The Steps on the Operational Journey from Siloed to Optimized to achieve Operational Excellence

We have all seen the debate on how do we go from todays manufacturing to an effective operational landscape, across the full valued supply chain. The increased urgency of this debate has become  recent discussions, I have with different companies; people are trying understand how they going stay competitive delivering the correct products, to the correct markets, locations, in the correct time, at the correct price and margin. All this with increasing costs in labor, energy, transport and regulation compliance.  

The common thread across the discussions was:

·         Real time transparency across all sites, and “cogs” in the supply chain.

·         Shift from “traditional reporting” to “actionable decisions”

·         Shift from operators to “Operational Teams” that align operations, planning and expertise

·         Shift from Siloed process on a plant or across plants to optimized and aligned.

·         Shift from experience in people to experience in the system

·         Alignment and consistency across the operational decisions and action for a product no matter location. 

Providing the foundation for optimizing and continuous improvement, not just of assets but process, assets, product production, and workforce.

The diagram below shows the journey from a high level, often ask where companies are? Through the lenses of product delivery. 

The road to coordinated has been a journey for the last 12 years with the ISA 95, and interoperability efforts, but still I see multiple systems, multiple business systems, even of the same type, and limited alignment of business strategy across multiple sites at the operational level. What we seeing from leaders is a simplification of operational processes, reduction in variety and uniqueness across process units and plants. How many times do we here “my plant is unique” this cannot apply when each plant is manufacturing the same product. Yes, the plants are different; the layout is different, the equipment is from different vendors, different times, different control systems, but we must harmonize above that.

I spoke last week of “Industrial Internet of Things”  a big part of success of this concept, is that different equipment, from different vendors, become smart, and enabled. You as the operational plant will be able to coordinate (input control strategies) across multiple control devices, (RTUs, Smart instruments, PLCs, DCS, etc.). However, the operational practices and how people interact with these devices will become abstracted from the devices. This must happen, to deal with the changing workforce.

Another  concept will be the “smart product” that is aware of its state, it is requirement/ expectations, and can advise of product health early in the “to be state,” Yes products will a smart thing, this is already happening.

However, what are steps to Optimized you see the above, but I like this diagram below with seven steps. A critical point is that a plant, a value supply chain must get complete step 4, to have a foundation towards optimization.

Companies have been working steps 1, 2 foundation of integrated plant, which is scalable, and evolutionary, so different components can be upgraded, evolved as they need, but the overall system stays aligned and working. Transparency through common measures and models so “trusted real-time information” from sites can be seen.

However, step 3 is the one most companies have not added as it deals with human assets, but is key, and then shift in step 4 to “activities” and tasks so different users will execute “activities.” At this point you are at point where Capital assets and Human assets and acting in a consistent way, and with measurable information.

Providing the opportunity to start quantitatively measuring operational process, productivity across the sites, understand the effectiveness of the different “activities.” So that now core standards for asset measurement, information, and activity/ actions can establish by process and product no matter the assets, controllers, etc. These can rolled out in a module methodology to allow an instrumental evolution, avoid the big bang of a large operational management project, but bring valuable “wins” to the company. 

At this point the experts in process, maintenance, operational planning can see understand, quantitatively measure process and operational procedure and evolve tuning for operational excellence.

Where are you on this journey? Break it down in small steps with tangible wins on a coordinated journey.

Commentary Feedback on “Third Time Lucky for MOM/ MES!!!! YES, it does have a significant chance this time!!

It is an interesting writing this blog as there is little comment feedback in the blog, but I receive a lot of email on certain subjects with substantial input. The topic of “Third time lucky for MES” I received a lot of both email and discussion face to face, this blog expands on the topic.

The first comment from many people was “that MES has been around for years and has been implemented successfully”, and I agree, but the first 2 generation architectures involved significant services while they have run extremely well for a number of years, but with limited ability to absorb change without significant cost and risk. Also, companies are expanding in multi sites and the requirement to enforce operational practices over multiple sites, again this requires alignment of sites. So yes MES has been successful in concept, but not in a sustaining mechanism.

