Anda di halaman 1dari 32

ARC BEST PRACTICES

By Tom Fiske

JANUARY 2008

Best Practices for Advanced Process Control

Executive Overview

3

5

APC Best Practice Study Methodology

10

Respondents .......................................................................

11

People

11

Processes and Applications

15

Technology

24

Information ........................................................................

27

Best Practice Recommendations

30

ARC BEST PRACTICES By Tom Fiske J ANUARY 2008 Best Practices for Advanced Process Control Executive

THOUGHT LEADERS FOR MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY CHAIN

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

   

Processes and

   

People

Applications

Technology

Information

Leader

Utilize in-house

High number of APC

Extensive use of

High APC

expertise to

applications

control monitoring

utilization

implement and

High saturation of

applications for

maintain APC

both regulatory

Well thought out

applications

APC application on large process units

control and APC

and highly functional alarm

APC initiatives include certification, skill enhancement, and retention of APC experts

Expanding APC coverage to include smaller process units

Extensive automation and plant application integration in areas such as LIMS,

management program

Collaborate and use shared best practices with

Applying advanced control to batch operations and transitions

change management, alarm history, and historian

continuous improvements and lessons learned

Uses RTO where appropriate

Competitor

Uses combination of in-house and third-

In-house expertise

Extensive use of APC on large

Expanding use of

Uses some control monitoring

Achieves moderate APC utilization

party expertise for implementing APC

process units

APC in other areas

applications for both regulatory

Some alarm management functionality

maintains APC

applications

Some advance

control and APC with short–term

beyond basic DCS alarms

control applications in batch operations

plans to expand use

Limited degree of automation and plant application integration with plans to increase integration efforts

Follower

Scattered expertise

Sporadic

Limited to large

Little use of control

Little automation

Has trouble

Alarm

Rely on outsourcing for APC implementation

deployment of APC

process units

performance monitoring applications

achieving high APC utilization

management not a

Joint in-house and

Little use of

and plant

priority

third-party

advanced

application

expertise used for maintenance of APC

applications for batch operations

integration

Best Practices Maturity Matrix

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Executive Overview

APC is a proven technology that reduces process variability and inefficien- cy, improves product consistency, increases throughput by allowing operations to push constraints to the limits and achieve higher return on assets. Achieving and sustaining these benefits has not always been easy. It requires a sound strategy and adherence to best prac-

tices.

APC Applications

With the high penetration of APC on large units, leading companies are looking for opportunities to

apply APC in other areas including

small-to-midsized process units.

This report focuses on what leaders, competitors, and fol- lowers are doing with respect to the adoption and use of control technologies. Leading process companies have already applied APC to a high percentage of their large process units under steady-state condition. They are now evaluating opportunities to apply APC on smaller units throughout their entire organization in a similar fashion as they would for larger projects: on an economic or Return on Investment (ROI) basis.

Outside the polymer industry, MPC is not used extensively for transition management. Today, the common methods of managing transitions in- clude providing decision support and operator guidance, sequence control, and ensuring operators are well trained. For batch operations, MPC is still in its infancy. However, leaders are applying other technologies to help control and improve their batch operations. Leaders tend to use soft sen- sors and profile control over other techniques.

Companies are rapidly deploying tools to monitor the performance of con- trol assets including PID loops and advanced process controllers. Most leaders are using some form of regulatory control monitoring application and they have a high adoption rate of APC performance monitoring solu- tions. In terms of metrics, leaders are achieving over 95 percent APC utilization factor. This compares favorably to competitors and followers who achieve 88 and 60 percent respectively.

Automation Integration with Plant Applications

Over the past several years, leading companies have made considerable progress in integrating their process data and LIMS with production opera-

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

tions. With a few notable exceptions such as plant asset management, lead- ers have integrated a significant portion of their automation and plant applications. Leaders also have a well-established and comprehensive alarm management program. Competitors and followers still lag behind in these areas.

Organizational Aspects for Success

The effective use of APC is highly dependent upon the knowledge and skills of a company’s experts and upon its corporate strategies for imple- menting, using, and maintaining its applications. All users supplement their in-house resources with third-party or supplier resources. A major difference between the leaders and the rest of the companies is how much of a project is implemented with in-house resources and how much is out- sourced.

The leading companies view APC as providing a competitive advantage. As such, they use methods to ensure they obtained the greatest value from their APC applications at the lowest possible cost. This translates into tak- ing the lead role on the majority of APC implementation. Leaders have established a standardized methodology to roll out additional APC applica- tions. The methodology often includes continuous improvement strategies and lessons learned that helps to reduce the cost of each successive imple- mentation.

The majority of users maintain their own APC applications. Leaders have more in-house expertise than other companies and consequently take on greater responsibility in maintaining their APC applications.

Most companies have not established a particular criterion for utilizing APC experts. Only about 20 percent of the companies use a certification process. About 10 percent of the companies closely monitor the number of applications each APC expert is responsible for. A major challenge for us- ers is retaining their APC experts. Many are setting up programs that provide an interesting and rewarding career within their organization.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

The Issue: Achieving Greater Value from Assets

The process industries use asset intensive operations to convert raw mate- rials into finished products. Successful business performance of these companies is directly related to how well they deploy and use their assets to generate profits. Although this seemingly simple rule sounds easy to accomplish, the reality proves more challenging. In today’s business envi- ronment, companies have to deal with intense global competition, reduced technical and operational staff, higher raw material and energy prices, stric- ter governmental regulations, and rapidly changing demand.

Increasing asset utilization alone does not guarantee optimal business per- formance and profitability. Even when operating at high asset utilization, there is considerable room for improvement because of remaining ineffi-

ciencies and the inability to capture higher spot market value opportunities as they occur. Organizations looking to improve profitability and gain market share are focusing greater attention on their customers’ needs. This requires the development of differentiated products and more frequent changeovers. Companies are not only placing an

emphasis on increasing capacity, but also on op- timization product quality, processes, and assets. Companies are attempting to increase agility and flexibility so that plants can efficiently execute production plans and profitably capture new op- portunities.

The business performance of process manufacturing companies is directly related to how well they use their assets. When properly applied and maintained, APC solutions play an important role in achieving higher return on assets (ROA).

