In plant visibility in process manu (final published)

By Harry Forbes
ARC BEST PRACTICES
MARCH 2007
Best Practices for In-Plant Visibility
in Process Manufacturing
Executive Overview .................................................................... 3
Field Operations in Process Plants: A Chronic Blind Spot.................. 4
ARC Research on In-Plant Visibility ............................................... 6
Survey Results........................................................................... 7
Interview Results ......................................................................13
Recommended Best Practices......................................................20
THOUGHT LEADERS FOR MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY CHAIN

ARC Best Practices • March 2007
2 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
Process Manufacturers May Know the Location, Speed, and Inventory of
Hundreds of Their Downstream Delivery Vehicles on a Minute-by-Minute Basis.
They Have Far Less Visibility into the Work of Operating and Maintenance
Crews “Inside the Fence” of Their Own Refineries and Plants.
People Processes Technology Information
Ground Breaker All employees
and key
contractors
Corporate
teams of IT,
Operations,
Maintenance
WLAN
supporting
multiple
services
Corporate-
wide
operations
visibility
Leader Operations and
Maintenance
employees
Project Team
of Operations
and IT
WLAN and
mobile
computers
EAM and PAM
integrated
with field
tools
Competitor Operations
employees only
Pilot Team
from
Operations
Cradled mobile
computers
Operators
leverage
mobile
computing
Follower Visionaries and
vendors only
No program
defined
Paper-based
operations
procedures
Paper-based
operations
procedures
The Current State of In-Plant Visibility in Process Manufacturing

Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 3
Many process manufacturers recognize
they need to have more visibility of field
work activities “inside the fence” at their
plants. But few have a solid plan for
progress. ARC Advisory Group recently
researched practices for in-plant visibility
to better understand why.
Executive Overview
Process manufacturers need more visibility into the work activities that oc-
cur within their plants but outside of the control room (and often outside of
the view of their process automation systems). Many manufacturers expect
to sharply improve this in-plant visibility in the near future and have begun
to experiment with new technologies and business processes to achieve it.
In many cases, these initiatives affect practices and procedures that are
deeply established in their corporate culture. Today, very few manufactur-
ers have a solid plan to reach the future in-plant visibility they desire.
To understand these efforts and to capture best
practices, ARC Advisory Group conducted a sur-
vey in late 2006 that was followed up by a series
of in-depth interviews with manufacturing firms
that had responded to the survey. The survey
showed that many manufacturers had ambitious
plans to improve in-plant visibility. Most ex-
pected improved asset reliability and plant safety
to justify their future technology investment in this area. In most cases,
these initiatives were led by operations personnel, with a surprising lack of
strong IT influence reported.
Follow-up interviews revealed that there was a huge range in the scale of
these programs, and that most of the companies were still in very early
stages of their development and deployment. A much smaller number of
manufacturers had an extensive experience base. These firms were much
more mature in managing their in-plant visibility initiatives, and had al-
ready progressed through several stages of development that were likely to
be repeated by other manufacturers who still have less mature programs.
Based on these discussions, ARC recommends manufacturers that are pur-
suing greater in-plant visibility should quickly adopt these more mature
practices rather than repeat the multi-year evolution that the industry lead-
ers went through out of necessity.
ARC has identified three of these best practices as most important.
• Address the cultural impact of greater in-plant visibility
• Implement using cross-functional teams
• Design early implementations for full scale-up

Process manufacturers such as oil
companies usually have far more
visibility of downstream distribution
operations than they do of many
field activities that take place
“inside the fence” at their massive
plants and refineries.
First, in-plant visibility affects fundamental operating and maintenance
practices. New and higher levels of in-plant visibility will have a major cul-
tural impact on these organizations. Manufacturers must recognize and
address this impact. These organizations are rightly risk averse and slow to
change their existing culture.
Second, this work involves multiple disciplines and cannot be successful if
any of these disciplines are neglected or missing. Initiatives should be im-
plemented by teams of recognized leaders with proven expertise drawn
from across all functional silos of the organization. Efforts of these multiple
teams should be coordinated by an overall steering group that includes up-
per management.
Finally, to ease a consistent deployment of these changes across many
manufacturing operations, the initiatives need to be implemented in a pro-
fessional manner worthy of the sustaining importance of these deliverables
to the manufacturing enterprise. Over time, these initiatives will have as
much or more impact on operations as did the adoption of ERP in the
1990s. Manufacturers should manage these visibility investments with the
degree of attention and resources they merit.
Field Operations in Process Plants:
A Chronic Blind Spot
Despite higher visibility into far-flung operations achieved through wire-
less and mobile computing technologies, many field activities that take
place “inside the fence” within process manufacturing
represent a serious and persistent blind spot. Down-
stream, oil companies may know the exact location of
hundreds or thousands of delivery and service teams
and have records of their locations, routes, and speeds
at minute-by-minute intervals. However, inside the
huge refineries and petrochemical plants at the mid-
stream, many human activities that occur outside of the
plant control rooms are captured only after the fact and via paper, if they
are captured and documented at all.
How can this be? Many of the technologies that bring visibility to far-flung
global service and logistics operations (cellular telephony, vehicle telemat-

