It is always intriguing to me that IT and Controls people don’t seem to get along. They have different opinions (and reasons) on how data should be collected, what data should be collected, what reports are needed and should be generated, what applications should be used to make manufacturing operations more efficient… and the list go on-and-on.
There are certain things in a manufacturing environment that are clearly defined. IT guys are responsible for enterprise level systems, high-level plant-wide network infrastructure, and all the office computing and communication systems. Controls guys are responsible for getting and keeping the machine running, collecting data from the automated and manual production systems, etc. However, there are two categories of systems that fall in the “grey area” that cause a lot of contention between the IT and controls guys: the loosely-called Manufacturing Execution Systems and “Industrial” Ethernet networks!
Anytime someone mentions Production Monitoring Systems, Andon Boards, Ethernet switches, OEE calculation, maintenance dispatching systems, network redundancy, PC-based control systems, Windows-based Operator Interfaces, the blood starts to boil… Then the arguments (ummm… I mean discussions) turn into server vs. embedded systems, Windows security patches vs. PC on the floor is not a PC, network monitoring vs. network diagnostics, IT professional support need vs. skilled-trade people can do it… and don’t forget the big one – cost!! We can probably take up the whole blog just documenting the types of disagreements we have heard and used.
Is this really a power struggle between Manufacturing IT and Engineering organizations or is it people really have the best interest in mind to help the manufacturing processes and just have different approaches on how to achieve the goals? Should the policies, technical approaches, and responsibilities regarding manufacturing information be controlled or dictated by the Manufacturing IT organization or the Controls Engineering organization?
What are your opinions and thoughts on these issues? People can become very “passionate” on these issues. Let me offer some of my thoughts. Ok, so I may be a bit biased since I am a controls guy, but as a favorite slogan (from the large Controls Engineering organization I used to work for) says “We Make Things Work”, so my points of view are more from the plant floor perspective where the actions are.
Of course the politically correct position is that IT and Controls need to work together for the good of the company. Who can argue against that? But in reality, companies have been working on “Working Together” for a long time and the disagreements are still there. One fundamental factor for the division, I believe, is the “Over-burden, Policy Driven” IT approaches against the “Cowboy, whatever it takes to make it work” mentality. Considering the following conversations:
IT: “You have to upgrade the operating systems of your HMI and PC-based controller so that I can put the latest security patches on them. It is the corporate mandate that all computers need to be patched.”
Controls: “But they have been running Windows NT 4.0 for years and we don’t use them as PCs, we use them as controllers”
IT: “It doesn’t matter, we need to do this”
Controls: “But my control applications won’t run anymore”
The different mentalities turn into organizational power struggle because each organization strides to be the one to set policies and dictate how things should be done. If the IT guys are setting the policies and standards, we will need change requests approved for every change in the ladder logic in a controller. If the controls guys are setting the policies, we will be running MRP systems using PLCs. This may sound funny, but some people do have the extreme ideas.
The reality is that we all know our own business and do our jobs well, if we stay in our areas of expertise. We get into arguments when we try to push our ways of doing things and technologies to other domains without really understanding the details. There are great opportunities in the “grey area “that can really help improve manufacturing efficiencies and we need to utilize the expert knowledge from both sides. For example, controls guys can rely on the network architecture expertise from IT to design the industrial network for body assembly cells. I remember an engine assembly line network that was designed by an OEM without any networking knowledge that ended up with 7-layers of unmanaged Ethernet switches. I am sure that is not the best network architecture for the system. “It works!” a control guy may say, but what happens if there is a network issue during production? On the other hand, mandating MQTT protocol on PLCs does not realize the primary job of a PLC is to control the machine. We all have skewed views.
In recent years, technologies that bridge the gap between IT and Controls have made the divide much smaller and cooperation between the two a reality. Even with all the problems OPC servers have (mainly because of poor implementations of commercial products and system integration), they enabled the plant floor to IT integration. The next generation products such as the Mitsubishi MESIT module enables PLCs to be integrated with IT system databases much easier, making the job easier for both sides. The next trend will be moving some of the MES functions into embedded devices on the floor to take advantage of the capability of modules such as MESIT. There are smaller manufacturing environments that need only limited MES functions and can not afford the computer room and multiple servers. The embedded MES modules will be ideal for these facilities.
So here is my Utopia on how things should work in the “grey area”:
• Production should provide the business requirements for MES and production system integration.
• Controls should be responsible for collecting plant floor data and communicating them to MES systems
• IT should be a system design and service provider organization, not the one dictate how things should be done.