Obviously, Advanced Process Control (APC) and Optimization solutions play an important role in achieving higher return on assets (ROA). APC reduces process variability and inefficiency, improves product quality, and allows operations to push constraints to the limits. With more frequent grade changes, advanced solutions are needed to effectively manage prod- uct transitions and provide the necessary agility to improve profitability.

Over the years, APC has decisively demonstrated its value. Many leading companies have successfully applied APC to their most important process units. Significant benefits include:

Increasing throughput by up to five percent

Improving yields up to ten percent

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Reducing energy usage

Reducing raw material usage

Improving product quality

Improving plant stability, safety, and responsiveness

Achieving these benefits has not always been easy. APC is often perceived as being expensive as well as complicated and time consuming to imple- ment and maintain. If not properly maintained, typical benefits begin to diminish soon after implementation because the model begins to differ from the actual plant process. Consequently, APC has been reserved for the most economically sensitive large-scale process units. Many smaller process units still have no form of advanced process control and represent an enormous opportunity for improving asset effectiveness. The situation for batch and semi-batch operations is even more compelling.

Because of the benefits of APC and optimization solutions, it is important for companies to develop a sound strategy for adopting, implementing, and maintaining APC applications. In some industries, like refining, a signifi- cant portion of the major process units already have APC applications, however, smaller secondary units still do not have any type of advanced control. In other industries, because of the perception, APC is highly unde- rutilized — even for large process units.

This report focuses on what leaders, competitors, and followers are doing with respect to the adoption and use of advanced control technologies. It examines various situations under which the technology is applied and how it is applied.

Improving Asset Effectiveness with APC

The increasingly complex nature of manufacturing coupled with the large investments in assets by operating companies in the process industries makes the need for automation and process control greater than ever. The

PID control loop is an integral part of the automation system. In fact, a typ-

ARC believes that companies able to methodically implement, use, and maintain APC applications at the lowest cost and generate the highest value over its lifecycle will have a distinct competitive advantage.

ical manufacturing plant may have hundreds if not thousands of these regulatory loops that per- form basic control functions. Traditionally, the most complex process units use advanced process control and optimization schemes implemented on top of these regulatory control loops.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

In terms of automation functionality, regulatory control and APC serve much different purposes. The primary role of regulatory control is to en- sure stable, safe, and reliable operations while maintaining process units at a desired or specified condition. It does not attempt to continuously im- prove operations in an economically optimal manner.

APC, on the other hand, is a supervisory control application that coordi- nates a large number of parameters to maintain control closer to operating constraints and more favorable economic operating conditions. By reduc- ing process variability, APC is able to push operations to run at conditions that increase throughput, improve product quality, reduce energy and raw material usage, reduce costs, increase operational efficiency etc.

In one ARC survey, users ranked APC as providing the best value among advanced automation solutions. Ensuring proper ROI, however, requires a concerted corporate-wide strategy and utilization of the latest innovations. It also requires considerable in-house expertise.

Faster Time-to-Benefit with Improved Implementation Tools

Implementing an APC solution can be time consuming and costly. For in- stance, refineries typically spend hundreds of thousands of dollars installing an APC solution. Implementation usually involves several leng- thy steps such as preconditioning and testing, modeling building, controller integration, and commissioning. Numerous suppliers are now offering im- proved tools that help decrease the time and effort necessary to implement solutions and achieve faster time-to-benefits. Users still need to determine what will be done in-house and how much of the effort to outsource to suppliers and other third parties.

Continuous Continuous Improvement Improvement Target Experience Benefits Sustain Poor Support Time Sustained Sustained Performance Performance Improved
Continuous
Continuous
Improvement
Improvement
Target
Experience
Benefits
Sustain
Poor Support
Time
Sustained
Sustained
Performance
Performance
Improved Improved
Time to Revenue
Cost
Revenue

Creating and Sustaining Value of APC Applications

To reduce the affect of existing plant con- ditions, PID loop auditing tools are available that help bring the regulatory

control layer back to peak performance and provide a sound foundation for APC.

In addition, implementing an APC solu- tion requires that a representative mathematical model of the process be built. Simulation can be used to develop preliminary models and aid in initial tun- ing by providing idealized responses to step changes in key variables, thus reduc-

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

ing the amount of step testing required. Historical data can also be used in the model building process. Furthermore, advances in automated plant- step testing tools and methods are significantly shortening the modeling building phase and reducing the level of expertise needed while improving model quality. These tools and methods are also less intrusive and disrup- tive on the plant than previous methods employed. These evolving tools and approaches are driving down the entry level cost of APC and helping to spread its use to new areas.

Another way that large companies are implementing APC projects faster and at less cost is through corporate-wide deployment strategies. Compa- nies are performing corporate-wide rollouts to expedite the implementation process by taking advantage of acquired knowledge and skills learned from each previous application.

More Versatile Operating Tools

Users now have a large range of APC technology to choose from to control a large variety of units. The traditional linear multivariable controller finds wide application across multiple units and industries and often provides payback in less than a year.

Although a large percentage of applications are satisfied with linear APC technology, there are several shortcomings associated with applying linear APC solutions to highly nonlinear processes. Nonlinear controllers are available that are, in general, more suited for such applications. Nonlinear controllers are popular choices in the polymer industries, but are finding numerous applications elsewhere as well.

For years, manufacturers lacked a simple, powerful, and viable alternative to PID control and traditional large-scale APC implementation. Single-loop model predictive control offer manufacturers a practical option to augment their control technology and strategies. A single loop model predictive con- troller has several advantages over PID feedback control. Incorporation of a predictive model allows it to compensate for process dynamics including long dead time and can even close the loop on those processes that operate in manual mode because the process dynamics are too difficult for simple PID control schemes. Some single loop model predictive controllers can operates in a multiple input/single output (MISO) mode to provide distur- bance rejection.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Inferential models or soft sensors are increasingly being used in the imple- mentation of APC projects as well as for process and product quality monitoring. Soft sensors have proven successful in the past for backing-up essential hardware analyzers and in many cases totally replacing online measurement devices. Now, they are becoming more prevalent in applica- tions where an important quality variable is difficult, infeasible, impractical, or just too expensive to attempt to measure with conventional equipment. The benefits of using soft sensors in such situations include better control and understanding of the process while saving money and improving qual- ity.