Charlie’s comment in “The MOM Chronicles” reflects this:

“The first two MOM attempts occurred in the 1990s, and 2000s, actually were also found a primary hindrance to continuous improvement efforts because the MOM system owners were typically understaffed, under skilled, and un governed to support real innovation. “

So what is different this time? Was a common question, as mentioned in the original blog the SOA (service Orientated Architecture) actually been adopted correctly with conforming service contracts at the ERP side and business side with the “Enterprise Service Buses” (ESB) becoming a norm, not just a term. This flowing down into the operational world with vendors looking at aligning with web services, but also model centric alignment vs point integration is key. The figure below taken from “The MOM Chronicles” illustrates the concept:

The experience we have MES implementations at Invensys has pushed us to evolve our architecture, and the key areas are:

1/ The MES functional Capability has evolved in richness

2/ The plant events are now linked into the System Platform, using templates so now plant equipment and events can be templates and managed, also validation is achieved as close to source as possible.

3/ The Human interaction and the business rules and processes are no long programmed they are implemented in a model driven (workflow) environment. So now face plates/ forms that present information and interact with humans validate the data entry as early as possible and with no code but in graphical modeling environments. This area alone is transformational as I have sat down with process/ operational teams with these graphical workflows and worked through with them relative to their process, we mark up the diagram and implement fast. No longer programmers are involved in business rules it is the operational/ business / process teams work know their rules and behaviors they require and they implement.

The diagram below shows the realization of the aspects of the Invensys MES architecture, and it is all three aspects that make this a sustainable solution, that scale, and also work in a multiple site situation. But most of all it is agile aware been able to absorb change.  Again this is a different approach to tradition MES solutions which have at MES Functionality, but honestly depended on coding around the system for events, human interaction and business rules. This architecture is SOA so it is plug and play and services like the MES can run in different locations, leaving open the opportunity for MES data bases and rules to run in an elastic “cloud”, combining with the on premise interactions with the plants and people.

 

Accountability Theme Growing in the Industrial Sector!

As the adoption of Flexible Integerated Operational Teams grow, the need to share/pass the execution of work items between team members becomes a requirement. Along with this is the growing theme of "accountability" in the industrial sector at all levels. The challenge with today's social media even email is you copy everyone, so they are all aware, but even this is changing as you need to address the owner of the next action in the "to" address, making it very clear and “accountable”.

Now apply this to operational teams, where the system generates an alarm the owner is the operator on duty, with the responsibility to acknowledge but how does he take action add this to work item list, that will be followed up and resolved:

·         By right clicking he generates a work item, the system prompts which person this is going to or group e.g.| maintenance, process etc, and the work flow will inform that person or group who "accepts ownership" and now they start executing. Already through that work items life time we have had two owners.

·         Now part way through this work item, the shift changes, and the work item appears on the shift handover report, and the new person on the next shift takes ownership of the total outstanding work items, so we have a third owner.

·         Now having completed 3 sub actions in that work item, the current owner, needs have a production department validate the test, so again the work item is reassigned to "production" and ownership stays with the maintenance team, until a particular person in "production" accepts. There is a clear passing and ownership, and accountability of work item.

·         So as, actions and records are captured the full trail to the work item resolution, including time to execute the work item and the action step times are logged and understood.

 

Is this new the answer is "no" plants must have a process for this today, usually paper and knowledge, but as the teams become more dynamic, the paper procedures need to come embedded in the system for consistent execution. Regulation from the market and governments require responsibility to be taken, and when actions are being executed remotely, and workers have more responsibility and work items, the chance of dropping (bot following up and resolving) work items grows.

