|
| |
|
First published 07.05, page
Software Users Voice
Frustrations, Suppliers Respond
Automation World readers report less
than satisfactory experiences with automation software, while the
suppliers try to improve the experience.
Gary Mintchell, Editor |
“My application is the automation of a
batch reaction and packaging system,” writes an engineer whose company
does not permit identification. Using a recent release of distributed
control and asset management software, the writer notes that the
positive point about the new software is the ability to develop and
simulate the application code on a personal computer (PC).
This engineer also finds several “challenges” stemming from the use of
modern application software. “The software is relatively new and very
‘open,’ in that code configuration is not what it was like ten years
ago, which involved entering data into a system workstation via standard
configuration entry screens. One must be well versed in Microsoft
Windows operating systems to work with this software, plus training on
the new system software is rather extensive. Further, company standards
must be developed for effective and consistent implementation. The
software has a number of idiosyncrasies (called ‘features’ by the
manufacturer) that are only discovered with use. Various objects within
the code are linked to each other, and if the links are broken, the code
won’t work and the system may crash. Finally, multiple servers are
required to support the production system and they can be very
temperamental.”
Just about everyone uses a computer these days, especially in
manufacturing. And just about everyone uses various software
applications to accomplish their tasks on those computers. There are two
crucial times when decisions must be made about software use. One is
when a supplier releases a “version upgrade,” that is, a revision with
enough new features to warrant moving the version number to the next
whole number. The other is when one’s current supplier is acquired by
another company. The decision to be made is whether the pain of the
upgrade is worth the new functions to be gained.
Readers speak
In a Web-based survey, Automation World asked readers to rate their
experiences with both version upgrades and with their suppliers’
acquisitions. In total, we received 72 detailed responses. Many readers
commented about specific situations and several others were interviewed
later. Suppliers were asked how they handled upgrade programs and about
their software design strategy for upgrades. While readers did not
hesitate to voice unhappiness with their experiences, suppliers were
confident that their designs negated any chance of upgrade pain. The
survey is not statistically valid, but it does point out that suppliers
still have a way to go to satisfy their customers.
Specifically, Automation World readers are less than enthusiastic about
the cost and support received for version upgrades, and are downright
unhappy when another company acquires their software. They are generally
positive, however, regarding version upgrades.
In the software industry, it has become standard practice for new
versions of the same application to be numbered in a whole number and
decimal format. A new whole number, for example, moving from version 4.5
to 5.0, suggests a major upgrade. Adding to the decimal, say from 5.0 to
5.1, suggests minor upgrades and bug fixes. Major upgrades, as almost
all computer users have experienced, often offer cool new features at
the cost of some installation and usage headaches. Automation World
readers responded with average scores of around 3 on a scale of 1 to 5
(1 being low or unsatisfied, 5 being very pleased) when asked about
their experiences with version upgrades in automation software. Concern
about the cost of upgrades was more noticeable than concern about
installation or support.
On the other hand, when readers saw their software supplier acquired by
another company, their experiences were decidedly unsatisfactory. In
four out of five categories, a majority indicated either a very
unsatisfactory or unsatisfactory experience. These categories included
(in order beginning with most unsatisfactory) support for legacy
product, cost, easy move and forced upgrade. In the last category,
overall support, almost half voiced displeasure (48 percent) with the
average creeping closer to 3 (2.69) but still not good.
Happiness is Linux
Josh Lane, SCADA engineer (for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)
with Auburn, Calif., systems integrator Aqua Sierra Controls, was
thrilled with the software he has been using. He was the only person who
responded to the survey noting the use of the open-source Linux
operating system. Open-source software is free to the user and can be
freely adapted to whatever application the user is working on. The
expectation of the open-source community is that any improvements the
programmer makes to the software will be sent back to the community for
incorporation in later releases. As might be expected, Lane is happy
with the price of the software he obtains from Data Flow Systems (DFS),
of Melbourne, Fla. The company’s HyperSCADAServer product is bundled
with a server running the open source Apache application and a variety
of input/output (I/O) connections.
“The system comes with a low price, plus all upgrades are free as long
as the server supports them,” notes Lane. “DFS also provides free
training and technical support. The software provides for connection not
only to the DFS controller, but also controllers from Rockwell
Automation and Siemens, among others. If there’s anything we need beyond
what comes in the package, DFS will implement. We had a basic trender
but needed to overlay 12 trends with snap-to grids for a project, and
DFS had it two months later. It’s like a $30,000 HMI/SCADA package (for
Human-Machine Interface/SCADA) for a fraction of the cost.”
Of course, it is targeted at specific industries such as water and
wastewater.
