EWI – Lightening in a Document

First, I’d like to thank  Grant Vokey, Gerard Ipskamp, and Jean-Luc Delcuvellerie for their contributions in the LinkedIn Manufacturing Execution Systems Group discussions.   I find these group discussions to be a rich and thoughtful source for all things MES.

Electronic Work Instructions, what are they?  Good question…  you may not like the answer.   The only way to answer this is to understand, at a high level, what they could be, and at the ground level, how they are implemented in different packages.   

 First, it helps to understand where they’ve come from.  Standard Operating Procedures, SOPs, have been part of the manufacturing environment since production managers could write down instructions.  Typically you’ll find these kind of instructions on the production floor on a laminated sheet (or sheets) hanging at an operation or bound in a humongous book in the quality office for every product and procedure.  They’re a big step in the right direction.  Getting your people to know what the right process is, and following that process is huge.  So…  problem solved?  Not really.   So, thinking that through… what happens when I have a change to the document?   Let’s say R&D has improved the operational procedure for a handful of products.  How does the change happen?  New documents are printed and distributed to the right locations.  When do you change over?  How do you coordinate the release of the document with when you want that new procedure put in place?  And this is really the simplest case.  Let’s consider what else might be in that SOP.  If we include setup instructions, quality inspection instructions, or production data collection instructions in the SOP, this document becomes a living document.  Each area of information may be managed differently, by different groups.   In addition, the information for each may or may not be related.  How do you coordinate this disparate data?  How do you make sure the right data is updated in the document at the right time and appears at the operator when it’s supposed to?

Managing this kind of information in a pure text document is both difficult and ineffective.   This has driven the need for Electronic Work Instructions, EWI.   So… what could EWI be?  Since there isn’t a definition in Wikipedia, I’ll make one up.  It could be an electronic document that contains embedded data fields that can be managed and distributed either automatically or according to some scheduling criteria.   I would add that there are some ancillary functions that actually make this manageable and useful:

• Document Versioning – An important feature, especially useful in a flexible production environment, or where rapid product changes occur.
• Review and Approval – The ability to create/modify a document and route it for review and approval.
• Data Integration – The ability to add or update data fields in the document based on an external data source (e.g.  Control Limits for a given product and operation).
• Distribution Management – The ability to schedule document distribution or initiate distribution based on business rules (such as release coordination with new products).
• Hierarchy – The ability to structure a master document with related sub-documents.  For instance a master document for Product A may contain sub sections for production, quality, safety, sanitation, etc.  Each of these sub sections may be divided into smaller divisions based on operations for instance.
• Security – The ability to control who may read, create, or modify documents.
• Electronic Signatures – Having the ability to record sign-off on a document is incredibly useful.  This is usually the cornerstone of becoming CFR 21 part 11 compliant, providing auditable records that can be easily retrieved and reported.

Once we’ve created a document and know how to publish it when we need to, we also need to be able to control access to it.  Actually, we’d like to coordinate document access with production processes, so that the right document (or sub-section, or sub-section item) is made available based on production conditions.  What conditions?

• Operations – Displaying the right document item based on the production operation
• Product – ditto for the product, usually in combination with Operations.
• Quality Status – Showing the right quality procedure based on sampling results and showing the procedure for further testing/evaluation.  Things like Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, HACCP, Corrective and Preventative Actions, CAPA, and Material Review Board, MRB fall into this category.
• Setup or Changeover – Displaying the right document for machine/unit setup based on a product change.
• Sanitation or CIP – Displaying the right document for sanitation or clean in place operations before or after a production run.

All of the above require extensive coordination.  That’s why EWI has become more main stream in MES applications in the last few years.   You mean EWI creation and management in MES?  Well… Yes and no.  Yes, there are packages that have most of the required EWI capabilities in them.  What better way to determine current production state than through MES.  No argument from me.  MES applications typically have an intimate awareness of operations and the production state.  The issue is the information embedded in those documents.  Much of what should be there comes from Product Life-Cycle Management, PLM, applications, Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP, applications, or Laboratory Information Management System applications.   If you create those documents in a MES EWI function, then (if you don’t have some mechanism for automated updates) you have to manage that information in multiple systems.  You just don’t want to go there.  Better to use the MES EWI as a kind of reference engine, letting it retrieve the appropriate document from another location or system based on production conditions. 

