GlobalManufacturingSuite ​​​​​​​COE ​​​​​​​

Let us imagine we are after first wave of rollouts, maybe it was the only wave, maybe not. Anyway we have selected number of plants (maybe all) running the new MOM CORE Model solution. Our first goal of addressing the most important pains has been fulfilled, but our plans were bigger. We selected an extensive MOM Platform that can do a lot, but implemented only a little. Already during first wave of rollouts, our end users appetite grew hundreds of times. As described in previous post (HERE) maybe backlog of enhancements coming from sites after go-lives has become enough to create coverage for new business processes either in areas already covered or functional domains yet untouched by current scope of CORE Model.

We have reached the “mature” level of continuous improvement. As I have written earlier in one of posts, proper MOM solution cannot “stay as deployed”; it has to evolve, as the manufacturing constantly evolves. Machines are being replaced, ways of working change, products are getting more innovative etc. You cannot always produce same way, you optimize, improve… and the system that supports you in all the manufacturing related activities cannot stay in place either. Cannot limit you from reaching next level in your manufacturing. It has to support you.

But then, how to do it?

Your goal as manufacturer is not to become an IT company

you cannot focus more on your systems enhancements than you do on your product. Again, this has many angles that affect on how you should proceed. Despite those particularities there are some common practices that can (and actually must) be adhered to.

First one I want to touch upon today is governance. Solution cannot be left alone, and randomly enhanced on each site. That would completely break the goal we had at very beginning – CORE Model to manufacture in similar/same way in every plant. Hence – GOVERNANCE

There must be a couple of things established and communicated to all stakeholders and power users.

• Process of requesting enhancements
• Process of approval of CORE Model changes
• Frequency of delivering updates by COE
• Way and window for deployment by sites

Each of the items above of course will be affected by size of your organization, importance of business units, capabilities to deliver, frequency of your production changes and ton of other factors. Important is that above must be defined.

The reason why it must be defined is, if solution is left alone, there will always be group of crafty people that will enhance it themselves (ether IT-way or “creative use” way) and at the end – the CORE Model will disharmonize. You will end up instead of 20 sites running same solution, with 20 sites running the same software but completely different solutions, and goal of what the solution was supposed to support will be invalidated.

That is why governance is key in Continuous Improvement. It is inevitable that there will be at least two flavors of solution in whole organization at the same time. There will always be at least one site that is early adopter with new deployment before others will follow.

However, how many flavors shall you have?

How many can you support at the same time? How much flexibility will you give your sites to deploy newest flavor of business processes? This again has many angles and there is no one solution that will fit all. It is important though to remember nit to allow for dis-harmonization, keep track of versioning and consciously make decisions on new things to be put in CORE Model also by looking whether the previous enhancements have been already deployed and if by everyone. 

What are your lessons learnt in managing the continuous improvement of your CORE Model? Are you passed this step and have matured COE processes or you are looking for guidance in setting this up? Please let us know in comments down below and I hope we can trigger some exchange and discussion between you under this post.