Time to remove manual processes, paper from Food and Beverage! How do we address regulations, at a cost effective level.

Last week I visited 2 Food and Beverage sites in the last week, and I am continued to be surprised by the amount of manual processes and paper trails that still exist. This is for set up of runs, quality, regulation, and process improvements.

To achieve a “positive release” of the product, there are many paper documents filled out across the production line that make up the production record for the run. This process has been running for years, often the data is captured on clip boards and then in some case re-entered into requirements of the business applications. All of this leaves significant room for error, but most of all it leaves limited room for agility of production.

During discussions, the increased requirements for satisfying regulations set down by government or retailers. One customer talked about new significant requirements coming from the “all important” RETAILERS, who own the “shelf space." Does this mean more paper, and how do you educate the operational staff and gain consistency?

Take this combine it with the other big business challengers in F & B:

·         Increased Variety of Products on lines, increased NPI (New Product Introduction)

·         Increased velocity of production

·         Driving of these costs down.

·         Increased regulation requirements.

Combine this with the changing workforce which I have talked about at length. Too deal with these challenger's business would ideally require a stable, experience workforce, but the opposite is now happening.

A foundational requirement is that the manual process / paper processes are replaced with “Managed Operational Processes” that are electronic and enable enter data once have a model driven workflow for “self-learning” of the process. This allows monitoring of the process, and improvement/ tuning of the process. Most of all it removes delays in capturing of data, while allowing workforce transition across activities.    

The technology is mature in Operational Process Modeling, and the shift to an electronic process, is real, it is key for F & B across the world to remove as fast as possible manual operational process!

Demographic shifts transform the global workforce, why we need to rethink Operational Systems

This is an interesting article supporting another challenge in the workforce and why many of trends we have talked about are key to consider now, not in 5 years.

Summary: Never before has demographic change happened so quickly. Global employers face the challenge that, despite a growing global population, they will soon have to recruit from a shrinking workforce due to an aging population.

Despite a growing global population, the availability of skilled workers is actually shrinking, and no longer just in advanced, aging countries such as Japan and Italy. Now, some emerging markets, such as China and Russia, are also feeling a demographic pinch.
The data suggests that this is only the beginning. A “demographic divide” will soon arise between countries with younger skilled workers and those that face an aging, shrinking workforce. The war for talent will become increasingly acute in certain sectors, especially areas requiring high skill levels and more education.
 http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Business-environment/Six-global-trends-shaping-the-business-world---Demographic-shifts-transform-the-global-workforce

Consider once we in this new workforce then we in a dynamic workforce. 

Factory of the Future 2014 centers on Workers ! Tacit knowledge is key not just explicit knowledge!

Sorry for missing last week, just in too many planes. But time to read and reflect on points, and I was discussing an opportunity in Korea with a colleague. Some in the customers think tank asked him to present at a high level the landscape of manufacturing in the future 2020 +. Not surprising to me he centered the new world of manufacturing and industry around the “worker and human decision making/ action”, going out to the processes and then production assets.

I was then reading some background material around Horizon 2020 call for tenders relative to “Factory of the Future” driven by European Commission.

Under Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, for 2014-2020, the new contractual Public-Private Partnership (PPP) on Factories of the Future (FoF) will build on the successes of the FP7 Factories of the Future PPP.
The FoF multi-annual roadmap for the years 2014-2020 sets a vision and outlines routes towards high added value manufacturing technologies for the factories of the future, which will be clean, highly performing, environmental friendly and socially sustainable. The priorities have been agreed within the wide community of stakeholders across Europe, after extensive public consultation.

The interesting focus of this year of the program was around the worker, both in increasing the effectiveness of the different workers but also attractiveness of industry to entice the new generation of workers to want to engage in this industry. This has been a challenge for the last 15 to 20 years where the industrial sector has been seen as slow, and of limited innovation. But “the times are a changing” and innovation is happening fast, and with the acceleration of the industry down the “internet of things” path (as the biggest potential value growth of this approach is in industry with it’s millions of devices) so will come innovation.  

