Blog 3-7: The Forgotten Impact of Industry 3.0

A few people reading this will be wondering just what is Industry 3.0? So perhaps a quick recap on these Industrial Revolutions that took place:

• Industry 1.0 (I1.0), from around 1794, was labelled due to the introduction of mechanisation and steam power.

• Industry 2.0 (I2.0), from around 1870, got its label from the introduction of mass production and assembly lines, enabled by the availability of electrical energy.

• Industry 3.0 (I3.0), from 1969, came after the creation of automation (PLCs), and emergence of computers and electronics.

• Industry 4.0 (I4.0), which is happening today, has emerged due to the power of the internet and big data, cyber-physical systems and the huge acceleration of devices connected to the internet (Internet of Things).

For many, the differences between I3.0 and I4.0 are minimal, however there are some core characteristics that define them. Both are focused on automation, but I3.0 is on physical systems, whereas I4.0 is on cyber-physical (“what…?” I hear you say). These are systems which are real and virtual at the same time (“what…?”, still doesn’t help? LINK).

Likewise, I4.0 has at the top of its roster, Artificial Intelligence (LINK), which is all driven via the interpretation of masses of data that reach across a multitude of sources. Which leads me into the final key difference, which is where I3.0 was concentrated and local (islands), the fourth industrial revolution is all about all data available to all, all of the time from everywhere (OK maybe a bit extreme and highly unlikely ever due to current GDPR rules). All of this is made possible due to the infrastructure that is available today whether it be processing power or mass data storage, and the ability to interpret and manipulate the data in the cloud.

But this brings me back to the point of this blog, and why sometimes we forget just exactly what I3.0 brought to the table and why this is so important for I4.0. The introduction of automation, the connected devices and the software tools to run plants provided a massive step change in digital transformation. Plants that were labour intensive, suddenly could operate “lights out”. Packaging lines that had armies of seasonal labour, suddenly had robots that could take care of mundane (and often dangerous) tasks.

Interesting that some companies tout Robotics as a new I4.0 topic, yes, it is advancing fast due to Machine Learning and Vision System capabilities, but it has been around for quite some time. A more interesting observation though, is the fact that many companies still have not even mastered I3.0 by a long shot. Manual, resource and paper intensive processes are common across the industry today.

So, for those that embraced I3.0, just how did it make an impact?

A simple example. I can remember the days when we would get asked to modify a production line by changing start up sequences for conveyors, or timers for staggering them. This would involve a lot of wiring, relays and praying that the last set of drawings had been updated from previous changes. Control was dumb, and highly inflexible. Along came PLCs, and suddenly life became easier. This became a “5-minute task”. Plug in a laptop, change a few values on the running system, and job done.

As PLCs got smarter, faster and more connected, the complexity of control they could achieve was mind-boggling. What was held in the head of an operator, could now be captured in the code. This immediately eliminated variations in manufacturing caused by human error and differences in experience and perspective.

Process areas became easier to operate as recipes became exposed within batch software systems leveraging “new” standards like S88, rather than hiding them in complex and bespoke code deep inside the PLC. It still amazes me that the formulations being prepared by the Chemists, Food Technicians, Brewmasters etc, relied 100% on a PLC programmer to interpret them and implement them. This has always been an area fraught with risk, and indeed the reason why many I3.0 projects went wrong. Two groups with very different perspectives, skillsets, and languages. You could say that it is like one set is from Venus, the other from Mars, or one speaks English, but the other only understand Klingon.

A side article you may be interested in from the Brewer & Distiller back in November 2011 related to this topic may resonate with quite a few of you. You can download it HERE.

Moving beyond the process area, the adoption of Mechatronics in packaging allowed significant advances, with machines able to operate faster and more accurately, and to accelerate changeovers sometimes only with the push of a button. This also allowed companies to refocus resources into higher value add activities (not just workforce reduction).

We also cannot forget the Utilities Area which also increased their levels of automation, ensuring more efficient use of energies (Water, Air, Gas, Electricity and Steam). Reducing waste in these areas by integrating it more tightly with the demands of production has been key. Now combined with the objectives of Sustainability and Carbon Reduction, this has become critical.