The leading companies want their strategic targets effecting the targets/ KPIs of all the roles at different levels to be aligned so that as tuning of the strategy happens all people workers accept the change and start executing to that evolved strategy. This is different to a KPI system it is about aligning actions and targets downwards with transformation to local context.

Also leading companies are looking at the operational "day in the life" of their workers and finding two major items:

1/ increasing inconsistency in operational procedure execution from plant to plant, shift to shift, as the workforce transitions and people tenure in a role or location reduces.

2/ that only Approx 35% of work items executed by people on the plant floor are planned at the beginning of a day, the rest are ad hoc from "fire drill" plant actions.

 

Both of these factors have a dramatic effect on:

·         safety

·         regularity compliance

·         efficiency and costs, due to variation in procedure execution time and response action.

·         agility to react to changes in the market.

 

By embedding procedures companies can realize many Operational Goals in controlling their operations such as:

·         Alignment of strategy to all roles activities and targets as they can linked and transformed

·         Consistency in operational procedure execution, combined with the ability tune procedures as they can now monitor how long steps in work items take and improve them.

·          Awareness of outstanding work items, clear ownership providing the ability to increase the planned work in a workers day, so increased efficiency, less chance of safety incidents.

 

In the next week, I will introduce the concepts of operational work management, as a new trend to enable the above.

As plants transform to flexible Integrated Operational teams accountability, ownership, and awareness of outstanding work will become foundational.

Time for “Off the Shelf” Operations/ MES Solution

As I sit on another plane heading across the Pacific from California, I have time to reflect on the discussions both this week, and over the last 6 months, with leading food and beverage and process companies.

The growing trend in the MES space, (which the dominate solution is “custom solutions”), is to replace these systems with “off the shelf” products, enabling companies to focus on the core business. This trend is similar to the ERP space in the 90s, and initially in the MES space in the late 90s, and 2000s, but MES solutions of this time did not deliver the complete solution, and the eventual solutions have become unsustainable for the “operational journey”. Thousands of sites have installed MES Products from Invensys and other vendors, that are  highly successfully having run for over decade delivering significant value, but this time around there is more functionality capability people want, the architecture is not just one plant but multiple, and tolerance for custom code has significantly dropped. So why? And why now?

Reflecting on the discussions across many industries from process, mining, food, beverage, and general manufacturing, there are some common threads to the demise of “custom MES”:

·    The customer MES solutions are functionally very rich exceeding the traditional functional definitions of MESA etc with inbuilt operational practices in code, often focused on only a plant’s needs. The pace of change in operations, and pressure for new capability is growing both in capability and time to deliver.

·    Opportunities have moved from one plant to multiple plant, in order to provide the consistency and agility across the industrial landscape. Requiring significant governance, and alignment both in execution and information.

·    There is a younger generation (Gen X born 1960 to 80s) at the CIO and engineering level that have grown up with “packaged software”, and know that it works and should be leveraged.

·     Rotating staff in all roles requires faster time to experience, requiring embedded operational practices across plants.

It is also necessary to note that the MES solutions on the market where developed from a level 3 point of view yet when applied they must interact with the plant automation systems, as well as the many workers across the plants.

There were two areas of solution that contributed to the custom code:

Automation Layer Integartion:

Since the MES Products originated from level 3 specialized supplies (even if they are now apart of automation companies their origins came from standalone companies) the plant floor integration was external to MES  model using OPC etc, requiring significant custom code in the automation layer was to validate the event, and data. A sustainable solution requires  level 2 and 3 systems natively modeled, with minimal custom code as illustrated below.  The ability to configure (not code) a set of equipment templates, that model the equipment (entities) with built in supervisory capability as well as operational capability for such things as production data capture, quality sampling, utilization capture etc. Rolling these templates out over multiple sites, providing a consistent automated production event/ data capture.