This year’s Factories of the Future work program includes a call for proposals that address increasing the attractiveness for workers. The scope of proposals could have included:

• Methods and tools for design or adaptation of facilities and technologies to support productivity, well being, and worker autonomy in production

• New methods and technologies supporting knowledge capture and team interaction to enhance work satisfaction, safety, and ergonomics

• Integration of innovative production technologies supporting increased productivity and flexibility, and

• Training and educational aspects to raise job attractiveness for young people and the elderly

The call text specifically mentioned scheduling of work and design of work places, adaptive technology such as augmented reality, addressing tasks holistically, and production systems ensuring efficient transfer of knowledge and information. New systems must support the “tacit” knowledge of the worker in the process of controlling advanced machinery and production lines.

Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. Although it is that which is used by all people, it is not necessarily able to be easily articulated. It consists of beliefs, ideals, values, schemata and mental models which are deeply ingrained in us and which we often take for granted. While difficult to articulate, this cognitive dimension of tacit knowledge shapes the way we perceive the world.

In the field of knowledge management, the concept of tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge possessed only by an individual and difficult to communicate to others via words and symbols. Therefore, an individual can acquire tacit knowledge without language. Apprentices, for example, work with their mentors and learn craftsmanship not through language but by observation, imitation, and practice.

The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience. Without some form of shared experience, it is extremely difficult for people to share each other's thinking processes.

Tacit knowledge has been described as “know-how” – as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). It involves learning and skill but not in a way that can be written down. On this account knowing-how or embodied knowledge is characteristic of the expert, who acts, makes judgments, and so forth without explicitly reflecting on the principles or rules involved. The expert works without having a theory of his or her work; he or she just performs skillfully without deliberation or focused attention.

Tacit knowledge is typically difficult to capture and transfer from one worker to another, so if systems could be designed to do so, it could minimize loss of critical tacit knowledge and thus help relieve the skill crunch related to the aging workforce. At a macro level, this could increase the industry’s capacity to innovate and capture knowledge. In the concept of Operational Manufacturing Interfaces the ability to capture, embed evolve operational procedures, process based upon experience is key. With this there is a basis for companies to build and evolve through consistent and optimized operational actions aligned to decisions in the NOW, providing the foundation for "Operational Innovation". This is not natural in the traditional HMI, Industrial Workstation and in the way design our industrial systems for the last 20 years, it is time change!

It would indeed be very valuable to adapt the work place, work scheduling, interactions with production technology and documentation to the skill level and mental and physical state of the worker. It would also be a major advance to be able to adapt the decision support content and mode of communication to both the state of the production line or factory and to the state of the worker.

It is pleasing to see the continued evolution and alignment around the thinking of workers, how "operational Innovation" can become a natural part of the systems.

"Smart, intelligent, brilliant devices" what is key is "self aware" devices

As I listen to “Youtubes," lectures on the Internet of Things, and in industry forums, I hear the terms of " smart, intelligent, and now brilliant" devices, as we move to smart cities, smart farms, smart airports, and smart industrial sites. I asked myself what is the core value and difference?

There is a significant leap and a significant switch from monitoring devices from a high application or humans, to " self aware" devices that monitor their own health and capability. Next you ask the difference between "smart" to " brilliant" devices and interestingly there is even amongst the marketing hype! The level of capabilities associated to the device that takes them from simple "self awareness" of asset health, to predictive and "machine learning" capability to move from the " as is" alarm to "to be " state."

However, it is all increased levels of embedded "self awareness" capability as close to the device or in the device to monitor, and understand it is effective condition to the "golden" operating condition, with the intent to sustain "operational continuity." The key is device level " awareness" and the connection of these devices to the Internet apart of a  holistic system( site, enterprise), raising exception conditions automatically, and acted on in a consistent, and “best practice procedure." With many of the same types of devices can now be aware of each other, learn from each other and grow in "self awareness" capability. Increasing the ability to shift to the "to be " state where exception conditions seen early,  corrective action can be taken fast and early to maintain " operational continuity."

As we go forward the " future" will also be incorporated into the device, eg high fidelity simulation models will be available for common devices, and will learn relative to the particular device setup and situation. Enabling not just the current condition but the future condition window to be seen, and " what if" to be played out but inexperienced operational staff to make well informed and correct decisions. This simulation model will either run locally or be called upon by the device to a remote simulation environment with discrete device models.

