www.isa.
org/journals/ic Applying Computer Technology to Manufacturing
here is a new landscape in manufacturing
T applications. The computer-integrated
manufacturing (CIM) pyramid of the
1980s has crumbled to make way for a variety
of better models for manufacturing informa-
tion technology in the 2000s.
By Keith Unger The Supply Chain Operations Reference
(SCOR) model; the Manufacturing Execu-
tion Systems Association (MESA) model;
and AMR Research’s Ready, Execute,
Process, Analyze, and Coordinate (REPAC)
model all define manufacturing applications
from a functional point of view. Meanwhile,
you can define manufacturing applications
Move over, CIM. from the point of view of vertical markets,
specific implementation models, and a broad
Today it’s ERP, range of functional categories.
In addition, manufacturing applications
MRP, MES, REPAC, have evolved from custom solutions to tool
kits to commercial, off-the-shelf packages.
and SCOR. And that is in addition to the functions
that manufacturing applications provide for
supply-chain coordination, enterprise
resource planning (ERP) connectivity, plan-
ning, scheduling, inventory management, and
shop floor data collection.
There have been many acronyms and
models in the past two decades that describe
the topic of manufacturing application soft-
®
ware. However, regardless of naming and
modeling, manufacturing’s fundamental needs
have not changed significantly. What has
changed is the availability of commercial soft-
ware, experience in applying software appli-
cations to manufacturing, and the emergence
of standards for applying software and com-
puter technology to manufacturing.
Today, many well-developed tools are
available that can be successfully applied to
meet the functional needs of manufacturing
processes.
Experience gained applying software and
computers to manufacturing has been well
documented, and international standards
communicate generally accepted best prac-
tices in manufacturing systems integration.
Manufacturers today can take advantage of
experience gained from early adopters’ efforts
and apply current technology with a high
degree of confidence that the application will
successfully meet requirements.
In the 1980s, industry movers and shakers
introduced the concept of CIM, and the CIM
manufacturing software pyramid model was
developed.
The CIM pyramid model focused on the
hierarchy of the manufacturing enterprise. It
divided the manufacturing domain into five

levels of computing functionality. During this
time frame, technology tools fit one or more
CIM levels. Programmable logic controllers
and loop controllers became the dominant
technologies at the control level, and a whole
market of supervisory control and data acqui-
sition suppliers emerged to fill the needs of
level two supervisory systems.
Corporate financial systems and func-
tionality needed to support overall operations
resided at the top of the pyramid. At the divi-
sional level of the pyramid, the focus was on
material requirements planning to meet cus-
tomer orders. This planning process estimated
capacity and material requirements based on
a combination of forecast orders and actual
orders for a specified time.
MES Systems Emerge
In the first half of the 1990s, new pressures
and ideas began to change the shape of the
CIM pyramid. Manufacturing was moving
from an internal focus to a customer focus.
Global pressure to compete for customer loy-
alty with high-quality products delivered
when and where customers wanted the prod-
ucts required manufacturers to be more
responsive. As a result of these pressures and
ideas, the CIM pyramid collapsed and flat-
tened out, and the new MES model evolved.
In 1992, Cambridge, Mass.–based AMR
Research introduced the three-layer MES
model. This model reduced the manufactur-
ing system problem set to three functional
areas of planning, execution, and control.
The model helped the industry by simplifying
the number of levels and focusing on the
need to link the planning process to the con-
trol process through a newly defined execu-
tion process.
MESA International developed a model
of MES that identifies 11 core execution
functional areas with interfaces to the enter-
prise-level planning and scheduling functions.
Many of the functional areas MESA Interna-
tional identified have developed into mature
product markets with commercially available
solutions and well-defined functionality.
Today, just past the turn of the new cen-
tury, continued global pressures for rapid
response to consumer demand has changed
the enterprise focus from internal planning,
execution, and control to one of customer
relationship management, supply-chain
management (SCM), and product life-cycle
management. Models evolved to support
these new manufacturing requirements.
AMR Research combined the MES
model with the SCOR model, creating the
REPAC model, first proposed by AMR in
Industrial Computing • October 2001 • www.isa.org/journals/ic 47
1998. The SCOR model reduces the com- Software Evolves
plexity of the supply chain to the fundamen- Better models are not the only difference in
tal activities of Source, Make, and Deliver, manufacturing information technology since
with an overarching Plan activity to coordi- the 1980s. Manufacturing applications have
nate the entire supply chain. The REPAC also evolved from custom solutions to tool
model focuses on the SCOR Make activity, kits to commercial, off-the-shelf packages.
combined with the Execution and Controls Today, applications include product life-
activities from the earlier MES model. The cycle management systems; quality manage-
REPAC model includes Ready, Analyze, and ment, tracking, and genealogy; specification
Coordinate activities required by the agile management and laboratory management;
autonomous manufacturing facility. key performance indicator and business per-
The Ready function prepares the produc- formance analysis systems; and decision sup-
tion process for operation and takes care of port systems. That is in addition to functions
administering process improvements and
engineering change orders. This includes
transforming product specifications into
detailed instructions needed to introduce a
new product into the plant and corrective
action for product or process exceptions.
The Execute activity completes work
orders according to a production schedule.