So if we only point to the documents we need from MES, where should the documents be created?  No simple answers here.  ERP’s typically have some capability to create and manage these documents.  PLM’s are usually a better place to keep/manage them simply because the majority of the information needed is managed there anyway.  PLM’s also usually have the ability to distribute those data elements (like limits, set-points, sample id’s, etc) to other systems.  PLM’s aren’t for everyone however.  They aren’t cheap and require a resource investment to keep them fed with current and accurate data.  However you choose to implement EWI’s (or a combination of EWI and document management) there are some important factors to consider:

• Minimize the management of document data to as few systems as possible – keeping systems synchronized can be painful and unreliable.
• Use the MES EWI system to refer to documents – freeing the MES EWI function from document management functions simplifies the MES configuration and keeps the data in the system of authority.
• Develop alignment between systems – Making sure the ERP operations and the MES operations share common boundaries will ensure that the right document with the right data arrives at the right time.
•  Data Integration – Mapping out where and how data is managed before implementing an EWI can significantly reduce data integration requirements and significantly increase data accuracy and timeliness.

EWI can make dramatic improvements in production efficiency and quality.  How you choose to implement it really depends on your product mix, production complexity, and to a large part your IT infrastructure.

Making it Real: Implementing Your MES Roadmap

This is a continuation of the discussions related to “MESA to Change Direction?”   Before you implement your Roadmap for Change, it makes sense to find out what you have in your backyard that might support it today, and what you need to add or modify to support your plan.  It also makes some sense to make sure you have a team that can get you there.

Automation Data Capabilities and Requirements

One of the advantages of the MES Organic approach is that it is totally agnostic in relation to technologies.  MES capabilities may be fulfilled by one or many applications or systems.  In fact, some MES capabilities could be fulfilled by applications or systems that already exist.  Using the process flows and interface definitions from the workshops define what data is needed and what manufacturing activities need it.  By performing a Systems and Automation Data survey you can determine:

 

• Does the required data exist for use
• Does the system collecting the data provide access to the data
• Can the system be modified to provide the needed data
• Can the system be modified to provide the needed capability

 

MES capabilities rely on the particular data that is available from the automation and controls level.  For instance, getting the production count may be easy, but you’ll need a counter of some kind to perform the task, and the data from that counter has to be available to calculate yield or determine that the item count for an order has actually been reached.   By performing the above survey you will know if the current system can support your future state, if modifications are required, and if legacy systems can fulfill some of the future state requirements.

Implementing the Roadmap

Selecting and implementing a MES (or MES technologies) can be a daunting task.  Hopefully, by narrowing the number of capabilities you’ve selected, you’ve also reduced the complexity and effort required for implementation.  Having clear process flows and requirements for your future state also simplifies technology selection.  Framing these requirements in terms of ISA-95 defined capabilities and activities also provides a bridge to technology providers who have developed solutions compliant with the ISA-95 standard (and market their product that way as well).  While this doesn’t guarantee that their product will provide a complete solution, it does help you determine how well their product fits your requirements in terms that you are familiar with.

Integrate the Old with the New

• Extend Legacy Systems where appropriate
• Develop Automation capability where necessary
• Implement limited MES functionality with compartmentalized capabilities

 

Implementation isn’t all about technology selection though.  The project team will have significantly more impact on the success of your implementation than almost any other factor.

Getting MES Processes Right is a TEAM Effort

• MES isn’t an IT initiative, it’s a Team initiative
• Selected capabilities may dictate different SME’s, Operators, IT skills
• MES SUPPORTS Lean and Six Sigma Initiatives

 

Often MES initiatives begin as an IT initiative.  The glass wall between IT and Engineering is well known.   The solution is to empower all of the stakeholders.  Collaboration workshops accomplish some of this.  Another way to ensure buy-in is to find and assign a Project Champion from engineering, operations, or production.  Remember that it’s the process that’s important, not whose system is in charge.  Also remember that it may take subject matter experts from different areas and backgrounds to implement a holistic solution.

There may also be some resistance from Operations or Production if they own a Lean or Six Sigma initiative.  It’s often a mistaken assumption that a MES initiative is counter to Lean goals.  This is simply not true.  In fact, it is the opposite.  The information from MES initiatives can provide a firm foundation for the data needed for the Kaizen process.  MES technologies can also provide the framework for needed solutions.

Next Time:  How Do You Measure How Effective This Has Been?

How Do You See MESA?