A study by the ASM Consortium
found that human error in the
creation or execution of
procedures is the largest single
cause of abnormal situations.
ics, GPS location tracking) have been unsuited for use in the hazardous lo-
cations, conditions, and work processes that are executed by operations and
maintenance workers in process plants. These plants have superb visibility
of process conditions that are monitored by their automation systems, but
for events beyond that their in-plant visibility has changed very little in
many years.
Process manufacturers themselves widely expect that this situation will
change completely. A confluence of new technology, business drivers,
regulatory requirements, and safety initiatives will bring wholesale changes
to the way process plants execute and track their daily operations and
maintenance tasks. While changes are widely expected, very few in the
process industries have a solid understanding of how they will migrate
from their current practices to the highly transparent operations they envi-
sion for themselves in the future. Many process manufacturing companies
are now wrestling with some part of these changes, but few have devel-
oped serious strategies for them.
Drivers for Change
Why do manufacturers believe these changes are coming? There are many
reasons, one of the most well-documented of which is the reduction in the
occurrence of abnormal situations. The Abnormal Situation Management
(ASM) Consortium has studied 59 cases of abnormal situations and classi-
fied them according to root cause. ASM cautions that the assigned causes
represent ranges rather than precise percentages, but the category “People
and Context Factors” was the root cause of the largest fraction of incidents.
When further subdivided, this category indicates that human error in the
creation or execution of procedures is the largest cause of
these incidents.
Given the higher demands placed on the process indus-
tries by today’s tight energy and petrochemical markets,
human errors continue to be a major source of risk for
process manufacturers. By adding greater visibility and repeatability to
their fieldwork, manufacturers can bring a climate of continuous improve-
ment and best practices to these work activities.
Greater safety is another justification that stems from multiple sources, in-
cluding reduction of human error. Some manufacturers look toward real-
time location services (RTLS) as a possible future infrastructure that can

ARC conducted a survey on in-
plant visibility and followed up by
conducting in-depth interviews
with manufacturing companies
who had participated.
improve personnel tracking and safety as well as improve tracking of mo-
bile assets, tools, and new or uninstalled equipment inside the plant
perimeter. Some suppliers of equipment have shown prototypes of these
solutions, and such RTLS systems are now making inroads within critical
health care complexes such as major hospitals. These systems are very rare
in manufacturing, and unknown in process manufacturing at present.
Improved collaboration and business processes are common justifications.
This can result from more uniform and consistent practices by personnel,
improved processes for hand-off of responsibility between operating shifts,
or between operations and maintenance staffs. In addition, the more rapid
and accurate population of back-end enterprise applications with plant
field data and task status information can yield significant benefits.
Because so many process manufacturers expect major changes, the situation
prompted ARC Advisory Group to conduct research in this area during the
past few months. The objective of this research was to identify the current
practices and future plans of process manufacturers regarding in-plant
visibility. The other objective of the research was to identify some of the
best practices that manufacturers were developing as they prepare for and
make these fundamental changes in their day-to-day operating and main-
tenance practices.
ARC Research on In-Plant Visibility
Research for this project is divided into 2 main parts. First, a detailed sur-
vey was developed by ARC in collaboration with several process
manufacturers and suppliers. This survey was published
by ARC and was made available on the Internet during
the 4th quarter of 2006. The survey contained 16 ques-
tions concerning current practices in process field
operations and future plans. Another five questions con-
cerned the demographics of the respondents. ARC
received 81 valid survey responses, and 42 percent of these were from
process manufacturers. In the analysis presented here, ARC has excluded
survey responses except those from process manufacturers themselves.
The other portion of this research was a series of in-depth interviews with
professionals in process manufacturing. Topics for these interviews were

the same as the web survey, but the interviews allowed ARC to gain more
insight into what practices are most important and why, and how not just
new technology but other factors contribute to best practices. ARC inter-
viewed a number of persons from various process industries. Interview
candidates were selected from among persons responding to the web sur-
vey as well as from ARC’s internal databases.
Survey Results
Who Are the Field Workers?
ARC asked, “Which types of personnel perform tasks in the field at your
plant?” The responses are not surprising, and indicate that the primary
constituents are maintenance personnel and dedicated field operators.
While contractors also play a role here, the presence of contractors on site is
normally concentrated during unit outages or turnaround periods. The key
take-away here is that both maintenance and operations have a significant
stake in any changes in fieldwork practices.
Plant maintenance personnel
Dedicated field operators
Contractors or service providers
Control room operators
(working part time in the field)
Scheduled rotation between
field and control room operators
Other
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
88.2 %
79.4 %
52.9 %
52.9 %
38.2 %
5.9 %
Plant maintenance personnel
Dedicated field operators
Contractors or service providers
Control room operators
(working part time in the field)
Scheduled rotation between
field and control room operators
Other
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
88.2 %
79.4 %
52.9 %
52.9 %
38.2 %
5.9 %
Survey Data: Who Are Field Workers?

What Expected Benefits Justified Manufacturer
Investments?
ARC asked manufacturers “How important were these reasons in justifying
your company’s use of mobile computing, mobile communication, and IT
equipment in the field?”. The question allowed three responses (“Most Im-
portant”, “Important” or “Less Important”). To highlight the distinctions,
results are graphed here with only the “Most Important” and “Less Impor-
tant” responses shown. Clearly, the manufacturers leaned toward
increased asset reliability and greater safety as the critical justifications for
the work they are doing now. Somewhat surprisingly, neither top-down
nor bottom-up initiatives were considered important. Neither did the “ag-
ing workforce” consideration play a major role in the justification. Possible
explanations of this response is that the benefits of higher equipment reli-
ability are easy to quantify, while the challenges of achieving greater
operating safety despite today’s more complex plant operations is a very
high priority for major process manufacturers.
Less important
Most important
Safety (avoiding Human Error)
Capturing best practices
Training new/less experienced operators
Improved Asset reliability
Regulatory Compliance
Top-down strategy by Management
Requests/suggestions by Operators
Other
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Less important
Most important
Other
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Other
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Survey Data: What Justifies Investment in Visibility?

