M
At 13:40 18/08/00 -0400, Dave Ferguson wrote:
<clip>
>By "full time IT person" I mean that new users, security, HMI and
>DCS revisions, PLC automated backup system, server tape
>backups, user "help desk" issues, network management (software
>and hardware) etc.
>
>Like most management people I work with and for, you seem to
>think that because it is "automated" means that it just sets up and
>runs itself.
<clip>
I am quite well aware of what is involved in automated systems. I will also say that I have the impression that you seem to be doing a lot of
routine work that probably duplicates the efforts of your computer department.
Can your IT department handle the user account administration, tape backups, etc. remotely over your network? This is routine work for them. The "help desk" issues - are these something special for the MMI or DCS system, or are these general Windows issues? If the latter, then again can your "IT" department handle this?
Your IT department of course can't handle changes to the MMI or DCS software, but then this is not "IT" work by any stretch of the imagination.
>To add a loop in the field or change a calibration requires a huge
>outlay of personell time that management needs to realize.
>
>For instance to change the range of a level loop requires, the actual
>recalibration, documentation, DCS database revision, graphics
>revisions, links to upper level range change, database change in
>upper level system, graphics changes in upper level system and
>documentation, drafting, data sheets etc. THIS DOES NOT
>HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY.
Except that adding or re-ranging an instrument is not something that can be considered an "IT" activity, or related to Windows NT in any way. I was curious as to what sort of full time "IT" type work it was you found
yourself doing.
>Managers better wake up and realize that this gets done with my
>salary not 100 small PLC's.
The 100 small PLCs example was intended to put the cost of routine "IT" type activities in perspective. If using 100 PCs in control activities requires the full time administrative efforts of one person to deal with Windows NT problems, that would be far too much unproductive effort for my situation. Perhaps your circumstances are different, I am certainly in no
position to judge.
I'm not saying that you are not working hard at what you are doing, I'm just wondering why it is you have to work so hard to maintain something. 100 small PLCs don't require any IT type maintenance at all. Perhaps though I am misinterpreting what you said about doing "full time IT" type work for the production related PCs.
I was going to give you a long story on how I reached my point of view, but I've erased that, and I'll just give you the summary.
We found ourselves in our own operations continually making minor program (and other) changes to machines to accomodate new models, changes to existing products, adjust timers values, etc. Several years ago we came to
realise that if we kept doing what we were doing, we would be spending all our time on routine tasks, rather than concentrating on making actual
improvements and preparing for new business. We had a choice of either keep doing what we were doing, only do it harder, or to change course and
approach things differently. We chose the latter.
This wasn't an upper management or business consultant head in the clouds sort of decision. Upper management was oblivious to the problem. This was actually forced on management by a few engineering staff who wouldn't take no for an answer.
We can't roll back the clock, but we can stop repeating our mistakes. New equipment, and retrofits to existing equipment are designed
from the perspective of minimising engineering and maintenance involvement in "routine" tasks. As a simple example, if there is a timer in the program whose preset may possibly need to be adjusted then there is a screen on the OP (operator panel) which can be used to adjust it. If it needs changing, the operator changes it on the spot.
We're not perfect or in any way exemplary by any means. We have though (at least most of us) realised that we have a problem and are
changing our ways of doing things.
I will perhaps give you a more involved example. I am currently working on a project to automatically extract production statistics (down
time, cycle time, etc.) from our production equipment and make it available to whomever may need it. I have received some very invaluable help in this project from other members of this list whom I cannot thank enough.
One of my definite criteria in this project is that the system must require as little initial configuration as possible, and minimal subsequent engineering administration. There will be no additional personnel dedicated to routine maintenance of this system. If this could not be achieved, then the project would be dropped until such time as it can.
To achieve this, I identified several areas which needed to be addressed:
1) Any new computers required (which will run the application software) will be give to our "IT" department to look after. They already
worry about things like operating system upgrades, back ups, hardware maintenance, back up power, adding and removing user accounts, network
nonsense, etc. They can very efficiently handle another piece of hardware and the user account administration. To ensure they do look after it, I want to physically locate it in their server room. They are quite agreeable to this, and in fact seem to be delighted that someone actually wants to talk to them.
2) There must be no special software to be installed on users' computers in order for them to get at the data and reports. It must be "web deployed". This is the route which certain office type software is taking, so our IT department already installs web browsers on all computers.
3) I want to use the existing office type ethernet network to connect production lines to the application server (hence my search for an
ethernet gateway - particularly one which doesn't require much configuration). I don't want to run my own network cabling and re-route it every time the production floor is rearranged.
4) The application software must be easy to use and flexible enough to allow users to manipulate the data in ways which suit their own needs. I don't want to have to be creating new report screens every time someone has an idea for a special report.