I’ve received a few comments on the MESA series that seem to indicate that for manufactures who are just considering making use of MES capabilities, it is difficult to determine the value of MES, to understand it in terms of business activities, and to understand the material offered.  Some manufacturers feel like MESA is too focused on vendors and system integrators and not accessible enough.

I agree that MESA needs to be a lot more accessible. The intent of my posts is a kind of shot over the bow (more like a spit wad over an aircraft carrier) to anyone at MESA who might be interested, and readers who just don’t get what MESA might have to offer. I also agree that it tends to be a vendor centric view. For example, go to their website sometime. Finding anything of value is a real challenge. First just locating the information is a challenge, then making sense of the content is a challenge. If you already know MES and understand the different models it’s not too bad. If you’re a manufacturer unfamiliar with MES and trying to find out if where the value is, heaven help you. As far as conversation or dialogue is concerned, forget it. The impression is one of a one way street of education, they are the experts telling you how it is. I understand that they are trying to set up a value for membership model to pay for their content, but even so, I’m a basic member and it’s difficult to get to the content I need, and impossible to have any kind of idea exchange.

The original presentation by Matthew Littlefield was extremely revealing, showing that manufacturers in the general population actually fared well against MESA member manufacturers and better in certain critical areas, one of them being the involvement of C-level management in MES projects, the other being the inclusion of business process methods for implementing MES. I think this has been a blind spot for MESA from the beginning.

What are your thoughts?  Is this BS?  Do you think MESA is easy to work with?  Do you understand their MES value proposition?  Have you been able to incorporate other processes, like change management, into your overall MES implementation strategy using the MESA model?

Let’s stir the pot and see what comes up!

MESA Part 5 – Forging a Path Forward

This posting is a continuation of the “MESA to Change Direction?” posting.  This series discusses how to implement MES systems using a Business Process Management approach, looking at the manufacturing processes and then determining how to implement those processes through changes in how operators perform tasks and the technologies that enable those changes.

It’s not enough to simply hold workshops solve world hunger and sing Kumbaya.   Having a roadmap, a plan for change, and the business case to back up our claims for improvement can make it a reality.

Ok, so we’ve held the workshops…   WHOOHOO!   Exhausting as they are, we’re now armed with some fantastic information. Our four deliverables from those workshops look something like this:

To-Be Process

A process map of how each manufacturing activity will be performed in the Future State.

During the workshops, we sketched these on flip charts or whiteboards at a high level.  Afterwards, we need to create an electronic version with all the details, both in the form of a process flow map, and a textual document describing the process.  Route it through the participants and get their sign-off.   

System Footprint

A mapping of the capabilities defined in the above processes to existing systems and new systems that will be required to support the Future State.    This requires some analysis.  We’ll need to determine which capabilities (or pieces of capabilities) will be performed through modification of existing systems, and which will be performed through acquired systems.  We’ll need to identify those new systems.  How?  Because many of the MES application vendors (MES, LIMs, Data Historians, PLM, etc) have developed and market their products using the ISA-95 standard its usually a straight-forward process to map the future state processes with MES application capabilities.

Interfaces

A collection of “touch point” agreements between systems that specifies each specific interface called out in the To-Be process.   This provides the information we need to get the IT department in gear.  Probably the most important piece of this deliverable though is a Data Walk-Through.  This takes our future state process, assigns real values to the data transferred between systems so everyone can see how their processes will be expected to work.  I can’t emphasize enough how important this is.  Just seeing the real data will bring everyone down to the reality of how the new process will work.

Business Case

A high level business plan that contains:

• Description of the objectives
• A list of requirements
• A Gap Analysis
• A description of the change management issues
•  A migration plan
• Expected ROI’s by activity

Objectives – We’ve already collected these for the workshops, we just need to include them to frame the business case.  We can also provide some high level statements, from analysis of our future state and ROI, for how our new way of doing business will meet our objectives.

Requirements – Since we’ve conducted our workshops based on ISA-95 capabilities and functionality, we need to capture those capabilities and assign a priority value to each.  The intent here is to form the basis for selection of technologies and provide justification for changes in current business practices. 

Gap Analysis – Working from our list of shortfalls from the workshops we can now develop a gap analysis that describes how the new process addresses those shortfalls, or describes the mitigation plan where the processes do not address or solve the shortfalls.

