An OEM Vision

Document Sample
An OEM Vision Powered By Docstoc
					PLCopen Standardisation
 •   About standardisation on its way
 •   About PLCopen Motion Task Force
 •   About OEM point of view
 •   About benefits to gain
 •   About a call for action on you, OEM’s and End-users of servo
     technology, gathered in OMAC!

 •   Gebhard Selinger            IWKA-Pacunion           (BRD etc)
 •   Bob Veltman                 Kloeckner Tevopharm     (NL)
 •   Eelco van der Wal           PLCopen                 (etc)
 •   Istvan Ulvros               Tetrapak                (Swe etc)
  Technology Status
• Machines need HMI, PLC, MC-drives-servomotors and software
• Technology push in Motion Control is over now (2003)
• Standardisation in Logic and Motion Control will result in
  operational benefits for OEM’s and End-users
• IEC 61131-3 is a sound basis, but it needs extension into MC
• PLCopen Motion Control Task Force (many Vendors, 2 OEM’s,
  1 End-users) standardises MC commands
• Vendors work on new products which make MC-use easier for
  OEM’s and end-users (operational benefits)
• Combination of PLC, MC, Drives, Motors of one (1) make,
  results in operational benefits
• As an early user of MC, grown-up and stabilized now, I will
  share my vision how to gain even more operational benefits at
  OEM and End-user sites
    Tevopharm Vision
• Our unique and good
                                       Unique IEC-Standardized Software


  performing software                  add Motion FB's
                                       add HMI FB's

  plays on IEC61131-3                  D
                                       A                   HMI Control
  compliant-structured-                T

  text-PLC’s and                       S                   PROCESS Control
                                       O                   object
  PLCopen compliant-                   U

  Motion-Control-                      C
                                                           MOTION Control

  hardware. The make of
  all hardware is less
  relevant                                                 Drivers
                                                           Operating System 1
                                                                                Environment 1

• No penalty (except easy non-
                                                           Operating System 2   HARDWARE
                                                                                Environment 2

  intelligent translation) for OEM’s                       Drivers
                                                           Operating System 3   HARDWARE
  nor for End-users to install                                                  Environment 3

  hardware of different make                               Etc
                                                                                Environment Etc.
            OEM capital
•   Application experience, realised machines
•   Customer circle
•   Mechatronic solutions creation
•   Software to support mechatronic solutions
•   Bug free software platform
•   Workforce who know how to handle mechatronic and software issues
•   Efficient use of the scarce intelligent resources to accomodate to End-
    user requirements

•   All above is vendor un-specific! I want to be vendor independant
•   Hardware and corresponding software is necessary but not key for

•   End-users require some specific vendor-make for efficient use of their
    workforce, their spares stock and their vendor-relation
Vendor market developing
  • Traditional: technology push
  • Computer power grows cheaper and cheaper
  • Motordrives become more intelligent and even have “computer”
  • Motion Control and Mechatronic Solutions are of increasing
    importance to OEM’s and End-users, MC market volume grows
    firm and steady
  • Overall and world-wide vendors complete their portfolio with
    new products, offering operational benefits if the whole Control
    System is of only one make (HMI, PLC, MC, Drives, Motors,
    other parts). Capture the End-user..
  • New MC-vendors originating from Motor suppliers are exploring
    cheap computer power to offer better control of their motors and
    go into MC. Offer better Performance to Price Ratio..
  • Conclusion: Market is fed with vendor specific solutions leading
    to waste of intelligent resources of OEM’s and End-users
MC Standardisation 1
No standard: a qualified engineer for every platform, End-users and
  OEM’s are lost in wilderness

Standard: three levels distinguished:
A-common resemblance of code (easier to understand code): “the
   end of the wilderness”
B-re-usability (easy-to-re-use software code in hardware platforms
   of other make): one engineer more platforms
C-portability (software usable in other hardware, communication via
   stdd protocols de-coupling of Motion Controller and
   Drives/Motors): buy best performance to price components and
   connect them

PLCopen Motion Task Force agreed on scenario A (common
  resemblance) until now, a “vendor”-statement.
The wilderness is only partly cultivated.
MC Standardisation 2
PLCopen Motion Task Force agreed on scenario A (common
  resemblance) until now, a “vendor”-statement.
The wilderness is only partly cultivated.