The wide spectrum of APC tools is becoming more tightly integrated to provide users with a common intuitive interface that reduces the time re- quired to learn different applications. However, users still must be continually trained and develop a strong fundamental understanding of process control to ensure reaping the benefits of APC.

Today, companies are embracing real-time performance management as a means to improve flexibility and profitability while coping with the reduc- tion of manpower and the burden of monitoring assets. As such, making KPIs visible about the performance of the controller is becoming more common to ensure that it is being effectively utilized. As companies move to the next level of performance by adopting rigorous optimization solu- tions that work in concert with APC, it is imperative to monitor controller performance to make certain it is operating correctly. Still, more needs to be done in the way of providing KPIs that tie into business objectives and provide actual cash benefit.

With more tools and better methodologies available to them, users are look- ing toward applying APC to smaller units that were difficult in the past to justify on an ROI basis. In addition, more transition and startup sequencing technology will be integrated with control applications to provide safer and more profitable operations. Incorporating rigorous modeling technology into the controller will also extend its applicable range and accuracy. Ad- vanced control techniques are also finding many applications in batch and semi-batch operations.

Sustaining Benefits with MPC Performance Monitoring

Maintaining controller performance is often more difficult than the initial setup, but it is the key to sustaining long-term benefits. Performance of an APC application deteriorates over time due to equipment degradation as

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

well as deliberate or unintentional changes in the operations of the process. Feedstock, products, and ambient conditions are dynamic. Controllers generally adapt poorly to these changing conditions and the APC applica- tion must be adjusted to maintain maximum benefits. Without proper maintenance, the APC applications will fail to provide any benefits and fall into disuse after only a couple of years. Maintaining the benefits of an APC application require that companies have a sound plan and established workflows and best practices to ensure that tools, people, and processes are in place to respond accordingly.

APC Best Practice Study Methodology

ARC has a long history of providing research and advisory services to end users and suppliers in Advanced Process Control. For this particular best

practice, ARC conducted additional research to gain an

even greater understanding about current practices and

emerging trends. The current research consisted of a

survey and a series of in-depth interviews with several

process manufacturing firms. In both cases, ARC ex-

 

Ranking

Leader

Top 20%

Competitor

Next 50%

Follower

Last 30%

plored the practices manufacturers were using in terms of four key dimensions — People, Processes, Technology, and Information. Each of these dimensions was further investigated across multiple attributes that ARC has previously found to be important contributors to performance.

Food & Bev, 2.0% Pharmaceutical, Others, 4.1% 4.1% Power, 6.1% Chemicals, 24.5% Mining & Metals, 8.2%
Food & Bev, 2.0%
Pharmaceutical,
Others, 4.1%
4.1%
Power, 6.1%
Chemicals, 24.5%
Mining &
Metals,
8.2%
Oil & Gas, 10.2%
Refining, 22.4%
Petrochemical,
18.4%

Vertical Industries of Respondents

Where appropriate, ARC best prac-

tice reports group responses into the

categories of Leaders, Competitors,

and Followers. Over ten separate

performance criteria were used to

rank the responses. For each survey

response, each of the performance

criteria was given a quantitative

measurement and the total used as a

ranking demarcation according to a

20:50:30 distribution of Leaders, Competitors, and Followers.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Respondents

The majority of respondents to the APC Best Practice survey come from the refining, chemical, petrochemical, and oil and gas industries. In fact, the respondents from these industries account for nearly 80 percent of all the responses obtained. Companies in these industries tend to use APC tech- nologies to a larger extent than other process industries. Remaining respondents came from the food and beverage, metals and mining, phar- maceutical, and power industries.

People

Effective use of APC is highly dependent upon the knowledge and skills of a company’s APC experts and upon its corporate strategies for implementa- tion, use, and maintenance. Successful APC project implementation requires the appropriate people to execute them. These people need to be supported with the appropriate training and mentoring programs and have access to other experts to further their own knowledge base.

Sustaining a staff of APC experts is the primary challenge facing most manufacturing companies. To deliver successful projects consistently and reliably, leading companies are developing a standardized methodology and workflow. These companies are performing corporate-wide rollouts to expedite the implementation process by taking advantage of acquired knowledge and skills learned from each previous application. They are capturing and sharing best practices and adopting and applying a conti- nuous improvement approaches to APC lifecycle management. Leading companies are adopting complementary tools such as PID loop auditing, automated step testing, soft sensors, simulation, and control performance

Leaders Competitors Followers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Less than 25% Between 25 and 50%
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Less than 25%
Between 25 and 50%
Between 50 and 75%
Over 75%
Leaders Competitors Followers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0-5 6-10 11-25 25+
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-5
6-10
11-25
25+

APC Implementation Outsourcing

Number of APC Applications

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

monitoring that reduce the time, effort, and cost of deploying APC solu- tions.

Instances where unexpected and abnormal situations arise are a major con- cern for most companies. In cases of this nature, the leading companies have established collaborative teams to resolve the issue. Typically, this entails securing assistance and collaborating with in-house or external ex- perts at different locations. The ability to share information is crucial to successful problem resolution.

Organizational Aspects — APC Implementation

The majority of users supplement their own resources with third-party or supplier resources. A major difference between leaders, competitors, and followers is how much of a project is implemented with in-house resources and how much is outsourced.

Leading companies view APC as providing them with a competitive ad-

vantage.

As such, they adopt methods to ensure that they are able to

achieve the most value from their APC applications at the lowest possible cost. This means performing the majority of APC implementation them- selves. They understand the value in a structure APC implementation strategy and having the necessary skills to execute that strategy. Leaders have established a standardized methodology to roll-out additional APC applications. Leaders believe that they are able to reduce implementation cost by 25 percent with a comprehensive strategy that includes keeping the bulk of the work in-house. About 60 percent of the leaders outsource less than 25 percent of their project work. In addition, about 80 percent of them have more than 25 APC applications.

