Carestream Health's Global Product Level Information Deployment with Aras

1,343 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,343
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Carestream Health's Global Product Level Information Deployment with Aras

  1. 1. Product Level Information (PLI) The PLM JourneyPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  2. 2. 2 Abstract This presentation outlines the implementation of Product Level Information (PLI) utilizing Aras Innovator at Carestream Health, Inc. Topics include: • Snapshot of Carestream Health • Why implement now? Current state drivers… • Timelines • Deployment Strategy • Challenges • New Development PlanPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  3. 3. 3 ACE Attendees from Carestream Health, Inc. Chris Kapell Hardware Commercialization Process Platform Manager R&D Effectiveness David Sherburne Director R&D Effectiveness, Engineering IT Eli Tuber Process Re-Engineering R&D Effectiveness Rich Graham Platform Architecture R&D EffectivenessPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  4. 4. 4 Carestream Health – Who We Are An independent company with a proven track record and $2.5 billion in revenue A world leader in: • Medical imaging … digital and film • Healthcare information solutions • Dental imaging and dental practice management software • Molecular imaging • Non-destructive testingPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  5. 5. 5 Who We Are Approximately 7,300 employees serve customers in more than 150 countries worldwide We hold more than 1,000 patent for technology and intellectual property Our products are at work in 90 percent of hospitals worldwidePublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  6. 6. 6 Technology & Innovation Centers Where We Are Rochester, New York Genoa, Italy Shanghai, China An independent, global company with 17 manufacturing and R&D and R&D locations, including three Technology & Innovation Manufacturing Sites Centers… Paris, France Rochester, New York Ronkonkoma, New York Shanghai, China Yokneam, Israel R&D Sites Atlanta, Georgia Baltimore, Maryland London, England Oakdale, Minnesota Ra’anana, Israel Woodbridge, Connecticut Manufacturing Sites Berlin, Germany Guadalajara, Mexico White City, Oregon Windsor, Colorado Xiamen, ChinaPublic …supporting sales and service teams in 150 countries© 2012, Carestream Health
  7. 7. 7 Business Challenges Globalization was required to meet the business needs of our company • Desired access to global talent • Needed a balanced cost structure • Presence in emerging markets Impact of Globalization • Collaboration became more time consuming via email; uncontrolled data sharing with partners • Complexity in the organization increased as projects globalized • Knowledge-workers’ time was drained, impacting innovation • Productivity of NPD remained roughly flatPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  8. 8. 8 Demands on Staff are Ever Increasing • Quality and Compliance must be maintained in our business • Project teams are split across several locations • Platform development adds complexity • Iterative methods require faster information transfer • Faster prototyping cycles are needed for hardware • Design for manufacturability and supplier IP capture are critical as ties to the supplier base weaken • Access to historical data is needed to improve planning, compare reliability, and drive improvements to the development cycles • Engineers are required to do deeper analysis to ensure product quality • Requests for metrics are ever increasing and are difficult to produce • Disjointed IT and non-standard process environment kills collaborationPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  9. 9. 9 Non-Standard Commercialization Process Innovative people innovate Site C “AIR GAPS” many local processes. between blocks Site B represent Site A inefficient Project Information – manual sharing Processes and Tools FDA - DHF of information. General flow of product information Local resources Product Design Information – Processes and Tools focus on FDA - DMR product families. Product Manufacturing Information – Processes and Tools FDA - DHR Complexity Product Service Information – increased as Processes and Tools FDA - QS work required flow betweenPublic© 2012, 5/17/2012 Health Carestream sites.
