April 2012
By Bill Lydon, Editor
There is a great deal of discussion about DCS migrations and retrofits these days, raising questions that can be overwhelming for users. Automation system suppliers are offering upgrades from their own legacy systems to current systems and most offer upgrades from competitor’s DCS while preserving the existing I/O hardware. I interviewed industry veteran, Paul Galeski, P.E., CAP, Founder and CEO of MAVERICK Technologies about this topic.
Maverick has a great deal of real world experience with DCS migrations, having completed more 10,000 projects in 45 countries.
Galeski founded MAGNUM Technologies in 1989 and gained recognition as one of Inc. magazine’s top 500 growth companies in the nation in 1995 and was named to the Inc. Fast 50 in 2001–2004, 2006 and 2008. In 1997, Galeski and his partners sold MAGNUM to General Electric (GE), where it became a GE Industrial Systems Division subsidiary. Galeski continued to serve as president until early 1999, and later that year founded MAVERICK Technologies.
The company is headquartered in Columbia, IL and also has operations in the Netherlands, Thailand, and Singapore.
Answer: The terms are used a great deal of the time and sometimes interchangeably; however we make the distinction around functionality and long term cost of ownership. A DCS retrofit is typically viewed as replacement in kind of hardware; normally the same OEM and type of system with little change in the operational characteristic of the process. A DCS migration allows for more innovation as it takes more advantage of new functionality, architecture and capabilities of modern DCS systems. DCS migrations move away from a strategy of replication but rather allow you to deliver a more viable and sustainable long term solution.
Answer: Fundamentally, the real long term cost of ownership should help customers determine what their final path is. Questions can be asked such as:
- What is the life span and cost to maintain and improve the installed control system over the next 5, 10 or 15 years?
- What improvements can be made to make the overall manufacturing process better and more flexible?
- Can you keep your installed base operating at a level of performance that meets EH&S (Environment, Health & Safety), Operational and Commercial needs of the production facility?
- Are there productivity improvements that can be implemented in a migration that will help with the overall ROI of the system?
- Is it possible to purchase replacement parts for the installed base?
If a system is obsolete then do not assume that parts are available on the market. The overall business strategy (both long and short term) of the production facility or unit operation(s) should be considered.
Answer: An engineering study focuses on the long term needs of the production facility and the client. A decision based on information and input from key stakeholders can then be made.
Answer: The result of an engineering system study is a plan to meet the long term needs of the client with emphasis on hardware, software, mitigation of risks, long term cost of ownership, capital expenditure and other factors critical to the customer criteria. Adding new computers and software may be an interim solution to meet short term needs of the client as part of the overall strategy. A focus on the replacement of the frontend does not address the needs of the clients and key stakeholders within the company. In short, using new technology to execute the same old process does little to improve the overall business.
Answer: Development of detailed factory acceptance test, site acceptance test and commissioning plan are critical components of a successful migration or upgrade. The amount of testing can vary widely in a project and a test plan is designed based on customer requirements and is then implemented.
Answer: Absolutely. The FAT is where the project team demonstrates that the software solution meets the needs of the client. There is inherent risk in migration from one system to another system or going from one OEM to another OEM product without the FAT.
Answer: Many of our projects are not single phase where it is all accomplished during a shutdown. Doing the front end assessment and study shows us where to break the process up and which systems to migrate, how and when. Trying to do large scale migrations all at once are inherently risky. Managing risk in these migrations is essential.
Answer: Field walk downs are done during the assessment and study process. Condition of the wiring, available space, technology requirements and long term requirements of the process go into the consideration. Consideration of the use of bus I/O and remote devices by process area and corporate guidelines are also key.
Answer: Loop testing verifies that the I/O is pointing to the right point in the controller. We recommend this as part of the checkout, startup and commissioning process.
Answer: During the engineering study process, the key stakeholders are part of the overall solution and we understand where things are running well and where the real improvement opportunities exist.
Answer: Typically the old style screen layouts do not lend themselves to recognition of alarm conditions in a process. The ASM standard is proven to send the operator the right information at the right time. Operators are Key Stakeholders in the study process and provide valuable input into the final solution.
Answer: Operations is a key stakeholder and as such need to have significant input into the final solution. Industry best practices provide a common look and feel to the HMI graphics and are a good starting point.
Answer: It is dependent upon the customer and the process. Total cost of ownership tends to favor a PLC/PAC solution. The DCS solutions tend to provide a higher level of internal software integration capability (i.e. trending, asset management, dashboards, historian and other SW capabilities).
Many users are more comfortable using DCS solutions for larger I/O counts and for complex process control, particularly where there are large of amounts of complex regulatory control. The PLC/PAC solution providers are making significant strides to close that gap; the selection of the right OEM to use is on a case by case basis.
Answer: The OEM tends to focus on the technology instead of improvement of the end users process. There is also a bias to emphasize the positives of their solution, minimize the negatives and dismiss the competition. Customers do not get a sense for what the technological landscape of the market place looks like when this approach is taken. Asking the right questions while taking an independent client and process centric view of the technology rather than choosing based on technology alone results in a viable long term sustainable solution. In addition, by issuing a RFP (Request for Proposal) to the OEM in the study process, the user has the one time advantage of driving down overall cost through competitive pricing and partnering.
Paul Galeski’s comments should remind us that automation, whether new, migration, or retrofit, should be based on well thought out engineering and business analysis rather than the latest glittery new technology. This is an investment activity that will have at least a ten year, if not longer, life and impact on production efficiency and flexibility.
Comments and perspective are always welcome.