Competitors and even followers view APC as a means to improve manufac- turing competiveness rather than a means to develop a competitive

Leaders Competitors Followers 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Dedicated Teams Manufacturing Staff Engineering Staff Other
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Dedicated Teams
Manufacturing Staff
Engineering Staff
Other

Use of Internal Resources During Implementation

advantage. Accordingly, they have less skilled

experts and rely more heavily on third-party and

supplier resources for implementation. Followers

take nearly the opposite approach to the leaders,

with about 60 percent of them outsourcing more

than 50 percent of their project work. The majori- ty, on average, have less than 10 applications.

There are little differences between leaders, com- petitors, and followers with regards to the use of

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

internal resources. Centralized engineering and dedicated teams are the approaches used most often. Manufacturing staffs do not typically lead APC implementation efforts; they do however, play an important support- ing role.

In general, users employ a variety of methods to implement APC projects. The following table provides an overview of these strategies.

APC Implementation Methodology

Percent

Implemented with Internal Resources

16.2%

Implemented by External Contractor

18.9%

Implemented with Supplier Services

13.5%

Internally Led Initiative with Supplier Support

21.6%

Externally Led Initiative with Internal Support

13.5%

Large Projects External; Small Projects with Internal Resources

16.3%

Total

100.0%

Organizational Aspects — APC Maintenance

The majority of users maintain their own APC applications. Leaders have more in-house expertise than competitors and followers and consequently take on a greater responsibility in maintaining their APC applications. They typically achieve higher APC utilization while lowering their total cost of ownership. About 80 percent of the leaders outsource less than 25 percent of their maintenance needs. Followers, on the other hand, are more dependent on outsourcing and typically experience higher costs.

Most companies have not established a particular criterion for utilizing APC experts. Only about 20 percent of the companies use a certification process to rank their experts. About 10 percent of the companies are using

Leaders Competitors Followers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Less than 25% Between 25 and 50%
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Less than 25%
Between 25 and 50%
Between 50 and 75%
Over 75%
APC Applications/ APC Expert APC Expert Certificaion 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No
APC Applications/ APC Expert
APC Expert Certificaion
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes
No

APC Maintenance Outsourcing Strategy

Leading Companies Are Establishing Internal Resource Criteria

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Leaders Competitors Followers 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Dedicated Teams Manufacturing Staff Engineering Staff
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Dedicated Teams
Manufacturing Staff
Engineering Staff

Use of Internal Resources for Maintenance

a specific criterion to manage in-

house resources and expertise.

For instance, some leading

companies are closely monitor-

ing and limiting the number of

APC applications each expert is

responsible for. The criterion

typically ranges between five

and ten applications per expert,

but is flexible depending on the size of each application and the skill level of the expert. The

trick is to find an optimum number of applications that can be maintained without compromising the effectiveness of the application and not underutilizing or over burdening the control experts.

As with implementation methodology, users employ a variety of methods to maintain their APC applications. The following table summarizes the approaches in use today.

APC Maintenance Methodology

Percent

Maintained with Internal Resources

50.3%

Maintained by External Contractor

6.3%

Maintained with Supplier Services

12.8%

Internally Led Initiative with Supplier Support

13.9%

Externally Led Initiative with Internal Support

11.1%

Large Projects External; Small Projects with Internal Resources

5.6%

Total

100.0%

Organizational Aspects — RTO Implementation

Unlike APC, users are still apprehensive about implementing big compre- hensive RTO applications that are expensive and risky. Applying online optimization requires a high level of expertise that is different from APC. Most companies do not have extensive resources in this area. Most compa- nies have less than 2 RTO applications. Leaders tend to utilize RTO more than the competitors and followers. About 25 percent of the leaders have more than 5 RTO applications.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Leaders Competitors Followers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1-2 3-5 over 5
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
1-2
3-5
over 5
Leaders Competitors Followers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Less than 25% Between 25 and 50%
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Less than 25%
Between 25 and 50%
Between 50 and 75%
Over 75%

Number of RTO Applications

RTO Outsourcing Strategy

Leaders are more involved with the RTO implementation than the competi- tors and followers. Similar to APC, leaders view RTO as providing a competitive advantage and insist in keeping in-house expertise to imple- ment and maintain the solution.

Processes and Applications

There are numerous processes and applications that companies use to ob- tain value from APC. How each group applies the technology and to what extent creates some of the major differences between the leaders, competi- tors, and followers. For instance, each group differs as to where they place their emphasis in terms of applying APC to large process units, small process units, and batch operations. There are also differences among the groups as to how APC is applied to different plant operating states. Fur- thermore, the extent to which each group uses APC in each area of application creates even more significant differences.

ARC includes in this category:

APC target deployment area such as large units, small units, and batch operations

Plant operating state including steady-state, planned transitions, and abnormal situations

Extent of deployment (saturation or penetration), i.e., the number of APC applications as compared to the actual number of potential appli- cations

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Current and Planned Use of APC for Continuous Units

Traditionally, large continuous steady-state operations have been the major focus area of APC usage. These types of process units are complex and dif- ficult to operate and have the greatest affect on the bottom line. Applying

APC to this type of operations has been relatively easy to justify on an ROI basis. Other applications, such as small continuous process units are be- ginning to get the attention of users. Without a scalable solution, these units are more difficult to justify. Although both large and small units tend

Large Cont. Units Small Cont. Units Large Units: Tranisitions Small Units: Transitions Large Units: Abnormal Small
Large Cont. Units
Small Cont. Units
Large Units: Tranisitions
Small Units: Transitions
Large Units: Abnormal
Small Units: Abnormal
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Large Cont. Units
Small Cont. Units
Large Units: Tranisitions
Small Units: Transitions
Large Units: Abnormal
Small Units: Abnormal
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Large Cont. Units
Small Cont. Units
Large Units: Tranisitions
Small Units: Transitions
Large Units: Abnormal
Small Units: Abnormal
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Followers
Competitiors
Leaders

Current Focus Area of APC Usage for Continuous Units

to operate most often at steady-state,

they occasionally need to transition

from one state to another. Compa-

nies are also beginning to adopt

advanced control technologies that

help to better manage and optimize

these transitions. In addition to

planned transitions, there are, unfor- tunately, unplanned or abnormal

situations that must also be dealt with.

