ARC BestPractices

By Tom Fiske
ARC BEST PRACTICES

JANUARY 2008

Best Practices for Advanced Process Control
Executive Overview .................................................................... 3
The Issue: Achieving Greater Value from Assets ............................. 5
APC Best Practice Study Methodology ........................................... 10
Respondents ....................................................................... 11
People ............................................................................... 11
Processes and Applications ................................................... 15
Technology ......................................................................... 24
Information ........................................................................ 27
Best Practice Recommendations .................................................. 30

THOUGHT LEADERS FOR MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY CHAIN
ARC Best Practices January 2008
2 Copyright ARC Advisory Group ARCweb.com

People
Processes and
Applications

Technology

Information
Leader Utilize in-house
expertise to
implement and
maintain APC
applications
APC initiatives
include certification,
skill enhancement,
and retention of
APC experts
Collaborate and use
shared best
practices with
continuous
improvements and
lessons learned
High number of APC
applications
High saturation of
APC application on
large process units
Expanding APC
coverage to include
smaller process
units
Applying advanced
control to batch
operations and
transitions
Uses RTO where
appropriate
Extensive use of
control monitoring
applications for
both regulatory
control and APC
Extensive
automation and
plant application
integration in areas
such as LIMS,
change
management,
alarm history, and
historian
High APC
utilization
Well thought out
and highly
functional alarm
management
program

Competitor Uses combination of
in-house and third-
party expertise for
implementing APC
In-house expertise
maintains APC
applications
Extensive use of
APC on large
process units
Expanding use of
APC in other areas
Some advance
control applications
in batch operations
Uses some control
monitoring
applications for
both regulatory
control and APC
with shortterm
plans to expand
use
Limited degree of
automation and
plant application
integration with
plans to increase
integration efforts
Achieves moderate
APC utilization
Some alarm
management
functionality
beyond basic DCS
alarms
Follower Scattered expertise
Rely on outsourcing
for APC
implementation
Joint in-house and
third-party
expertise used for
maintenance of APC
Sporadic
deployment of APC
Limited to large
process units
Little use of
advanced
applications for
batch operations
Little use of control
performance
monitoring
applications
Little automation
and plant
application
integration
Has trouble
achieving high APC
utilization
Alarm
management not a
priority

Best Practices Maturity Matrix
Copyright ARC Advisory Group ARCweb.com 3
With the high penetration of APC
on large units, leading companies
are looking for opportunities to
apply APC in other areas including
small-to-midsized process units.
Executive Overview
APC is a proven technology that reduces process variability and inefficien-
cy, improves product consistency, increases throughput by allowing
operations to push constraints to the limits and achieve higher return on
assets. Achieving and sustaining these benefits has not always been easy.
It requires a sound strategy and adherence to best prac-
tices.
APC Applications
This report focuses on what leaders, competitors, and fol-
lowers are doing with respect to the adoption and use of
control technologies. Leading process companies have already applied
APC to a high percentage of their large process units under steady-state
condition. They are now evaluating opportunities to apply APC on smaller
units throughout their entire organization in a similar fashion as they
would for larger projects: on an economic or Return on Investment (ROI)
basis.
Outside the polymer industry, MPC is not used extensively for transition
management. Today, the common methods of managing transitions in-
clude providing decision support and operator guidance, sequence control,
and ensuring operators are well trained. For batch operations, MPC is still
in its infancy. However, leaders are applying other technologies to help
control and improve their batch operations. Leaders tend to use soft sen-
sors and profile control over other techniques.
Companies are rapidly deploying tools to monitor the performance of con-
trol assets including PID loops and advanced process controllers. Most
leaders are using some form of regulatory control monitoring application
and they have a high adoption rate of APC performance monitoring solu-
tions. In terms of metrics, leaders are achieving over 95 percent APC
utilization factor. This compares favorably to competitors and followers
who achieve 88 and 60 percent respectively.
Automation Integration with Plant Applications
Over the past several years, leading companies have made considerable
progress in integrating their process data and LIMS with production opera-
tions. With a few notable exceptions such as plant asset management, lead-
ers have integrated a significant portion of their automation and plant
applications. Leaders also have a well-established and comprehensive
alarm management program. Competitors and followers still lag behind in
these areas.
Organizational Aspects for Success
The effective use of APC is highly dependent upon the knowledge and
skills of a companys experts and upon its corporate strategies for imple-
menting, using, and maintaining its applications. All users supplement
their in-house resources with third-party or supplier resources. A major
difference between the leaders and the rest of the companies is how much
of a project is implemented with in-house resources and how much is out-
sourced.
The leading companies view APC as providing a competitive advantage.
As such, they use methods to ensure they obtained the greatest value from
their APC applications at the lowest possible cost. This translates into tak-
ing the lead role on the majority of APC implementation. Leaders have
established a standardized methodology to roll out additional APC applica-
tions. The methodology often includes continuous improvement strategies
and lessons learned that helps to reduce the cost of each successive imple-
mentation.
The majority of users maintain their own APC applications. Leaders have
more in-house expertise than other companies and consequently take on
greater responsibility in maintaining their APC applications.
Most companies have not established a particular criterion for utilizing
APC experts. Only about 20 percent of the companies use a certification
process. About 10 percent of the companies closely monitor the number of
applications each APC expert is responsible for. A major challenge for us-
ers is retaining their APC experts. Many are setting up programs that
provide an interesting and rewarding career within their organization.
The business performance of process
manufacturing companies is directly
related to how well they use their assets.
When properly applied and maintained,
APC solutions play an important role in
achieving higher return on assets (ROA).
The Issue: Achieving Greater Value
from Assets
The process industries use asset intensive operations to convert raw mate-
rials into finished products. Successful business performance of these
companies is directly related to how well they deploy and use their assets
to generate profits. Although this seemingly simple rule sounds easy to
accomplish, the reality proves more challenging. In todays business envi-
ronment, companies have to deal with intense global competition, reduced
technical and operational staff, higher raw material and energy prices, stric-
ter governmental regulations, and rapidly changing demand.
Increasing asset utilization alone does not guarantee optimal business per-
formance and profitability. Even when operating at high asset utilization,
there is considerable room for improvement because of remaining ineffi-
ciencies and the inability to capture higher spot market value opportunities
as they occur. Organizations looking to improve profitability and gain
market share are focusing greater attention on their customers needs. This
requires the development of differentiated products and more frequent
changeovers. Companies are not only placing an
emphasis on increasing capacity, but also on op-
timization product quality, processes, and assets.
Companies are attempting to increase agility and
flexibility so that plants can efficiently execute
production plans and profitably capture new op-
portunities.
Obviously, Advanced Process Control (APC) and Optimization solutions
play an important role in achieving higher return on assets (ROA). APC
reduces process variability and inefficiency, improves product quality, and
allows operations to push constraints to the limits. With more frequent
grade changes, advanced solutions are needed to effectively manage prod-
uct transitions and provide the necessary agility to improve profitability.
Over the years, APC has decisively demonstrated its value. Many leading
companies have successfully applied APC to their most important process
units. Significant benefits include:
