in the next decade is the ability to evolve and innovate, and it is the companies that implement an architecture/ system and culture that promote participation that will be key. What are your plans in seating up a system to enable participation and evolution in a sustained manner?

Operational Practices, the associated activities, then impact on Roles provides the path towards Operational Excellence Design

Again the last 2 weeks in the USA speaking with customers the question of how they move forward towards 2020 where do we start. Too often I see people start from the easy place that of technologies and products, vs really understanding where they want to be in 2020/25. How will their run their plants, and operational practices across sites and supply chain at all levels is key. Once you know the operational processes you can determine the operational activities and effect on the roles in the company at that time, this will lead to the required solutions.

Companies have invested and executed on the tradition alignment in a plant across process systems, and business systems such as SAP, leveraging such guidelines as ISA 95. With the drive towards more and more agility and rapid deployment of products to markets, these alignments are key, but the other area of critical concern is the operational workplace. With the rapid agility, comes more alignment, and more complexity, combined with key / rapid decisions to be made, the operational team, and operational workspace will be critical. Combine this with the facts that over 10000 experienced baby boomers are retiring each week, and this rate is expected to continue for seventeen years, and that by 2020 the 42 workforce is expected to made up 42+%  

So where do you start when planning to design a system  What concerned me was the throwing of technologies around like cloud, wireless, and mobile, and looking for how, instead of stepping back and looking at what are they trying to achieve, and then applying technologies to that plan.

It is important to note that, in both cases, their automation layer is mature and well established and that their business side is also well thought through and well on the way to being established on the second generation business system.

Again the opportunity of significant improvement and gain in operational efficiency is at the operational layer across multiple facilities. Again the role of people and enabling decisions in real-time are key but not just decisions but a consistency in action in the operational control loop.

The question of where to start came up, and through the discussion the opportunity of stepping back and taking a look at the roles that an operational plant will require from the roles in 2020 to execute. These roles could be on site or off site, through the concept of the “flexible operational team”. Define the role, the day in the life of that role taking into account location, what decisions and actions that role is responsible for and who and what he will interact with through the day. Yes, switch into a “Facebook” thinking of friends, but friends maybe people, (other experts) Assets, Processes, even products. Once this map of a decisions and responsibilities during the day is defined, this drives what information, systems and people this role must interact with in a day. It will also determine what operational procedures (Operational Activities) the role will potentially engage.

This role map is key as now you have a starting point, as to driving consistency in a dynamically changing workforce. Combining these role map, composed of “operational activities” associated with the role, where the activity has the required notification, information, actions, community of expertise etc. and architectural landscape so these “operational activities” can compliment existing systems.

The architectural landscape should define the layers on top of existing systems, in a neutral way, where these operational activities (model driven approach) will reside, these could be local or remote hosting but will require clear governance and require models to defined in an environment that enables constant evolution of the practices but process experts locally and centrally as a “crowd development”, with governance control.

This focus on a role or set of key roles allows the company to focus on how the operational plant will run in 2020 and the key decisions that required, and start applying these now in an architecture that lives with the current systems, but starts to drive consistency and faster decisions across that same role over multiple plants. Notice I have not talked technologies, my assumption on mobile and cloud that the architecture is set up so these activities will be able to execute independently of the device, so the adoption of what devices are used on a plant are relative to plant and support they get, key is the devices no matter if desktop or mobile or web should be suited to efficiency of the role execution.

The clear opportunity is the linking of smart/ intelligent assets to people, and optimized process, and this is the essence of distributed industrial systems of the future on which “Internet of things’ / “Industrial internet” and the “third Industrial Revolution” are based. Key not getting overwhelmed with technology (it is here) it is the “job” or operational improvement that is the opportunity, and how to achieve this. A good starting point is understanding and achieving consistency in the key roles in the future vs the dynamically evolving workforce.

The Workforce Crisis of 2030!! And how to start solving it now

“People, workforce planning will become more important than financial planning.” Rainer Strack

This is a statement from good TED talk by Rainer on his interpretation of the workforce challenge of 2030. Supporting much of what this blog has been looking at this past year, but bringing another angle. The key we both trying to get over it is not about the changing workforce it is about the operational workforce transformation to a new workforce landscape of skill shortage, labor shortage and cultural and people change.

You can go to Ted talk with the following link.

http://www.ted.com/talks/rainer_strack_the_surprising_workforce_crisis_of_2030_and_how_to_start_solving_it_now

A couple of extractions:

The investigation and determination of a significant workforce shortage by 2030, but starting now:

The required strategies that will dominate much the thinking

Rainer is talking general workforce, if you take this and bring it into manufacturing, industrial world, the shortages will be all more acute. As pointed out in other surveys from Accenture and others.

This shows in US survey results on filling skilled and highly skilled roles, below is worked example of mid sized company in mid west.  

This is why the move from knowledge to wisdom is key, and emedding of knowledge and wisdom , actionable decisions into the systems is key to accommodate the transformation to dramatically reduced dependency on skilled people. From Rainer’s and other investigations that Operational Systems of the future in the industrial market have 50% + reduction in dependency in skilled and highly skilled workforce.This Ted talk supports this will be the biggest issue in the next 10 years to sustain competitive agility. Like we have seen in 2014, I believe 2015 this acknowledgment and strategies building around workforce change will intensify.    

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?

