enterprise architecture design for services and support of complex engineering systems professor...

Enterprise Architecture Design for Services and Support of Complex Engineering Systems

Professor John Mo

RMIT University

Ph: 03 9925 6279

Em: [email protected]

RMIT University©25/6/2012 School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg 2

Outline

• Background

• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine

• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance

• Servitization

• The Support Enterprise Architecture

• Capability Assessment Methodology

• Conclusion


Fertilizer Plant Design and Support


Mobile Engineering Systems


Outline

• Background



• Servitization



• Conclusion


The Plasma Cutting Machine


Background – Farley Cutting Systems

• Small company manufacturing plasma cutting machine selling globally

• Also sells other non-conventional metal cutting machines, e.g. laser, water jet

• All machines are customized, e.g. size, power, functions


Problems Investigated

• About 600 machines around the world

• Updates of operational manuals

• Process control very experience dependent – customer knows more than Farley

• Customer calls not serviced correctly

• Availability of spare parts on site


The Plasma Machine ROSDAM Model

Companies and sub-company level servers with diagnostics systems, operating data

Physical system

Information filtering and aggregation

Machines driven by decisions made at the decision centres (servers)

Decision system

Flow of materials

Information system

Global system architecture

Diagnostics process modelling

Machine configuration management, operations and service records

Machine signal diagnostics


ROSDAM Client1

Scalable global system architecture The Internet

ROSDAM ServerOn Machine

Global Master Server

Company 1 Company 2 Company n…

ROSDAM Server on Shop floor 1

ROSDAM Server on Shop floor 2

Sub-company

…

ROSDAM Client2

ROSDAM Server on Machine of sub-company


Machine Configuration Management, Operations and Service Records


Machine Signals Diagnostics

Good Nozzle

Bad Nozzle


Observations from the plasma cutting case

• Communication networks and IT systems – client/server model

• Knowledge sharing – transform customer data to information to knowledge

• Integrated engineering (bill of materials) and manufacturing (machine configuration management) and parts inventory data

• Service team restructuring, retraining

• Change of product – upgrade with signal diagnostics system


Outline

• Background



• Servitization



• Conclusion


The ANZAC Ship Alliance


What is the ANZAC Ship Alliance?

• The ANZAC Ship Alliance can be thought of as a virtual company with shareholders comprising the (Australian) Commonwealth, Tenix Defence (now BAE Systems), and Saab Systems

• Mission: to manage all change and upgrades to the ANZAC Ships

• The Alliance is a “solution focused” company. The ANZAC Ship Alliance Management Office will:

–Develop change solutions but

–The detailed design be undertaken by the “shareholders”

–Will draw upon the shareholders’ existing knowledge of the ANZAC Class


The ANZAC Ship Alliance Model

• An approach aimed at creating mutually beneficial relationships between all parties involved so as to produce outstanding project outcomes

• Characteristics–All parties win or all parties lose

–Collective responsibility, equitable sharing of risk and reward

–All decisions based on “best for project” philosophy

–Clear responsibilities within a no-blame culture

–Access to resources, skills and expertise of all parties

–All financial transactions are fully open book

–Encouragement of innovative thinking - outstanding outcomes

–Open and honest communication - no hidden agenda

–Visible/unconditional support from executive management


ANZAC Ship Alliance Management Office

ANZAC AllianceGeneral Manager

Enabling Manager

Build Manager

Sustainment Manager

ANZAC AllianceBoard

ANZACSPO Director

DGMSS

Enabling Function

Build Function

Sustainment Function Generation

Function

Tasking Statements

Alliance Management Structure


ANZAC Ship Alliance Organisation

Alliance Board

Quality

Engineering

Commercial

Project Control

Project Management

SA

Alliance

General Manager

Project Management

Vic

HarpoonProject

ASMD Project

Project Management

WA

Project Teams working in Participant Organisations

ANZAC Ship Alliance Management Office

Rockingham WA


Project costs/benefits to be shared

• Project priced according to an agreed costing model

• Non-cost items identified and measured with KPIs

• Non-cost pool (a pre-agreed amount) set aside for exceptional performance


The ANZAC Ship Alliance PERA model

Definition of ANZAC Ship Alliance

2. The Concept

Missions, goals, values, management philosophies

Mechanisms (Data, documents, knowledge)