What Enterprise Applications Are Most Valuable in the
Field?
Visibility into field operations is not an end in itself but rather a change that
will add value to other enterprise level applications. One survey question
asked, “How much do you believe these back end applications can benefit
from mobile computing, mobile communication, and IT in field opera-
tions?”. Again, the survey gave a choice of three responses: “Little Benefit”,
“Some Benefit”, or “Most Benefit”. The graph below plots the extreme re-
sponses only. The clear winning applications in this question are process
operations and plant asset management. The case for value in process op-
erations is clear, since these are essentially invisible in real-time when
paper-based procedural systems are used. While asset management is per-
ceived as a beneficiary also, it is an open question at this point as to how
many manufacturing installations are equipped to leverage new electronic
field data in their existing asset management applications.
Little Benefit
Most Benefit
Little Benefit
Little Benefit
Most Benefit
Most Benefit
Process Automation
Plant Data Historians
Process Operations
Plant Asset Management (PAM)
Enterprise Asset Management (EAM)
Other
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Survey Data: What Enterprise Applications Benefit Most?

Which Functional Organizations Are Most Influential?
Another question probed the issue of which functional silo within the plant
had the most influence on their present field programs. The question was
worded “How much influence do these organizations have in setting policy
for mobile computing, mobile communications, and IT equipment in the
field at your company?”. The response to this question was not what ARC
expected. Again, we have removed the “middle” response and plotted the
responses that marked organizations with “less influence” or “more influ-
ence”. What emerges here is that plant operations personnel and plant
maintenance are perceived as being the most influential silos, with plant IT
and corporate-level IT functions trailing. Since these programs involve
state of the art high technology equipment such as certified mobile comput-
ing devices and AutoID technologies, ARC would have expected to find
IT’s role more prominent and more widely recognized. This response was
noted for further follow-up during our interviews.
Less influence
Most influence
Less influence
Less influence
Most influence
Most influence
Corporate Operations
Plant Operations
Plant Maintenance
Corporate IT
Plant IT
Other
Corporate Operations
Plant Operations
Plant Maintenance
Corporate IT
Plant IT
Other
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Survey Data: Which Organizations Are Most Influential?

What Technology Deployments Are Planned?
The survey asked “What kinds of mobile computing, mobile communica-
tion, and IT equipment does your firm use (or plan to use) in support for
field operations?” and presented a list of various IT and telecom devices.
Respondents marked each device by selecting from among three responses
(“Use now”, “Plan to use in 1-2 years”, or ”No plans to use”). Responses
are plotted in the figure nearby. As expected, the vast majority of process
manufacturers now use mobile radio for voice communication with field
operators. Technologies that are most often planned for near-term de-
ployment are handheld computing platforms. Very few see VOIP
telephones in the immediate future for their field operators.
use now
plan to use in next 1-2 years
no plans to use
25
20
15
10
5
Mobile radio
Mobile telephone
VOIP telephone
PDA
Rugged Handheld Computer
Laptop computer
Other
0
use now
no plans to use
use now
no plans to use
25
20
15
10
5
Mobile radio
Mobile telephone
VOIP telephone
PDA
Laptop computer
Other
0 25
20
15
10
5
Mobile radio
Mobile telephone
VOIP telephone
PDA
Laptop computer
Other
0
Mobile radio
Mobile telephone
VOIP telephone
PDA
Laptop computer
Other
0
Survey Data: What Technology Deployment Is Planned?

What WLAN Coverage Will Be Provided, and When?
ARC also asked about the status of plans for providing WLAN coverage of
the process plant. The question was worded “What is your company’s plan
for providing Wireless LAN coverage in these area of your plants?”. Re-
spondents were given three choices (“Have coverage now”, “Plan to
provide coverage in next 1-2 years”, or “No plans to provide coverage”). A
majority of respondents plan to add WLAN coverage for some of their field
areas during the next 1-2 years, though very few have this capability in-
stalled now. The build out implied by this response is very rapid. At
present, very few WLAN products on the market are certified for hazard-
ous locations. Installing commercial and non-certified products is possible
using enclosures and remote antennas, but the cost of such installations is
far higher than for products that are designed for these services. This ques-
tion was another that ARC noted as requiring clarification during more
detailed discussions with manufacturers.
have coverage now
plan to provide coverage in next 1-2 years
no plans to provide coverage
Some control rooms
All control rooms
Some field areas
All field areas
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
41.2 %
11.8 %
26.5 %
0.0 %
20.6 %
47.1 %
61.8 %
44.1 %
20.6 %
29.4 %
11.8 %
35.3 %
have coverage now
have coverage now
Some control rooms
All control rooms
Some field areas
All field areas
Some control rooms
All control rooms
Some field areas
All field areas
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
41.2 %
11.8 %
26.5 %
0.0 %
20.6 %
47.1 %
61.8 %
44.1 %
20.6 %
29.4 %
11.8 %
35.3 %
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
41.2 %
11.8 %
26.5 %
0.0 %
20.6 %
47.1 %
61.8 %
44.1 %
20.6 %
29.4 %
11.8 %
35.3 %
Survey Data: What WLAN Coverage Is Planned?

