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.