Client, Human Interface:

The second area of significant coding on the first generation of MES solutions was at the client or user interface that captures manual data, at production event generation. The data  validation is required as close to source, requiring significant custom code that guides the data entry for the  user with constructive feedback. Also, the  job never seemed to finish with the operational practices continuing to change/ evolve as the companies operational practices evolved. In the above solution workflow combined with form generation and interaction, enables change and evolution in a sustainable manner.”Activity” specific interfaces and associated workflows will guide the user through the activity, and interface to MES capability capturing the required information.

The above approach is a full MES/ Operations architecture, that enables the configuration of embedded operational practices of a site and company, but in “off the shelf” products, faster solution delivery and in a more sustainable way. In many ways, this adding of realtime natural interface, combined with workflow for human interaction and embedded operational procedures extends the traditional MES capability as defined by “MESA or ISA 95” to be  a second generation that does have the opportunity to be adopted across 1000s of plants.  

Business Control Loop Concept Critical for Continued Process Improvement.

Nearly all customers/ end users I am talking with across multiple industries have a “lean/ performance program” looking at business processes and supply chain. Many have adopted techniques such as Lean/ Six Sigma, and many have a dedicated team investigating and driving performance thinking across the different aspects of the business.

The diagram below came from ARC on a survey they did, but it is the best depiction I have seen how the leading customers gain an advantage by embedding processes vs just training and manual implementation. The leading companies are looking take this embedded process, to the operational space, and again this becomes critical in the “rotating” worker world.

In the last 5 years we have seen significant increase in so called MES applications been applied, this could be in Batch, MES, Quality, KPIs, but really what is happening is that a “Business Control Loop” is being implemented. Based on a business process the operational execution procedure best practice is implemented in a workflow/ process. This is then rolled out across multiple sites/ or like processes. This does now restrict the freedom on how to execute this process, but in turn you gain the consistency in execution, and ability to understand execution and where to improve by reducing variation. This naturally solves to issues:

·         The ability to gain consistent execution over different sites/ cultures

·         The consistency of execution across shifts/ operational teams, but most of all as we go into the transition of staff through rotating roles (discussed in early blogs “The Perfect storm in Industrial Operations= People Excellence Feb 2012”). As one customer stated we have design to assume limited experience, through embedded procedures you immediately solve this by an worker being able to understand a situation, and the associated activity and be provided with recommended procedures to work them through this.

These procedures can and should have built in help and self-training even built in certification if needed so there is a record that the worker has gone through the online training, and now the procedure will guide him through.

The leading companies are now building this capture of best practices into “embedded processes” as they learn them, even dedicating the more senior members of the team to document their experience in procedures that can be then embedded. In many ways traditional MES products with their routes and operations enforce this process in the product execution, but we now finding this happening in process and utilities.

This is why we saw the need to build in ArchestrA Workflow as a natural extension to the ArchestrA application model, not an add-on, not a BPM (Business Process tool) but as an operational process extension to the real-time supervisory and control system. Just a simple thing as an alarm can now have workflow monitoring it, based on other conditions and alarm could be generated but due to the other conditions in the plant a workflow may automatically escalate the situation and notify potentially others. What we have done is taken knowledge and built a situational aware capability, which aligned with the best practices the company wants to implement. We are seeing the same approach on NPI (new product introduction) where one of the biggest challengers is to enter the correct set-up data across multiple operational systems. The room for error is huge and lost time in revalidating and fault finding not counting lost production time and waste. Implementing procedures and alignment of data models is a big step in the correct direction. The whole focus on "Operational Safety" that naturally embeds best practices into day to day operations to avoid safety sistuations, is another example.

So when you looking at designing operational/ supervisory systems, you need to think of it not as a project but a journey. Yes the initial project gets you to a certain value and point, but the culture should be a continuous one of looking to capture best practices and embed them (so this must be a natural act not an exception), so the new value and improvements are gained for all as you learn. This requires a change in both the products vendors supply and the way in which endusers and engineering houses go about implimenting operational execution programs, but there is no choice if they are stay compeditive.