OEM’s cannot be satisfied with this status
OEM’s and End-users are almost absent in the PLCopen Motion
  Task Force, IWKA-KUKA and Kloeckner-Tevopharm are the
  only ones

We need to go into action to confront vendors with the needs and
  demands of the customer base, OEM’s and End-users together!

Operational benefits to be gained are at stake, ours and yours !
  An Example MFB job
• “Name” MFB gives the resemblance

• A parameter: obliged, defined
• B parameter: voluntary, defined
• C parameter: vendor allowed add, undefined

• For example : to be done wk 6
    Overview of MFB’s
• To be done wk 6
    Present Agreement
• Vendors state that they need to deviate from MFB’s to optimise
  motion functions
• OEM’s state that basic functions must be standardised and re-
  usable and result in the same behaviour across vendor
  platforms (provided the platform is capable)
• The gap between these statements is killing standardisation!
• Software code written in PLCopen MFB’s is not re-usable nor
• A MFB-call in one vendor-platform may do something else in
  another vendor-platform
• Line by line intelligent translation from one vendor-platform to
  another vendor-platform is still needed
• No OEM nor End-user will be served as we could be, profits and
  benefits are still hidden because of vendor-non-standardisation
Some question marks
•   Titles give the resemblance uniformity only, in the title one should see if
    it is a Basic Function or a vendor adapted function doing about the
    same (?)
•   Basic Functions are counted (6 out of 20) to judge the level of PLCopen
    compliance (?)
•   Which set Basic Functions is complete enough to serve general
    applications (?)
•   Complex functions shall not be harmonized, they remain vendor
    specific or OEM specific (!)

•   The software task described above,requested by the two OEM’s in
    PLCopen Motion Control Task Force, is doable (!)
•   New vendors of MC, assisted by their software suppliers are happy to
    realise this request, but we need vendor-co-operation(!)
•   Vendors in PLCopen are hiding behind own market research on own
    customer base: there is no call for re-usability nor portability(?)
OEM & End-user statements?
  • An open letter to inform the OEM and End-user-circle has been
    set up and sent by IWKA-Pacunion, Kloeckner Tevopharm,
    Tetrapak and the director of PLCopen
  • A request for written support for our statement to PLCopen
    Motion Task Force is annexed to this letter
  • If we succeed in raising the OEM and End-user voice, better
    and more profitable products will be the result, improving your
    operational result
  • If we do not succeed now in raising the OEM and end-user
    voice, “common resemblance” is the most you may expect in a
    long time from standardisation of control system software.
    Present technological and technical hinders to satisfy the
    customer wish for a specific set of hardware will not be resolved
    for long
  • Do you want an example of the “Open Letter to OEM’s and End-
    users” and this presentation by mail? :Business Card to me
    please, or contact PLCopen directly
• THEREFORE: Raise your voice and answer our call for action!
• March 10 and 11, PLCopen Motion Task Force meets again at
  Tevopharm, Schiedam, Netherlands
• Make sure you raised your voice on this Standardisation issue
  to PLCopen before March 10 2003 if you see benefits realisable
  in your organization
• Make sure to ask your preferred vendor personally for re-usable
  Motion Control Software in near future
• Your preferred vendor should fight for his market share by
  supplying good product and best service to you, not by
  unnecessary technological barrier enhancement to us, OEM’s
• This presentation is based on discussion with, and the thoughts
  of: IWKA-Pacunion (Gebhard Selinger), Kloeckner Tevopharm
  (Bob Veltman), PLCopen (Eelco van der Wal), Tetrapak (Istvan

Shared By: