Tag Archives: implementation

VinceSebald
Soapbox

Automation – Planning is Everything

By Vince Sebald
No Comments
VinceSebald

Automation of processes can provide great benefits including improved quality, improved throughput, more consistency, more available production data, notifications of significant events and reduced costs. However, automation can also be expensive, overwhelm your workforce, cause future integration problems and magnify issues that you are currently experiencing. After all, if a machine can do work 100 times faster than a human, it can also produce problems 100 times faster than a human. Whether it is a benefit or a scourge depends largely on the implementation process.

There are thousands of possible technology solutions for just about any production problem. The trick to getting results that will work for your company is to use good engineering practices starting from the beginning. Good engineering practices are documented in various publications including ISPE Baseline Guides, but there are common threads among all such guides. What will the system be used for and what problem is it intended to solve?

The key is implementing a system that is fit for your intended use. As obvious as it sounds, this is often the most overlooked challenge of the process. In the grand scheme of things, it is a MUCH better proposition to spend more time planning and have a smooth operation than implement a system quickly and fight it because it isn’t a good fit for the intended use. The industry is littered with systems that were prematurely implemented and complicate rather than simplify operations. Planning is cheap, but fixing is expensive.

The most important step to getting an automated system that will work for you is also the first:

Defining “what” you need the system to do: User Requirements

Automation Runaway
Once automation is in place, it can be a boon to production, but don’t let your systems get ahead of your planning! It can be difficult to catch up.

With decades of experience in the automation industry, I have seen systems in many industries and applications and it is universally true that the definition of requirements is key to the success of the automation adventure. To clarify, the user requirements are intended to define “what” the system is required to do, rather than “how” it will do it. This means that persons that may not be familiar with the automation technologies can still be (and usually are) among the most important contributors to the user requirements document. Often, the people most familiar with the task that you wish to automate can contribute the most to the User Requirements document.

Some of the components of a User Requirements document typically include:

  • Purpose: What will the system be used for and what problem is it intended to solve?
  • Users: Who will be the users of the system and what is their relevant experience?
  • Integration: Is the system required to integrate into any existing or anticipated systems?
  • Regulatory Requirements: Is the system required to meet any regulatory requirements?
  • Functions: What is the system required to do? This may include operating ranges, operator interface information, records generation and storage, security, etc.
  • Performance: How many units per hour are required to process?  What percent non-conforming product is acceptable?
  • Environment: What environment is the system required to operate in? Indoor, outdoor, flammable, etc.
  • Documentation: What documentation is required with the system to support ongoing maintenance, calibration, etc.?
  • Warranties/Support: Will you perform work in-house, or will the manufacturer support the system?

The level of detail in the User Requirements should be scaled to the intended use. More critical operations may require more detailed and formal User Requirements. At a minimum, the User Requirements could be a punch list of items, but a detailed User Requirements may fill binders. The important thing is that you have one, and that the stakeholders in the operation have been involved in its production and approval.Once completed, the User Requirements can be a very good document to have for prospective providers of solutions to focus their attention on what is important to you, the customer.

Equally important to the process is the idea of not over-constraining the potential solutions by including “how” the system will meet the requirements within the User Requirements. If it is required to use specific technologies for integration with other existing systems, it is appropriate to include that information in the User Requirements. However, if use of a particular technology (e.g. “wireless”) is not required, the inclusion may unnecessarily eliminate viable design options for systems that may address the requirements.

Once completed, the User Requirements can be a very good document to have for prospective providers of solutions to focus their attention on what is important to you, the customer. This helps to ensure that they focus their efforts in the areas that match your needs and they don’t waste resources (which translate to your costs) in areas that don’t have tangible benefits to you, the customer. It also gives you a great tool to “value engineer”, meaning that you can consider cutting design options that do not support the User Requirements, which can reduce project costs and timelines, keeping things lean and on track.

Further steps in the project are built around the User Requirements including system specifications provided by vendors, testing documentation and the overall turnover package. An appropriately scaled User Requirements document is a low cost, easy way to ensure that your automated system will serve you well for years to come. Alternatively, the lack of a User Requirements document is an all-too-common indicator that there may be challenges ahead including scope creep, missed deadlines and unacceptable long term performance.


Feel free to reach Vince at vjs@sebaldconsulting.com with any questions you might have.

Soapbox

The Problem With Puerto Rico’s Medical Cannabis

By Dr. Ginette M. Collazo
1 Comment

Recently Puerto Rico approved the law that regulates the production, manufacturing, dispensing and consumption of medical cannabis. Although medical cannabis was already “legal” through an executive order and was “supervised” by local regulation, there was no law to back up the industry and protect investors.

The creation and approval of laws resides in the hands of elected individuals. Expecting absolute knowledge is unrealistic, especially when we refer to cannabis as a medicine. Sadly, the lack of knowledge is affecting the patients, and an emerging industry that can be the solution to the Island’s current economic crisis.

I am in no way insinuating that Puerto Rico is the only example. I have seen this type of faulty thinking in many places, but cannabis is the perfect manifestation of this human defect. Check some of your laws, and you will find a few that nearly qualify for the same characterization.

As we can see, lack of knowledge can be dangerous. Objective, factual information needs to be shared, and our leaders need a formal education program. Patients need them to have a formal education program to better understand and regulate the drug.

The approval of this law is a significant step for the Island. Still, many Puerto Ricans are not happy with the result. The lack of legitimate information coupled with conservative views made the process an excruciating one. It took many hearings, lots of discussions and created tensions between the government and population, not because of the law, but for the reasons behind the proposed controls. Yes, it was finally approved, but with onerous restrictions that only serve as a detriment to the patient’s health, proving the need for an education program designed specifically to provide data as well as an in-depth scientific analysis of the information, then, you address the issue at hand.

Let’s take a look at some of the controls implemented and the justification for each one as stated by some members of the government.

  1. Patients are not allowed to smoke the flower in its natural state unless it is a terminal patient, or a state-designated committee approves it. Why? Because the flower is not intended for medical use (just for recreational) and the risks associated with lung cancer are too high. Vaporize it.
  2. It was proposed to ban edibles because the packaging makes it attractive for children. Edibles made it, but with the condition that the packaging is monochromatic (the use of one color), yes, insert rolling eyes here.
  3. It only allows licensed pharmacists to dispense medical cannabis at the dispensary (bud tending). The rationale? Academic Background.
  4. The new law requires a bona fide relationship between the doctor and the patient to be able to recommend medical cannabis, even if the doctor is qualified by the state and is a legitimate physician. This is contrary to their policy with other controlled substances, where a record is not required.

When there are different beliefs on a particular topic like it is with medical cannabis, you are not only dealing with the technical details of the subject; there is an emotional side to it too. Paradigms, stigma, stereotypes, beliefs and feelings affect the way we think. We let our judgment get in the way of common sense. When emotions, morals and previous knowledge are hurting objectivity, then we have to rely on scientific data and facts to issue resolution. However, when the conflict comes from opinions, we rely on common sense, and this one is scarce.

Now education: what can education do with beliefs, morals and emotional responses?

David Burns in his book Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy discusses ten thinking errors that could explain, to those like me that want to believe this is a legitimate mistake, that there are cognitive distortions that affect the result of ours thoughts.

Now let’s analyze …

  1. There are many things wrong with this prohibition. First, the flower is natural and organic. It is the easiest to produce and the cheapest alternative for patients; there are more than 500 compounds all interdependent to make sick people feel better. There are seas of data, anecdotal information, serious studies collecting information for decades and opinions of highly educated individuals that support the consumption of flower in its natural state for medical purposes. The benefits are discarded, and personal opinions take the lead. Based on Burns’s work this is a textbook case of Disqualifying the Positive: dismissing or ignoring any positive facts. Moreover, let’s not forget the benefit for illegal growers and distributors.
  2. Keep out of reach of children, does it ring a bell? For years and years, we have consumed controlled substances, have manipulated detergent pods, bleach and so many other products that can be fatal. The warning is enough, just like is done with other hazardous Here we can notice how we can fall into the Fortune Teller Error, which believes that they know what will happen, without evidence.
  3. Not even the largest drug stores in the USA have this requirement. There is one pharmacist per shift, and a licensed pharmacist supervises pharmacy technicians. Medical cannabis is not even mentioned in current Pharmacy’s BA curricula. Most pharmacists take external courses in training institutes. On the other hand, bud tenders go through a very comprehensive certification process that covers from customer service to cash management and safety and of course all technical knowledge. If anything, a botanist (plant scientist) makes more sense. What a splendid example of magnification (make small things much larger than they deserve). This is an unnecessary requirement.
  4. The relationship between a certified doctor and patient has to be bona fide (real, honest). In practical terms, the doctor has to treat the patient for some time (sometimes six months) and have a history of the patient. Even though this sounds logical, not all doctors are certified to recommend cannabis, but all can diagnose. Are we penalizing the doctor or the patient? The only thing that you need to qualify as a patient is the condition. Besides, I had prescriptions filled for controlled medications at the drug store with no history. Why are we overgeneralizing Do we think that all doctors are frauds?