View Online Forward Subscribe Find Suppliers
Packaging World     VP/Editor, Pat Reynolds
SPONSOR: Intelligent Motion Systems, Inc. September 17, 2008 | Edited by Pat Reynolds

White Paper: Reduce machine size and cost>>

Technology leading integrated motion control solutions: all-in-one brushless motor, driver & controller.

Intelligent Motion Systems, Inc.


Save Big With Compact Integrated Drivers>>

Compact microstepping drivers with integrated controllers deliver big performance, save time and money.

Intelligent Motion Systems, Inc.

Reduce System Cost, Design & Assembly Time >>

For many motion applications, motors with integrated electronics reduce size, cost and time-to-market.

Intelligent Motion Systems, Inc.





Planetary Gearbox Increase Motion Performance>>

Increase motor torque at lower speeds, enable better inertia matching and produce finer positional resolutions

Intelligent Motion Systems, Inc.

Linear Slides Provide You Motion Options >>

Screw-driven linear slides offer exceptional speed, accurate positioning and long life.

Intelligent Motion Systems, Inc.

Reader response

Centralized vs. de-centralized engineering

Editor's note: Several weeks ago in this newsletter, I published some thoughts on whether it's best for packaging machinery builders or their end-user customers to decide which controls platform should be controlling a packaging machine. I also asked readers for their thoughts on this subject and have published a few of their comments. I thought I'd publish one more, this one from Gerald Dillon, director of the Barry-Wehmiller Design Group, Inc.

I wasn't initially moved to respond to this article. But I wanted to "weigh in" after reading some of the initial responses.

I was at Automation Fair '07 when one of the presenters discussed the approach of allowing multiple control architectures "in house." As I looked around the room to see the general response, via body language, I saw some people nodding in agreement and others laughing off this suggestion. As I talked to some people it seems that most of the people that were laughing off this suggestion were "plant level."

This topic goes beyond just the "technical" into how a typical manufacturing company is set up. Of course, there are a myriad of organizational structures. But to simplify, I would say that companies either have a strong, centralized engineering group or a de-centralized engineering structure. Within a strong, centralized group, the engineers are not "based" in the plant. Sure, they understand their company's business; but in reporting through a corporate structure, their concern, based on leadership direction, is to execute to the absolute lowest cost possible and look at an "installed cost." And they view this topic as one method of "getting there."

Within a de-centralized engineering structure, the engineers are based in the plant. Sometimes they even report through the plant leadership. Theoretically, they are more in tune with what that plant needs to be profitable and successful. They have more of a view of the "total cost of ownership," past just the installation phase. (I am sure this will elicit many responses from corporate engineering groups that will take issue with what I am arguing here, and I will concede that there are corporations, and individuals, that do a better job than others in examining the total cost of ownership, even in a central engineering structure.)

I don't personally recommend one structure over the other. Each has it pros and cons depending on the metric you are using to judge its ability to execute. But one of the areas that I think is "mis-represented" in this discussion is the impact of this decision on the plant. With multiple architectures in place you have more training. This is typically "written off" by saying that you should rely more heavily on your suppliers to support the technical and that industry standards are driving development languages to a common structure (though most would agree we are not there today). But who pays for this support? The "corporate project?" No, the plant. Another concern at the plant level is spare parts cost and inventory. Most plants do not want to have to purchase and store many different components. There is a trend in lean manufacturing to push this "stock" to the supplier, typically the local distributor in these cases, but even then when a component fails, you are going to be down for a relatively significant amount of time (not to mention that the distributors don't want to hold stock either!). Finally, the actual diagnostic/development software is different for each architecture. Again, this is a significant cost for a plant to incur in accepting all of these different architectures. In a nutshell, there is an "installed cost" and a "long term cost" to consider. And these "long term costs" hit the plant, not the corporate project.

To get where everyone is saying we need to go, the technology providers need to get to a common hardware platform. Let's use the standard analogy here. If I go buy a PC it is basically standard and will work the same as another PC (I'll conveniently ignore the existence of Apple in this discussion). If you can gain hardware independence, then these other concepts open up. With hardware independence, I don't care if I were to purchase a controller from Allen-Bradley, Siemens, GE, or Elau. They would all be the same. Plus, IEC would need to continue to define and standardize the programming languages. But they would need to take it a step further by defining what instructions were allowed in each language (think of it as the defining C++, Java, etc.). And then the development/diagnostic software becomes capable of supporting different platforms as well because the hardware and language is standardized. (By the way, both of these concepts open up these markets to increased competition and low cost suppliers- think the existing players want to see this happen? Think IBM was happy with what happened to "their" PC market when clones started appearing on the scene?)

Now you still have some of the same concerns/arguments. How does one supplier innovate and differentiate their product? Now the hardware is simply becoming a commodity with no value add. How do you bridge the gap between PLC, motion controllers, DCS systems, PAC's, etc.? And these are all valid points that the technology providers and industry would need to work through. And back to the analogy, even though the base hardware of every PC is basically the same, there is room for add-on hardware (sound cards, graphic boards, etc.) for specific applications and tasks.

My personal opinion is that industry will not accept the "PC concept" due to existing fears of "blue screen of death" operating systems, device specific device drivers that can cause instability, etc. And maybe I am not creative enough, but I don't see how you achieve what industry is asking for under the current system, or a simple derivative of that same core system, when you factor in the long-term costs identified above.

NEW Automation Products

Highlights from PAF 2008

Space constraints prohibit an all-inclusive report on Packaging Automation Forum 2008, sponsored by Packaging World and Automation World magazines. But here's a peek at what Unilever, Lilly, and P&G had to say. Keynoter David Atherton, director of supply chain engineering and quality in the hair group at Unilever America, opened the Packaging Automation Forum with a look at how, over the last five years, Unilever has used technology to make its supply chain a value-added part of its overall business.... Read more

Optical electronic sensor passes with flying colors

When this packaging machinery OEM was asked to integrate sensors that would verify accuracy in labeling, the CVS2 was part of the answer. A major U.S. food manufacturer called on packaging machinery builder Brenton Engineering to supply secondary packaging equipment for a meat packaging line. This included a case packer, a print-and-apply labeler for ingredients, a print-and-apply labeler for bar codes, a robotic palletizing cell, and all of the necessary conveyor connections between the machines. ... Read more

Upcoming events:
ISPE08 Annual Meeting
Pharmaceutical manufacturing industry professionals from around the world will gather this October at ISPE 2008 Annual Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, USA, to share expertise and gain insight to navigate the horizon of industry change.
Safety Automation Forum
Learn about safety's importance within the manufacturing industry and discover why safety is good business. Plan to attend this new event produced by Automation World and Rockwell Automation. Safety Automation Forum is November 18, 2008 in Nashville, TN.

Sign up for our other e-mail newsletters

Inquiries

Editorial
[email protected]

Advertising
[email protected]

Technical
[email protected]

Once or twice monthly. Don't miss intelligence crucial to your job and business!