Mark Lewandowski
Mark Lewandowski of P&G’s corporate engineering machine controls department explained to the attendees of the OMAC Packaging Workgroup that the business benefits to P&G of properly implemented software using the ISA TR088.05 PackML standard are significant. Use of PackML reduces startup time, gets lines to expected performance sooner, improves line performance throughout their lifetime, improves line management and decision making and results in faster machine diagnostics
Since the PackML document can be intimidating in its length and scope, P&G created a robust execution of the standard that they have validated in numerous types of machines and in multiple business units around the world. This execution has been prepared as a template in the guideline document.
Dave Bauman, OMAC Technical Director, announced that most of the technology providers involved with OMAC have already agreed to provide templates for their products using the P&G guideline. Machine builders may work with their particular technology provider to obtain these templates and can obtain the guideline from OPW.
Some in the audience questioned why the guideline was prepared using proprietary ladder logic when OMAC has endorsed open programming standards. P&G replied that the guideline simply used ladder as an example and that others are free to prepare alternative examples for other languages.
End users also expressed frustration at the fact that more machine builders are not offering PackML in their machines. They likened the situation to trying to buy a word processor and having to explain to the software company how to create one.
In this author’s opinion, given the number of new machines that have been designed since PackML was created and the number of older machines that have undergone platform and software updates, it is unfortunate that not more machines incorporate the standard. As time goes on, machine builders will no longer be able to use the excuse that it costs them money to rewrite code with PackML because they will have rewritten it without PackML anyway. With the brightest minds at sophisticated end user and oem companies in agreement on the benefits to the industry, what is taking so long?
Since the PackML document can be intimidating in its length and scope, P&G created a robust execution of the standard that they have validated in numerous types of machines and in multiple business units around the world. This execution has been prepared as a template in the guideline document.
Dave Bauman, OMAC Technical Director, announced that most of the technology providers involved with OMAC have already agreed to provide templates for their products using the P&G guideline. Machine builders may work with their particular technology provider to obtain these templates and can obtain the guideline from OPW.
Some in the audience questioned why the guideline was prepared using proprietary ladder logic when OMAC has endorsed open programming standards. P&G replied that the guideline simply used ladder as an example and that others are free to prepare alternative examples for other languages.
End users also expressed frustration at the fact that more machine builders are not offering PackML in their machines. They likened the situation to trying to buy a word processor and having to explain to the software company how to create one.
In this author’s opinion, given the number of new machines that have been designed since PackML was created and the number of older machines that have undergone platform and software updates, it is unfortunate that not more machines incorporate the standard. As time goes on, machine builders will no longer be able to use the excuse that it costs them money to rewrite code with PackML because they will have rewritten it without PackML anyway. With the brightest minds at sophisticated end user and oem companies in agreement on the benefits to the industry, what is taking so long?
