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.

Third Generation Mom/MES with Model Driven, Provides the key to Avoiding Customization

In speaking with customers from multiple industries the desire for "operational management and manufacturing intelligence" grows, but so do the horror stories of the promise vs reality. I keep asking why the horror why the disappointment, and in a series of 36 interviews it became clear that it was a number factors:

1/ vendor solution miss fit

2/ too much customization came over and over again, as key pitfall 3/ customer expectation vs reality and perpetration

Too often people initially "point fingers" looking for the vendor or implementer, but the mature, realistic interviewees admitted it was a mixture of their own preparation, culture and expectation as well as the vendor and implementer partner.

Without about a common message came across avoid customization at all cost, two interviewees talked about how they were replacing a home grown system, and took a vendor product and customized it heavily for "product x" and found that they could not take it to the second and third plant and ended up with a system similar in functionality and cost to sustain as the original home grown system.

They both admitted they did not step back and look at the new operational processes they should apply for the next 10 years but instead based their design on what they had. Both are now reviewing a new approach for the other plants. This story in different levels of complexity was not uncommon, and many had first experienced this with the ERP system.

Another huge challenge is the different cultures and operational practices on the different sites, causing significant challenges in achieving consistency in product / service quality, and operational efficiency.

There were many people where confused and bitten from applying the wrong product to a particular industry. It is important to achieve minimized customization the modern MES/ MOM system must come from that industry segment e.g. you can look at:

1.       Discrete industries

2.       Hybrid industries

3.       Continuously industries

We in the industry cause much of the problem as MES is term applied across all three, but they very different, the key to a vendor/ packaged MES is to look at it’s origin, and that will indicate the model that it fits in the above 3 broad industry areas.

So when you look at 3^rd generation MES why it really has hope is that it is model driven, avoiding customization, through allowing managed configuration that will enable companies to evolve. With the changes in the operational processes this key, as this is where you gain the significant advantages. If you choose a correct MES from your industry segment, and then apply a model driven/ workflow approach to configuring your operational practices this provides the most advantage and flexibility. Combine this with object driven platform when connecting to an automated world for real-time events, the system can become proven quickly but most of maintainable and evolutionary.  

Key is uniqueness does not mean customized code, it should be sustainable configuration based on models that can used over sites, so operational practices (your advantage) are consistent but can evolve!