Controls engineer Dave Coulter reports problems both with software
upgrades and with internal company organization. In his company, the
information technology (IT)department “owns” the HMI/SCADA software,
even though the engineering department must make it work. There is a
historical reason for this, as the application was implemented as part
of a statistical process control program. However, many of the company’s
PCs are old enough that they will not run the latest revisions of the
application software. Like many companies today, management is reluctant
to spend money for new computer equipment. In addition, Coulter notes,
the IT department is busy, so projects in other departments must take a
back seat.
Coulter’s experience brings out one problem manufacturing professionals
have with software upgrades, and Lane alludes to it as well—the
difficulties encountered when the latest software revision won’t run on
the installed computer base. Maintaining all software to the same
revision level is a parallel problem. Robert Antwine, a controls
engineer with a Tier 1/Tier 2 automotive supplier, notes that the
situation can be a real problem when a contractor writes some code in
its version which may be more current than the version Antwine is using.
That new code may not even run.
Antwine goes on to state what he sees as the biggest problem for
engineers in his industry—cost. “My greatest complaint is how much the
supplier charges us to maintain all the software to the current revision
level. Our supplier is now charging by how many devices you are
supporting. You also have to maintain the contract. If you don’t
maintain the contract, then you can’t get upgrades.”
As far as overall support goes, Antwine voices a common theme from the
survey—users too often have a problem finding the correct tech support
person in a timely manner. Problems are solved, but only after shuttling
around for a while. Antwine seconds one of the thoughts of the first
engineer quoted in this article, “Overall, the software seems to work
pretty well, but when they come up with new revisions, there always seem
to be some hidden bugs that have to be discovered and worked out.”
3M engineer William Cotter figures his vendor uses Microsoft Visual
Basic for Applications (VBA) for scripting since every time his group
must upgrade a Windows patch, or even a patch from the supplier, the
application must be re-installed. “So now we often have to reinstall the
application about three times a year. This takes about three hours with
all the backups and such. With hundreds of units, this adds up to lots
of hours for our staff.”
Suppliers respond
It’s not that suppliers aren’t trying, though. Mitch Vaughn, chief
technology officer for production management for UGS Tecnomatix, in
Richardson, Texas, says that the company has historically supported many
hardware platforms, so it was forced to build its base on technology
that was supported in many ways—for example “plain, old ASCII.” ASCII is
a data format recognized by just about every hardware and operating
system in use. The company supported eleven platforms in the mid-1990s,
including Microsoft Windows, Unix, HP-UX, SCO Unix and VMS. The company
moved from ASCII backups to ODBC, an open database standard.
Jay Coughlin, manager, HMI Products for Norcross, Ga.-based Siemens
Energy & Automation says, “When there is an update to an active product,
or when a product has reached the end of its lifecycle, Siemens ensures
that that there is a path to move the customer from point A to point B
with minimal effort. As a user and purchaser of software, we expect this
same commitment from our software vendors. For customers who need to
keep pace with innovations, Siemens offers a software update service
that automatically sends out updates as they occur. Customers who do not
need that level of support may obtain upgrades as needed.”
Bernie Anger, vice president of Software Technology for GE Fanuc
Automation, Foxboro, Mass., says, “GE Fanuc has a philosophy—both for
our hardware and software offerings—to ‘leave no customer behind.’ We
continue to offer and support software originally developed by our
acquisitions, Total Control Products, Mountain Systems, Intellution,
CimWorks, and DataViews. We provide software conversion tools to assist
with migration to newer hardware and software, including from
third-party systems. For any new software version, we go through a Six
Sigma-related process of research prior to development, and extensive
field testing with current customers prior to broad release. We have a
services team that assists customers and is monitored within GE Fanuc
through a rigorous Six Sigma scorecard that charts service effectiveness
and customer satisfaction, and offers a means for continuous
improvement.”
Ralph Kappelhoff, Rockwell Software general manager at Rockwell
Automation Inc., Milwaukee, states, “The primary problem we see is that
customers often underestimate the risks and overestimate the benefits
associated with major upgrades and migrations. Oftentimes, customers
will upgrade simply because IT is mandating the change, not because it
will improve manufacturing operations. The most successful customers
evaluate the risks to their environments and then identify the business
value of the upgrade to ensure the risk is balanced appropriately by the
rewards.”
Scott Mack, vice president of operations for software supplier Citect
Americas, Alpharetta, Ga., states, “Upgradeability has always been a
priority with Citect. Even today, Citect users can upgrade from our DOS
version to the latest (Windows-based) version 6.0 with no or little
engineering work. Citect tries its best to keep older functionality
while adding new features. Unfortunately, new and improved features do
sometimes cause older features to be discontinued.”
|
|