• IT and Controls should work together to determine what system architecture should be. Using all servers or no server can not be the solution for all situations. Different system architectures should be customized for different facilities based on agreed upon guidelines.
o We are not talking about hundreds of variations but may be systems and architectures for “large, medium, and small” facilities based on the number of controllers that need to be integrated?
• Controls should determine what network architecture technical needs are and IT should assist in designing the network architecture to integrate production systems.
• Controls should dictate what control system hardware be but follow the corporate information security practices.
Anyway, at the end of the day, we need to get parts out the door! We can be friends as long as we don’t discuss computer viruses and IGMP Snooping on the factory floor.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Did anything good ever come from GM?
I think most people will agree that the Detroit area is not the happiest place on earth right now. There seems to be bad news coming all the time and no, I am not talking about the Lions! It has almost become fashionable to take shots at Detroit and the U.S. auto companies that reside there. Yes, some of the criticisms are justified. There were bad management decisions; bad union contracts; wastes and inefficiencies; and yes, political corruptions. The list could go on. I may not be qualified to discuss the issues of Detroit itself (even though I certainly have my own opinions!). I am, however, qualified to say that a lot of the automation technology used today was developed by and for the U.S. automotive companies, specifically by GM. I know this because I was a GM employee for 25 years.
When I have talked to people who have had a lot of criticisms of the GM cars and trucks, I often found that (s)he had not driven nor even been in a GM vehicle for at least five to ten years and sometimes longer. The criticisms came from some bad experiences personally, but more times than not, it was from hearing the bad experiences of friends and acquaintances. Wow, what a perception problem GM has to overcome! Now, I know that these criticisms were earned over the years, but I think the products from the past few years deserve a 2nd look without people propagating the old opinions without fresh inputs.
I am not a product guy so I can’t say too much about the technologies in the vehicles, but the innovations and advanced technologies used in these vehicles are so exciting! Consumers don’t have to worry about how these things work and how to use them in the vehicles. They are presented in the forms of safety, comfort, functionality, ease of use…. These are real engineering marvels, if I may say so myself! Many of today’s technologies and innovations in manufacturing automation areas were either driven by or first adopted in large-scale production use by GM and other U.S. automotive companies. For most automation suppliers, the PLC is the key product in the business! Did you know that the first wide-adoption of the PLC in manufacturing operations was by GM Powertrain (it was called Hydra-Matic at that time) operation in Ypsilanti. That adoption literally launched a whole new industry!
Secondly, one may think Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) was a failure since it never reached the goal of becoming the common communication network and protocol that links all components of automated equipment together. That may be true, however, the use of networks in manufacturing with different applications such as peer-to-peer communication, controls to IT system integration, safety networks, device networks, etc. all were derived or initiated from the MAP efforts. Today, it is hard to imagine a production line without network connectivity or even a low-automation line with many manual stations!
My favorite technology topic is Open Architecture Controller versus the PC-based controller. They certainly are controversial in the sense that there are people who have strong opinions on whether they should be used in a manufacturing environment. I always believed that an open architecture controller is not the same as a PC-based controller, and we can probably spend the next two hours discussing the differences. Whatever your view is regarding these two items, they brought the concept of inter-operability to reality on the factory floor. They bring the “openness” of operator interfaces and ease of network connectivity to manufacturing lines. The popularity of using Ethernet-based technologies in manufacturing is the result of the adoption of PCs and the availability of low cost Ethernet connectivity options. Of course GM together with other large end-user companies has the main driving force behind the use of these technologies through the OMAC Users Group.
Let’s look at Windows operating system and PC platforms in manufacturing. Was that a good thing? Was it a failure? I am sure we can debate this for a long time. There were several factors such as information security concerns and operating system updates that made the use of PCs on the plant floor not as beneficial as first envisioned. However, I will say proper use of PCs and the implementation of open system concept enabled great advances in manufacturing automation. That discussion will be something for another blog in the near future.
Vision systems in the vehicle assembly lines, vision guided robotic systems for windshield insertion and stud-welding, full-body gauging systems, paint defect detection systems, panel defect detection systems using light diffraction, modular control, artificial intelligence and knowledge-based systems, flexible fixtures, manufacturing line simulation, ultrasonic gap detection systems, etc. are many of the technology application examples. These are just some of the applications that I was personally involved with over the years. Some were very successful, others not so much from both the technology implementation and application usefulness standpoint. GM at that time was a company striving to be innovative, willing to take risks, willing to provide its engineering teams the freedom and opportunities to use new concepts and technologies, in short, a Company taking bold steps towards being the leader! Some of the risk taking and being the “guineas pig” did not result in direct benefits to GM, however, the contributions to industry from these efforts were invaluable! Maybe that is one of the key factors for GM’s problems right now: it has not taken advantages the many good things it has done over the years itself.