All of this device awareness is what I see as a paradigm shift the "Internet of things" brings and the opportunity to the industrial operational space for the next jump in productivity.

I have heard many times, and agree with the Internet of things, "self aware"devices that leverage their "brothers and sister devices" and other intelligence not applications, brings the next step change in output growth and GDP output. Called the "third industrial revolution" where and industrial revolution is when a significant step change in GDP productivity output is achieved, the first two been:

1/ the first industrial revolution with the steam engine, and then self pro population capability for production and transport.

2/ the Internet in 1992 to 2000, and beyond where human communication, collaboration and the " flat world was introduced" switching us from regional to global effectiveness.

3/ the Internet of things" self aware devices, and collaboration between devices, applications and people to address the fast moving world we live in and the requirement of “Now” decisions and satisfaction.

Too often all of this is associated with larger companies and utilities, but last week I visited a small food plant in rural Australia, to discuss their next step in operational change, and competitiveness. Two thought leaders where present, and it was great to have a very active and productive discussion around not problems, but opportunities. Leading to a powerful discussion on discovery investigations around these opportunities, and the key opportunities were again:

1/ People cost, therefore effectiveness

2/People efficiency in a dynamic and changing workforce

3/Brand integrity, and quality

4/Variable costs in materials but now energy

The discussion took us to the operational work space of the future the need for not data, but effective information that enables exception based operational management, supervisory control of the plant, and process.  Shift from process management to product production management, spanning all the processes and production units required to produce a product. A shift to activities that are required in order make the product and enable operational continuity.

The concept of "self aware plant” made up " self aware devices” and " self aware process" with embedded operational procedures was a reality, and not just for big companies, but even more critical for small to medium companies/sites that have fewer resources.

Maybe the new world is not that far away!

Operational Work, Accountability, and the evolution to Activity Design is Fundamental

As I toured customers in North America, Australia and Middle East over the last month, the discussions around operational / supervisory/ automation design have come up. Over and over again the core theme becomes evident that of "activities/tasks" become a core to design vs. the stations and interfaces.

One customer broke their plant up into logical operational/process cells, and then defined not the User Interfaces, and interfaces but the "actions, decisions " that need to be made to operational and manage these cells. The commentary was different from the old days where they would have defined the user interface (HMI, DCS workstation) now they were think "tasks". They believed that they would have "universal" stations on plant floors that could access all "tasks" so roaming people could just go to the closest station to take action, after being notified on their mobile device.

They had made a decision that they did not want control actions to take place from a mobile device, but all information relative to the situation and "task/ activity" can be seen on a mobile device, this is a fair decision.

The clear thinking in the design is that

1.  No longer is control only local, they have a central control, and roaming workers which all need to see situation and act on " tasks/ activities"
2. That their operational differentiation in the market is down to their operational processes/ procedures not technology or User Interface.
3. That these Operational procedures that make up these " tasks/activities" will evolve, and you are not certain who person, role, device, or location this " task/ activity" will be acted upon.

It was good to see the logical, free thinking, and we were able then to go into the design of what makes up an "activity/task." With the key elements being

1. trigger condition
2. notification, including escalation to relevant team through the activity lifetime
3. decision support information
4. relevant action operational procedure to resolve which could go across multiple people based upon the Resolution Path.

The diagram below shows the seven detail core elements, key is dealing with "emergent work" vs "planned work".

The other point that came up in the discussions was "accountability" so that actions and who owns the decision and action is clear eliminating confusion. " Governance" of the procedure so that it can evolve and managed over time so that it can be tuned, evolved in value over time.

It was good to see a shift in design thinking, but it was clear these are thought leaders, most people in the forums were still traditional approach, yet they talked about the changing workforce. I wonder how you can design a system based upon HMIs and workstations based on location, vs. the "activity" approach when the world will operationally evolve and the concept " operational flexible teams " come into play.

The competitive advantage is based on how fast decisions are made and acted upon, how agile the operational processes and procedures can be evolved, and how effective companies leverage their fixed production assets, and their human operational assets.