I3.0 did not stop there though. All these areas were then pulled together by the advances made with Visualisation and Information Systems. Centralised control rooms and remote monitoring became the norm, enabling quicker error detection and remediation across the complete facility. Digital analytics and reporting became accessible to all.

It could be said though that the “Data Rich, Information Poor” problem started here, and has progressively worsened over time. There is a hope that I4.0 will take this data and turn it into “Wisdom”, but this can only be achieved if the data isn’t “dodgy” in the first place.

All the advances discussed previously are taking place in the MAKE part of the supply chain (i.e., the factories), and are being driven by operations and engineering , the OT teams (Operational Technologies), in isolation to the IT teams (Information Technology). The lines in the sand had been drawn, and each stayed in their own sand pit.

That was up until there was a need to drive integration between IT and OT systems to improve accuracy of critical business performance KPIs, areas like Activity Based Costing, or MRP (knowing accurately and in real time what you have on hand, rather than waiting for the manual monthly stock check). “Pipes” were built between OT and IT systems, initially very “thin”, but at least they existed. Expansion of the “pipes” is generally hindered by the ability to agree on who has ownership of what master data. Today this is still another “digital battlefield” being fought over between OT and IT folks.

Another reason the “pipe” size is often restricted is due to the massive challenge with Cyber-Security. This is very much an I3.0 challenge, simply exacerbated in I4.0. Cyber Security remains one of the biggest risks to any digital transformation. Yet still the ownership is often not clearly defined within an organisation, nor are the significant nuances required between IT and OT systems clear on this topic. Many IT staff still struggle to understand why they can’t administer patches on OT systems just like they do on IT systems. Likewise, Equipment OEMs that provide remote service and support to their machines, are now getting locked out for Cyber Security reasons, presenting new challenges to the OT and OEMs staff that simply want to keep the plant running.

There is another fundamental problem existing within many manufacturers related to data, this is the lack of a comprehensive KPI pyramid that links together the lowest level of metrics to the overarching company principles and goals. How can one collaborate, or even feel they are making an impact, if they don’t understand how “what they do” fits within the greater picture?

You pull all these problems together, the complexity that I3.0 brought to manufacturing alongside all its advances, you then start to realise there is another massive problem resonating with most if not all companies – the absence of TIME. I3.0 meant less people, yet greater productivity. It also demands that resources do MORE WITH LESS. You can see across many businesses today the emergence of an industrial illness – Corporate ADHD. People struggle to keep up with emails, let alone having the time to create, articulate and execute new strategies and programs. Companies are full of great PowerPoint, often the best are the expensive glossy ones produced by the third parties that asked to “see your watch”. Unfortunately, the ratio of PowerPoint:Action is heavily out of balance in many organisations.

Excellent technology exists, but why do we still see Packaging Lines operating at 45% OEE or worse, when world class is 85%? Why do we hear less discussions on the World Class Manufacturing principles required to make technology effective? Why do we still have islands of automation, islands of information systems, indeed islands of people across the complete organisation? We say that ERP systems when they got rolled out “poured like water, set like concrete”, well perhaps that could also be said for the I3.0 approach?

To reflect on a point raised in the previous blog. Is the step from I3.0 to I4.0 too ambiguous and ill-defined? Well for someone struggling with time, complexity and “wisdom”, that has seen large investments in I3.0, has lived and worked much of their career within their “silo”, perhaps the need to change is not so obvious. Many live by the mantra, “if it aint broke, don’t try to fix it”.

Collaboration is key to fixing a lot of these issues, both technologically and culturally. However, a barrier to collaboration is often down to the simple understanding of WHY should one even bother to collaborate in the first place? It doesn’t need to be broken, just needs to have potential to be improved.

This leads into the next blog where I will discuss a collaboration gap related to the technology on offer.

Blog 4-7: Pimping Up Industry 3.0, coming in a weeks time