ARC found a very wide range of
experience regarding in-plant
visibility among process
manufacturers.
Interview Results
To follow up on this survey and obtain more insight on these questions,
ARC Advisory Group conducted a series interviews with manufacturing
firms who had taken the survey. Companies interviewed had all partici-
pated in the survey, but some of the persons interviewed were different
from the survey respondents. Interviews were conducted during the sur-
vey period and during the first quarter of 2007 by telephone or in person.
The key finding from these interviews was a question that we did not ex-
plicitly ask at first. That finding is that there was a very wide range in the
experience level and the commitment with which com-
panies have attacked the issue of in-plant visibility. What
we discovered was that most of the companies had done
only pilot projects with mobile computing and or wireless
networks in their plants. For example, one of these was a
refiner who had deployed a system on a single unit
within a 13-unit production complex. Another had a program for one of
their 11 plants. Most of the manufacturers interviewed had this level of
experience.
A second and smaller class of manufacturers had significant and multi-site
experience. Their programs were now proceeding rapidly and these com-
panies had gathered far more operating and deployment experience. Their
perspective on these programs was decidedly different from their less ex-
perienced counterparts, and their implementation plans and advice formed
the bulk of ARC’s Best Practices recommendations. Turning back to the
key questions raised by the survey, here is what our interviews revealed:
Who Are the Field Workers?
Companies initially defined these as field operators only. Depending upon
their particular practices, that could mean all plant operators or a subset of
their operating staff. More experienced companies argued that programs
limited to operations were suboptimal. Benefits were limited in compari-
son to more broad-based programs, while the costs were not much
different, making these programs far less attractive. More experienced
companies argued that both operations and maintenance should be part of
any new technology plan.

Larger in-plant visibility
programs focus on improved
collaboration as a major
source of benefit.
That was as far as they have gone at present, though. Inclusion of contrac-
tors is not a practice ARC encountered during these interviews. Contractor
presence on site is highly concentrated in turnaround periods, so that pro-
visioning them with technology and training beyond mobile voice radio is
too challenging at present. At least one manufacturer is planning to use
their new field visibility tools to manage turnarounds in 2007, but their plan
is to equip their own personnel, not the contractors, with new technology to
monitor the turnaround work.
Contractors working on site during a turnaround have a critical role that
impacts plant capacity, reliability, and safety. The speed with which they
can complete their work during turnarounds has a major impact on the
length of the overall outage. Quality of their work processes is also critical,
since they often disassemble, service, and reassemble critical process
equipment. ARC believes that the manufacturers we interviewed would
like to have far greater visibility into the work processes of contractors, but
at present they are “putting their own house in order” in terms of visibility
by attempting to gain more visibility into their own work processes.
What Benefits Justified Manufacturer Technology
Investments?
Smaller programs focused on operations only rather than operations and
maintenance, and their justifications were operations reliability, safety, and
the closing of information gaps in field operations. There were a number of
other reasons as well. Compliance was one driver, including one manufac-
turer who had committed to the program as part of the settlement of an
environmental dispute. More rigorous and comprehensive shift-change
handoffs were a benefit reported by one major manufacturer,
Justifications for larger programs were quite similar, but in-
cluded improved collaboration and hand-offs between
operations and maintenance. Larger programs seem focused
on this improved collaboration as a major source of benefit.
This is not to say that companies doing pilot programs were
displeased with their results. Most were happy with the status of their
program. Some felt that the willingness of their employees to use new
technology and processes was greater than their ability to deliver. Part of
the gap here was the immaturity of the technology solutions themselves,
and part was the ability of the company to implement new or improved
processes effectively.

Operating tasks tend to be
“round-centric” while
maintenance is “asset-centric”.
Both paradigms are needed in
mobile field operations.
Larger implementation programs while pursuing ROI through concrete
changes, seem more committed to the view that field work processes in
general have received under-investment and are proceeding with a plan to
invest in IT and knowledge infrastructure to remedy that situation. Thus in
these programs there is not as much reliance on calculating an overall ROI
from each phase of the investment. Rather, the search for ROI determines
which practices and work processes receive priority as new field technol-
ogy becomes available.
What Enterprise Applications Obtain the Most Value
from Field Information?
There was widespread agreement that a sustained focus on application in-
tegration was important for any new field worker technology initiative.
This was not necessary in all cases to deliver value. Improvement in opera-
tions had significant value, but the consensus is that new field information
can be used to improve a number of areas if operations-oriented programs
are implemented in a manner that facilitates it.
One manufacturer had used their new information to supplement an exten-
sive existing program to monitor Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE).
The data collection and recording process for these OEE monitors were al-
ready in place and the results already had high visibility within the
organization. Additional information provided by the new operator tools
was integrated with this existing reporting system.
More experienced process companies reported that it was essential that
their use of new field information focus beyond “rounds and readings”
from the outset. They reported that focusing on APIs as a point of design
and implementing various work processes within that context. This way
the initial design of applications would focus on integrating and utilizing
the new field information, whether it came from operators or maintenance
teams. They urged that to derive value, it was just as im-
portant to understand the structure of existing enterprise
applications, as it was to understand the operations and
maintenance processes.
Interviews also suggested that using a single paradigm
for mobile software was not a best practice. Much of op-
erators work is “round-centric” in that the work processes defined survey
field equipment on a regular basis, or to execute a particular operating pro-

