PackML and ISA: Productive use of machine and unit states from ISA88
Better manufacturing decisions and higher productivity can result from use of the ISA technical report, TR88.00.02 Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88.
Better manufacturing decisions and higher productivity can result from use of the ISA technical report, TR88.00.02 Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88. Even so some things just never seem to get fixed. There are several efforts ongoing to educate the masses about the PackML ISA Technical report that was published in August 2008, and here we are two years latter and there is still confusion and some turmoil. How long will it take to educate people on how to identify this great work that was accomplished by the OMAC-Make2Pack-ISA88 Part 5 team?
Using the ISA technical report, TR88.00.02 Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88, provides value. As shared at 2010 ARC World Industry Forum and 2010 PAF events, using these ideas results in:
- Better access to critical data enables the business to make informed decisions.
- Faster deployment of new packaging initiatives, decreases time to market.
- Increased reliability of packaging systems, improves productivity.
- Improved integration of packaging machinery from different vendors, expands options.
- More flexible packaging machines, which reduces cost.
Just to identify a few.
Back story about the name: During the creation effort ISA assigned the designator of TR88.00.05 Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88. Is it possible they did this because a subgroup of the Make2Pack-ISA88 Part 5 (88.00.05 -Batch Control Part 5: Implementation Models & Terminology for Modular Equipment Control) was chartered to develop the technical report? The actual reason seems to be lost in the dust of history. What does matter is that the ISA corrected what they considered a mistake by renaming the TR to TR88.00.02 Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88.
When people are exposed to PackML and they start looking for the document that the think describes how to use PackML the more often than not find the 88.00.05 Part 5 body of work which really causes them confusion and frustration to the point that they abandon all thoughts of using PackML. Not to mention the drag it places of others to try and correct these misperceptions when they become aware of them.
OMAC has a lot invested in the “PackML” brand, and it does make sense in leveraging that brand identity. But doing so with out causing more confusion will require some effort. PackML Version 2 and PackML Version 3 and now PackML Version TR02 requires clarity when throwing around the term PackML to improve the acceptance by the industry.
Trying to get the industry to improve by adopting PackML concepts is difficult enough without adding an additional layer of confusion. Don Strunk of P&G is leading a group to try and address this and I sure hope that group is successful! If you’d like to help out just let me know and I’ll put you in contact with him.
The ISA documents can be purchased at the PackML TR88.00.02 site.
- David A. Chappell, Complete Manufacturing Automation associates – LLC, chairman ISA88, Part 5. www.CMAa-LLC.com
Read more at www.controleng.com/blogs.
Case Study Database
Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.
These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.
Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.
Annual Salary Survey
In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.
Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.