Currently, all of the leaders claim to

be using APC applications for some

of their large continuous units dur-

ing steady-state operations. In

addition, all of the leaders are cur-

rently using or deploying some APC

applications on their small conti- nuous units during steady-state operations. The leaders are also

looking to apply advanced control

techniques to planned and un-

planned transitions.

The focus of competitors is not as

broad as the leaders. Currently,

about 80 percent use APC on some

of their large continuous process units. There is a significant differ-

ence between leaders and competitors in terms of applying APC on smaller continuous process

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

units. Some competitors are considering applying APC techniques to planned and unplanned transitions.

Only 20 percent of the followers are using APC for some of their large con- tinuous units during steady-state operations. Another 25 percent are deploying APC applications now. Since they have implemented only a few APC applications, managing transitions with advanced control technology is not a priority – even in the long-term.

Adoption Level of APC

The results of the Best Practice survey show that many users have already applied APC to their large continuous process units. The results indicate that users have implemented APC on about 60 percent of their large process units. With the high penetration of APC on large units, many com- panies are beginning to look for opportunities to apply APC on its small-to- midsized continuous process units. ARC found that APC has been applied to a little more than 15 percent of the users’ small process units.

Leaders Competitors Followers All 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Large Units/Plants Small-Midsize Units/Plants
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
All
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Large Units/Plants
Small-Midsize Units/Plants

Current Level of APC Adoption for Continuous Processes

The adoption level of APC varies greatly among the leaders, competitors, and followers. For continuous processes under steady-state conditions, the leaders have a high saturation rate of over 80 percent for both large and small-midsized process units. Competitors indicate that they use APC on the majority of their large continuous process units (over 60 percent), but only use APC on 40 percent of their small-midsized units. Followers use

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

APC on about 30 percent of their large continuous process units and are just beginning to deploy APC on smaller continuous units.

Leading companies are applying APC on smaller units throughout their entire organization in a similar fashion as they would for larger projects: on an economic or Return on Investment (ROI) basis. Many companies feel that current automated step testing and model ID software can cut the im- plementation time down significantly. In addition, control performance monitoring tools are making it easy to maintain benefits and update models as necessary. Tools of this nature are reducing the total cost of ownership of APC applications. In addition, some companies are leveraging lessons learned by applying APC to many similar units.

Leaders Competitors Followers All 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Large Units/Plants Small-Midsize Units/Plants
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
All
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Large Units/Plants
Small-Midsize Units/Plants

Current Level of APC Adoption for Transition Management in Continuous Processes

The majority of large process units under APC control during non-steady state or planned transitions appear to be small – around 20 percent. For small-to-midsized process units, the percentage under APC control during transition is even smaller at a little more than 10 percent. ARC believes, however, that the actual percentage for both cases is much lower. Inter- views with several companies indicate that the majority of manufacturers using APC during transitions are in the polymer industry. Many compa- nies in this industry have fully automated grade changes. Companies outside the polymer industry indicated that they do not rely upon APC for transition management. Many stressed the importance of training opera- tors for these types of situation using Operator Training Simulators,

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

providing operator guidance, and using sequence control – particularly for startups and shutdowns.

Leaders Competitors Followers All 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Large Units/Plants Small-Midsizde Units/Plants
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
All
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Large Units/Plants
Small-Midsizde Units/Plants

Current Level of APC Adoption for Abnormal Situations in Continuous Processes

Only a small fraction of the survey respondents’ large and small-to- midsized units have advanced technology for detecting and preventing ab- normal situations. The interviewees do not trust APC during these types of situations. They rely upon other methods such as sequence control and Emergency Shut-Down (ESD) systems to name a few.

ARC believes that there is an enormous opportunity for manufacturers to improve asset utilization with the detection and prevention of abnormal situations. Abnormal situations are costly. They can cause production downtime, emergency repair, equipment damage, environmental damage, product variability, injury and even death.

Potential problems of using advanced technology for detecting process and equipment faults include difficulties in implementing and maintaining the application as well as interpreting the results to avoid false positives.

Transition Management

Most plants do not always operate at steady-state and do not always rely upon APC to manage transitions. Instead, they use varying degrees of ma- nual and automated procedures to manage its complex procedures during shutdown, startup, grade changes, and other planned and non-planned un- steady-state events. MPC has the potential to be used to mitigate potential

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Safety Consideration Increase Energy Savings Increase Throughput Improve Quality Faster Swith Over Man-Hour Saving 0% 10%
Safety Consideration
Increase Energy Savings
Increase Throughput
Improve Quality
Faster Swith Over
Man-Hour Saving
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Less Important
Not Important

Transition Management Objectives for Operator Assistance

process threats by reducing operating

rates and bringing the plant to a safe

state. Unfortunately, moving beyond its

initial purpose has been slow to devel-

op.

Today, the common methods of manag-

ing transitions include providing

guidance and operator assistance, se- quence control, and to a much lesser

extent MPC. Our research indicates that there are no major differences among the leaders, competitors, and followers

Safety Consideration Increase Energy Savings Increase Throughput Improve Quality Faster Swith Over Man-Hour Saving 0% 10%
Safety Consideration
Increase Energy Savings
Increase Throughput
Improve Quality
Faster Swith Over
Man-Hour Saving
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Less Important
Not Important

Transition Management Objectives for Sequence Control

concerning the objectives using these

methods. It appears that improving

quality, increasing throughput, safety,

and energy savings are top priorities for

providing operator assistance and guid-

ance during transitions. Man-hour

savings and improving switchover

speeds do not appear to be a priority.

For sequence control, safety appears to be the top priority. Other highly rated objectives are increasing throughput, improving quality, and switch over

Safety Consideration Increase Energy Savings Increase Throughput Improve Quality Faster Swith Over Man-Hour Saving 0% 10%
Safety Consideration
Increase Energy Savings
Increase Throughput
Improve Quality
Faster Swith Over
Man-Hour Saving
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Less Important
Not Important

speed. Less important objectives in-

clude man-hour savings and increasing

energy savings.

Two very important objectives clearly

emerged for model predictive control

during non-steady state operations: im-

proving quality and improving

throughput. A second group of objec-

tives appear to be important to manufacturers as well. This group con-

Transition Management Objectives for MPC

sists of safety, increasing energy savings, and increasing switch over speeds. Again, process manufacturing compa- nies rate man hour savings as one of the less important objectives.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Current and Planned Use of Online Optimization

Unlike APC, which has proven to be a mainstream control technology, ex- hibiting rapid growth, RTO usage is tentative and its adoption is slow. There are certain situations, however, where RTO is being readily applied, e.g., ethylene plants and refinery blending. In these cases, it is appropriate because there is an economic optimization possible. In many other cases, it does not make sense because the operating

philosophy is fixed and does not lend itself

to the flexibility required for applying RTO.

Other areas where optimization is useful

includes utilities and fuel gas systems. Al-

though the technology has been around for

a while, it is still not easy to maintain. The

large complex models and many process

measurements increase the risk of failure.

Large Units Small Units Dyn Opt Batch 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Deployed Being Deployed
Large Units
Small Units
Dyn Opt
Batch
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Leaders
Large Units Small Units Dyn Opt Batch 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Deployed Being Deployed
Large Units
Small Units
Dyn Opt
Batch
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Large Units
Small Units
Dyn Opt
Batch
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Followers
Competitiors

Current Focus Area of Optimization

Recently, however, ARC has seen a trend

toward smaller scope projects to reduce the

risk associated with large scale, costly

projects that ultimately fail or are too diffi-

cult to maintain and are turned off within a

year or two of implementation. In addition,

a few companies are developing and using

rigorous models in an advisory and deci- sion support open-loop fashion. The

advantage is that the cost and risk is lower.

The use of a real-time “On-Demand” deci-

sion support system using validated models

and current plant data has the potential to

improve asset effectiveness by monitoring

the performance of equipment and process

units. Since these support tools are model

based, users can perform what-if analysis to see how their actions affect plant perfor- mance.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Leaders Competitors Followers All 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Large Units Small Units Dynamic Optimization
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
All
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Large Units
Small Units
Dynamic Optimization
Batch Optimization

Current Level of Adoption for Online Optimization for Various Situations

Still, respondents of the survey indicate that large continuous units are the major area of focus. Leaders, competitors, and even followers have imple- mented online optimization on their large continuous units. Nearly half of all the companies surveyed have implemented or are implementing at least one online optimization application on a large process unit. Although many have not yet implemented online optimization for smaller continuous units, nearly one-third of the respondents state that they have plans to do so within the next two years. Other areas, such as transient operations and batch operations will lag behind.

The actual saturation or penetration of online optimization application is still relatively small. The leaders are the only group that deploys online optimization to any significant extent.

For small-midsize continuous units, users rate increasing throughput and

improving energy savings as key objectives.

However, improving quality

and reducing material costs rate quite high as well.

For batch operations,

users specify key objectives as improving quality and increasing through-

put.

APC for Batch Operations

The most used approach for batch control is S88 automation and recipe management. However, manufacturers also use a variety of other ad- vanced control techniques to help control and improve their batch operations. These techniques include profile control, run-to-run control,

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

model predictive control, and using soft sensors to predict product quality. For batch operations, leaders tend to use soft sensor over other techniques. Profile control is also a popular choice among the leaders and is being im- plemented for numerous batch applications. Leaders, on average, deploy advanced techniques at twice the rate of the competitor group.

Leaders Competitors Followers All 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Soft Sensors Profile Control Run-to-Run Control
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
All
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Soft Sensors
Profile Control
Run-to-Run Control
MPC

Current Level of APC Adoption for Batch Processes

MPC has not yet taken hold in the batch area. MPC usage for all groups combined is only a small fraction of potential applications. However, lead- ers are deploying MPC on some of their batch operations with considerable success. The benefits for batch operations are just as compelling as they are for continuous processes. For example, one chemical company is using MPC on several batch reactors at one of its plants. Prior to MPC implemen- tation, the reactors used PI temperature control. The dynamic behavior of the exothermic chemical reactions caused the PI control to oscillate between heating and cooling. About 5 to 10 percent of the time, the oscillations were large enough to initiate a safety shutdown before the completion of the two-hour batch run.

The company decided to use MPC on the reactors. The main reactor uses approximately 20 different recipes. It took about 4 months to perform the model identification process for all 20 recipes using data collected from open loop experiments. Since implementing MPC, the company has nearly eliminated all process stops.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Technology

The technology used by companies contributes significantly to the business benefits they achieve. Leaders, competitors, and followers all have access to similar technology; however, some companies are able to deploy and exploit it more extensively to obtain greater benefits and a competitive ad- vantage. Within the technology category, ARC examined the similarities and differences of manufacturers regarding their use of performance moni- toring applications for both regulatory control and APC. ARC also examined commonalities and differences among users concerning integra- tion between APC and advanced plant applications such as alarm management, plant asset management, LIMS, management of change, and plant databases. ARC did not include in this section specific APC technol- ogy such as nonlinear controllers, fault detection, soft sensors, etc. because many of these technologies are implicit in the other sections.

Control Performance Monitoring

Over the past couple of years, ARC has noted that performance monitoring of control asset is getting a significant amount of attention from process companies. The reason for this is simple, tight process control is one of the critical factors in achieving consistent product quality and high asset effec- tiveness. Maintaining control assets at peak performance is challenging to say the least. Organization must be constantly vigilant to prevent deteri- oration of performance of regulatory control loops and APC since they are

APC Regulatory APC Regulatory APC Regulatory 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Deployed Being Deployed Short-term
APC
Regulatory
APC
Regulatory
APC
Regulatory
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Followers
Competitors
Leaders

Control Performance Monitoring Focus

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

APC Regulatory 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% COT In-House Combination Leaders
APC
Regulatory
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
COT
In-House
Combination
Leaders
APC Regulatory 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% COT In-House Combination Competitors
APC
Regulatory
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
COT
In-House
Combination
Competitors
APC Regulatory 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% COT In-House Combination Performance Monitoring: COTS vs. In-House
APC
Regulatory
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
COT
In-House
Combination
Performance Monitoring: COTS vs. In-House
Development
Followers

essential to operating the plant at peak

efficiency. Most companies have ade-

quate maintenance programs concerning

the reliability of equipment; they often

lack similar capabilities for regulatory

control and APC. In addition, since con-

trol engineers typically are responsible for

hundreds of control loops, it is not possi-

ble or even advisable to attempt to have all your loops run optimally since the

time, effort, and expense are exorbitant.

Hence, the need for monitoring applica-

tions that indicate which improvement

efforts to control performance provide the

largest benefits

Companies are rapidly deploying tools to monitor the performance of control assets

including PID loops and Advanced Process Controllers. The results of the

survey confirm this observation. About

60 percent of the companies surveyed in-

dicate that they have implemented or are

in the process of implementing both Ad-

vanced Process Control and regulatory

control performance monitoring applica-

tions. Only 20 percent of the respondents do not have immediate plans to imple-

ment Advanced Process Control monitoring and only 12 percent do not have short-term plans to adopt regulatory loop monitoring. A small percentage of

companies have their own in-house solution.

There are some striking difference between leaders, competitors, and fol- lowers. All of the leaders are using some form of regulatory control monitoring application. This does not mean that they are using it on every regulatory loop, only that they are using it for some important aspect with their organization. Nearly 80 percent of the leaders indicate that they use APC monitoring applications. This is in stark contrast to competitor, where about 20 percent of them are currently using some form of control monitor-

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

PAM LIMS MOC Alarm History Process Data Storage 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fully Integrates
PAM
LIMS
MOC
Alarm History
Process Data Storage
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fully Integrates
Being Integrated
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
PAM
LIMS
MOC
Alarm History
Process Data Storage
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fully Integrates
Being Integrated
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
PAM
LIMS
MOC
Alarm History
Process Data Storage
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fully Integrates
Being Integrated
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Followers
Competitiors
Leaders

Current Level of Automation Integration for Plant Databases for Process Control

ing applications. A striking difference between

competitors and followers is that the majority of

competitors are in the process of adopting con-

trol performance monitoring applications.

An interesting point about monitoring ap-

tions is that more leaders use less commercial- off-the-shelf products than either competitors or

followers. The real difference is that they tend

to use a commercial module that is customized

and integrated with their in-house applications.

Automation Integration with Plant

Applications Used for Process Control

For the past several years, ARC has been pousing the need and benefits of integration of

plant systems to improve visibility of

tion, performance analysis, and distribution to

create an agile and flexible enterprise. Compa-

nies are clearly seeing the value in integrating

process data. Nearly all leaders, competitors,

followers have integrated, at least some portion,

of their process and control applications.

Over the past several years, companies have made progress in integrating their Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) with

production operations. Companies are also lizing that alarm management is becoming an important element to safe and reliable operations. Function change history or management of change (MOC) is often overlooked, but with the com- plexity of automation and production systems increasing, and experienced personnel, decreasing function change history is rapidly growing in tance. Many companies are making progress in this area, but ARC feels that they are not doing enough in a multi-supplier environment. Most companies still have not done much in the integration of plant asset man- agement area.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Reducing Peak Alarms Reducing Standing Alarms Alarm Analysis: Root Cause State Based Alarming Alarm Filtering Alarm
Reducing Peak Alarms
Reducing Standing Alarms
Alarm Analysis: Root Cause
State Based Alarming
Alarm Filtering
Alarm Analysis: Combination
Alarm Analysis: Frequency
Alarm History
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed Being Integrated
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Reducing Peak Alarms
Reducing Standing Alarms
Alarm Analysis: Root Cause
State Based Alarming
Alarm Filtering
Alarm Analysis: Combination
Alarm Analysis: Frequency
Alarm History
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed Being Integrated
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Reducing Peak Alarms
Reducing Standing Alarms
Alarm Analysis: Root Cause
State Based Alarming
Alarm Filtering
Alarm Analysis: Combination
Alarm Analysis: Frequency
Alarm History
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed Being Integrated
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans
Followers
Competitiors
Leaders

Current Level of Adoption and Functionality of Alarm Management Applications

There are significant difference between the

leaders, competitors, and followers in terms

of the level of automation integration of

plant databases used for process control.

With the exception of plant asset manage-

ment, most leaders have integrated a

significant portion of the automation and plant applications. Most of the competitors

have integrated or are currently integrating automation with plant applications. Unfor-

tunately, the progress of the followers lags

significantly behind the leaders and com-

petitors.

Information

Companies use a variety of methods to ob- tain information and KPIs about the process, assets, and about the automation

system so that they can make real-time ad-

justments to the process, initiate process

improvements, and maintain a high per-

formance level of automation systems.

Control Performance Monitoring

It was noted earlier that performance moni- toring software for control assets is getting

a lot of attention from users. Some of the important KPIs that users find useful for monitoring regulatory control loops include

% utilization, % control accuracy, % loops at limit, and % loops normal. For APC control monitoring, % utilization is the most significant KPI.

ARC found that there are no major differences among leaders, competitors, and followers concerning which KPIs that find useful. However, there are differences between the groups for the actual KPI or metric because of the fundamental differences in skill levels of their experts and the emphasis upon which they place on their APC applications.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

% Utiliztion Prediction Accuracy Control Accuracy % Loops at Limit % Loops Normal 0% 10% 20%
% Utiliztion
Prediction Accuracy
Control Accuracy
% Loops at Limit
% Loops Normal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Less Important
Not Important
% Utiliztion Prediction Accuracy Control Accuracy % Loops at Limit % Loops Normal 0% 10% 20%
% Utiliztion
Prediction Accuracy
Control Accuracy
% Loops at Limit
% Loops Normal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Less Important
Not Important

KPIs for Regulatory Control

KPIs for APC

With their superior skill level and their ability to make APC a competitive advantage, leaders are able to achieve an APC utilization of over 95 percent. Competitors achieve an 88 percent APC utilization. However, followers are struggling to keep pace. Their APC utilization is around 60 percent. APC utilization for followers is quite low because of number of companies had difficulty keeping their APC up and running at all.