cedure. Maintenance and condition monitoring tasks by contrast tend to be
“asset-centric”. Here the focus is on a particular asset, what data or obser-
vations need to be made, the status of outstanding work orders, and how
its performance compares with the recent past. Field workers will want to
be able to switch easily between these two paradigms to take full advantage
of interruptions and changes in their planned activities.
In the area of asset management, the key metrics are an increase in “tool
time” that can result from improved processes and coordination. Another
value comes from gaining visibility of material after it is removed from
warehouse areas. In the view of ERP applications, this material usually be-
comes invisible once it leaves a warehouse to be delivered to a job site. Any
misplacement or removal of critical material can result in the suspension of
maintenance activities while the missing material is either located or re-
placed.
Which Functional Organizations Are Most Influential?
In this area, the survey results showed a surprising lack of IT involvement
and responsibility for new technologies deployed in field operations. Dur-
ing the interviews, it became clear that the more experienced companies
had fully integrated their IT organizations into their planning and into their
project teams.
Many of the pilot programs used cradled mobile computers rather than
WLANs. Thus, the IT infrastructure was not expanding dramatically for
these programs. Other pilot programs were testing plans for administra-
tion of mobile devices and wireless networks in the field so that policies
could be developed based on results rather than in a data vacuum. Other
single unit or single plant pilots did not result in any definitive plan for
handling future WLANs inside the plant fence.
Here the more experienced companies were operating in a much different
fashion. These companies had engaged their IT function in strategic ques-
tions such as management and planning of mobile computing platforms
and negotiation of software licensing, service, and support agreements.
Since mobile computing was already a strategic IT consideration in other
business areas, this was not new ground for IT. Furthermore, operations
and maintenance experts reported that platform planning was critical given
the rapid pace of technology change and the need to focus on enterprise
application integration.

Manufacturers see device form
factor and human factors as a
major concern for in-plant use of
mobile computers.
One of the highly experienced companies engaged their IT outsourcing
supplier as part of their team. However, a clear best practice here was the
coordination of the company’s overall program
through a steering team that included operations,
maintenance, and IT. Among the leaders, the IT
function was engaged in this work and IT consti-
tuted a strategic part of the overall team. Some
less experienced companies recognized this and
planned to add IT for mobile platform planning
and WLAN administration, but the leading prac-
titioners already had established a team that
included IT and had assigned IT several critical
roles in the company’s overall plan.
What Technology Deployments Are Planned?
The survey found that many manufacturers plan to have mobile computing
in use in the near-term future. Interviews showed that there was no broad
consensus concerning the types of devices that future operators or mainte-
nance workers would be using.
Device form factor and human factors are major concerns here. The effect
of dirt, extreme temperature, battery life, the size of keypads, the brightness
of displays, and navigating through applications while in the field are all
questions that are more challenging for field-based appli-
cations than for office applications. ARC’s interviews
found that manufacturers reported willingness to ex-
periment was in many case ahead of the ability of current
technology to deliver.
Another significant issue was the addition of a mobile computing device to
existing mobile radios that many such workers already must carry. Manu-
facturers had difficulty with the idea of mandating that operators carry a
second electronic device.
Yet there are any number of other types of devices that can be used occa-
sionally, and there was no consensus regarding these either. Use of digital
cameras and digital video offers obvious opportunities to collaborate and to
document equipment condition. Use of cameras to document major main-
tenance work had been a decades-long practice in many process industries.
However, policies toward personal digital photography and video vary
General Mgmt.
Operations
Maintenance
IT
Overall Program Coordination by a
Company-wide Steering Team Is a
Practice of Experienced Firms

Experienced manufacturers hope
to close gaps in their WLAN
coverage, but doubt that they can
guarantee 100% coverage.
considerably. These technologies are being used more and more for pe-
rimeter security, but some manufacturers interviewed did not allow on-site
photography (digital or analog) unless authorized in advance. Others en-
couraged the capture and inclusion of digital images in many common
reports. Business issues such as the loss of control over on-site images and
the possibility of unanticipated liability exposure may also play a role here.
These challenges will not recede. When process plant WLAN coverage be-
comes common, manufacturers will have many more options for field
technologies, including portable videoconferencing devices. The area of
digital imaging and video seems to be one that needs to be thought out and
discussed in more depth within manufacturing enterprises.
What WLAN Coverage Will Be Provided and When?
Our interviews provided some additional clarification concerning the de-
ployment plans of manufacturers with respect to WLAN, which was a
conspicuous result of the survey. We did find some companies with ag-
gressive rollout plans for WLAN coverage of their plant sites. Some felt
their targets were too aggressive and had been agreed upon as “reach”
goals in agreements with upper management, even though they might not
be feasible.
We found that even the small minority of interviewees who already had
extensive WLAN were planning its eventual upgrade in the same period as
those who had never deployed any WLAN in their sites. These purchasers
of a 2nd generation of WLAN coverage were looking to
add rapid “roaming” capability for WLAN devices
throughout their manufacturing plant. They were plan-
ning installations with remote antennas and protective
enclosures for environments that were high temperature,
corrosive, or hazardous. These experienced end users reported that their
1st generation installation had many gaps in WLAN coverage, and while
they hoped to reduce the number of holes in coverage, they still had to de-
sign their applications on the basis that 100% coverage could not be
guaranteed.
Another major process company reported that unit-by-unit rollout of
WLAN was too difficult to be cost effective. There were too many phases
and technology change was too rapid. Instead, they planned to cover
whole sites, or at least design their complete coverage solution before be-