Change Management – By including a change management champion in our workshop sessions, we’ve been able to collect change management issues, bring them into the discussions of future state, and begin the planning to address them.  The list of change management issues may surprise you but it’s imperative that the company is aware of and planning for the changes in how you will do business.  Change issues can range from simple tweaks to the way a department handles a transaction, to an overhaul in how documents are managed and employees are trained or certified.

Migration Plan – No matter how you will proceed, having a roadmap for how you will get there is critical.  A high level technical roadmap that calls out the order and timeframe of implementation of the systems needed to support your future state can provide the budgeting information you need to sell your program internally.   Don’t think it’s all about the budget either, having a plan for implementing fundamental capabilities or capabilities that have far reaching impact in your organization can help you transition smoothly and more efficiently.

Return on Investment – All the work we’ve done in the workshops to determine the costs of the shortfalls we’ve identified pays off here.  Remember that each workshop was set up for a particular set of capabilities or functions, and that we’ve collected the shortfalls, and the costs of those shortfalls for those capabilities.  In addition, we’ve identified estimates of lost opportunities during those workshops.  This defines our ROI for each of those activities.  Having this granular level of ROI allows us to do one very important thing, we can measure it.  Along with the identification of the ROI for each activity, we’re going to identify the KPI that measures how well we will accomplish the improvement we seek.

OK, that’s great!  We’ve got our workshop deliverables.  Now what do we do with them?

Next time – Making It Real

MESA Part 4 – Laying the Foundation for Change

This posting continues our discussion of how to apply Business Process Management methods to implementing MES. 

In previous discussions we talked about the materials we needed to prepare for a series of Consensus Workshops.  What are Consensus Workshops?  That requires a little background. 

What is a Consensus Workshop?

For the selected functional areas (see below) subject matter experts from each of the affected departments or functional areas are assembled to; review the current As-Is state and shortfalls, generate a To-Be state process flow, determine how the process flow addresses the shortfalls and the company objectives and strategy, develop a list of the gaps between the To-Be state and those shortfalls left unaddressed, and address the change management issues related to the future state processes.

What are the topics for the Workshops?

The full list of topics available for holding Workshops follows the ISA-95 Model:

1. Production Control
2. Quality Assurance
3. Maintenance Management
4. Material and Energy Control
5. Product Inventory Control
6. Production Scheduling
7. Procurement
8. R&D
9. Order Processing
10. Cost Accounting
11. Product Shipping

Some notes on this list:  You can usually combine Material and Energy Control with Production Inventory Control under a single topic Inventory Management (as it is in the MOM).  This allows you to address raw materials, WIP, and finished goods discussions in a single workshop.  If Energy Control is a significant topic, create a separate workshop for it.  Don’t discount the Cost Accounting and Order Processing discussions, they may be short but they can be significant.  For example, determining how product unit costs are evaluated can affect critical KPI’s and incentives.

How do we select the topics?

As you prepare the As-Is state process flows and gather shortfalls for the way you currently do business, a picture emerges of areas that need attention or present opportunities.  You could hold a workshop for each area of the ISA-95 model, one for all the activities in Production Control, one for all the activities in Quality Management, one for all the activities in Procurement, etc.  Do you need to hold a workshop for every area?  That depends on how comprehensively you intend to apply an MES system.  Another way to look at it is to identify those areas with the most problems and the most opportunity for payback.  It’s a trade-off, expediency and short-term payback versus comprehensiveness and longer term payback.

A few of the advantages of selecting a limited number of areas are;

• It is usually easier to determine the true ROI for change.
• It’s easier for participants to understand the value of the change. 
• It requires fewer resources to implement.  

Remember it’s a trade-off.  There are also advantages to the comprehensive approach;

• Having a full picture of the numerous and various interfaces between systems and implementing them one time is much more efficient, 
• Even if you don’t implement all of the future state or To-Be processes you will have a long-term plan to work towards,
• It’s easier to implement full-scale change while you have your foot on the gas.

Next Time:  Creating the Framework for Change

MESA Part 3 – Delivering Value through BPM Workshops

This post continues the discussion of how to apply Business Process Methods to implementing MES based on the ISA-95 standard.

As you recall, we had to develop some material before holding consensus workshops.  It goes something like this :

1. Use the ISA-95 definitions for manufacturing activities and determine those performed
2. Determine the strategy and objectives of top management. 
3. Develop an As-Is state in the form of a process flow for each activity
4. Determine the shortfalls, issues, and requirements for each activity

This material provides the framework and focus for consensus workshops that will be held to determine how to both address identified shortfalls, and to reach the objectives of top management.

