Archive for October, 2009

Implementation and Use of MRO Naming Standards

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

With all the discussion focusing on Master Data Management and Data Quality, I always come back to these questions: How is the data structured and how is the accuracy and content completeness measured? In our business of managing the coding and verification of items and spare part information needed to keep manufacturing plants running, a structured schema of naming conventions (class), descriptive attribute standardization (properties) and verification at the sources of manufacture (coding @ source) is “key” to quality and completeness measurement. We are managing the ECCMA eOTD for the Automotive Industry Content Standards Council (AICSC) focusing on MRO naming definitions which is the foundation to a spare part description, just as a table of contents is the foundation of a text book.

The first step is to develop the Identification Guide (IG) in order to baseline the properties needed to best describe the class. For example, let’s take the class of SCREW, SHOULDER and the properties TYPE, MATERIAL, FINISH, THREAD SIZE, DRIVE SIZE, SHOULDER DIAMETER, SHOULDER LENGTH, THREAD LENGTH, HEAD DIAMETER, HEAD HEIGHT, SHOULDER LENGTH TOLERANCE, MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH, CLASS, HARDNESS RATING and PACKAGE QUANTITY. The IG also provides the information needed for our analysts to acquire properties and our applications to sequence the properties within the short and long descriptions that are built:

SCREW,SHOULDER – | TYPE: HEX HEAD | MATERIAL: 18-8 STAINLESS STEEL | FINISH: PLAIN | HEAD STYLE: HEX | THREAD SIZE: 3/8-16 INCHES | DRIVE SIZE: 3/4 INCHES | SHOULDER DIAMETER: 1/2 INCHES | SHOULDER LENGTH: 2-1/2 INCHES | THREAD LENGTH: 3/4 INCHES | HEAD DIAMETER: 3/4 INCHES | HEAD HEIGHT: 1/4 INCHES | SHOULDER LENGTH TOLERANCE: ±0.005 INCHES | MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH: 80.000 POUND-FORCE PER SQUARE INCH | CLASS: 2A | HARDNESS RATING: B85 TO B95 ROCKWELL A | PACKAGE QUANTITY: 2

Each time an item is submitted for coding or processing the item is imported into a master database. Through intervention by our data analysts, the item navigates its way through a number of checkpoints including an auto-suggest to propose a class. The class and properties via the IG are the requirements our coding analysts use to verify the accuracy of the information submitted, to verify the completeness and to acquire the additional information needed to enhance and build an item or spare part description for our clients to base real business decisions.

The implementation of the eOTD is a two process scenario when working with our clients. First, the legacy data is mapped to the class, the item data is profiled, cleansed and enhanced to meet the requirements of eOTD IG, ensuring the client’s data quality goals are met. The updated item information needs to be applied to existing client item data. It is critical that all changes to data be tracked and logged. A properly planned and executed update to legacy ERP and CMMS systems should be initiated to incorporate the enhanced and corrected item information into the user facing systems. This is an extremely critical step as the downstream information flow will affect systems and uses such as inventory re-distribution, purchasing and contract management, engineering bills of materials and maintenance schedules. A thorough and complete mapping of data through the enterprise should be used to understand data flow across all business units. The mapping should include data entry points and data use points through all departments which set up all of the cost saving pay points as the data processing is streamlined.

The second process is an on-going data maintenance plan for new items that are introduced into the organization. This process should start at the introduction of item information into the system. All items and spare part information should be verified with the manufacturer and classified to the eOTD before setup or use in any system. The length of time the coding process requires is a critical element as the item or spare part information should be as complete as possible while at the same time be ready and waiting for the buyer to put the item on a contact or a maintenance employee to setup the tasking information in the CMMS for a piece of equipment. The only requirement for the employees who use the information after its initial entry into the system is to perform the actual requirement of their job and not to decipher a cryptic unstructured description.

If the items are pre-processed using the eOTD and the associated ISO standards, every item and spare part will be structured and standardized. The engineering, purchasing and maintenance departments will focus on the core of their day to day specialized responsibilities instead of searching for parts or dealing with trying to purchase items that a supplier does not recognize or have to acquire the missing information.

