Enterprise Architecture Design
for Services and Support of
Complex Engineering Systems
Professor John Mo
RMIT University
Ph: 03 9925 6279
Em: john.mo@rmit.edu.au
Outline
• Background
• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine
• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance
• Servitization
• The Support Enterprise Architecture
• Capability Assessment Methodology
• Conclusion
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
2
Fertilizer Plant Design and Support
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
3
Mobile Engineering Systems
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
4
Outline
• Background
• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine
• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance
• Servitization
• The Support Enterprise Architecture
• Capability Assessment Methodology
• Conclusion
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
5
The Plasma Cutting Machine
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
6
Background – Farley Cutting Systems
• Small company manufacturing plasma cutting machine
selling globally
• Also sells other non-conventional metal cutting machines,
e.g. laser, water jet
• All machines are customized, e.g. size, power, functions
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
7
Problems Investigated
• About 600 machines around the world
• Updates of operational manuals
• Process control very experience dependent – customer
knows more than Farley
• Customer calls not serviced correctly
• Availability of spare parts on site
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
8
The Plasma Machine ROSDAM Model
Global system
architecture
Information
system
Decision system
Companies and
sub-company
level servers with
diagnostics
systems,
operating data
Information
filtering and
aggregation
Machine
configuration
management,
operations and
service records
Physical
system
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Diagnostics
process
modelling
Machines driven by
decisions made at the
decision centres
(servers)
Flow of
materials
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
Machine signal
diagnostics
9
ROSDAM
Client2
Scalable
global system
architecture
The Internet
Company 1
ROSDAM
Client1
Global Master Server
ROSDAM
Server on
Shop floor 1
ROSDAM
Server on
Shop floor 2
ROSDAM Server
On Machine
RMIT University©25/6/2012
…
Company 2
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
…
Company n
Subcompany
ROSDAM Server on
Machine of sub-company
10
Machine Configuration Management, Operations
and Service Records
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
11
Machine Signals Diagnostics
Good Nozzle
Bad Nozzle
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
12
Observations from the plasma cutting case
• Communication networks and IT systems – client/server
model
• Knowledge sharing – transform customer data to
information to knowledge
• Integrated engineering (bill of materials) and
manufacturing (machine configuration management) and
parts inventory data
• Service team restructuring, retraining
• Change of product – upgrade with signal diagnostics
system
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
13
Outline
• Background
• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine
• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance
• Servitization
• The Support Enterprise Architecture
• Capability Assessment Methodology
• Conclusion
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
14
The ANZAC Ship Alliance
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
15
What is the ANZAC Ship Alliance?
• The ANZAC Ship Alliance can be thought of as a virtual
company with shareholders comprising the (Australian)
Commonwealth, Tenix Defence (now BAE Systems), and
Saab Systems
• Mission: to manage all change and upgrades to the
ANZAC Ships
• The Alliance is a “solution focused” company. The
ANZAC Ship Alliance Management Office will:
–Develop change solutions but
–The detailed design be undertaken by the “shareholders”
–Will draw upon the shareholders’ existing knowledge of the ANZAC
Class
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
16
The ANZAC Ship Alliance Model
• An approach aimed at creating mutually beneficial
relationships between all parties involved so as to
produce outstanding project outcomes
• Characteristics
–All parties win or all parties lose
–Collective responsibility, equitable sharing of risk and reward
–All decisions based on “best for project” philosophy
–Clear responsibilities within a no-blame culture
–Access to resources, skills and expertise of all parties
–All financial transactions are fully open book
–Encouragement of innovative thinking - outstanding outcomes
–Open and honest communication - no hidden agenda
–Visible/unconditional support from executive management
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
17
Alliance Management Structure
ANZAC Alliance
Board
DGMSS
ANZAC
SPO Director
Enabling
Manager
Enabling
Function
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Build
Manager
Build
Function
Tasking Statements
Sustainment
Manager
Sustainment
Function
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
ANZAC Alliance
General Manager
ANZAC Ship Alliance
Management Office
Generation
Function
18
ANZAC Ship Alliance Organisation
Alliance Board
ANZAC Ship Alliance
Management Office
Rockingham WA
Commercial
Alliance
General Manager
Project
Management
WA
Project
Management
Vic
Project
Management
SA
Harpoon
Project
ASMD
Project
Project
Control
Quality
Project Teams working in Participant Organisations
Engineering
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
19
Project costs/benefits to be shared
• Project priced according to an agreed costing model
• Non-cost items identified and measured with KPIs
• Non-cost pool (a pre-agreed amount) set aside for
exceptional performance
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
20
Definition of ANZAC Ship Alliance
The business
objective
2. The Concept
Missions, goals, values,
management philosophies
Mechanisms (Data,
documents, knowledge)
Access and control
management system
The
ANZAC Organizational
and
management
structure
Ship
Alliance
PERA
model Document
repository
Process/work
flow model
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Identification
Concept
System (Management
and control)
3. Content Policies
4. Logistics Policies
Document formats for 40 years
Inter-enterprise Network
5. Content Requirements
6. Logistics Req'ts
Type of documents, storage,
synchronization
Access control, permission,
security
7. Content Functions
8. Logistics Functions
Info order tracking
Decision tree, version control
9. Process Diagrams
10. Logistics Diagrams
Entity models
Entity models
Information Architecture Human and Organisational
Management and
Architecture
Processes Architecture
11. Functional Design
(Production)
12. Functional Design (Human)
13. Functional Design
(Logistics)
Requirements of info at each
level, content definition
Human roles & organisation
chart, staffing level
Relationships in managent &
control (decision making
regarding creating, managing,
delivery of projects
14. Detailed Design
15. Tasks, Training
16. Hardware, Software
Developments of forms,
identification, system integration
Tasks, priorities, responsibilities, Customisable front end interface
tranining plans, operation &
maintenance manuals for the
CSCW
17. Construction Checks
18. Staffing, training
19. Assembly, Test, Procure &
Commission Control
Coding, storage, retrieve info,
communicating with different
databases
Staffing, training for cooperative
tools
Purchases of software for frontend customisation. Debug.
20. Production
21. Operation & Maintenance
22. Operation of Logistics
Systems
Project reports, document,
Operation & performance
information, knowledge
improvements
management. De-gollkneching,
Com & quality improve impact
School 23.
of Plant
Aerospace,
Mech and
Engg
Disposal, Clean-up
24.Manuf
Staff Redeployment
Project management, system
upgrades, supply chain
management
25. Archiving & Disposal
Policies
Requirements
Functional
Modules
Functional
Architectures
Functional
Design
Detailed Design
Implementation
Operations &
Maintenance
21
Disposal
Access Control and Requirements Mapping
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
22
Workflow Model
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
23
Design of the ASA Enterprise
• Project Management
–Developed a “Request Tracking System” to support information
needs in projects
• Work Flow Harmonization
–Formalized project processes and develop the associated QA
plans
• IT Support
–A customized web-based IT platform for above processes to assist
project members and integrating with ASAMO processes
• Knowledge Sharing
–A web-based document management system properly structured
and indexed and accessible by all ASA projects
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
24
Outline
• Background
• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine
• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance
• Servitization
• The Support Enterprise Architecture
• Capability Assessment Methodology
• Conclusion
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
25
From a Broader Perspective
• Availability
• Readiness
• Failures prediction/prevention
• Response time
• Accuracy of analysis
• Cost (Savings)
• Fault tolerance
• ……
• “Performance”
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
26
Servitization
Equipment manufacturers creating value for
customers by adding services around their equipment
Capability
Progressive
Modifications
Whole of system
services and support
Initial acquisition
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Time
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
27
Performance Based Contracts
• Business model can be:
–Fixed price
–Cost reimbursement
–Target cost incentive
–Gain sharing
• Performance payments and award terms linked to Key
Performance Indicators
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
28
Transform Performance into Value
 v1 
v 
 2
 v3  
 
 ... 
vm 
RMIT University©25/6/2012
  p1  
 
  p2  
f
 ...  
 
 p 
 n
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
29
Typical Performance Based Model
V   f (P)
Value
Full contract value
Bonus
Reducing
contract
Value
Performance beyond
expectation
Contract
terminated
Minimum
tolerable
performance
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Contract expected
performance
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
Achieved
performance
30
Other performance based models
Value not
realisable
V   f (P)
Value
Full contract value
Contract
terminated
Compensation
sought
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Bonus
Varying
contract
value
Performance beyond
expectation
Minimum
tolerable
performance
Achieved
performance
Contract expected
performance
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
31
Performance is Delivered by Capabilities
Value
Full contract value
V   f P  g [C]
Minimum
tolerable
performance
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Contract
expected
performance
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
Achieved
performance
32
From the Point of View of Contractor
Value
Full contract value
Expected
performance of
the contractor
Probability
of penalty
Probability
of profit
Probability of
contract
termination
Minimum
tolerable
performance
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Contract
expected
performance
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
Achieved
performance
33
From the Point of View of Asset Owner
Value
Full contract value
Expected
performance of
the contractor
Probability of
satisfaction
Probability
of happy
user
Probability of
project failure
Minimum
tolerable
performance
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Contract
expected
performance
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
Achieved
performance
34
Outline
• Background
• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine
• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance
• Foundation of Servitization
• The Support Enterprise Architecture
• Capability Assessment Methodology
• Conclusion
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
35
Assessment of Capabilities
• Has many dimensions
• Variation over time
• Depends on investment
• Some capabilities are supporting, e.g. infrastructure
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
36
Dimensions of a Support Enterprise
PEOPLE
Cultural, Human
reliability, Training,
Health and Safety,
Leadership
Systems
Engineering,
Operations, Project
management
PROCESS
PRODUCT
Fundamental
Engineering
Sciences
ENVIRONMENT
Change over time,
expanding services,
renewal, change of usage
patterns, social influences
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
37
Some Indicators of People Capabilities
• Cultural diversity - number of ethnic groups
• Absentees – number of days per year
• Competency – percentage of staff attaining certain level
• Vacancy – person-day of unfilled position per year
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
38
Some Indicators of Process Capabilities
• Process variability – Number of deviations from defined
process
• Conformance to standards – percentage of standard
operating procedures meeting acceptable standards
• Distribution – cost of supply chain
• Infrastructure – Capability assessed per range of criteria
• Processing time – mean, range
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
39
Some Indicators of Product Capabilities
• Product reliability – probability that the product performs
in specified time
• Inventory cost – cost of ordering, warehousing
• Manufacturing cost – expected, variance
• Testing – conformance rate
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
40
Outline
• Background
• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine
• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance
• Foundation of Servitization
• The Support Enterprise Architecture
• Capability Assessment Methodology
• Conclusion
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
41
Achieving Value Through the Support Enterprise
 v1 
v 
 2
 v3  
 