Most manufacturers are using
cradled mobile computers in the
field rather than WLAN, but they
do not see this as a major
disadvantage at present.
ginning permanent installations. Even those companies with limited ex-
perience reported that they found a great deal of enthusiasm internally for
deployment of WLAN, and believed that they would experience the “net-
work effect” as WLAN became available.
One topic that always arises with respect to WLAN is network security.
Experienced users reported that this was another good reason to draw their
IT organization in to support their plant efforts. Many of the authentica-
tion, network management, and device management tasks that are needed
for WLAN inside the fence are common to all types of mobile computing
applications. The IT function already had experience with mobile comput-
ing in other functional areas and could use the strategies, planning, and
support plans already in use to some degree.
Another area of difficulty that called for IT engagement was differing na-
tional radio spectrum regulations and mobile phone services. Global
manufacturers need to wrestle with these differences as they plan technol-
ogy deployments across their enterprise. WLAN power emission
regulations differ by country. Global manufacturers reported that they also
weighed the more widespread availability of 3G mobile telephone services
in Asia and Europe. While the North American market has lagged in this
area, new services are now coming to market rapidly, and are being fac-
tored into wireless networking plans. These services are notably not
planned for use during emergencies, as many recent disasters have shown
that they are not reliable through such events (hurricane Katrina in 2005 on
the US Gulf coast and the Northeastern US blackout of 2003 are notable ex-
amples).
Another interview finding was that most manufacturers were using cradled
mobile computers rather than WLAN. That is, these handheld computers
were attached to the network only when they were docked in a cradle.
When used in the field they were not networked at all but
operated stand-alone. These manufacturers did not see
this as a major disadvantage. Use of cradled computers
reduced the difficulty of proceeding with mobility pro-
jects by de-coupling the project from the more difficult
issue of WLAN coverage and security. It allowed them to
focus on applications and standardization without worrying about WLAN
deployment at the same time. They felt that transition to WLAN would be
less difficult in the future, while developing mobile applications was suffi-
cient challenge for the present.

Leading process manufacturers
report that their in-plant visibility
programs have passed through
three distinct phases of evolution.
Recommended Best Practices
Leading process manufacturers report that their in-plant visibility program
has gone through three major stages as it has evolved. These stages of de-
velopment are characterized by the type of organization created to manage
the programs. The first stage could be called “vendors and visionaries”.
This phase ended years ago for some firms, but most others are now in this
stage of program development. This stage consists of one or more small
pilot programs designed to test the benefits of greater in-plant visibility in a
particular application. The program will have little out-
side assistance and supervision. It may have limited
visibility within the organization. The stage is really a
proof-of-concept phase, which yields few long-term bene-
fits beyond those proofs.
The second stage of development could be called an “operational” stage,
because here improvement programs that were most often focused on
process operations grew into larger initiatives that were more thoroughly
engineered, but remained limited in scope to the operations area. At this
point, the initiative may begin to gain greater attention, but its management
and execution is still centralized in a single team.
The third phase is a fully professional enterprise-wide implementation of
in-plant visibility programs. This does not mean that the scope of the pro-
grams expands. Rather, the important change is that the task is now
recognized as one that will be ongoing, that will have significant effects on
business practices in many areas, and that can yield significant returns pro-
vided it is executed in a manner that allows the gains and improvements to
be sustainable and easily absorbed into other units of the business with
similar business processes.
Single plant
pilot program
Single plant
deployment
Corporate
standardized
deployments
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Highly Experienced Companies Have Progressed
through 3 Stages of Their In-Plant Visibility Programs
The team that is charged with managing this third phase consists of process
experts, IT professionals, and business managers. It also extends across

ARC recommends that
manufacturers organize their
programs to target corporate-
wide use from the outset.
multiple production organizations and sites, includes centralized staff or-
ganizations and possibly external service providers. Two important aspects
of this stage are that a consistent discipline of professional program man-
agement is applied, and (more importantly) a corporate-wide team is built
that is focused on managing these multiple initiatives to maximize the
benefits.
This team must manage more than technology changes to achieve that mis-
sion. Corporate culture and long-term business practices will need to
evolve as new technology enables greater visibility into field operations.
However, this type of organization is required if changes are to progress
rapidly from small-scale improvements towards a transformed plant opera-
tion characterized by far higher external visibility and higher levels of
collaboration.
As such, ARC recommends that manufacturers who are
not now leaders in this area should “skip” the first and
second stage to some degree and organize their in-plant
visibility programs from the outset so that they can suc-
ceed across the entire enterprise. The requirements for
this have been condensed into the best practices that ARC believes are
characteristic of the leading manufacturers in this area.
ARC has identified three major best practices regarding in-plant visibility
from new technology. Each of these consists of other smaller practices, but
leading process manufacturers show a keen awareness of these 3 points as
they go forward.
These are:
• Address the cultural impacts of greater in-plant visibility
• Implement using cross-functional teams
• Design early implementations for full scale-up
Best Practice:
Address the Cultural Impact of Greater In-Plant Visibility
As manufacturers deployed ERP during the 1990s, many existing and tradi-
tional business processes were formally documented for the first time and
were standardized across the enterprise through a common definition and
implementation in the new ERP application. This standardization process