So, what do we expect to get out of the workshops?  In order to develop a justification and plan for reaching the aforementioned objectives, we need some supporting material:

1. To-Be Process – This is a process flow that has been modified from the As-Is process flow we bring to the workshop for each activity.  Again, this is a high level flow that shows how the basic activities are performed and the information flows between different activities, systems, and resources.  Don’t forget to put it down on paper.  A textual description of the process flow goes a long way in clearing up the understanding of what’s going on.  I usually put this into a companion document that accompanies the process flow.
2. Systems Footprint – Although we’d like to focus discussion on the process alone, independent of which system performs each.  As much as we’d like to believe we can start over and make everything work in an optimal way, it’s not completely practical.  There are legacy systems that already perform some functions, and initiatives for new systems that will pick up other functions.  Without getting into details, a high-level mapping of functions across existing systems will help to determine what the technical roadmap for implementation will look like.
3. Business Case – Here’s where collecting those shortfalls in the As-Is state really pays off.  If we assign an issues Champion to bring real-life examples of each shortfall, and an estimated cost per occurence, we can start to build a case for ROI.  This goes a long way in addressing the savings and efficiency aspect of the business case, but we shouldn’t ignore lost opportunity costs.  If we consider the revenue impact of reaching the objectives laid out by top management, we can calculate the impact of increased revenue as well.  Consider the example in my previous post “MES for Competitive Advantage.”  During our workshop, we should capture how the To-Be process will address the shortfalls and provide competitive advantage.
4. Change Management – How a company addresses change determines how successful the MES implementation will be.  It’s critical that a Change Management Champion, CMC,  attend every workshop, capture issues requiring change in related functions, departments, and systems.  The CMC will be a liason role that communicates the impact of the proposed To-Be state.  It is critical that the CMC has the full and real support of top management.  Change can be difficult and it will be important to identify areas of resistence, overcoming resistence, and determining the cost for change.  In addition to determining the impact of change, the CMC will also identify those areas that will require either modification of training or additional training.

 This is material that we develop during the workshop.  It doesn’t have to be detailed or pretty.  It does have to address the shortfalls and objectives, so keeping the conversation focused is important.   

What workshops should we hold?  The workshops should be organized at a level high enough to capture one of the major areas in the ISA-95 framework (for example:  Quality, Production Control, Inventory Management, Maintenance, Procurement, etc).  Each workshop will address a series of activities performed for an area.  For instance, a Quality workshop might address:  Test Definitions and Distribution, Testing Procedures (in-line, at-line, off-line),  Material Review Board, MRB, procedures for rework, Quality analysis procedures).  These are by no means complete, but they should address those areas where the shortfalls are significant and are critical to meet the objectives laid out.

Who should attend?  Representative Subject Matter Experts, SMEs, that either appear on the As-Is process flow, or subject to change with the anticipated To-Be process.   As much as manufacturing companies hate to commit these resources to these kinds of workshops, because they were hired to actually produce things, their participation is absolutely critical to the success of the proposed changes.  Without their input and consensus, there will be resistence to change that is not always possible to overcome, and mistakes made in both requirements and implementation strategy that will be costly to remedy.

Next time – Laying the Foundation for Change

MESA Part 2 – Business Process and MES

This posting is a continuation of the “MESA to Change Direction?” article that pointed out the results of an Aberdeen Group survey suggesting MESA may want to emphasize Business Process Management approaches to MES implementation.

It’s Not an IT Initiative

Most MES practitioners have been through the following scenario…. The client asks you to implement an MES package and gives you a set of requirements for configuration.  The IT Team is the only source of information you have.  It’s an IT initiative.  Requests for Production, Quality, Maintenance, and Engineering participation fall on deaf ears, token attendance at meetings is the best they can do.  You know it will be a disaster.  IT will love it, production won’t use it, cost accounting could care less, quality is mad, and engineering will do everything in its power to subvert it.  It will be dead before it hits the first terminal.   Besides the change management issues here, there is an obvious gap between the top floor and the shop floor.  Production, Quality, Engineering, and Maintenance not only need to be part of the change, they need to be driving the change.  Methods for Business Process Management really can help.  Combining BPM with the ISA-95 model is even better.  The ISA-95 model (part 1 and part3) does a great job of outlining the manufacturing activities that 99% of all manufacturers do now, or should do.  They also suggest how those activities might interact with others.  This is the real power of the ISA-95 standard, it provides a basic template to help companies organize, review, and improve how they do business.