5) All components of the system (except of course PLC program modifications) are to be off the shelf. I don't want to develop anything.
This is not something which is a core technology for us. We just want to better identify where to make production efficiency improvments.
6) The initial system must be able to be scaled up to cover the entire plant by simply adding more of the same hardware and software. My
initial prototype can be handed as a working example (together with a complete implementation report) to outside contractors to expand it later,
or perhaps I can do it myself gradually.
I could go on, but I think you get the general idea. I think I could whip something together myself for less money, but that only looks at the initial outlay, not the recurring costs. The recurring costs are not just the cost of my salary, but the opportunity cost of not concentrating on doing the things I do best. I am not using my time effectively if I duplicate the efforts of other people. I am not saving my company any money if I create a system that cannot be maintained without my constant efforts.
>My entire point was that NT works if you know what you are doing
>just like AB works if you know what you are doing or Fisher-
>Rosemount works if you know what you are doing or UNIX works if
>you know what you are doing. Usually not liking something comes
>from not taking the time to learn it.
<clip>
I believe though that we already discussed the fact that Windows NT takes a considerable level of skill to be truly proficient at getting it to work properly. I have also noted that you appear to be one of the few people who are able to routinely do so. You certainly sound to be much better at this than I am.
Why however is it that I can pull a PLC right out of the box and use it but most people can't do that with a PC that cost several times as much? Is there an operating system somewhere inside a Siemens PLC? I don't know, do you? If there is, I've never had to tune it. There certainly is one for a PC, and if you are using one called Windows NT you have to jump through
hoops before you can even begin to worry about your application.
It is the application after all that that you bought the PLC or PC for. The only justification for even having an operating system is to provide routine services for the application software. The operating system
should be irrelevent but it seems to be the thing that everyone is complaining about. Why is that?
I've asked a major and very reputable industrial PC manufacturer about how Windows NT could be made to interact with their hardware. They don't know anything about Windows except how to stick the CD-ROM in. Are they stupid? I don't think so, but Windows NT seems to be just as big a
mystery to them as it is to everyone else. Why is this?
Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with the computer systems we are using. I renamed this divergent thread "Engineering Effectiveness"
because I don't think we are making effective use of our time if we are worrying about operating system problems. If I want to worry about Windows
problems, then I'm in the wrong business.
**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
[email protected]
**********************
<clip>
>By "full time IT person" I mean that new users, security, HMI and
>DCS revisions, PLC automated backup system, server tape
>backups, user "help desk" issues, network management (software
>and hardware) etc.
>
>Like most management people I work with and for, you seem to
>think that because it is "automated" means that it just sets up and
>runs itself.
<clip>
I am quite well aware of what is involved in automated systems. I will also say that I have the impression that you seem to be doing a lot of
routine work that probably duplicates the efforts of your computer department.
Can your IT department handle the user account administration, tape backups, etc. remotely over your network? This is routine work for them. The "help desk" issues - are these something special for the MMI or DCS system, or are these general Windows issues? If the latter, then again can your "IT" department handle this?
Your IT department of course can't handle changes to the MMI or DCS software, but then this is not "IT" work by any stretch of the imagination.
>To add a loop in the field or change a calibration requires a huge
>outlay of personell time that management needs to realize.
>
>For instance to change the range of a level loop requires, the actual
>recalibration, documentation, DCS database revision, graphics
>revisions, links to upper level range change, database change in
>upper level system, graphics changes in upper level system and
>documentation, drafting, data sheets etc. THIS DOES NOT
>HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY.
Except that adding or re-ranging an instrument is not something that can be considered an "IT" activity, or related to Windows NT in any way. I was curious as to what sort of full time "IT" type work it was you found
yourself doing.
>Managers better wake up and realize that this gets done with my
>salary not 100 small PLC's.
The 100 small PLCs example was intended to put the cost of routine "IT" type activities in perspective. If using 100 PCs in control activities requires the full time administrative efforts of one person to deal with Windows NT problems, that would be far too much unproductive effort for my situation. Perhaps your circumstances are different, I am certainly in no
position to judge.
I'm not saying that you are not working hard at what you are doing, I'm just wondering why it is you have to work so hard to maintain something. 100 small PLCs don't require any IT type maintenance at all. Perhaps though I am misinterpreting what you said about doing "full time IT" type work for the production related PCs.
I was going to give you a long story on how I reached my point of view, but I've erased that, and I'll just give you the summary.
We found ourselves in our own operations continually making minor program (and other) changes to machines to accomodate new models, changes to existing products, adjust timers values, etc. Several years ago we came to
realise that if we kept doing what we were doing, we would be spending all our time on routine tasks, rather than concentrating on making actual
improvements and preparing for new business. We had a choice of either keep doing what we were doing, only do it harder, or to change course and
approach things differently. We chose the latter.