  10. 10. 10Point Solutions worked but lacked proper architecture to enable global productivity Authoring PDM Enterprise No Confluence MCAD Tools Part MQDS Teamcenter Integration Data Excel NX No SAP CAD Files PDF’s Integration MS Pro/E Project BOM No Integration Lotus Notes DB Team SolidWorks Intralinks Room EQDS CAPA Sys 9K RoHS, CAPA CAPA AutoCAD Electrical Part DoC, No SOP MSDS Data, RoHS Integration (no File Shares DA home) ECAD Tools MMR Mentor DX EE File External CIDx Lotus Domino Systems Cadence No Shares, No Integration Integration library Standalone OrCAD cache DocManager Systems CAD Files PDFs CQuest Altium Version Control Tools Problem was Information No Software Integration Defects caused by an “IT Flow Clearcase ClearQuest Authoring Cost Center” PVCS Subversion Enhancement mentality and Manual Desktop Tools Requests Integration (Browser, StarTeam non- coordinated MSOffice, etc) local efforts . Automated Quality Center DOORS Requirements Integration Management ToolsPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  11. 11. 11 2010-13 New Product Development Foundation PDM Enterprise Systems Knowledge Sharing, Social Nets, Desktop Office, HW and Webchannel Project Webchannel/ PLM Aras Innovator Dashboards – Social Closed Loop Engineering Change Metrics MCAD Tools Development PDM Upgrade Management (HW/SW) Supplier 1 Event Tracking and Defect Mgmt KM CAPA Management LN DBs Supplier 2 Platform Audit Management Supplier Access/ DFM Input Supplier 3 Supplier QuoteAuthoring Systems RQMTS ECAD, MCAD PDM Integrations Manufacturing Transfer New EBOM, MBOM Management Modeling New Costing Raw Material Master SAP Platform Commercial Parts Library ECAD Tools RoHS Purchase ECAD 1 Requirements Change Control Portals – Integrated As Built Testing ISDE Integration for SW events ECoutlook Master Data ECAD 2 Smart source-Ebid Quality Platform Established ECAD 3 (HPQC) Standard Emerging Integrated SW Development Environment- SW Environment) SW Authoring Standard ISDE 2012 SW Project Management, Build Tools and Services MS Visual Studio Core Proposal Dashboards Test Scripting SW CM – (Rally) Some No Build Configuration XCODE, Other SVN Integration Standard Management Key IDEs End of Life
  12. 12. 122010-12 New Product Development Foundation Enterprise Systems PLM Aras Innovator Closed-Loop Engineering Change Management (HW/SW) Event Tracking and Defect Mgmt CAPA Management Audit Management Supplier Access/ DFM Input Supplier Quote ECAD, MCAD PDM Integrations EBOM, MBOM Management Costing Commercial Parts Library RoHS Requirements Change Control ISDE Integration for SW events
  13. 13. 13 2009 – Implement a Globally Standard Closed-Loop Change-Management SystemPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  14. 14. 14 2009 Technology Partner Selection Model Give Yourself Time Business Objectives Look for a strategic relationship  Share in risk Identify Missing Capabilities  Offer flexible terms in line with business ROI Write Key Use Cases  Remain a partner during implementation ROI of New Capabilities  Keep costs in line with benefits Business Requirements Strategies to Obtain Capabilities Aras Identified as a potential partner Final Selection of Partners Request for Information Request for Quote April 2009 Time ~ 9 months 1½ FTEs Dec 2009Public© 2012, Carestream Health
  15. 15. 15 Carestream Health Product-Level Information Timeline 2009 2010 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR Request for Proposal (RFP) issued for applications Requirements Development and implementation sent to five (5) suppliers and two (2) implementers RFP Issued Potential suppliers reduced to two (2) Potential implementers reduced to three (3) RFP Review Aras added as a potential supplier and implementer First Cut Decision ROI Analysis Third Party Analysis Supplier Capability Analysis Aras selected as supplier Second Cut Decision & Corporate funding secured RFQ Issued Potential suppliers reduced to two (2) Potential implementers reduced to three (3) Request for Quote (RFQ) issued RFQ Analysis Vendor Selection Project StartPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  16. 16. 16 Carestream Health Product Level Information Initial Development and Deployment Timeline 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Framework Development Change Management Development Platform Release Go/No Go Event Tracking & SAP Integration Development Event Tracking & SAP Integration Go/No Go EHS CAPA and Supplier Access Development EHS CAPA and Supplier Access Go/No GoPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  17. 17. 17 ACE – Spring 2010 Feedback • Are you nuts!!! • That’s really aggressive!! • Good Luck with that!!Public© 2012, Carestream Health
  18. 18. 18 Project Realization – June 2010 • Requirements gathering and analysis is difficult • Deployment planning across a global organization is complicated − Some businesses asked us to avoid 4th quarter deployments of major changes • Underestimated training • Decided to re-plan project − Deploy base functionality in early Q4 2010 • Retire legacy commercial parts database • Socialize the environment • Understand deployment issues −Deploy core functionality in Q2 & Q3 of 2011Public© 2012, Carestream Health