Game Plan

Combining the ISA-95 model and Business Process methods is really very straight forward:

• Provide Focus – Get the company objectives and strategies from the top.
• As-Is State – Determine how manufacturing activities are currently performed
• Future State – Hold Consensus Workshops to determine how activities will be performed in the future
• Roadmap – Develop high-level process flows, requirements, and how they fit into a timeline

Providing Focus

Effective BPM relies on a cohesive and coherent framework.  It is absolutely critical that top management provide that framework in the form of goals and objectives for manufacturing.  For example, the VP of Operations may have objectives related to product mix and manufacturing flexibility.  The VP of Quality may have objectives related to minimizing and tracking product escapes.  Those objectives provide the constraints and focus for consensus workshops used to develop new or improved manufacturing/business processes.  This seems extremely obvious, but the simple process of getting the message from the top and using it to provide focus during discussions is invaluable. 

As-Is State

There are three universal truths about a Company’s thinking on the way they currently do business:   1) They’re pretty sure the right people know how it works, 2) It isn’t true, and 3) They really hate putting it down on paper.

The second item becomes clear when a company actually does put it down on paper.  Yes, Betty in procurement knows exactly how to order inventory restock from consumed inventory last month.  She doesn’t know how Bill the Production Manager counts production and consumes inventory.  Getting it down on paper lets both parties see the bigger picture.  This is key if you want both parties to understand the value of information exchanged between functions.   And you do.  Determining the impact of shortfalls and improvements requires this more holistic view.

Using the ISA-95 activity model is a great place to start discussions on the As-Is state.  As an example, consider the following activity descriptions:

2.0 Production Scheduling	Description
2.1 Availability	The ability to determine the availability of all resources required to produce items contained in a production order.  This may include raw materials, labor, and equipment availability and/or capacity.
2.1.1 Provide finished goods availability to Order Processing	The ability to provide the availability of finished goods inventory items.  This allows the planner to plan production for the shortfall between requested sales order quantities and existing finished goods quantities for that item.
2.1.2 Provide available production capacity to Order Processing	The ability to determine the capacity of the available equipment necessary to produce a given item.

 

These activity descriptions provide a guide and a focus for subject matter experts , SMEs, during discussions and laying out the process flow for each activity.  What’s a process flow?  It’s a way to graphically represent what’s going on in each activity.  Here’s an example:

 

Process flows show the high-level activities and how they exchange information with different functions and resources.  It’s a great way for SMEs from adjacent functions to understand what is happening without getting bogged down in the details.

An important second step in putting together an As-Is state is identifying the shortfalls.  This should be an issues list with examples.  Assigning a SME to determine the costs associated with a shortfall, based on the example, is a great way to begin to identify both the cost of doing business, and the potential ROI for future change.

Next time:  Developing the future state.

MES for Competitive Advantage?

That recent Aberdeen Group survey I was talking about (MESA to Change Direction?)  had a few more nuggets to chew on.  One of the results that stuck out was that MESA manufacturing members don’t effectively use MOM as a way to gain competitive advantage.   Instead, they saw and used MOM as a means to reduce operations cost and to ensure regulatory compliance. 

I guess that makes some sense.  Certainly MOM processes and technologies support cost savings initiatives and provide the means for compliance.  I’m a little perplexed that it’s not seen as a way to decrease time to market (one way to gain competitive advantage) for instance.   I sometimes think MES practitioners focus so heavily on the production environment that they forget the supply chain.  If we take our example, time to market, it’s relatively straight forward to see how MOM can really make a difference. 

