Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
Sep 12, 2000 2:03 pm, by Davis Gentry
Text :
--- Michael Griffin wrote: > >new IA technology that increases shop floor throughput by 10% is simply doomed to failure. > > >New general purpose IA technology which by itself increased shop floor thoughput by 10% would be a spectacular improvement in any application > I am familiar with. I can't recall seeing a single instance of where application of new IA technology (as opposed to proper application of > existing technology) has generated improvements of that magnitude. Our newest motion control board, due to changes in firmware and addition of lookahead, allows improvements in complex motion (cutting, grinding, robotics) on the order of 4-5x (in terms os time required to finish complex task) using the exact same hardware otherwise. We also usually see large improvements in production on older machines retrofitted with our previous generation cards as well, though perhaps not to that magnitude. We're certainly seeing growth - but we're not process control, either. Davis Gentry Applications Engineer Delta Tau Data Systems Eastern Office Richmond, Virginia
Reply

• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 13, 2000 12:51 pm, by Michael Griffin
  >>New general purpose IA technology which by itself increased shop floor >>thoughput by 10% would be a spectacular improvement AND >> Most new IA technology has simply allowed us to do what >we have already been doing cheaper and easier than ever before. < I've had a few replies to these points both on and off list. I don't want to flog this issue to death as it wasn't the main gist of the discussion. I do want to make it clear what new technology can or cannot do for us. I didn't say that it was *impossible* to get improvements simply by applying new technology, rather I said: 1) A 10 percent improvement in "shop floor throughput" would actually be a very significant improvement. Note I am not referring to an improvement in some narrowly defined characteristic. Rather I mean 10 percent more parts coming out the end of the machine or production line. This is the only realistic measure of "shop floor throughput". 2) This is very hard to actually achieve by by applying *new technology* from a typical industrial automation company (e.g. AB, Siemens, Omron etc.) to an existing production process. 3) It is rare enough that I've never actually seen it done (although I have heard people say they have done it). Note I am not saying it is impossible, rather it is just so uncommon that I have not yet seen it. I have seen (and made) improvements of more than 10 percent in machine (and line) throughput, but not due simply to applying new industrial automation technology to an existing process. When making comparisons, we must make sure we distinguish between improvements due to new characteristics of technology, and improvements due to better *application* of technology (existing or new). 4) Most new (i.e. within the last 5 years) industrial automation technology has concentrated on making things cheaper and easier to use. I am not saying that this is bad - cheaper and easier to use is a good thing and well worth having. However, a faster PLC will not make a typical machine run significantly faster. The point is though that it is wrong to blame slow sales on "new IA technology that" (only) "increases shop floor throughput by 10%". Most custumers would welcome 10 percent improvements that can be bought off the shelf. Opportunities for such easy gains are really rather rare and so will not generate significant new sales except in certain specialised applications. Several gentlemen have written to me to state that high end motion control is one such exception. There may be others as well. Overall demand for most products will be dictated by factors outside the control of the industrial automation companies. I stated in my previous letter that "demand for much of the industrial automation market is relatively inelastic" because the demand for products for new machine applications is dictated by demand for the machines they will be incorporated in. I believe I have demonstrated above that it is difficult to generate significant new demand for retrofit applications based on performance improvements. Inelastic demand has two sides to it. The one side is that higher prices do not have a strong effect on demand. This is nice if you have enough of a hold on the market to make these price increases stick. The other side of the coin though is that falling prices are not necessarily compensated for by increases in sales volumes. What companies do need new technology for is to maintain their competative position relative to one another. If new technology has made products "cheaper and easier to use", then this will be an important selling point when choosing between similar products. If a company cuts back drastically on R&D, the likely result is there will be no immediate result (except an improvement in profitability). Eventually though, there will be a steady erosion of sales as customers gradually switch to cheaper and easier to use alternatives. ********************** Michael Griffin London, Ont. Canada mgriffin@odyssey.on.ca **********************
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 18, 2000 2:46 pm, by Jim Pinto
  We're having a lot of discussion on whether or not 10% productivity improvements are possible, by new technology or improvements in old technology. I think we're missing the original point I made. Quote from the original article : "From a pragmatic IA marketing standpoint, it seems that there is too much technology chasing too few real needs. Because the training and logistics burden is high, new IA technology that increases shop floor throughput by 10% is simply doomed to failure. Faster computers and better software do not seem to yield improved productivity in a steel mill or a polyethylene plant. " The fact of the matter is that *any* productivity improvements that can be yielded by automation are minor, when compared to the total cost and productivity. A major revolution occurs when the cost/productivity improves by 10 times - yes, let me repeat *10 times*. How will that be possible? For example, by new manufacturing technologies like self-organizing control systems, Nanotechnology. Hey, friends, let's stop discussing how the deck-chairs on the Titanic were arranged..... Cheers: jim ----------/ Jim Pinto email : jim@jimpinto.com web: www.JimPinto.com San Diego, CA., USA ----------/