System (Management and control)

3. Content Policies 4. Logistics Policies

Document formats for 40 years Inter-enterprise Network

5. Content Requirements 6. Logistics Req'ts

Type of documents, storage, synchronization

Access control, permission, security

7. Content Functions 8. Logistics Functions

Info order tracking Decision tree, version control

9. Process Diagrams 10. Logistics Diagrams

Entity models Entity models

Information Architecture Human and Organisational Architecture

Management and Processes Architecture

11. Functional Design (Production)

12. Functional Design (Human) 13. Functional Design (Logistics)

Requirements of info at each level, content definition

Human roles & organisation chart, staffing level

Relationships in managent & control (decision making regarding creating, managing, delivery of projects

14. Detailed Design 15. Tasks, Training 16. Hardware, Software

Developments of forms, identification, system integration

Tasks, priorities, responsibilities, tranining plans, operation & maintenance manuals for the CSCW

Customisable front end interface

17. Construction Checks 18. Staffing, training 19. Assembly, Test, Procure & Commission Control

Coding, storage, retrieve info, communicating with different databases

Staffing, training for cooperative tools

Purchases of software for front-end customisation. Debug.

20. Production 21. Operation & Maintenance 22. Operation of Logistics Systems

Project reports, document, information, knowledge management. De-gollkneching, Com & quality improve impact

Operation & performance improvements

Project management, system upgrades, supply chain management

23. Plant Disposal, Clean-up 24. Staff Redeployment 25. Archiving & Disposal

Functional Design

Detailed Design

Implementation

Operations & Maintenance

Disposal

Functional Architectures

Functional Modules

Requirements

Policies

Concept

Identification

Organizational and management structure

Access and control management system

Document repository

Process/work flow model

The business objective


Access Control and Requirements Mapping


Workflow Model


Design of the ASA Enterprise

• Project Management–Developed a “Request Tracking System” to support information

needs in projects

• Work Flow Harmonization–Formalized project processes and develop the associated QA

plans

• IT Support–A customized web-based IT platform for above processes to assist

project members and integrating with ASAMO processes

• Knowledge Sharing–A web-based document management system properly structured

and indexed and accessible by all ASA projects


Outline

• Background



• Servitization



• Conclusion


From a Broader Perspective

• Availability

• Readiness

• Failures prediction/prevention

• Response time

• Accuracy of analysis

• Cost (Savings)

• Fault tolerance

• ……

• “Performance”


Servitization

Capability

Time

Progressive Modifications

Whole of system services and support

Initial acquisition

Equipment manufacturers creating value for customers by adding services around their equipment


Performance Based Contracts

• Business model can be:–Fixed price

–Cost reimbursement

–Target cost incentive

–Gain sharing

• Performance payments and award terms linked to Key Performance Indicators


Transform Performance into Value

nm

p

p

p

f

v

v

v

v

......

2

1

3

2

1


Typical Performance Based ModelV

alue

Bonus

Reducing contract Value

Achieved performance

Contract expected performance

Full contract value

Contract terminated

Minimum tolerable performance

Performance beyond expectation

)( PfV


Other performance based modelsV

alue

Bonus

Varying contract

value



Full contract value

Contract terminated


Performance beyond expectation

)( PfV

Compensation sought

Value not realisable


Performance is Delivered by CapabilitiesV

alue



Full contract value


][CgPfV


From the Point of View of ContractorV

alue



Full contract value


Probability of penalty

Probability of contract

termination

Probability of profit

Expected performance of the contractor


From the Point of View of Asset OwnerV

alue



Full contract value


Probability of satisfaction

Probability of project failure

Probability of happy user

Expected performance of the contractor


Outline

• Background



• Foundation of Servitization



• Conclusion


Assessment of Capabilities

• Has many dimensions

• Variation over time

• Depends on investment

• Some capabilities are supporting, e.g. infrastructure


Dimensions of a Support Enterprise

PEOPLE

PRODUCT

ENVIRONMENT

PROCESS

Cultural, Human reliability, Training, Health and Safety, Leadership

Change over time, expanding services, renewal, change of usage patterns, social influences