This wasn't an upper management or business consultant head in the clouds sort of decision. Upper management was oblivious to the problem. This was actually forced on management by a few engineering staff who wouldn't take no for an answer.
We can't roll back the clock, but we can stop repeating our mistakes. New equipment, and retrofits to existing equipment are designed
from the perspective of minimising engineering and maintenance involvement in "routine" tasks. As a simple example, if there is a timer in the program whose preset may possibly need to be adjusted then there is a screen on the OP (operator panel) which can be used to adjust it. If it needs changing, the operator changes it on the spot.
We're not perfect or in any way exemplary by any means. We have though (at least most of us) realised that we have a problem and are
changing our ways of doing things.
I will perhaps give you a more involved example. I am currently working on a project to automatically extract production statistics (down
time, cycle time, etc.) from our production equipment and make it available to whomever may need it. I have received some very invaluable help in this project from other members of this list whom I cannot thank enough.
One of my definite criteria in this project is that the system must require as little initial configuration as possible, and minimal subsequent engineering administration. There will be no additional personnel dedicated to routine maintenance of this system. If this could not be achieved, then the project would be dropped until such time as it can.
To achieve this, I identified several areas which needed to be addressed:
1) Any new computers required (which will run the application software) will be give to our "IT" department to look after. They already
worry about things like operating system upgrades, back ups, hardware maintenance, back up power, adding and removing user accounts, network
nonsense, etc. They can very efficiently handle another piece of hardware and the user account administration. To ensure they do look after it, I want to physically locate it in their server room. They are quite agreeable to this, and in fact seem to be delighted that someone actually wants to talk to them.
2) There must be no special software to be installed on users' computers in order for them to get at the data and reports. It must be "web deployed". This is the route which certain office type software is taking, so our IT department already installs web browsers on all computers.
3) I want to use the existing office type ethernet network to connect production lines to the application server (hence my search for an
ethernet gateway - particularly one which doesn't require much configuration). I don't want to run my own network cabling and re-route it every time the production floor is rearranged.
4) The application software must be easy to use and flexible enough to allow users to manipulate the data in ways which suit their own needs. I don't want to have to be creating new report screens every time someone has an idea for a special report.
5) All components of the system (except of course PLC program modifications) are to be off the shelf. I don't want to develop anything.
This is not something which is a core technology for us. We just want to better identify where to make production efficiency improvments.
6) The initial system must be able to be scaled up to cover the entire plant by simply adding more of the same hardware and software. My
initial prototype can be handed as a working example (together with a complete implementation report) to outside contractors to expand it later,
or perhaps I can do it myself gradually.
I could go on, but I think you get the general idea. I think I could whip something together myself for less money, but that only looks at the initial outlay, not the recurring costs. The recurring costs are not just the cost of my salary, but the opportunity cost of not concentrating on doing the things I do best. I am not using my time effectively if I duplicate the efforts of other people. I am not saving my company any money if I create a system that cannot be maintained without my constant efforts.
>My entire point was that NT works if you know what you are doing
>just like AB works if you know what you are doing or Fisher-
>Rosemount works if you know what you are doing or UNIX works if
>you know what you are doing. Usually not liking something comes
>from not taking the time to learn it.
<clip>
I believe though that we already discussed the fact that Windows NT takes a considerable level of skill to be truly proficient at getting it to work properly. I have also noted that you appear to be one of the few people who are able to routinely do so. You certainly sound to be much better at this than I am.
Why however is it that I can pull a PLC right out of the box and use it but most people can't do that with a PC that cost several times as much? Is there an operating system somewhere inside a Siemens PLC? I don't know, do you? If there is, I've never had to tune it. There certainly is one for a PC, and if you are using one called Windows NT you have to jump through
hoops before you can even begin to worry about your application.
It is the application after all that that you bought the PLC or PC for. The only justification for even having an operating system is to provide routine services for the application software. The operating system
should be irrelevent but it seems to be the thing that everyone is complaining about. Why is that?
I've asked a major and very reputable industrial PC manufacturer about how Windows NT could be made to interact with their hardware. They don't know anything about Windows except how to stick the CD-ROM in. Are they stupid? I don't think so, but Windows NT seems to be just as big a
mystery to them as it is to everyone else. Why is this?
Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with the computer systems we are using. I renamed this divergent thread "Engineering Effectiveness"
because I don't think we are making effective use of our time if we are worrying about operating system problems. If I want to worry about Windows
problems, then I'm in the wrong business.
**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
[email protected]
**********************