Let’s start with Product Design.  Designing a new product is more than coming up with a set of drawings.   The new process, raw materials, SOP’s, quality tests, packaging, and operations procedures, are some of the areas that require effort to get a new product through manufacturing and out the door.  Streamlining these processes has a direct impact on time-to-market.  There are several MOM factors that can have a big impact:

• Having a workflow engine of some kind helps.  They are becoming more available in recent MES product releases.  Workflow management allows a plant to route ideas, documents, designs, etc. through the review and approval process.  The routings can be automatically monitored to prompt/persuade laggards to keep things in motion.
• Having a body of accurate and electronic historical data.  It’s always easier to design by copy than design from scratch.  Having those processes, SOP’s, quality tests, and operations as templates to start with can slash design/development time.  This is especially true if that new product is designed to reduce manufacturing costs.
• Having a document management system that can relate SOP’s, Test Documents, Specifications and other production elements.  While not all MOM applications can do this, there are a lot of document management systems that can, and can integrate with MOM applications.  Doing so provides an incredible advantage, especially to heavily regulated industries like Pharma, Medical Devices, and even Food & Beverage.
• The ability to quickly and efficiently create/setup a pilot line.  Having the MOM templates ready to go makes this an easy process.
• The ability to quickly and efficiently analyze pilot line results.  The quicker you can arrive at a stable production state, the quicker you can transition.  If you have a MOM application, this is a no-brainer.

This isn’t, by any means, the only area that can create competitive advantage.  For instance, flexible manufacturing is another (maybe another day).  The point here is that MOM and MES capabilities can help your company compete in the market place, they are more than cost savings measures, they are a means to capture market share, expand and enhance branding, improve customer service,  and many other revenue enhancing areas.

MESA to Change Direction?

It looks as if MESA might be rethinking their MES strategy. 

 A recent survey conducted by the Aberdeen Group showed several very interesting results.   The survey compared the general population of manufacturers versus those manufactures belonging to MESA.  One of the most striking themes showed that the top of class in the general population valued and made better use of Business Process Management methods when integrating/implementing MOM capabilities.  A correlating factor in that result showed that top management for the general population was more involved in MOM projects than MESA members.   It also showed that the general population payed more attention to integrating with other ERP and Supply Chain systems.  Hmmmm….  How does this cause MESA to pause and think?  I think the gist of it is that MESA will take a harder look at how to present and position Business Process Management methods relative to the MESA model and the ISA-95 model.  While the absence, and need, of Business Process methods may not be new to most MES practitioners, it is certainly a welcome sign that MESA now thinks so too.

Another interesting result showed that the bottom tier (the bottom 30%) from the MESA group ranked highest in adopting MOM technologies, even above best in class.  In addition to being the top technocrats, the bottom tier paid less and got better ROI.  This I think speaks to the fact that the best in class are the early adopters and pay a premium, while the bottom tier took advantage of competative pricing. 

The results were presented in a  recent MESA webinar; “Manufacturing Operations Management: Insights for MESA Members.”  It was presented by Matthew Littlefield from Aberdeen Group for MESA.

Now for something completely different…

When I thought about putting a blog together, there were 3 things I promised myself I wouldn’t do:

1. Sell Products – Nobody cares about yet another sales pitch for another MES product you can’t afford.
2. Sell Services – Yes I’m an integrator, contrary to popular belief, we are not the spawn of the devil.
3. Pretend I knew it all – I’ve been around long enough to know I don’t.

So, with that as my guiding principle, it’s time to decide what to do.  Hmmm… maybe this Blog thing is more work than I thought…

No matter, the MES world is a target rich environment.  From the beginning MES has been misunderstood, maligned, misbegotten, malformed, misused, and generally considered a Manufacturing luxury.  Well… Let’s start there then, eh?

Manufacturing Execution Systems, MES, have definitely been misunderstood.  From the Perdue Model to MESA’s latest Manufacturing Collaboration Model MES has been little understood by those who are supposed to use it.  Consider this, go to Wikipedia and type in MES.  You’ll find Manufacturing Execution Systems in a list, select it.  This is what you see:

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Technology or the Technology Portal may be able to help recruit one. (November 2008)

Ok, that’s pitiful.  First, that the description and entry for MES was pitiful, and second, that no one has noticed that it needed updating until the last part of 2008,  including yours truly.  Unfortunately, this is the current state of affairs.  The vast majority of end-users get their information from product vendors.  While there are many really good products out there, and they do a great job of implementing MES capabilities, their message is still biased to the functions and processes that their product supplies.  Customers know that.  It’s difficult to determine what is smoke and mirrors when you have a blind-fold on.  So, where do you find out about what is MES and how can it help you?  I think the best current source is the ISA-95 model – http://www.isa-95.com.   Unfortunately, it takes a translator of the high-tech academic – geek dialect to understand what it’s saying.   Fortunately, when you get the translation, it’s actually incredibly useful.

Technoratic Claim – M5FQCMY6XJ5H