Some perspectives on MES implementations: Part 1

A lack of understanding or definition of MES within a company can lead to the same mistakes being made on project after project.

12/10/2013


I think everyone knows by now that I’m a manufacturing execution systems (MES) guy from way back. I’ve been doing MES since way before they even called it MES. In fact, when I started doing it we didn’t even have a name for it. MES is one of the names for a class of computer-based systems that are focused on the execution side of manufacturing. Another common name for these systems is manufacturing operations management (MOM).

I’ve seen more MES implementations than I can count, and I’ve seen so many of them that I’m seeing the same mistakes being repeated. It’s interesting in that the industries might change, the software might change, but the mistakes that are being made are the same.

An entire class of mistakes can boil down to the question of what MES really is. Projects head off to implement MES, but there’s no common definition of MES within the company—or sometimes even within the project team. This is just part of the fun with MES because there is no universally accepted definition. The best definition I have for MES is the one I mentioned earlier—MES is a class of computer-based systems that are focused on the execution of manufacturing.

But, that definition of MES means that MES can be just about anything you want it to be—and that’s correct. MES can be custom solutions, large software packages, small point solutions, extensions of the DCS or HMI/SCADA, extensions of the ERP, etc.

MES can be whatever you want it to be, which means that project teams can get in trouble very quickly with different people thinking that MES is different things. The remedy is simple: Know that this is a potential problem, define MES in a way that works best for your company, and then let everyone know and make sure everyone uses the same definition.

Another common problem is a focus on the software features. This is especially common when a project is implementing an off-the-shelf MES package—particularly one of the large MES packages. Everyone gets focused on the features of the software and what it does, even to the point where MES gets defined by the software package and its features.

This is obviously putting the cart before the horse. The focus should always be on the business. What does the business need? What are the business processes? How does the software support the processes? How does the software support the business and add value to the business? It should never be about the features of the software. No matter how cool the software features might be, the software is just a tool for the business to use and the focus should always be on meeting the needs of the business.

Along these same lines is another common problem and that’s where the business or the manufacturing process has to conform to the software not the other way around. This is especially insidious in that it is often justified by making claims about the software incorporating “industry best practices.” But this is a lot of hogwash. What it really means is that that software is inflexible and only works a certain way and the business must conform to the software because the software can’t be changed to match the business.

This is almost always bad. If the business process needs to be changed to make it better, then change the business process and make it better. But, if the only reason that the business process is changing is to match the software package, then you should probably think long and hard about that. It probably means you have the wrong software package, or that the software package isn’t flexible enough, among other possible reasons. It rarely makes sense to change a good, stable business process just to match a software package.

Overall, it should always be about the business and not the technology. Just getting that right will go a long way toward ensuring a successful project.

This post was written by John Clemons. John is the Director of Manufacturing IT at MAVERICK Technologies, a leading automation solutions provider offering industrial automation, strategic manufacturing, and enterprise integration services for the process industries. MAVERICK delivers expertise and consulting in a wide variety of areas including industrial automation controls, distributed control systems, manufacturing execution systems, operational strategy, business process optimization and more. 



No comments
Consulting-Specifying Engineer's Product of the Year (POY) contest is the premier award for new products in the HVAC, fire, electrical, and...
Consulting-Specifying Engineer magazine is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing the most talented young individuals...
The MEP Giants program lists the top mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering firms in the United States.
High-performance buildings; Building envelope and integration; Electrical, HVAC system integration; Smoke control systems; Using BAS for M&V
Pressure piping systems: Designing with ASME; Lab ventilation; Lighting controls; Reduce energy use with VFDs
Smoke control: Designing for proper ventilation; Smart Grid Standard 201P; Commissioning HVAC systems; Boilers and boiler systems
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Consulting-Specifying Engineer case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Protecting standby generators for mission critical facilities; Selecting energy-efficient transformers; Integrating power monitoring systems; Mitigating harmonics in electrical systems
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software
Integrating BAS, electrical systems; Electrical system flexibility; Hospital electrical distribution; Electrical system grounding
Cannon Design’s blog is a place for the many voices of the firm to share thoughts and news related to current projects...
As brand protection manager for Eaton’s Electrical Sector, Tom Grace oversees counterfeit awareness...
Amara Rozgus is chief editor and content manager of Consulting-Specifier Engineer magazine.
IEEE power industry experts bring their combined experience in the electrical power industry...
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E., LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOM MasterSpec.