Increasing throughput by up to five percent
Improving yields up to ten percent
ARC believes that companies able to
methodically implement, use, and
maintain APC applications at the lowest
cost and generate the highest value over
its lifecycle will have a distinct
competitive advantage.
Reducing energy usage
Reducing raw material usage
Improving product quality
Improving plant stability, safety, and responsiveness
Achieving these benefits has not always been easy. APC is often perceived
as being expensive as well as complicated and time consuming to imple-
ment and maintain. If not properly maintained, typical benefits begin to
diminish soon after implementation because the model begins to differ
from the actual plant process. Consequently, APC has been reserved for
the most economically sensitive large-scale process units. Many smaller
process units still have no form of advanced process control and represent
an enormous opportunity for improving asset effectiveness. The situation
for batch and semi-batch operations is even more compelling.
Because of the benefits of APC and optimization solutions, it is important
for companies to develop a sound strategy for adopting, implementing, and
maintaining APC applications. In some industries, like refining, a signifi-
cant portion of the major process units already have APC applications,
however, smaller secondary units still do not have any type of advanced
control. In other industries, because of the perception, APC is highly unde-
rutilized even for large process units.
This report focuses on what leaders, competitors, and followers are doing
with respect to the adoption and use of advanced control technologies. It
examines various situations under which the technology is applied and
how it is applied.
Improving Asset Effectiveness with APC
The increasingly complex nature of manufacturing coupled with the large
investments in assets by operating companies in the process industries
makes the need for automation and process control greater than ever. The
PID control loop is an integral part of the automation system. In fact, a typ-
ical manufacturing plant may have hundreds if
not thousands of these regulatory loops that per-
form basic control functions. Traditionally, the
most complex process units use advanced process
control and optimization schemes implemented
on top of these regulatory control loops.
In terms of automation functionality, regulatory control and APC serve
much different purposes. The primary role of regulatory control is to en-
sure stable, safe, and reliable operations while maintaining process units at
a desired or specified condition. It does not attempt to continuously im-
prove operations in an economically optimal manner.
APC, on the other hand, is a supervisory control application that coordi-
nates a large number of parameters to maintain control closer to operating
constraints and more favorable economic operating conditions. By reduc-
ing process variability, APC is able to push operations to run at conditions
that increase throughput, improve product quality, reduce energy and raw
material usage, reduce costs, increase operational efficiency etc.
In one ARC survey, users ranked APC as providing the best value among
advanced automation solutions. Ensuring proper ROI, however, requires a
concerted corporate-wide strategy and utilization of the latest innovations.
It also requires considerable in-house expertise.
Faster Time-to-Benefit with Improved Implementation Tools
Implementing an APC solution can be time consuming and costly. For in-
stance, refineries typically spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
installing an APC solution. Implementation usually involves several leng-
thy steps such as preconditioning and testing, modeling building, controller
integration, and commissioning. Numerous suppliers are now offering im-
proved tools that help decrease the time and effort necessary to implement
solutions and achieve faster time-to-benefits. Users still need to determine
what will be done in-house and how much of the effort to outsource to
suppliers and other third parties.
To reduce the affect of existing plant con-
ditions, PID loop auditing tools are
available that help bring the regulatory
control layer back to peak performance
and provide a sound foundation for APC.
In addition, implementing an APC solu-
tion requires that a representative
mathematical model of the process be
built. Simulation can be used to develop
preliminary models and aid in initial tun-
ing by providing idealized responses to
step changes in key variables, thus reduc-
Creating and Sustaining Value of APC Applications
Time
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
s
t
Time to Revenue
Target
Benefits
Continuous
Improvement
Continuous
Improvement
Sustained
Performance
Sustained
Performance
Improved Improved
Sustain
Experience
Poor Support
ing the amount of step testing required. Historical data can also be used in
the model building process. Furthermore, advances in automated plant-
step testing tools and methods are significantly shortening the modeling
building phase and reducing the level of expertise needed while improving
model quality. These tools and methods are also less intrusive and disrup-
tive on the plant than previous methods employed. These evolving tools
and approaches are driving down the entry level cost of APC and helping
to spread its use to new areas.
Another way that large companies are implementing APC projects faster
and at less cost is through corporate-wide deployment strategies. Compa-
nies are performing corporate-wide rollouts to expedite the implementation
process by taking advantage of acquired knowledge and skills learned from
each previous application.
More Versatile Operating Tools
Users now have a large range of APC technology to choose from to control
a large variety of units. The traditional linear multivariable controller finds
wide application across multiple units and industries and often provides
payback in less than a year.
Although a large percentage of applications are satisfied with linear APC
technology, there are several shortcomings associated with applying linear
APC solutions to highly nonlinear processes. Nonlinear controllers are
available that are, in general, more suited for such applications. Nonlinear
controllers are popular choices in the polymer industries, but are finding
numerous applications elsewhere as well.
