I'd like to add the IT dimension to the title of this thread. As a company we struggle with design, implementation and on-going maintenance of complex systems that include: instrumentation, control systems, networks (wireless and cable), servers, desktops and applications. Some of the concepts/tools that are being used to make our control system and IT world more effective are:

Business Owners
The person responsible to ensure that the "program" or project delivers results. A Design Basis is required to start a program. Quantitative benefits need to be stated and a process put in place to steward the benefits. This person is accountable.

Programs

Programs are projects that have annual budgets instead of fixed and are on-going instead of scheduled. For example, an Operations Information
program delivers data from the control systems, provides validation and displays the information. The Program Manager juggles the coordination of disciplines and the many customer requirements in the same way that a project manager does this for a project. The Business Owner is responsible for the business results of the program.

Project Manager/Program Manager

There needs to be "one neck to grab" and many backs to pat. The distributed expertise necessay to get these projects done and maintain programs must be well managed. The project/program manager has the big "R" on his back. This person assembles the team and delivers what the business owner requires.

Porfollio Manager

All the systems need to have an overall framework. Guidelines such as one data source, intranet visualization and the tools to be used are necessary. There will also be competition for funds that must be refereed.

No Boundaries

Boundaries between disciplines (instrumentation, control systems, networks (wireless and cable), servers, desktops and applications) must be collapsed.
A team is required that understands what others are doing and can ask the dumb questions.

Boundaries between Control Systems/Operation Systems/Business Systems must also be broken. Team members from different organizations/disciplines need to work together.


I believe a big problem with many of the "Operations Systems" that are in place (that grey area between control systems and business systems) is there is no Business Owner. If we can get this person in place and have a program
manager assigned, I think we have a fighting chance. I know this sounds more like a text book than the real world but sometimes we need to look at the bigger picture. Right now I've got to tag some more instruments.

 

At 14:10 31/08/00 -0600, you wrote:
>I'd like to add the IT dimension to the title of this thread. As a company
>we struggle with design, implementation and on-going maintenance of complex
>systems that include: instrumentation, control systems, networks (wireless
>and cable), servers, desktops and applications. Some of the concepts/tools
>that are being used to make our control system and IT world more effective
>are:
>
>Business Owners
>The person responsible to ensure that the "program" or project delivers
>results.
<clip>
>Programs <clip>, >Project Manager/Program Manager <clip> ...

Would it be fair to say that you work in an industry (petroleum) in which each project is of a fairly large individual scale?
In many sections of the auto parts business though, there can be a fairly large number of comparatively small projects, all operating on a short time schedule. Project and program managers tend to be from a mechanical background and don't really understand (or have any deep interest in) control systems issues. The teams of people working on each project are
usually fairly small (often one or two mechanical designers working with one or two electrical and programming specialists), and they may be individually working on several projects at once. The *scale* of each project may be fairly small, it's the number of *different* ones going on simultaneously that can be the problem.
To refer back to my earlier posting, if you are working in that type of environment, you can't afford to get bogged down in problems with
operating systems configuration or network administration.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you have said. I do agree that ultimately some individual needs to be responsible for the system. However, I am looking for ways to keep the amount that someone needs to be responsible for to a minimum.


>I believe a big problem with many of the "Operations Systems" that are in
>place (that grey area between control systems and business systems) is there
>is no Business Owner. If we can get this person in place and have a program
>manager assigned, I think we have a fighting chance. I know this sounds
>more like a text book than the real world but sometimes we need to look at
>the bigger picture. <clip>

The following doesn't directly address the above. However, a problem can arise that the business systems are often controlled by the finance department. Finance departments rule the roost in many large companies now, and some of the inflated egos there imagine that the entire business ought to revolve around them.
We don't want to get bogged down in details of the how the company's financial system works. Yesterday it used a DEC mini-computer, today it uses a Windows NT client-server system, tomorrow it definitely will be something else. A manufacturing-business system interface absolutely must be designed to be a neutral system which doesn't depend upon any transient
characteristics (e.g. operating systems, MRP systems, etc.) in the office.

The whole client-server idea which at one time seemed to be the wave of the future in business systems has been recognised to have been a monumental mistake. This is why there is such current interest in web based office software systems. One of problems driving this interest has been the administration effort required with many client-server systems. The recent large increases in network bandwidth and reliability have made other solutions possible.

Note the reasons for the interest in web based systems in business systems:
1) Minimise administration effort.
2) A good web-based system is not sensitive to differences in browsers or underlying operating systems.
3) Users who require only basic standard features (e.g. point of sale terminals, word processing / e-mail / spreadsheet applications,
accounting systems, etc.) can be provided with hardware which works right out of the box. This hardware would require minimal configuration and
wouldn't require regular upgrades as long as it kept functioning.

We need to absorb these lessons from the business world and apply them to our own domain. We need to make sure our control and MMI systems
require as little routine administration as possible. We need to make sure our control systems can operate together regardless of the age or origin of the hardware and software. We need systems which are designed for our needs,
ready to be used right out of the box, and don't require regular "upgrades" to avoid a "compatability trap".


**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
[email protected]
**********************