Cultural changes brought about
by greater in-plant visibility will
be a disruptive as was the
adoption of ERP.
was sometimes painful, especially when the participants did not realize the
wide scope of the changes that were being put into place.
Changes that will be brought about by increasing the
visibility of work activities “inside the fence” will be as
culturally disruptive as ERP. Organizations that succeed
will need to be aware of the profound changes in long-
established work cultures that will come about. In order
to transition successfully, these cultural changes need to be recognized and
addressed over a sustained period. One manufacturer confided that “to
fully absorb a major cultural change takes 3 years for our organization”.
One of the key success factors in this equation is sustained attention from
upper management. However, the industry-leading companies have or-
ganized and planned their initiative so that upper management and all
relevant functional organizations are engaged in the process of change.
Industry leading companies are steering their efforts to improve in-plant
visibility by governing them with an active team that is charged with man-
aging the overall changes brought about in operations and maintenance
practices by new technology. That is an enormous responsibility, and it
requires dedicated active participation by leaders in operations, mainte-
nance, and IT. Industry leading firms have assembled such cross-functional
teams and charged them with managing the overall change processes.
These teams are working to define harmonized definitions, processes, and
metrics. These are applied across the many specific projects and programs
that are implemented within their company. Again, this is analogous to the
ERP implementations of the 1990s, except that the processes involved here
concern activities like process operations, equipment maintenance, equip-
ment turnarounds, and new equipment construction. Of course, this task
does not involve beginning with a blank sheet of paper, but rather the har-
monization of practices that have developed independently to some degree
through local practices at various manufacturing sites. Since on-site execu-
tives are directly responsible for safety and performance of these
manufacturing complexes, the steering committees are in no position to
impose change from outside, but instead must apply “soft skills” to harmo-
nize these practices through intensive engagement with responsible
executives that is communicated and supported by all levels of manage-
ment.

The leading manufacturers have
already assembled a “community
of practice” within their firm to
pursue greater in-plant visibility.
Best Practice:
Implement Initiatives Using Cross-Functional Teams
Along with a corporate steering committee, leading firms are assembling
cross-functional teams to design and implement new processes at each site
where they are applied. These teams may share members with the steering
committee, but their responsibility is the execution of specific programs at
one or more plant sites. These programs will have far smaller scope and
relatively short time-frames. The programs are part of an overall evolution
of practices, but may focus on only a single area (operating rounds, safety
rounds, environmental compliance, turnaround contractor management,
etc).
This second team does the work of defining the detailed
scope of the improvement program, as well as planning
and completing its deployment. Leading manufacturing
firms build the team from recognized leaders in the af-
fected disciplines (operations, maintenance, etc.) as well
as their IT organization, IT service providers, equipment or software sup-
pliers, and others as needed. These teams are part of what these
manufacturers call a “community of practice”. That is their term for a
group of leaders within the firm that works to implement new business
practices and assumes responsibility for sustaining them. These “commu-
nities of practice” exist at multiple manufacturing sites. They collaborate
formally company-wide so that new knowledge and best practices are ab-
sorbed quickly across the entire organization. The steering committee
facilitates these collaborations.
Best Practice:
Design Early Implementations for Full Scale-up
In order to maximize the benefits of visibility programs from the outset, the
programs need to be developed either as throwaway experiments or as
components of a sustaining business process. Obviously, manufacturers
will invest greater resources in practices and technology that they expect to
maintain in use for years. Likewise, these programs need to be developed
with a view that they will be maintained over time and have a long life.
Over-Plan and Over-Engineer
Implementations that are expected to last need to be rigorously designed,
tested, and deployed. Manufacturers recommend that the scope of each

Company IT and software team
members can contribute
especially with integration
because they are familiar with the
existing applications and the
integration design disciplines.
While the scope of any initiative
should and must be limited, each
program should employ the most
advanced tools and professional
implementation methods.
initiative be well defined and limited. On the other hand, they report a
need to develop harmonized and uniform business processes as they add
new technology for in-plant visibility. They also want to capture and re-use
their emerging best practices as widely as possible.
ARC interprets these “conflicting” requirements as re-
flecting a need for a professional implementation from
the outset. While the scope of any initiative should and
must be limited, each program should employ the most
advanced tools and professional methods in its imple-
mentation, regardless of how small it is in scope. Leading
and more experienced firms are using a multi-discipline team approach to
assure this. They include domain experts in operations and maintenance,
IT experts, plant performance specialists, and expert software developers.
ARC recommends that all manufacturers adopt this approach as soon as it
becomes possible within their roadmap. This is how leading firms are as-
suring the uniformity and quality of their practices, and are managing their
implementations so that they can be sustained and supported for the long
term.
Implement Reporting from the Outset
A second aspect of this practice is to integrate new practices with existing
reporting systems from the outset. For example merely re-implementing a
paper-based rounds and readings process electronically on a mobile com-
puter does not add as much value as the integration of this newly captured
information with existing decision support tools. The major enterprise
software applications (asset management, performance, etc.) are known
and in place, and the firm will already have some exper-
tise in applying them. This is one area where the
software development expertise of teams can yield divi-
dends, as these practitioners will be familiar with the
existing systems and will know the design disciplines
that facilitate rapid and sustainable integration of new
mobile applications with existing systems.
Reporting should also extend to all new devices, networks, and other new
technology equipment that is deployed in the plant. This new equipment
should be monitored and managed as part of the IT infrastructure before it
goes into service. This is especially true in the case of mobile or intermit-