We all agree on some of the basic benefits both in process and cost such as reducing inventory with the identification of duplicate items, facilitation of inventory sharing and internal purchasing programs, reduced employee time searching for parts, common spare part usage strategies, reduced downtime in manufacturing equipment due to lack of information availability and ability to manage using a just in-time inventory model. The eOTD and its Identification guides are the building blocks and the roadmap to achieving structured and accurate data that can be reliably used to base real world decisions.

For more information on the eOTD please visit www.eccma.org.

View Jackie Roberts's profile on LinkedIn

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jackie Roberts | 1 Comment »

Decision and decision

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

The difference between a Decision and a decision is simple. A Decision spelled with an uppercase “D” is one based on data, information and real-life experience. A decision spelled with a lowercase “d” is one made without data, information or a real-life experience. All too often I have seen decisions based on an individual’s feelings or opinions of a given situation. It makes me shake my head. In some cases, a business will use an algorithm or spreadsheet with embedded formulas to “choose” the best decision based on a set of desired requirements and associated weights applied to each requirement. For certain decisions, this might be the most appropriate way to assess the situation. For me, working to develop web-based software applications, it just doesn’t work.
The most common method of decision making during a development cycle I have come in contact with is the “committee” driven requirements analysis. During this process a group of usually high level managers (far from end users) sit down and work their way through a spreadsheet of requirements to decide which ones should be included in the next six-month iteration of development. In my experience, the only information included in the requirement column is the perceived expected behavior or outcome of the given feature or change. The end of this type of development cycle is usually followed by hundreds of hours of testing and arguing about how each feature should work, how it actually works and how we ‘thought” it would work. As well as two strokes, three heart attacks and a combined three square inches of newly exposed scalp for the male members of the team…

Every day I make decisions. Some turn out to be the right ones. Some turn out to be horribly wrong. Since I accepted the role of product manager rather than simply a project team member, I have put a great deal of thought around decision making. I ask myself questions like: “What information do I need to make a decision the right one?,” “At what point do I have enough information to make the decision?,” “Does the outcome of each decision I make effect the remainder of the product launch in a positive way?” I still can not answer all the questions I have about decision making. However, I have used the following principles to aid in making the right decision most of the time:

1.) Make lots and lots of small Decisions. When you send your developers off on a mission to complete a large section of code or forge an entire revision to an app in one shot, there are inevitably a lot of decisions that have to be made along the way. If your development team has to make these decisions on the fly, against an imaginary timeline, there is a large chance the decisions will be made without all pertinent information. It’s more likely each small Decision will be the right one if you use all the information available from the complete team at each point a decision is required.
2.) Keep the communication channels open between developer and subject matter experts. I recommend daily touch points of less than 15 minutes. Meetings are expensive, time consuming and often attendees are never prepared. I prefer discussions to take place at the programmer’s workstation while he or she is working on changes. This allows demonstrations of current and expected behavior to be shown immediately. Real information and real code turns into a visual aid. It is important all team members understand the purpose is not to meet the schedule. The real purpose is to launch an application people love to use. I might go as far as saying it should be expected that as you move from design to development, you’ll need to make lots of little changes along the way. I question any development cycle where there is little difference between the original designs and the product at launch.
3.) Test, Test, Test. After each Decision there should be some time spent to test it. Testing does not have to be a project in itself. Testing should be performed by both developer and the team member who is in the best position to interpret what will and will not benefit the end user. Testing at each available opportunity is essential to minimizing the amount of change required after a bad decision is made. For example, if a change is made and not tested, each change implemented from that point forward could require revisiting if it’s found the original change was in error.

These principles also contribute to a pleasure filled work environment by allowing each team member to work on what they love. Development does not have to sit in endless conceptual meetings, nor does the product management team need to wait months or weeks to debut new features. The three principles I illustrated above can and should be applied to any development scenario. Using these principles to govern product testing and design reduces our development cost and gets our product to users faster. And in the end, that’s what it’s all about.