Fundamental Engineering Sciences

Systems Engineering,

Operations, Project management


Some Indicators of People Capabilities

• Cultural diversity - number of ethnic groups

• Absentees – number of days per year

• Competency – percentage of staff attaining certain level

• Vacancy – person-day of unfilled position per year


Some Indicators of Process Capabilities

• Process variability – Number of deviations from defined process

• Conformance to standards – percentage of standard operating procedures meeting acceptable standards

• Distribution – cost of supply chain

• Infrastructure – Capability assessed per range of criteria

• Processing time – mean, range


Some Indicators of Product Capabilities

• Product reliability – probability that the product performs in specified time

• Inventory cost – cost of ordering, warehousing

• Manufacturing cost – expected, variance

• Testing – conformance rate


Outline

• Background






• Conclusion


Achieving Value Through the Support Enterprise

Z

Y

X

g

p

p

p

f

v

v

v

v

nm

......

2

1

3

2

1

ZYXP


Hierarchy of Parameters

People Process Product

Capability Indicator

Absentees

Compet’cy

Vacancy

Variability

Conform’ce

Reliability

Mnuf cost

Testing

[X] [Y] [Z]

1

Cultural


Illustrative Example

• Assuming a support system capability can be assessed by the following attributes:

• {X} = {competency level, absentees}

• {Y} = {process variability, conformance to standards}

• {Z} = {product reliability, inventory cost}


Competency

Competency Level

Pessimistic No. of staff

Normal No. of staff

OptimisticNo. of staff

3 4 11 12

2 10 17 18

1 18 32 35


Represented by Normal Distribution

6

4 pmoe

PPPP

Competency Level

Level x No.

(Pess.)

Level x No.

(Norm.)

Level x No. (Opt.)

Mean Level x No.

3 12 33 36 30.00

2 20 34 36 32.00

1 18 32 35 30.17

TOTAL 92.17

Competency Level


Normal No. of staff


3 4 11 12

2 10 17 18

1 18 32 35


Standard Deviation of Competency Function

Competency Level



Variance

3 4 12 16.00

2 10 18 7.11

1 18 35 8.03

TOTAL 31.14

2

6op

e

PPV

Competency Level


Normal No. of staff


3 4 11 12

2 10 17 18

1 18 32 35


Convert to Common Scale

Level Max capacity Level x Max. No.

3 12 36

2 18 36

1 35 35

TOTAL 107

Scaled mean = 72.83 / 107 * 5 = 4.3

Scaled standard deviation = (31.13 / 107 * 5) = 1.2


Raw Data

• {X} = {N(4.3, 1.2), N(2.8, 0.8)}

• {Y} = {N(3.5, 0.2), N(4.6, 1.1)}

• {Z} = {N(3.9, 1.2), N(2.1, 0.5)}

People Process Product

Total

0.08

0.10

0.28

01.4

0.18

0.22

[X] [Y] [Z]

1


Aggregated Capability Distribution

412.31.2

9.322.018.0

6.4

5.314.028.0

8.2

3.410.008.0

P

564.022.0

18.022.018.0

14.0

28.014.028.0

8.0

2.110.008.0

2

2

2

2

2

2

V

Standard deviation = 0.564 = 0.751

ZYXP


Probabilities SuperimposedV

alue


3.7

Full contract value

2.0

Probability of penalty =

64.9%

Probability of contract

termination =3.0%

Probability of profit = 32.1%

Expected performance of the contractor = N(3.412, 0.751)

Promised performance

Minimum tolerable

performance


Outline

• Background






• Conclusion


Conclusion

• The business model of servitization imposes a lot of risks to both sides of the contracting parties

• Case studies show that a structure is required to design a support solution

• The Support Enterprise Architecture consists of three capability elements

• Assessment of the capability elements can provide an indication of the probabilities of different levels of achieved performance and hence value of the contract

Prof. John Mo

Discipline Head, Manufacturing and Materials Engineering

School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

RMIT University

Ph: 03 9925 6279

Em: [email protected]

Thank You.Questions ?

enterprise architecture design for services and support of complex engineering systems professor...

Documents

machine slide

manuf engg

support slide

machine of subcompany

machine case study

site slide

service records slide

diagnostics systems