 ... 
vm 
  p1  
 
 X 
 
  p2  
f
 g Y  

 ... 
Z 
 
 
 p 
 n
P   X    Y    Z 
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
42
Hierarchy of Parameters
Capability
Indicator
       1
 [X]
 [Y]
 [Z]
People
Process
Product
Absentees
Variability
Reliability
Compet’cy
Conform’ce
Mnuf cost
Vacancy
Testing
Cultural
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
43
Illustrative Example
• Assuming a support system capability can be assessed
by the following attributes:
• {X} = {competency level, absentees}
• {Y} = {process variability, conformance to standards}
• {Z} = {product reliability, inventory cost}
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
44
Competency
Competency
Level
Pessimistic
No. of staff
Normal No.
of staff
Optimistic
No. of staff
3
2
4
10
11
17
12
18
1
18
32
35
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
45
Represented by Normal Distribution
Pe 
Po  4 Pm  Pp
Competency
Level
Pessimistic
No. of staff
Normal No.
of staff
Optimistic
No. of staff
3
4
11
12
2
10
17
18
1
18
32
35
6
Competency
Level
Level x
No.
(Pess.)
Level x
No.
(Norm.)
3
2
1
12
20
18
33
34
32
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Level x Mean Level
No. (Opt.)
x No.
36
36
35
30.00
32.00
30.17
TOTAL
92.17
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
46
Standard Deviation of Competency Function
 Pp  Po 

Ve   
 6 
2
Competenc
y Level
Pessimistic
No. of staff
Normal No. Optimistic
of staff
No. of staff
3
4
11
12
2
10
17
18
1
18
32
35
Competency
Level
Pessimistic
No. of staff
Optimistic
No. of staff
Variance
3
2
4
10
12
18
16.00
7.11
1
18
35
TOTAL
8.03
31.14
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
47
Convert to Common Scale
Level
Max capacity
Level x Max. No.
3
2
12
18
36
36
1
TOTAL
35
35
107
Scaled mean = 72.83 / 107 * 5 = 4.3
Scaled standard deviation = (31.13 / 107 * 5) = 1.2
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
48
Raw Data
• {X} = {N(4.3, 1.2), N(2.8, 0.8)}
• {Y} = {N(3.5, 0.2), N(4.6, 1.1)}
• {Z} = {N(3.9, 1.2), N(2.1, 0.5)}
       1
Total
 [X]
 [Y]
 [Z]
People
Process
Product
0.08
0.28
0.18
0.10
01.4
0.22
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
49
Aggregated Capability Distribution
P   X    Y    Z 
4.3
3.5
3.9
P  0.08 0.10   0.28 0.14   0.18 0.22   3.412
2.8
4.6
 2.1
1.22 
0.282 
0.182 
V  0.08 0.10 2   0.28 0.14
 0.18 0.22
 0.564
2
2
0.8 
0.14 
0.22 
Standard deviation = 0.564 = 0.751
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
50
Probabilities Superimposed
Value
Full contract value
Expected
performance of
the contractor =
N(3.412, 0.751)
Probability
of penalty =
64.9%
Probability
of profit =
32.1%
Probability of
contract
termination
=3.0%
2.0
RMIT University©25/6/2012
Minimum
tolerable
performance
3.7
Promised
performance
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
Achieved
performance
51
Outline
• Background
• Case study – The Plasma Cutting Machine
• Case study – The ANZAC Ship Alliance
• Foundation of Servitization
• The Support Enterprise Architecture
• Capability Assessment Methodology
• Conclusion
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
52
Conclusion
• The business model of servitization imposes a lot of risks
to both sides of the contracting parties
• Case studies show that a structure is required to design a
support solution
• The Support Enterprise Architecture consists of three
capability elements
• Assessment of the capability elements can provide an
indication of the probabilities of different levels of
achieved performance and hence value of the contract
RMIT University©25/6/2012
School of Aerospace, Mech and Manuf Engg
53
Thank You.
Questions ?
Prof. John Mo
Discipline Head, Manufacturing and Materials Engineering
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
RMIT University
Ph: 03 9925 6279
Em: john.mo@rmit.edu.au