Manufacturers' needs not changing--but acronyms are

InTech, Oct 2001 by Unger, Keith

here is a new landscape in manufacturing applications. The computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) pyramid of the 1980s has crumbled to make way for a variety of better models for manufacturing information technology in the 2000s.

The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model; the Manufacturing Execution Systems Association (MESA) model; and AMR Research's Ready, Execute, Process, Analyze, and Coordinate (REPAC) model all define manufacturing applications from a functional point of view. Meanwhile, you can define manufacturing applications from the point of view of vertical markets, specific implementation models, and a broad range of functional categories.

In addition, manufacturing applications have evolved from custom solutions to tool kits to commercial, off-the-shelf packages.

And that is in addition to the functions that manufacturing applications provide for supply-chain coordination, enterprise resource planning (ERP) connectivity, planning, scheduling, inventory management, and shop floor data collection.

There have been many acronyms and models in the past two decades that describe the topic of manufacturing application software. However, regardless of naming and modeling, manufacturing's fundamental needs have not changed significantly. What has changed is the availability of commercial software, experience in applying software applications to manufacturing, and the emergence of standards for applying software and computer technology to manufacturing.

Today, many well-developed tools are available that can be successfully applied to meet the functional needs of manufacturing processes.

Experience gained applying software and computers to manufacturing has been well documented, and international standards communicate generally accepted best practices in manufacturing systems integration. Manufacturers today can take advantage of experience gained from early adopters' efforts and apply current technology with a high degree of confidence that the application will successfully meet requirements.

In the 1980s, industry movers and shakers introduced the concept of CIM, and the CIM manufacturing software pyramid model was developed.

The CIM pyramid model focused on the hierarchy of the manufacturing enterprise. It divided the manufacturing domain into five levels of computing functionality. During this time frame, technology tools fit one or more CIM levels. Programmable logic controllers and loop controllers became the dominant technologies at the control level, and a whole market of supervisory control and data acquisition suppliers emerged to fill the needs of level two supervisory systems.

Corporate financial systems and functionality needed to support overall operations resided at the top of the pyramid. At the divisional level of the pyramid, the focus was on material requirements planning to meet customer orders. This planning process estimated capacity and material requirements based on a combination of forecast orders and actual orders for a specified time.

MES Systems Emerge

In the first half of the 1990s, new pressures and ideas began to change the shape of the CIM pyramid. Manufacturing was moving from an internal focus to a customer focus. Global pressure to compete for customer loyalty with high-quality products delivered when and where customers wanted the products required manufacturers to be more responsive. As a result of these pressures and ideas, the CIM pyramid collapsed and flattened out, and the new MES model evolved.

In 1992, Cambridge, Mass. -based AMR Research introduced the three-layer MES model. This model reduced the manufacturing system problem set to three functional areas of planning, execution, and control. The model helped the industry by simplifying the number of levels and focusing on the need to link the planning process to the control process through a newly defined execution process.

MESA International developed a model of MES that identifies 11 core execution functional areas with interfaces to the enterprise-level planning and scheduling functions. Many of the functional areas MESA International identified have developed into mature product markets with commercially available solutions and well-defined functionality.

Today, just past the turn of the new century, continued global pressures for rapid response to consumer demand has changed the enterprise focus from internal planning, execution, and control to one of customer relationship management, supply-chain management (SCM), and product life-cycle management. Models evolved to support these new manufacturing requirements.

AMR Research combined the MES model with the SCOR model, creating the REPAC model, first proposed by AMR in 1998. The SCOR model reduces the complexity of the supply chain to the fundamental activities of Source, Make, and Deliver, with an overarching Plan activity to coordinate the entire supply chain. The REPAC model focuses on the SCOR Make activity, combined with the Execution and Controls activities from the earlier MES model. The REPAC model includes Ready, Analyze, and Coordinate activities required by the agile autonomous manufacturing facility.