As I follow what is happening at GM closely, I have great confidence in the future success of the company! GM was a very good company and it will be a great company again! It is an opportunity to correct some of the mistakes; and with the tradition of innovation and the mindset of being the best, GM will be better than ever! Of course many of my friends are still there, and I know how innovative and smart they are, and there are many like them in the company.
When I have talked to people who have had a lot of criticisms of the GM cars and trucks, I often found that (s)he had not driven nor even been in a GM vehicle for at least five to ten years and sometimes longer. The criticisms came from some bad experiences personally, but more times than not, it was from hearing the bad experiences of friends and acquaintances. Wow, what a perception problem GM has to overcome! Now, I know that these criticisms were earned over the years, but I think the products from the past few years deserve a 2nd look without people propagating the old opinions without fresh inputs.
I am not a product guy so I can’t say too much about the technologies in the vehicles, but the innovations and advanced technologies used in these vehicles are so exciting! Consumers don’t have to worry about how these things work and how to use them in the vehicles. They are presented in the forms of safety, comfort, functionality, ease of use…. These are real engineering marvels, if I may say so myself! Many of today’s technologies and innovations in manufacturing automation areas were either driven by or first adopted in large-scale production use by GM and other U.S. automotive companies. For most automation suppliers, the PLC is the key product in the business! Did you know that the first wide-adoption of the PLC in manufacturing operations was by GM Powertrain (it was called Hydra-Matic at that time) operation in Ypsilanti. That adoption literally launched a whole new industry!
Secondly, one may think Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) was a failure since it never reached the goal of becoming the common communication network and protocol that links all components of automated equipment together. That may be true, however, the use of networks in manufacturing with different applications such as peer-to-peer communication, controls to IT system integration, safety networks, device networks, etc. all were derived or initiated from the MAP efforts. Today, it is hard to imagine a production line without network connectivity or even a low-automation line with many manual stations!
My favorite technology topic is Open Architecture Controller versus the PC-based controller. They certainly are controversial in the sense that there are people who have strong opinions on whether they should be used in a manufacturing environment. I always believed that an open architecture controller is not the same as a PC-based controller, and we can probably spend the next two hours discussing the differences. Whatever your view is regarding these two items, they brought the concept of inter-operability to reality on the factory floor. They bring the “openness” of operator interfaces and ease of network connectivity to manufacturing lines. The popularity of using Ethernet-based technologies in manufacturing is the result of the adoption of PCs and the availability of low cost Ethernet connectivity options. Of course GM together with other large end-user companies has the main driving force behind the use of these technologies through the OMAC Users Group.
Let’s look at Windows operating system and PC platforms in manufacturing. Was that a good thing? Was it a failure? I am sure we can debate this for a long time. There were several factors such as information security concerns and operating system updates that made the use of PCs on the plant floor not as beneficial as first envisioned. However, I will say proper use of PCs and the implementation of open system concept enabled great advances in manufacturing automation. That discussion will be something for another blog in the near future.
Vision systems in the vehicle assembly lines, vision guided robotic systems for windshield insertion and stud-welding, full-body gauging systems, paint defect detection systems, panel defect detection systems using light diffraction, modular control, artificial intelligence and knowledge-based systems, flexible fixtures, manufacturing line simulation, ultrasonic gap detection systems, etc. are many of the technology application examples. These are just some of the applications that I was personally involved with over the years. Some were very successful, others not so much from both the technology implementation and application usefulness standpoint. GM at that time was a company striving to be innovative, willing to take risks, willing to provide its engineering teams the freedom and opportunities to use new concepts and technologies, in short, a Company taking bold steps towards being the leader! Some of the risk taking and being the “guineas pig” did not result in direct benefits to GM, however, the contributions to industry from these efforts were invaluable! Maybe that is one of the key factors for GM’s problems right now: it has not taken advantages the many good things it has done over the years itself.
As I follow what is happening at GM closely, I have great confidence in the future success of the company! GM was a very good company and it will be a great company again! It is an opportunity to correct some of the mistakes; and with the tradition of innovation and the mindset of being the best, GM will be better than ever! Of course many of my friends are still there, and I know how innovative and smart they are, and there are many like them in the company.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Many Wonder if the Grass is "Browner" on the Otherside...
