Bryan discussed his group's role at Nestlé, why Nestlé is committing to OMAC, how he expects OMAC deliverables to benefit their businesses around the world, and what his goals are for the coming year.
The text of our interview follows. Hear more on this topic from Bryan at the Packaging Automation Forum, April 26th in Chicago or at Interpack on May 12th.
Keith Campbell (KC): I am speaking today to Dr. Bryan Griffen, who is the Electrical and Automation Engineering Group Manager for Nestlé, working out of Switzerland. What is your role there, Bryan?
Bryan Griffen (BG): The role for E&A (Engineering & Automation) out of the head office is setting the direction and strategy for how Nestlé does electrical and automation engineering worldwide. We don't develop particular solutions in that group; we develop methods.
KC: Do these apply to all Nestlé divisions?
BG: Yes, they apply across the board, to all of Nestlé. However, with Nestlé being organized by numerous different operating companies, they have the final say in how they implement those standards. If they have local regulations that may trump standards that we've put together, then obviously that is what they use. If they've got financial reasons to go with a different solution on a particular project, then that is their prerogative. But the general concept of how we do engineering comes out of Switzerland.
KC: I know from my experience with OPW, that Nestlé has been following what's been going on there for quite a few years. Why now is someone from Nestlé stepping forward to provide some leadership to the group?
BG: Nestlé's history has been one of process automation. This is where we have made our money, with proprietary processes to make food. We have left the packaging world largely to what we call packaging engineering which is more about materials and package design, not about the engineering of packaging machines, necessarily.
We've come to a juncture where we feel that in order to save money, in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of our facilities, we need to take a more active role now in packaging plants as well as in process plants.
KC: Do you see some of the same techniques that you've applied in processing applying in packaging as well?
BG: They could. But it's less based on trying to apply the same techniques and more just on trying to get better management of what happens, of what comes into the packaging plants. For example, on the process side, we have been for a very long time partnered with Rockwell. Some of the packaging engineering groups knew that, and so, they would try to specify Rockwell PLCs for packaging equipment. That's the Nestle standard, and you must use it. That often times would lead to increased costs, and lack of ownership on the part of the OEM because they were not a Rockwell user. So they would say, 'Ok, we will do it, but it will cost you more and we don't guarantee the performance.' So we are trying to come into that arena now and say, 'Look! We don't need to be so dogmatic about who is providing the technology. What we should be dogmatic about is the way the technology is implemented so that we can take a machine that's got a Rockwell PLC and integrate it with another machine that's got a Siemens PLC on the same line rather than dictate to the OEMs they have to use one or the other.'
KC: Is that the kind of benefit that you see coming out of the OPW deliverables?
BG: That's one of the large benefits we are looking at. We are currently doing a pilot application with several of our key automation suppliers wherein we are providing them with a standard specification on how to implement the PackTags and the state model, and then developing a communication protocol - this one happens to be based on the Weihenstephan protocol, and insisting that they then integrate with each other so that we can send line status information up and down the line - speed, start-stop, halts, these sorts of things, without needing a separate PLC to integrate the line, without needing an outside integrator to come in, but with just implementing the PackTags correctly, using the communication protocol as specified, and making the machines talk to each other. It's been successful in simulation mode and now we are moving to the actual, physical implementation in the next month.
KC: What will that do for Nestlé's business in the end?
BG: What it will do is allow us to write a detailed specification on how to do PackML that can then be delivered to the OEMs. We can specify that these are the specific tags that we need to see in the system and that this is what we mean when we are in a specific state in the state model, because what may be a hold state for one is a stopped state for another, depending upon how they interpret things. So it will bring some clarity to how to interpret the State Model, how to implement it, and then we don't have to be so dogmatic with the hardware. We can say, 'Look! You can use whatever hardware you are comfortable with to make your machine do what it needs to do. You know what hardware works for you. But, you need to implement it in such a manner that it can integrate into the rest of the line as well as provide the vertical links to our MES systems.'
KC: Are there benefits to the business beyond just the engineering integration savings, or are you going to get productivity gains and quality gains out of the information?
BG: We assume that we will get productivity gains by allowing the OEMs to work with the hardware platforms that they are most familiar with, without forcing them to use something outside-the-box for them. We assume that we will also get quality gains due to the fact that we will get more visibility on the packaging side in our MES systems. This will allow us to react quicker which should result in picking up productivity gains. It will certainly allow us to be more pragmatic in the way that we deal with faults and in the way that we train the operators to run the systems.
KC: What do you see that can be done to help drive more universal acceptance of Pack ML and PackTags?
BG: I think one of the key things that it's missing, that I would like to see implemented, is a communication protocol. We have definition of what PackTags are. We have a definition of the State Model. But we don't have a way for those to communicate well right now. Also, I think as with any specification, there is always room for interpretation. One of the things that we are trying to do with this project is to specify more tightly how we interpret the state model and PackTags, what they mean to us so that we get consistency from OEM to OEM. It's giving us an opportunity for a little bit of clarification through example.
KC: Do you see OEMs that are anxious to implement this or are they mostly pushing back a little?
BG: Most of them are pushing back. There are a few who have already done it so they don't have a problem to do it but none of the OEMs seem to be jumping, trying to be first out of the gate, to implement the PackML strategy. It seems to be more of push from us at this point.
KC: Do you work with a lot of OEMs all around the world or are most of them European?
BG: With Nestlé, it's global.
KC: Have you seen more or less acceptance for PackML in any particular part of the world?
BG: In North America, it certainly has more acceptance, right now. However, Nestlé being the size that it is, we are able to push onto our OEMs a standard, and they attempt to comply with it. They sometimes kick and scream a little bit but they understand the global impact that it can have if they comply with our specifications.
KC: As the new co-chair of OPW, what kind of goals do you have for the group?
BG: As I said, one of the main goals that I will have is to define the communication layer for the strategy so that we have a complete strategy for communicating machine to machine as well as for vertical communications.
KC: Are we going to hear more about OMAC from Nestlé's perspective at the Packaging Automation Forum or Interpack?
BG: Yes, I will be presenting the pilot project that we are doing at the Packaging Automation Forum in April. I will also be participating heavily at Interpack, along with some of our key Automation suppliers, at a press conference that we will be holding.
KC: Is there anything else that you'd like to add to get the message out on this thing?
BG: I think that there are a lot of benefits to implementing the OMAC PackML strategy, not only for the end users but also for the OEMs. I think we need to do a better job at defining what those benefits can be for the OEMs and selling that strategy to them because then we can get some buy-in rather than push-back.
KC: Well, good luck with that!
BG: Thank you!