tently networked devices like mobile computers. Without this monitoring
and management integration, IT support becomes too difficult and costly.
Develop Corporate-wide Standards
Wider use of shared practices across a process manufacturer will result in
the need to further standardize a number of areas within the firm. The
most important areas for these standards decisions are listed in the adjoin-
ing tables. These have been grouped as “Business” and “IT” standards.
However, in many cases these standards decisions have some impact in
both business and IT.
Business Standards — Commonality in operating and mainte-
nance procedures is the most critical. The difficulty in
implementing these standards depends upon the degree of col-
laboration that is currently in place across the enterprise. While
past practices contribute to this, mergers and asset acquisi-
tions/disposals also contribute to the difficulty in harmonizing
operating practices and procedures.
The common framework chosen for operations and mainte-
nance can then be reflected in the data models used in mobile applications
that support these processes. Standardizing these provides a common
framework for implementations at all sites. Here the key success factors are
software design skills and deep knowledge of the various applications that
are targeted for mobile operators.
More standardizations that are mundane include such considerations such
as local language support, local currencies, local engineering units, and per-
formance metrics. Company-wide standards for some of these areas (asset
performance metrics, for example) are likely already defined and in use.
However, these “small” considerations point out the im-
portance of taking such human factors into consideration.
Failure to do so will impede the already difficult cultural
challenge presented by greater company-wide harmoni-
zation of processes and procedures.
IT Standards — In the IT area, common standards for
network infrastructure and for mobile computing plat-
forms are important. Computing equipment for in-plant
use is certain to be specialized, but large manufacturing
organizations can leverage their size if their planning and
Business Standards
Operating Practices
Maintenance Practices
Application Data Structures
Local Languages
Local Currencies
Engineering Units
IT Standards
Network Infrastructure
Mobile Computing Platforms
Cost Estimating
Mobile Device Support
Authentication and Security
Server and Edge Device Provisioning
Device and Network Monitoring
Mobile Technology Roadmap

purchasing is coordinated across all plants. IT has experience in negotiat-
ing purchase and support agreements with platform, software, and service
providers. IT can also develop a common template for project cost esti-
mates that will be valuable to all implementation teams.
A most critical role for IT is to develop a roadmap for future computing
platforms. Mobile computing and wireless networking is a rapidly chang-
ing domain. The IT organization is already charged with supporting
mobility in other organizational functions (sales and CRM, for example).
Extending this responsibility to in-plant mobile computing is a natural fit,
especially since the mix of enterprise and mobile applications is unique to
each firm.
While all these types of standards are already in place in most large manu-
facturing organizations, they must be extended to cover in-plant
applications and rugged mobile computing, plus the new software and ser-
vices that will be used in them.
List of Contributors
Manufacturing companies that contributed information used in this report
include:
Alcoa Amgen Aramco Asahi-Kasei
BASF BP Chevron Ciba
Conoco Phillips DTE Energy Dow Chemical Dow Corning
DuPont Equate ExxonMobil Georgia Pacific
Goodyear Idemitsu Kemira Kerry
Lyondell Noltex Nova Chemicals P&G
Rohm & Haas Rompetrol Sasol Shell
Valero Valio Ltd Water Corporation (AUS) Williams

Analyst: Harry Forbes
Editor: Dick Hill
Distribution: MAS Clients
Acronym Reference: For a complete list of industry acronyms, refer to our
web page at www.arcweb.com/C13/IndustryTerms/
3G 3rd
Generation (Mobile Phone)
ASM Abnormal Situation Management
BPM Business Process Management
CMM Collaborative Manufacturing
Management
CPM Collaborative Production
Management
CRM Customer Relationship
Management
EAM Enterprise Asset Management
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
GPS Global Positioning System
HMI Human Machine Interface
IOp Interoperability
IT Information Technology
LAN Local Area Network
OpX Operational Excellence
OEE Overall Equipment
Effectiveness
PAM Plant Asset Management
PDA Personal Digital Assistant
PLM Product Lifecycle Management
RTLS Real-time Location Services
SCM Supply Chain Management
VOIP Voice over Internet Protocol
WLANWireless Local Area Network
Founded in 1986, ARC Advisory Group has grown to become the Thought
Leader in Manufacturing and Supply Chain solutions. For even your most
complex business issues, our analysts have the expert industry knowledge and
firsthand experience to help you find the best answer. We focus on simple,
yet critical goals: improving your return on assets, operational performance,
total cost of ownership, project time-to-benefit, and shareholder value.
All information in this report is proprietary to and copyrighted by ARC. No part
of it may be reproduced without prior permission from ARC.
You can take advantage of ARC's extensive ongoing research plus experience
of our staff members through our Advisory Services. ARC’s Advisory Services
are specifically designed for executives responsible for developing strategies
and directions for their organizations. For membership information, please
call, fax, or write to:
ARC Advisory Group, Three Allied Drive, Dedham, MA 02026 USA
Tel: 781-471-1000, Fax: 781-471-1100, Email: info@arcweb.com
Visit our web pages at www.arcweb.com

In plant visibility in process manu (final published)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to In plant visibility in process manu (final published)

Similar to In plant visibility in process manu (final published) (20)

In plant visibility in process manu (final published)