"What is it like to be on the otherside?"
Ever since I joined Mitsubishi Electric Automation in November of 2008, one of the more frequently asked questions I get is “How does it feel to be on the other side?” Of course people who are now my competitors are the ones most interested in knowing how I feel.
Frankly, the transition of my role from end user to technology supplier has been fairly smooth; it was almost like I just moved to a different assignment and didn’t really need to make a whole lot of adjustments. In some ways, it was easier than my transfer to GM Controls Conveyors Robotics and Welding (CCRW) organization from GM Powertrain a few years ago. At that time it took me a few months before I became totally comfortable with the organization and the way things were done. Don’t get me wrong, I liked CCRW, the people and the assignments, and I still do like GM and the people a lot! I just didn’t adjust as easily to the change at that time for some reason. On the contrary, there should be more reasons for me to feel “uneasy” with this recent job change: the role change from end user to supplier, the move from an engineering focused organization to a more marketing and sales focused organization, the adjustment from a huge company to a smaller organization, the change of routine from the daily commute to the office to working from home and flying to different business locations… I can go on and on. Hey, maybe the new challenges in a brand new environment make everything easy and exciting!
Looking back, I can say being an end user was very beneficial to my career and me personally. I had the opportunity to work with many different supplier companies to understand the good and the bad of various technologies and products; companies short and long-term business strategies; different ways different companies conduct business and serve customers; “games” people play to win new business, etc. All of these experiences have broadened my view and knowledge in both commercial and technical aspects of the automation business. Additionally, while representing an end-user company in many industry associations and committees, I was able to work with many other end-user companies to understand their automation architectures, strategies, and rationale for selecting technologies and suppliers. Jointly, we were able to define new directions and new applications for the industry and that was very satisfying. However, the best part of working for an end user company was the privilege to work with many good people from many different companies over the years. I was able establish wonderful relationships with many of them, both professionally and personally. Now that I am working for a supplier company, many of my friends will not talk to me anymore professionally! The good thing is that we are still friends personally, so we can still get together to play golf and complain about the Lions! The opportunity to network truly was and remains priceless!
After a few months with Mitsubishi, I started to appreciate life from the supplier’s perspectives. I quickly found many different opportunities to utilize the experiences I have. I am excited that I can see how my contributions directly impact the bottom line of the organization; I can gain deeper understanding of the needs and requirements in different industries; I can assist in creating new business opportunities with the connections that I have; and how I can help improve the efficiency in engineering development projects. Not only do I get to work with new people within Mitsubishi globally, but I also have the opportunity to work with customer companies as well. Pretty exciting stuff! I am looking forward to the opportunities for me to provide the end-user view to the Mitsubishi teams globally in order to improve the functionality our products to meet customer requirements and bridge any solution gaps. My insight on vendor selection criteria, effective sales approaches, end user company decision making process, etc. can be used to improve the efficiency of Mitsubishi’s direct sales and marketing approaches to end user companies. Knowing the behind-the-scenes procurement processes at an end-user company, I am convinced that Mitsubishi can avoid certain common mistakes supplier companies make during a project quoting process.
If I really have to compare the two sides, I can see the end users may have more influence in defining the industry standards (e.g. MAP, OMAC). However, these standards will not become reality without the technologies provided by the suppliers. On the other hand, technology suppliers not only have the ability to make standards a reality, they are also able to market and influence industry and international standards on their own (e.g. OPC, DeviceNet/EtherNet/IP, Profibus/PROFINET, CC-Link/CC-Link IE). So I am glad that I am blessed to be able to contribute from both sides!
So, how is it to be on the other side? I can’t really say the grass is greener on the end user side since I believe the grass is equally green on both sides! When I was an end user, I sometimes detected supplier employees felt like they were “second-class” citizens to the end users. This was especially evident when they were “beaten-up” by end users on certain supplier-related issues. I think when people asked me this question; they were really asking me how it feels to be beaten up by customers! To be truthful, I don’t feel like I have been beaten up at all. I know the important roles that we play as suppliers of technology, and I am confident in the contributions a supplier company can make and is making! Of course there always will be difficult customers that we have to deal with from time to time, but I believe it is a “cost of doing business” and can be taken in stride. When you are sure about what you’re doing and have the confidence in your technologies and products, and genuinely want to resolve customer issues and meet customer requirements, “Customer Beatings” can easily be turned into productive opportunities for new business!
Of course there are plenty of wonderful end user customers, like I used to be one, to make a supplier’s life enjoyable!