Alarm Management

Alarm management is one of the most undervalued and underutilized as- pects of process automation. The primary issue with alarm systems is there is too much information for an operator to assimilate and act on. Many of the alarms in existence today are often related only to the process variable they are connected to, they are not aware of other alarms. This can result in a phenomenon known as alarm showers or cascading alarms. These occur when one failure causes many process variables to trip their preset alarms. The result can be catastrophic when the quantity of alarms masks the real source of the problem and causes delays in

operator corrective actions.

The first step toward an effective alarm

management program is to develop a sound

alarm management philosophy. Next, there

needs to be a recognized best practice for alarming, and a methodology that provides a

framework to execute these best practices and facilitate continuous improvement.

Leaders Competitors Followers 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% APC % Utilization
Leaders
Competitors
Followers
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
APC % Utilization

KPI for APC Monitoring

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

There is currently a big gap between what the leaders are doing compared

QC Performance Monitoring Sensor Diagnostics Efficiency Monitoring PV-MV Correlation Control Monitoring 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
QC
Performance Monitoring
Sensor Diagnostics
Efficiency Monitoring
PV-MV Correlation
Control Monitoring
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed
Being Integrated
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans

Operator Assistance and Decision Support

to what the rest of the companies are doing

with respect to implementing an alarm man-

agement solutions. In nearly every aspect of

alarm management functionality, the leaders

already have or are in the process of imple-

menting a rich set of functions that include

storing and analyzing alarm history, doing alarm filtering, analyzing root causes, and

working toward reducing standing and peak alarms.

Operator Assistance and Decision Support

The current level of adoption for operations assistance and decision support applications is broad. All companies have implemented or are in the process of implementing numerous applications that assist and guide oper- ators in their daily routine. ARC did not find any significant differences in the categories of quality control, performance monitoring, sensor diagnos- tics, efficiency monitoring, and PV-MV correlation. The difference between leaders, competitors, and followers in control monitoring were noted else ware.

Data Analysis Applications

There are a number of companies that are using data mining technologies to improve quality control, identify key process factors, estimate key prop- erties, improve batch operations, and detect critical conditions. The level of

Estimate Key Properties ID Key Process Factors Improve QC Improve Batch Ops Abnormal Situation Detection 0%
Estimate Key Properties
ID Key Process Factors
Improve QC
Improve Batch Ops
Abnormal Situation Detection
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Deployed
Being Deployed
Short-term
Long-term
No Plans

Data Analysis Applications

adoption is not is nearly evenly spread

among the applications.

To perform the data mining and analysis,

principle component analysis and multiple

regressions are the most common techniques

employed, particularly for improving quali-

ty control, identifying key process factors,

and estimating key properties. Root cause analysis is used significantly for determining the cause of critical conditions and events.

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Best Practice Recommendations

For most process manufacturers, improving asset effectiveness by using best practices described in this report will require significant changes in culture, organizational philosophy, and business practices. The best prac- tices are aligned according to the four dimensions of People, Processes and Applications, Technology, and Information.

People

Create program to attract and retain highly skilled APC experts. Leverage in-house skills to implement and maintain APC applications Establish standardized methodology for APC implementation, use, and maintenance that includes continuous improvements, lessons learned, collaboration, and shared practices.

Processes and Applications

Develop plan to expand use of APC throughout organization. In addi-

tion to traditional targets of large units, look for other opportunities on smaller units and batch operations. Deploy applications to manage automate transitions

Technology

Utilize latest technology for performance monitoring of control assets

Increase level of integration of automation, production, and operations applications

Information

Adopt KPIs for control performance monitoring that translate into business forum Establish or enhance an Alarm Management program Reevaluate or adopt Decision Support Systems to ensure they provide operators with timely “on-demand” information that improves opera- tions Adopt tools and programs to perform data mining

ARC Best Practices • January 2008

Analyst: Tom Fiske

Editor:

Larry O’Brien

Distribution: MAS-P Clients

Acronym Reference: For a complete list of industry acronyms, refer to our web page at www.arcweb.com/C13/IndustryTerms/

APC

Advanced Process Control

MOC

Management of Change

CMM Collaborative Manufacturing

MV

Manipulated Variable

Management

MPC

Model Predictive Control

COTS Commercial Off the Shelf

PAM

Plant Asset Management

DCS

Distributed Control System

PID

Proportional Integral Derivative

ESD

Emergency Shutdown System

PV

Process Variable

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

QC

Quality Control

LIMS Laboratory Information

ROA

Return on Assets

Management System

ROI

Return on Investment

MISO Multiple Input Single Output

RTO

Real-time Optimization

Founded in 1986, ARC Advisory Group has grown to become the Thought Leader in Manufacturing and Supply Chain solutions. For even your most complex business issues, our analysts have the expert industry knowledge and firsthand experience to help you find the best answer. We focus on simple, yet critical goals: improving your return on assets, operational performance, total cost of ownership, project time-to-benefit, and shareholder value.

All information in this report is proprietary to and copyrighted by ARC. No part of it may be reproduced without prior permission from ARC.

You can take advantage of ARC's extensive ongoing research plus experience of our staff members through our Advisory Services. ARC’s Advisory Services are specifically designed for executives responsible for developing strategies and directions for their organizations. For membership information, please call, fax, or write to:

ARC Advisory Group, Three Allied Drive, Dedham, MA 02026 USA Tel: 781-471-1000, Fax: 781-471-1100, Email: info@arcweb.com Visit our web pages at www.arcweb.com

3 A LLIED D RIVE D EDHAM MA 02026 USA 781-471-1000 B OSTON , MA |

3 ALLIED DRIVE

DEDHAM MA 02026

USA

781-471-1000

BOSTON, MA | WASHINGTON, D.C. | PITTSBURGH, PA | PHOENIX, AZ | SAN FRANCISCO, CA CAMBRIDGE, U.K. | DÜSSELDORF, GERMANY | MUNICH, GERMANY | HAMBURG, GERMANY | PARIS, FRANCE | TOKYO, JAPAN | BANGALORE, INDIA | SHANGHAI, CHINA