The Paradox of the Growing Trend of Increasing Complexity in Industrial/Operational Solutions

I was discussing with a customer this week their systems, solutions, what was being asked of his team, and how even on a medium sized business and mature production processes the solution complexity is growing. He talked about the continued pressure of audits, regulations to satisfy government and just the consumer, combined with an increasing rate of " new product introduction" (npi). Yet production agility, timely actionable decisions, demands real time transparency into production, and across the supply chain.

Over two pots of tea we mapped out a high level functional landscape, his comment what happened to traditional  solutions. His comment was valid as the traditional supervisory solutions of 10 years ago, had transformed on the paper in front of us to "operational management architecture". With now an architectural landscape that connects to:

1.       Multiple vendor controllers and smart devices from ever increasing intelligent process equipment

2.       The range of people with different roles is increasing, in this example we have 8 different roles interacting with the solution, and taking actionable decisions

3.       The location of these people has shifted from the control room to every where, eg in the control room, roaming the plant floor, roaming the office, working remote outside the plant.

4.       Multiple applications that the system interacts with, has gone from to 7 This is not a big system, yes it is a batch system, but now cyber security, data transformation to deliver the correct trusted information for a role is available.

So complexity is increasing but the outlook is this will not change that business  will continue to demand more interactive, real times, collaborative, and transparent solutions in order to maintain competitiveness.

As seen below from an interview in North America, note the % of skilled and highly skilled roles, and the future additions of roles is in this skilled and highly skilled area:

So the complexity grows at a time when we have a transition to a less experience workforce, that will be in constant state of learning, and dynamic nature. In the conversation we talked about the team on his site, that he now had 50+ experienced and a junior engineer in his 20s. Fully capable but different, and less experienced on a site and role.

The diagram below shows the same people when trying to fill these skilled and highly skilled roles.

This is the paradox of today's dilemma facing engineers and operations, combine this with the demand projects with shorter project time, and that the system will evolve.

Now the control on the prices systems has not dramatically increased this is well defined and mature, it is the ability to absorb change that is key.

As we concluded our second pot of tea, it was clear the need to shift away from customer, home built solutions, away from customer excel sheets, to "off the shelf" solutions products that interact, can be easily configured and provide intuitive use, and learning, on an architecture that absorbs evolution and change. The discussion shifted to how transform their internal resources from internal customer code creation, to configuration, and acceleration of a more expansive solution building on their skill and knowledge.

The key walk away from this conversation, and why I shared it, was the realization by the customer that his approach to projects, and direction of addressing demands from operations needed a rethink in their approach, and using of existing staff, especially with the key experienced staff, and development of new staff. This included looking outside their own industry to potential significant advancements in addressing common operational approaches. 

Why design for 2020, not today! What does the “Why Not” and “What If” Attitude mean?

One of the enjoyments of writing a blog is to see the reaction, get the response, they seem to come via email, it is fasinating what topics generate interest and response.  Last week I had a set of emails asking “why care about 2020, when we are focused on today?” Another set asked about the attitude “Why not” and “What If”? Both are fair and deserve further discussion.

So why care about 2020? Why Now?

As mentioned last week, there are a number of factors which are changing the whole paradigm of the operational/ automation system. The way we have designed for the last 15 years will not be good enough for:

·         The rapid decisions needed today

·         The breadth of responsibility people will have

·         Gen Y’s attitude, and work approach

·         The rotating workers, remember by 2020 people will only be in a role for 2.4 years average. Effecting experience and knowledge to make decisions, and take actions.

·          The whole methodologyy will be transitional between desktops, different mobile devices, connected and not connected, visual  interaction, next minute audio. The transition will be seamless and natural, to increase the fluidity of executing the task.  

·         Systems will be in services for 15 to 20 years, but go through many technology changes and evolutions.

An interesting stat on 2020  is that 65 % of the tasks and jobs GenY will do during their career have not yet been invented. Also, not their professional working time will span 6 careers, 14 jobs.  So the design of the system must fundamentally absorb change. Key is the move away from designing to roles and applications, but design to “activities” with the required:

·         Notification

·         Information

·         Awareness

·         action to be taken

·         Access to knowledge.

Designing this self contained “activities” that can be hosted in all user experiences no matter the device or mode,  allows new activities to built as needed, applied to the system, and the system naturally absorbs the new activity without re-engineering impact.

The reality is that in many parts of the world,  these changes are happening now many will be in full effect in the next 2 to 3 years. Already the thought leaders in the world are designing to deliver information faster, take actions more consistently and reduce the “Time to Performance” through in built training, intuition.

What does the “Why Not” and “What If” Attitude mean?

The attitude of trying, having a go! Is a natural child like the attitude,  that applies also to people who do not have experience, similar to a growing child. Ever increasing business/ operational pressure will call for faster decisions and actions, driving increased empowerment. With increased responsibility must come increased education, and understanding to make decisions. The systems must provide guidance to so that workers can try, and make decisions faster, without significant risk.

Driving the requirement for inbuilt  “what if” capability, to answer the questions a new worker to make that decision. This could be accessing history, access experience, running a “future what if simulation model” that allows highly accurate expectations of a result near term into the future based upon the current state of the system. Yes,  it sounds too “over the top” but in the new dynamic of operations, and reduced experience the ability to ask questions is a key part of learning.

The attitude of “Why Not” and What If” is not new it is natural in children today. I see it every day in my 4 and 7 year old, yes they learn boundaries and risk based upon answers and trials. The challenge before us is to build this answering, and guidance into the systems, so it is natural, and not too costly to implement in dollars or time.

This is why the concepts of “knowledge systems”, ‘big data”, “dynamic simulation”, and “collaboration” will be come fundamental capabilities of Operational Systems.