Ever since I joined Mitsubishi Electric Automation in November of 2008, one of the more frequently asked questions I get is “How does it feel to be on the other side?” Of course people who are now my competitors are the ones most interested in knowing how I feel.
Frankly, the transition of my role from end user to technology supplier has been fairly smooth; it was almost like I just moved to a different assignment and didn’t really need to make a whole lot of adjustments. In some ways, it was easier than my transfer to GM Controls Conveyors Robotics and Welding (CCRW) organization from GM Powertrain a few years ago. At that time it took me a few months before I became totally comfortable with the organization and the way things were done. Don’t get me wrong, I liked CCRW, the people and the assignments, and I still do like GM and the people a lot! I just didn’t adjust as easily to the change at that time for some reason. On the contrary, there should be more reasons for me to feel “uneasy” with this recent job change: the role change from end user to supplier, the move from an engineering focused organization to a more marketing and sales focused organization, the adjustment from a huge company to a smaller organization, the change of routine from the daily commute to the office to working from home and flying to different business locations… I can go on and on. Hey, maybe the new challenges in a brand new environment make everything easy and exciting!
Looking back, I can say being an end user was very beneficial to my career and me personally. I had the opportunity to work with many different supplier companies to understand the good and the bad of various technologies and products; companies short and long-term business strategies; different ways different companies conduct business and serve customers; “games” people play to win new business, etc. All of these experiences have broadened my view and knowledge in both commercial and technical aspects of the automation business. Additionally, while representing an end-user company in many industry associations and committees, I was able to work with many other end-user companies to understand their automation architectures, strategies, and rationale for selecting technologies and suppliers. Jointly, we were able to define new directions and new applications for the industry and that was very satisfying. However, the best part of working for an end user company was the privilege to work with many good people from many different companies over the years. I was able establish wonderful relationships with many of them, both professionally and personally. Now that I am working for a supplier company, many of my friends will not talk to me anymore professionally! The good thing is that we are still friends personally, so we can still get together to play golf and complain about the Lions! The opportunity to network truly was and remains priceless!
After a few months with Mitsubishi, I started to appreciate life from the supplier’s perspectives. I quickly found many different opportunities to utilize the experiences I have. I am excited that I can see how my contributions directly impact the bottom line of the organization; I can gain deeper understanding of the needs and requirements in different industries; I can assist in creating new business opportunities with the connections that I have; and how I can help improve the efficiency in engineering development projects. Not only do I get to work with new people within Mitsubishi globally, but I also have the opportunity to work with customer companies as well. Pretty exciting stuff! I am looking forward to the opportunities for me to provide the end-user view to the Mitsubishi teams globally in order to improve the functionality our products to meet customer requirements and bridge any solution gaps. My insight on vendor selection criteria, effective sales approaches, end user company decision making process, etc. can be used to improve the efficiency of Mitsubishi’s direct sales and marketing approaches to end user companies. Knowing the behind-the-scenes procurement processes at an end-user company, I am convinced that Mitsubishi can avoid certain common mistakes supplier companies make during a project quoting process.
If I really have to compare the two sides, I can see the end users may have more influence in defining the industry standards (e.g. MAP, OMAC). However, these standards will not become reality without the technologies provided by the suppliers. On the other hand, technology suppliers not only have the ability to make standards a reality, they are also able to market and influence industry and international standards on their own (e.g. OPC, DeviceNet/EtherNet/IP, Profibus/PROFINET, CC-Link/CC-Link IE). So I am glad that I am blessed to be able to contribute from both sides!
So, how is it to be on the other side? I can’t really say the grass is greener on the end user side since I believe the grass is equally green on both sides! When I was an end user, I sometimes detected supplier employees felt like they were “second-class” citizens to the end users. This was especially evident when they were “beaten-up” by end users on certain supplier-related issues. I think when people asked me this question; they were really asking me how it feels to be beaten up by customers! To be truthful, I don’t feel like I have been beaten up at all. I know the important roles that we play as suppliers of technology, and I am confident in the contributions a supplier company can make and is making! Of course there always will be difficult customers that we have to deal with from time to time, but I believe it is a “cost of doing business” and can be taken in stride. When you are sure about what you’re doing and have the confidence in your technologies and products, and genuinely want to resolve customer issues and meet customer requirements, “Customer Beatings” can easily be turned into productive opportunities for new business!
Of course there are plenty of wonderful end user customers, like I used to be one, to make a supplier’s life enjoyable!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