For years, manufacturers lacked a simple, powerful, and viable alternative
to PID control and traditional large-scale APC implementation. Single-loop
model predictive control offer manufacturers a practical option to augment
their control technology and strategies. A single loop model predictive con-
troller has several advantages over PID feedback control. Incorporation of
a predictive model allows it to compensate for process dynamics including
long dead time and can even close the loop on those processes that operate
in manual mode because the process dynamics are too difficult for simple
PID control schemes. Some single loop model predictive controllers can
operates in a multiple input/single output (MISO) mode to provide distur-
bance rejection.
Inferential models or soft sensors are increasingly being used in the imple-
mentation of APC projects as well as for process and product quality
monitoring. Soft sensors have proven successful in the past for backing-up
essential hardware analyzers and in many cases totally replacing online
measurement devices. Now, they are becoming more prevalent in applica-
tions where an important quality variable is difficult, infeasible, impractical,
or just too expensive to attempt to measure with conventional equipment.
The benefits of using soft sensors in such situations include better control
and understanding of the process while saving money and improving qual-
ity.
The wide spectrum of APC tools is becoming more tightly integrated to
provide users with a common intuitive interface that reduces the time re-
quired to learn different applications. However, users still must be
continually trained and develop a strong fundamental understanding of
process control to ensure reaping the benefits of APC.
Today, companies are embracing real-time performance management as a
means to improve flexibility and profitability while coping with the reduc-
tion of manpower and the burden of monitoring assets. As such, making
KPIs visible about the performance of the controller is becoming more
common to ensure that it is being effectively utilized. As companies move
to the next level of performance by adopting rigorous optimization solu-
tions that work in concert with APC, it is imperative to monitor controller
performance to make certain it is operating correctly. Still, more needs to
be done in the way of providing KPIs that tie into business objectives and
provide actual cash benefit.
With more tools and better methodologies available to them, users are look-
ing toward applying APC to smaller units that were difficult in the past to
justify on an ROI basis. In addition, more transition and startup sequencing
technology will be integrated with control applications to provide safer and
more profitable operations. Incorporating rigorous modeling technology
into the controller will also extend its applicable range and accuracy. Ad-
vanced control techniques are also finding many applications in batch and
semi-batch operations.
Sustaining Benefits with MPC Performance Monitoring
Maintaining controller performance is often more difficult than the initial
setup, but it is the key to sustaining long-term benefits. Performance of an
APC application deteriorates over time due to equipment degradation as
well as deliberate or unintentional changes in the operations of the process.
Feedstock, products, and ambient conditions are dynamic. Controllers
generally adapt poorly to these changing conditions and the APC applica-
tion must be adjusted to maintain maximum benefits. Without proper
maintenance, the APC applications will fail to provide any benefits and fall
into disuse after only a couple of years. Maintaining the benefits of an APC
application require that companies have a sound plan and established
workflows and best practices to ensure that tools, people, and processes are
in place to respond accordingly.
APC Best Practice Study Methodology
ARC has a long history of providing research and advisory services to end
users and suppliers in Advanced Process Control. For this particular best
practice, ARC conducted additional research to gain an
even greater understanding about current practices and
emerging trends. The current research consisted of a
survey and a series of in-depth interviews with several
process manufacturing firms. In both cases, ARC ex-
plored the practices manufacturers were using in terms
of four key dimensions People, Processes, Technology, and Information.
Each of these dimensions was further investigated across multiple
attributes that ARC has previously found to be important contributors to
performance.
Where appropriate, ARC best prac-
tice reports group responses into the
categories of Leaders, Competitors,
and Followers. Over ten separate
performance criteria were used to
rank the responses. For each survey
response, each of the performance
criteria was given a quantitative
measurement and the total used as a
ranking demarcation according to a
20:50:30 distribution of Leaders,
Competitors, and Followers.
Ranking
Leader Top 20%
Competitor Next 50%
Follower Last 30%
Others, 4.1%
Food & Bev, 2.0%
Pharmaceutical,
4.1%
Power, 6.1%
Mining &
Metals,
8.2%
Oil & Gas, 10.2%
Petrochemical,
18.4%
Refining, 22.4%
Chemicals, 24.5%
Vertical Industries of Respondents
Respondents
The majority of respondents to the APC Best Practice survey come from the
refining, chemical, petrochemical, and oil and gas industries. In fact, the
respondents from these industries account for nearly 80 percent of all the
responses obtained. Companies in these industries tend to use APC tech-
nologies to a larger extent than other process industries. Remaining
respondents came from the food and beverage, metals and mining, phar-
maceutical, and power industries.
People
Effective use of APC is highly dependent upon the knowledge and skills of
a companys APC experts and upon its corporate strategies for implementa-
tion, use, and maintenance. Successful APC project implementation
requires the appropriate people to execute them. These people need to be
supported with the appropriate training and mentoring programs and have
access to other experts to further their own knowledge base.
Sustaining a staff of APC experts is the primary challenge facing most
manufacturing companies. To deliver successful projects consistently and
reliably, leading companies are developing a standardized methodology
and workflow. These companies are performing corporate-wide rollouts to