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chris Roberts | No Comments »

Data Quality: Software Innovation Please

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

I am all about the data, location management (to location and equipment), data quality, and methods to improve auto-processing, enhancing data, providing data reports and results that support our customer’s data requirements in their day to day activities.

Here is the million dollar question, this is one scenario: Over a million records in a year, legacy and new records submitted for processing from 2,500 different users and two different business processes (single submit and BOM extract). What technology would be required to intelligently automate the processing of these records to a Master Data Quality Standard?

Remember this is an on-going maintenance process, not a one time migration of non-cleansed data to a new ERP or maintenance system, nor am I referring to parsing the records into different fields of the new ERP system but ensuring that the records are verified, structured, properly attributed with full descriptions and additional information to support the business needs.

First, let’s look at the Wikipedia definition of Product Information Management (PIM) “PIM systems generally need to support multiple geographic locations, multi-lingual data, and maintenance and modification of product information within a centralized catalog to provide consistently accurate information to multiple channels in a cost-effective manner.”

Future PIM software purchasers, what evaluation methods are you using to ensure that your PIM software purchase will support the continuous update and flow of data for your entire enterprise system? Here are some items to take into consideration during your evaluation, these are all items that I ask about and would recommend that you request the answers in writing:

1. How is the change history of the data stored in the system and how easily can it be retrieved?
2. Has the performance of all modules of the software been tested and what is the base line?
3. Request references (at least three) for each module of the software.
4. What is the software product work flow and how is the data processing assigned to employees?
5. Ask to review the documentation and take the time to review; this should be a window into the complexity of the system.
6. Request the design process model and how the software company incorporates customer feedback?
7. What is the bug fix process? What is the quality system to implement a bug fix?
8. What is the software company’s philosophy on customizations at your cost?
9. How is language handled? Translations referenced to a master record?
10. If the software solution is multi module system, how are the master records referenced through
the entire solution?
11. What are the long term design strategies or road maps for each module of the software solution? Ask for the earlier road maps and the software release note to evaluate the how well the software company plans and implement updates to the systems.

And I can go on and on, the licensing; customizing and implementing software in your environment can be extremely costly and time consuming, does Caveat emptor “Let the buyer beware” work in the business world or is there a “Lemon Law” when purchasing software?

View Jackie Roberts's profile on LinkedIn

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jackie Roberts | No Comments »

Budget Time

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

My company’s fiscal year is based on the calendar year as many others are. So, customarily we start the budget planning process in October. It is a detailed process that all of my managers and business units participate in. We usually do a few iterations before it is finalized in mid December. Sound familiar? So here’s the question, after 2009, how do you plan for 2010? Everything we knew and could usually predict with some certainty in recent years went out the window in 2009. Where do you start to plan for the next year? Is it too early to plan for growth, if not, at what pace? What certainty can we count on when developing our plans? The simple fact is, for most of us, we don’t know enough at this stage in the recovery to forecast with certainty where our businesses will be, at least, through mid next year.

So what can be done to insure profitability, or least stability, until growth returns? Control and further reduce costs. Already been there, done that? You have cut staff, benefits, wages, renegotiated prices and terms with suppliers, cut services, slowed production, cut inventories, everything you can think of. Are you sure? How well do you manage your Enterprise wide Master Data Indirect Materials / Commodities spend? What? Everything you buy that supports your facilities and the build of your products. Most large manufactures manage direct material precisely but don’t have an organized approach to their full advantage throughout the Enterprise to strategically manage indirect materials. A solution, fully implemented, provides a number of benefits:

1. “Cleansed” data, eliminating duplication of the same item coded to several different part numbers.

2. Consistent pricing for each and every part / component verified to the OEM level with lead time and warranty information. Minimizing your need to buy spare parts / commodities from distributors or your build sources.

3. Enterprise-wide material management to the department level in every Manufacturing Operation.

4. A reuse or repurposing of excess inventory in Manufacturing Engineering.

5. Able to search inventory with standardized part naming conventions and in multiple languages.

Bottom-line, an aggressive Enterprise wide well executed strategy can and will save your company significant dollars in the first 12 months of implementation. That’s 2010 folks….

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Art Healan | No Comments »