At the annual OMAC Users Group meeting, held in January in Orlando, a discussion was generated on the topic of putting a more general face on OMAC by dropping its focus on packaging with regard to PackML and PackTags. The argument goes that since the technical product is elegant enough to be applied to other industries, it shouldn’t be referred to as PackWhatever, implying that its use is limited to packaging. Perhaps DiscreteML or just ISA Technical Report S88 Part 5 would provide better and more consistent branding. I say that OMAC should proceed with extreme caution!
One of the enviable characteristics of the OMAC Packaging Workgroup (OPW) was the level of involvement in the group by end users and machine builders. Other technical committees and user groups have not had this kind of participation. These packagers and OEMs participated in the group because they saw a clear link between the group’s mission and work and the business drivers of the participants’ companies. My recent observations have been that as the perceived workings of OMAC have become more focused on technical standards, the user and OEM members have become less evident and less involved.
OPW has ceased promoting much of its earlier work that remains important to the packaging industry. Less than one third of the packagers in North America have any sort of network integration on even one line. Another third have some level of hard-wired interlocking and the final third depend entirely upon stand-alone unit packaging operations. Fewer than 40% of packagers have any servo-based machines and probably fewer than half of packaging machinery builders are prepared to build 3rd generation mechatronic machines. Fewer than 40% of packagers have the kind of multi-skilled maintenance staff that is best suited to supporting this type of machine. For the vast majority of these folks, an ISA Technical Report on S88 Part 5 is not what their business most needs from OPW. What these businesses do need is simple-to-understand, fundamental guidance on how to move along the technology path.
OPW has much of this guidance in its existing deliverables, but the group seems to have forgotten about it. The glossary of terms for packagers, the packaging line type definitions, and the descriptions of the various means of integrating machines and lines are of fundamental importance. Although this basic stuff may not be the most interesting to the engineers involved in writing new standards, it is what the industry most needs. More emphasis must be placed on communicating and educating on these fundamentals and in helping people link technology to their business goals.
At a meeting that preceded the official start of the ARC Forum and the OMAC meetings, the comment was heard that packaging machine builders are looking for more specific guidance on how to apply the OPW guidelines. Most builders and most users aren’t accustomed to thinking about state machines and tags. It is commendable that a demonstration was developed that showed that PackML can be applied to CNC machines, but just because one can extend the standard doesn’t mean that the group should lose its focus on packaging. As a Super Bowl commercial recently told us, when everybody plays, nobody wins. The packaging team still has much training and playing to do before they let all of those on the field who, now, have at best been mere spectators.
I support other changes that OMAC is making. Moving the Microsoft Manufacturing User Group (MS MUG) to become a full Automation Federation member makes sense. Seeking corporate dues-paying members of OMAC is probably necessary. Moving PackML and PackTags to the status of a technical report and eventually an international standard is a good thing as long as it does not become the only thing. But dropping the focus on packaging, I believe, would be a fatal mistake that would complete the transition of OPW from a User’s Group to a Technical Committee that will not attract the ongoing participation of packagers and machinery builders.
One of the enviable characteristics of the OMAC Packaging Workgroup (OPW) was the level of involvement in the group by end users and machine builders. Other technical committees and user groups have not had this kind of participation. These packagers and OEMs participated in the group because they saw a clear link between the group’s mission and work and the business drivers of the participants’ companies. My recent observations have been that as the perceived workings of OMAC have become more focused on technical standards, the user and OEM members have become less evident and less involved.
OPW has ceased promoting much of its earlier work that remains important to the packaging industry. Less than one third of the packagers in North America have any sort of network integration on even one line. Another third have some level of hard-wired interlocking and the final third depend entirely upon stand-alone unit packaging operations. Fewer than 40% of packagers have any servo-based machines and probably fewer than half of packaging machinery builders are prepared to build 3rd generation mechatronic machines. Fewer than 40% of packagers have the kind of multi-skilled maintenance staff that is best suited to supporting this type of machine. For the vast majority of these folks, an ISA Technical Report on S88 Part 5 is not what their business most needs from OPW. What these businesses do need is simple-to-understand, fundamental guidance on how to move along the technology path.
OPW has much of this guidance in its existing deliverables, but the group seems to have forgotten about it. The glossary of terms for packagers, the packaging line type definitions, and the descriptions of the various means of integrating machines and lines are of fundamental importance. Although this basic stuff may not be the most interesting to the engineers involved in writing new standards, it is what the industry most needs. More emphasis must be placed on communicating and educating on these fundamentals and in helping people link technology to their business goals.
At a meeting that preceded the official start of the ARC Forum and the OMAC meetings, the comment was heard that packaging machine builders are looking for more specific guidance on how to apply the OPW guidelines. Most builders and most users aren’t accustomed to thinking about state machines and tags. It is commendable that a demonstration was developed that showed that PackML can be applied to CNC machines, but just because one can extend the standard doesn’t mean that the group should lose its focus on packaging. As a Super Bowl commercial recently told us, when everybody plays, nobody wins. The packaging team still has much training and playing to do before they let all of those on the field who, now, have at best been mere spectators.
I support other changes that OMAC is making. Moving the Microsoft Manufacturing User Group (MS MUG) to become a full Automation Federation member makes sense. Seeking corporate dues-paying members of OMAC is probably necessary. Moving PackML and PackTags to the status of a technical report and eventually an international standard is a good thing as long as it does not become the only thing. But dropping the focus on packaging, I believe, would be a fatal mistake that would complete the transition of OPW from a User’s Group to a Technical Committee that will not attract the ongoing participation of packagers and machinery builders.
Companies in this article