expedite the implementation process by taking advantage of acquired
knowledge and skills learned from each previous application. They are
capturing and sharing best practices and adopting and applying a conti-
nuous improvement approaches to APC lifecycle management. Leading
companies are adopting complementary tools such as PID loop auditing,
automated step testing, soft sensors, simulation, and control performance
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
0-5 6-10 11-25 25+
Number of APC Applications
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Less than 25% Between 25 and 50% Between 50 and 75% Over 75%
APC Implementation Outsourcing
monitoring that reduce the time, effort, and cost of deploying APC solu-
tions.
Instances where unexpected and abnormal situations arise are a major con-
cern for most companies. In cases of this nature, the leading companies
have established collaborative teams to resolve the issue. Typically, this
entails securing assistance and collaborating with in-house or external ex-
perts at different locations. The ability to share information is crucial to
successful problem resolution.
Organizational Aspects APC Implementation
The majority of users supplement their own resources with third-party or
supplier resources. A major difference between leaders, competitors, and
followers is how much of a project is implemented with in-house resources
and how much is outsourced.
Leading companies view APC as providing them with a competitive ad-
vantage. As such, they adopt methods to ensure that they are able to
achieve the most value from their APC applications at the lowest possible
cost. This means performing the majority of APC implementation them-
selves. They understand the value in a structure APC implementation
strategy and having the necessary skills to execute that strategy. Leaders
have established a standardized methodology to roll-out additional APC
applications. Leaders believe that they are able to reduce implementation
cost by 25 percent with a comprehensive strategy that includes keeping the
bulk of the work in-house. About 60 percent of the leaders outsource less
than 25 percent of their project work. In addition, about 80 percent of them
have more than 25 APC applications.
Competitors and even followers view APC as a means to improve manufac-
turing competiveness rather than a means to develop a competitive
advantage. Accordingly, they have less skilled
experts and rely more heavily on third-party and
supplier resources for implementation. Followers
take nearly the opposite approach to the leaders,
with about 60 percent of them outsourcing more
than 50 percent of their project work. The majori-
ty, on average, have less than 10 applications.
There are little differences between leaders, com-
petitors, and followers with regards to the use of
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Dedicated Teams Manufacturing Staff Engineering Staff Other
Use of Internal Resources During
Implementation
internal resources. Centralized engineering and dedicated teams are the
approaches used most often. Manufacturing staffs do not typically lead
APC implementation efforts; they do however, play an important support-
ing role.
In general, users employ a variety of methods to implement APC projects.
The following table provides an overview of these strategies.
APC Implementation Methodology Percent
Implemented with Internal Resources 16.2%
Implemented by External Contractor 18.9%
Implemented with Supplier Services 13.5%
Internally Led Initiative with Supplier Support 21.6%
Externally Led Initiative with Internal Support 13.5%
Large Projects External; Small Projects with Internal Resources 16.3%
Total 100.0%
Organizational Aspects APC Maintenance
The majority of users maintain their own APC applications. Leaders have
more in-house expertise than competitors and followers and consequently
take on a greater responsibility in maintaining their APC applications.
They typically achieve higher APC utilization while lowering their total
cost of ownership. About 80 percent of the leaders outsource less than 25
percent of their maintenance needs. Followers, on the other hand, are more
dependent on outsourcing and typically experience higher costs.
Most companies have not established a particular criterion for utilizing
APC experts. Only about 20 percent of the companies use a certification
process to rank their experts. About 10 percent of the companies are using
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
APC Expert Certificaion
APC Applications/ APC Expert
Yes No
Leading Companies Are Establishing
Internal Resource Criteria
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
APC Maintenance Outsourcing
Strategy
a specific criterion to manage in-
house resources and expertise.
For instance, some leading
companies are closely monitor-
ing and limiting the number of
APC applications each expert is
responsible for. The criterion
typically ranges between five
and ten applications per expert,
but is flexible depending on the
size of each application and the
skill level of the expert. The
trick is to find an optimum
number of applications that can be maintained without compromising the
effectiveness of the application and not underutilizing or over burdening
the control experts.
As with implementation methodology, users employ a variety of methods
to maintain their APC applications. The following table summarizes the
approaches in use today.
APC Maintenance Methodology Percent
Maintained with Internal Resources 50.3%
Maintained by External Contractor 6.3%
Maintained with Supplier Services 12.8%
Internally Led Initiative with Supplier Support 13.9%
Externally Led Initiative with Internal Support 11.1%
Large Projects External; Small Projects with Internal Resources 5.6%
Total 100.0%
Organizational Aspects RTO Implementation
Unlike APC, users are still apprehensive about implementing big compre-
hensive RTO applications that are expensive and risky. Applying online
optimization requires a high level of expertise that is different from APC.
Most companies do not have extensive resources in this area. Most compa-
nies have less than 2 RTO applications. Leaders tend to utilize RTO more
than the competitors and followers. About 25 percent of the leaders have
more than 5 RTO applications.
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Dedicated Teams Manufacturing Staff Engineering Staff
Use of Internal Resources for Maintenance