  19. 19. 19 Resulting Timeline 2010 2011 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Deploy Basic Functionality Process Close the “Air Gaps” Verification& Re-development Ready to Deploy Began Deploying Business by BusinessPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  20. 20. 20 Resulting Time Line October 2010 – Released commercial parts requests & database including the Mentor Design Library • Implemented integration to Mentor DX Designer October 2010 – Sept 2011 • Process Verification & Re-development – Defect Management – Engineering Change – Audit Management System (added module into scope) • Removed Corrective Action (CAPA) Module – CAPA Development was complete but gains did not outweigh the effort of getting people to switch off our Lotus Notes-based systemPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  21. 21. 21 What Is Deployed October 2011 • USA & China – Full closed-loop change process; Defect Management -> Engineering Change January 2012 • USA – Audit Management System Pilot February 2012 • USA & China – Engineering Change April 2012 • China – Defect Management -> Engineering ChangePublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  22. 22. 22 What’s Left May – June 2012 (Three more business unit deployments) • USA & China – Full closed-loop change process; Defect Management -> Engineering Change • Total users: Currently 450, Projected 750 -1000 by YE 2012Public© 2012, Carestream Health
  23. 23. 23 What Went Right • Documenting the processes & closing the “Air Gap” • Sacrificed schedule for quality and completeness – Limited impact to Product Development • First deployed basic functionality – Commercial Parts, Mentor Library Integration – Allowed us to socialize the environment – Resolve accounts, deployment, and workstation issuesPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  24. 24. 24 What Went Right • Initially deployed Closed-Loop Change Management to a fairly self-contained group in Shanghai – Allowed us to fix any major issues quickly and limited impact • Concurrent Global deployment went smoothly • Data migration out of: – Mentor DMS (electrical symbols, cells, and commercial parts) – ClearQuest (defects) – Matrix One (engineering change) • Training was developed internally and was focused on processPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  25. 25. 25 What Went Right All of the following were equal to or better than the average, as identified by a PLM industry expert. • Costs (implementation and on-going) • Schedule – We delayed our schedule but is was average for the industry • Functionality • Scale and ScopePublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  26. 26. 26 What Went Wrong Attempted to utilize Agile development methodology from our consulting partner • Functionality vs. Schedule was too aggressive – Developed functionality faster than we could absorb it – Resource conflicts between reviewing and testing development code and developing requirements for other capabilities – SMEs did not have enough time to look at iterationsPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  27. 27. 27 What Went Wrong • The project became a waterfall-type project, and the following came to light – Managing change across four development sites is time consuming – Creating the details up front is too complex and was not effective – Users not sure what they wanted – Users cannot really tell you what they want until they touch and feel something • So we had to sacrifice schedule for quality and completenessPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  28. 28. 28 What’s Changed Created our own development team • 4 FTEs in Shanghai; 0.5 FTE in USA – Still challenges our ability to keep up with testing, utilizing deployment, and supporting resources • Switched the program management to an Agile and Iterative development methodology – Continuing to maturePublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  29. 29. 29 Waterfall vs. Agile & Iterative Waterfall Agile and Iterative • Release driven, with a defined critical path • Based on short delivery cycles and sequence for delivery • Estimates are done based on the amount • Estimates are based on the work required of work the team can accomplish in a set to meet the requirements period of time (“Time Boxing”) • Requires clearly defined requirements – The date doesn’t slip; Features slip upfront – Time box should not be a deadline • Customer only sees the final and should be easily met; if the pace doesn’t work, do less implementation • Success is measured by the functionality • Requirements are expected to evolve, and change is embraced delivered • Customer sees evolving implementation and can make suggestions/request changes • Success is measured by business value deliveredPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  30. 30. 30 Current Development Six to eight-week release made up of 4 - 2 week iterations (Sprints). • Maintain a constant pace • 1-2 weeks planning iteration – If a user story is not defined thoroughly, it does not get put into the release • 2 weeks development iteration • 2 weeks development/QA iteration • 1-2 weeks validation testing iteration Up to now, most of our development has been fixes and point enhancements • So we release to production at the end of the release • We still tend to put too much into the box • It’s hard to strip functionality out if it is not ready, without negatively impacting code quality New functionality, such as the revamped Engineering Change Implementation (ECI) and Supplier Integration, will have multiple time box development iterations before being released into production.Public© 2012, Carestream Health
  31. 31. 31 What’s Next Short term • Enhancement of the Engineering Change Implementation (ECI) with integration with SAP • Software Development Environment Integration • Brush off CAPA and add additional features • Supplier Integration • Visualization Long term • Requirements Management • Project Management and Design History File (DHF) incorporation • Standard Operating Procedures • Manufacturing Work InstructionsPublic© 2012, Carestream Health
  32. 32. 32 Carestream Health, Inc. Questions?Public© 2012, Carestream Health

×