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 13, 2000 2:15 pm, by Greg Goodman
  > When making comparisons, we must make > sure we distinguish between improvements due to new characteristics of > technology, and improvements due to better *application* of technology > (existing or new). This brings up an interesting question. How do we distinguish between a new technology and a better application of an old technology? Say I improve throughput by replacing a single PLC that's trying to control too much with several autonomous PLCs (of the same make and model), each dedicated to a portion of the task and coordinating activity between them. Have I better applied my old PLC technology, or have I applied a new distributed control technology? If I replace an ancient piece of software with a better-designed one - even one written in the same language, but using more modern design methodologies or algorithms - have I just used my existing Intel PC and 'C' compiler technology better, or have I applied the new software technology of object-orientation? -- Greg Goodman Chiron Consulting chironsw@swbell.net -- http://www.swbell.net/chironsw -- (713) 869-6876
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 18, 2000 10:55 am, by Michael Griffin
  At 11:33 13/09/00 -0500, Greg Goodman wrote: >How do we distinguish between a >new technology and a better application of an old technology? >If I replace an ancient piece of >software with a better-designed one - even one written in the same >language, but using more modern design methodologies or algorithms - >have I just used my existing Intel PC and 'C' compiler technology >better, or have I applied the new software technology of >object-orientation? The question is, could you have done the same thing just as effectively with products that were available 5 years ago? The discussion concerned *new technology* from traditional industrial automation suppliers, not something you created yourself. For example, I have increased machine throughput by more than 10 percent just by re-writing the control program to reduce software overhead. I didn't apply any *new technology*, I just carefully applied good, well known software techniques to the problem. >Say I >improve throughput by replacing a single PLC that's trying to control >too much with several autonomous PLCs (of the same make and model), each >dedicated to a portion of the task and coordinating activity between >them. Have I better applied my old PLC technology, or have I applied a >new distributed control technology? As another example, we have recently conducted a retro-fit which did something similar to that. We wanted to improve the reliability and maintainability of certain machines, and the most practical way to implement the changes was to replace the original central PLC with several micro-PLCs installed in what had been the terminal boxes on the machines. We reduced cycle time by about 15% (this was a side effect though, rather than the true intention of the project). This was *not* a benefit of new technology, even though the new PLCs were newer models than the original. We could have accomplished the same thing with hardware of the same era that the original was constructed with. Without dwelling on the details, it can be said the new hardware was in many ways a "lower tech" solution than the original. The new hardware made this project *easier and cheaper* by being so compact that we could fit them in the existing terminal boxes. However, we could still have accomplished it somehow with older hardware. I would define a gain as being due to a *new technology* if the improvement would have been impossible without hardware or software which has recently become available. This was not the case in either of the previous examples. ********************** Michael Griffin London, Ont. Canada mgriffin@odyssey.on.ca **********************
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 18, 2000 3:12 pm, by Bill Sturm
  At 08:21 PM 9/13/2000 -0400, you wrote: > As another example, we have recently conducted a retro-fit which did >something similar to that. We wanted to improve the reliability and >maintainability of certain machines, and the most practical way to implement >the changes was to replace the original central PLC with several micro-PLCs >installed in what had been the terminal boxes on the machines. > We reduced cycle time by about 15% (this was a side effect though, >rather than the true intention of the project). This was *not* a benefit of >new technology, even though the new PLCs were newer models than the >original. We could have accomplished the same thing with hardware of the >same era that the original was constructed with. Without dwelling on the >details, it can be said the new hardware was in many ways a "lower tech" >solution than the original. > The new hardware made this project *easier and cheaper* by being so >compact that we could fit them in the existing terminal boxes. However, we >could still have accomplished it somehow with older hardware. It could be argued that without the benefit of a small and powerful (new technology) PLC, that you might not have been able to justify the cost for the upgrade. 5 years ago, you might have needed to install larger boxes and a more expensive PLC to do the same job. Many of these new micro PLC's are also equipped with powerful networking capabilities, which they actually benefit from more than a larger PLC. This also makes retrofits more attractive. Bill Sturm
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 18, 2000 2:56 pm, by Davis Gentry
  >Michael Griffin wrote: > I would define a gain as being due to a *new > technology* if the improvement would have been impossible without > hardware or software which has recently become available. I would disagree to some extent with this definition - rather than the term "impossible" I would substitute the term "economically unfeasible". It is possible that you could have solved the problem you listed at the time using existing technology, but could you have done it for a price tag that made it worth it? One of the most important changes in technology is the current ability to manufacture systems or components for small fractions of what a comparable unit would have cost 15 years ago. This all means that you can put sensors or processors in places you would never have considered doing so in the past. This seems to me to be an important technological advance. Davis Gentry Applications Engineer Delta Tau Data Systems
  Reply