This includes initiation of the process setup
to make a specific product, as well as exe-
cuting the actual process and managing the
schedule for automating and controlling the
process. The Execute process communicates
needs on a plant basis and records actual
work order progress, including quality and AMR model of 1990s.
exception conditions.
The Analyze activity evaluates actual pro- manufacturing applications provide for supply
duction performance and product quality. It chain coordination, ERP connectivity, plan-
also measures process capability and evalu- ning, scheduling, inventory management, and
ates regulatory compliance. The Analyze shop floor data collection.
process summarizes real-time data and calcu- Functional integration is the most diffi-
lates key performance indicators for opera- cult challenge to making corporate and
tors and manufacturing decision makers. It manufacturing systems work together. Before
combines data from multiple execution com- a manufacturer can attempt integration,
ponents and assembles data as needed for the functional split has to be determined.
ERP and SCM processes, including feedback Without a standard, most manufacturers
to ERP on actual order progress, and resource should plan to do a lot of work assigning
consumption. It reports back to suppliers
on material performance and supplies
data, such as certificates of analysis,
needed to meet the requirements
for a specific customer.
The Coordinate activity
balances plant operations
within the overall enterprise
and the extended supply
chain. It optimizes plant
activities to fulfill produc-
tion demand and con-
tinuously updates the
production schedule with
current accurate data. This
process also coordinates the
material-receiving function from
sources and coordinates production
with distribution to feed SCOR delivery
process. MESA International MES model.
 48 Industrial Computing • October 2001 • www.isa.org/journals/ic
functionality in a way that meets their
requirements.
An example is the product bill of material
(BOM). To use the ERP system for financial
reporting and the manufacturing system’s S88
Batch Recipe Formula, both systems may
need a BOM in their respective data models
to work effectively.
Standard Defines Split
Fortunately, there is an industry standard
that defines the split between ERP and MES
systems. This standard is ANSA/ISA-
95.00.01-2000, Enterprise-Control System
Integration Part 1: Models and terminology.
The standard is a great help in defining
the requirements for integration of enterprise
systems and manufacturing execution systems.
The work included in this standard builds on
the original Purdue CIM model (the source of
the CIM pyramid), includes the MESA Inter-
national model for MES, and defines a set of
models and terminology to reduce the risks,
costs, and errors associated with implementing
enterprise-control system interfaces.
The S95 standard is a logical model of
the enterprise and shows all functional areas
as ovals. (Functions shown as rectangles exist
but are outside the scope of the standard.)
The shaded (blue) area indicates the
boundary of functionality within the scope of
the manufacturing control system domain.
This boundary defines the cut in functional-
ANSI/ISA-95.00.01, Functional enterprise-control model.
SCOR 5.0 boosts metrics, expands Return process
The Supply-Chain Council (SCC) in August released Version 5.0 of its SCOR model, fea-
turing several major additions in the areas of Metrics, Performance Attributes, process-spe-
cific changes, and development of Return—a process introduced in Version 4.0.
Performance attributes were expanded from four to five by separating Flexibility and
Responsiveness. As a result, accompanying Metrics were reconciled throughout the Model
to ensure that they are measuring what they are intended to measure.
“Perhaps the most significant change introduced in Version 4.0 and detailed in 5.0 was
the inclusion of a new level 1 process element,” said Scott Stephens, SCC chief technol-
ogy officer.
SCOR 5.0 addresses the business-to-business/business-to-customer requirements of
MESs. It sets common business process and metrics (language) by which companies and
application-to-application integration can be simplified and maintained as the software com-
munity adopts the process and metric definitions.
Also, ISA’s S95 Part 3, still in development, represents a major migration of the original
MESA model into a form with actual data flows that can be characterized into a schema.
S95, ANSI/ISA-S88, and the SCOR models have all matured to the point where data mod-
els and schema can be developed into products and applications that dramatically reduce
cost of ownership and maintenance.
ity referred to previously. Lines with arrows Wanted: Compatibility
indicate information flow between functional Manufacturers get all the one-size-fits-all
areas. Any line that crosses the shaded claims from newcomers and established ven-
boundary is a flow of information that works dors of all sizes. In this new landscape of man-
within the scope of the S95 standard for ufacturing applications, to further the goals of
enterprise and control system integration and improved productivity, increased capital effec-
is a solid line. Dotted lines do not cross this tiveness, and reduced waste, manufacturers
boundary and are not included as necessary must push for a few basic yet revolutionary
information flows for enterprise and control concepts. They need manufacturing applica-
system integration. Manufacturers can save tions that work well with ERP and supply
time in their design by following the S95 chain systems and provide a single integrated
standard and specifying that their ERP and MES architecture that supports the business
MES vendors also adhere to the standard. processes associated with manufacturing.
There is a growing realization that e-
business and supply chain strategies are con-
verging with manufacturing operations to
form an integral part of an overall collabo-
rative business process. Collaboration among
functional departments within an enterprise
and with external partners requires
robust information exchanges with
well-defined exchange content.
Manufacturers need solutions that
can easily integrate with existing
systems and that will help them
become more flexible, react
quickly, and respond effectively
to the demands of today’s e-com-
merce world. IC
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Keith Unger is principal con-
sultant for EnteGreat Inc., a
Birmingham, Ala., consulting and
systems integration firm. He is
chairman of ISA’s SP95 standard
committee, former vice chairman
of ISA’s SP88 standard commit-
tee, and former World Batch
Forum marketing chairman.