| Given all of the demonstrated benefits of Manufacturing Intelligence -- or Enterprise Manufacturing Intelligence -- it's difficult to imagine that there would be inhibitors, right? But there are, and they generally fall into two broad categories: technology and culture. At the technology level, it's important to recognize the reality of extreme heterogeneity at the physical device level in all but the most modern facilities -- heterogeneity in levels of intelligence (dumb versus smart devices); adherence (or not) to standard device communication protocols; and even in the extent to which devices reside on or participate in a networked infrastructure. This level of alphabet soup is an impediment to implementing MI, but I would argue (as I do when speaking to clients in this situation) that this also represents an opportunity to make some basic, prioritized, capital investments that will result in decreased operating and support costs going forward, while improving overall "product supply" capabilities. There's a whole discussion around how to prioritize those investments that I won't go into -- it could take days -- but what we generally recommend is that manufacturers get their critical equipment "online" and instrumented first. The insight they gain through this exercise generally instructs further next steps -- and may provide sufficient benefit to fund them. The cultural barriers are tougher, and I've had a number of clients complain that "those people in the plant" don't want big brother watching them; they're resistant to the idea of tools that provide visibility into operational performance. Of course they are. One of the biggest challenges facing champions of new tools and technologies is the organizational sale. This is true whether you're selling to the CEO, the plant manager, or to the operations personnel (who can, by the way, make or break the success of the project). I always advise folks to imagine every single stakeholder wearing a "what's in it for me" sticker on their forehead. Whether the question actually gets asked or not isn't the issue. It's there, and you need to address it up front. Interestingly, as far as MI adoption goes, we've found that after the tools are deployed, the operations personnel are generally the strongest proponents. Why? Because the tools often "prove" that operating issues are indeed equipment related, or schedule related (i.e., the equipment fails with alarming frequency, the schedule isn't optimized to minimize changeovers) and not related to operator performance. In other cases, clients have found that simple visibility gives operations personnel the tools they need to focus their experience and know-how on improving operations rather than on fighting fires. In short, the opportunities for benefits are legion -- once you've figured out how to enroll the organization. |