Leaders are more involved with the RTO implementation than the competi-
tors and followers. Similar to APC, leaders view RTO as providing a
competitive advantage and insist in keeping in-house expertise to imple-
ment and maintain the solution.
Processes and Applications
There are numerous processes and applications that companies use to ob-
tain value from APC. How each group applies the technology and to what
extent creates some of the major differences between the leaders, competi-
tors, and followers. For instance, each group differs as to where they place
their emphasis in terms of applying APC to large process units, small
process units, and batch operations. There are also differences among the
groups as to how APC is applied to different plant operating states. Fur-
thermore, the extent to which each group uses APC in each area of
application creates even more significant differences.
ARC includes in this category:
APC target deployment area such as large units, small units, and batch
operations
Plant operating state including steady-state, planned transitions, and
abnormal situations
Extent of deployment (saturation or penetration), i.e., the number of
APC applications as compared to the actual number of potential appli-
cations
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
0 1-2 3-5 over 5
Number of RTO Applications
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
RTO Outsourcing Strategy
Current and Planned Use of APC for Continuous Units
Traditionally, large continuous steady-state operations have been the major
focus area of APC usage. These types of process units are complex and dif-
ficult to operate and have the greatest affect on the bottom line. Applying
APC to this type of operations has been relatively easy to justify on an ROI
basis. Other applications, such as small continuous process units are be-
ginning to get the attention of users. Without a scalable solution, these
units are more difficult to justify. Although both large and small units tend
to operate most often at steady-state,
they occasionally need to transition
from one state to another. Compa-
nies are also beginning to adopt
advanced control technologies that
help to better manage and optimize
these transitions. In addition to
planned transitions, there are, unfor-
tunately, unplanned or abnormal
situations that must also be dealt
with.
Currently, all of the leaders claim to
be using APC applications for some
of their large continuous units dur-
ing steady-state operations. In
addition, all of the leaders are cur-
rently using or deploying some APC
applications on their small conti-
nuous units during steady-state
operations. The leaders are also
looking to apply advanced control
techniques to planned and un-
planned transitions.
The focus of competitors is not as
broad as the leaders. Currently,
about 80 percent use APC on some
of their large continuous process
units. There is a significant differ-
ence between leaders and
competitors in terms of applying
APC on smaller continuous process
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Small Units: Abnormal
Large Units: Abnormal
Small Units: Transitions
Large Units: Tranisitions
Small Cont. Units
Large Cont. Units
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
Deployed Being Deployed Short-term Long-term No Plans
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Small Cont. Units
Large Cont. Units
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
r
s
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Small Cont. Units
Large Cont. Units
F
o
l
l
o
w
e
r
s
Current Focus Area of APC Usage for Continuous Units
units. Some competitors are considering applying APC techniques to
planned and unplanned transitions.
Only 20 percent of the followers are using APC for some of their large con-
tinuous units during steady-state operations. Another 25 percent are
deploying APC applications now. Since they have implemented only a few
APC applications, managing transitions with advanced control technology
is not a priority even in the long-term.
Adoption Level of APC
The results of the Best Practice survey show that many users have already
applied APC to their large continuous process units. The results indicate
that users have implemented APC on about 60 percent of their large
process units. With the high penetration of APC on large units, many com-
panies are beginning to look for opportunities to apply APC on its small-to-
midsized continuous process units. ARC found that APC has been applied
to a little more than 15 percent of the users small process units.
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
All
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Large Units/Plants Small-Midsize Units/Plants

Current Level of APC Adoption for Continuous Processes
The adoption level of APC varies greatly among the leaders, competitors,
and followers. For continuous processes under steady-state conditions, the
leaders have a high saturation rate of over 80 percent for both large and
small-midsized process units. Competitors indicate that they use APC on
the majority of their large continuous process units (over 60 percent), but
only use APC on 40 percent of their small-midsized units. Followers use
APC on about 30 percent of their large continuous process units and are
just beginning to deploy APC on smaller continuous units.
Leading companies are applying APC on smaller units throughout their
entire organization in a similar fashion as they would for larger projects: on
an economic or Return on Investment (ROI) basis. Many companies feel
that current automated step testing and model ID software can cut the im-
plementation time down significantly. In addition, control performance
monitoring tools are making it easy to maintain benefits and update models
as necessary. Tools of this nature are reducing the total cost of ownership
of APC applications. In addition, some companies are leveraging lessons
learned by applying APC to many similar units.
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
All
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Large Units/Plants Small-Midsize Units/Plants

Current Level of APC Adoption for Transition Management in
Continuous Processes
The majority of large process units under APC control during non-steady
state or planned transitions appear to be small around 20 percent. For
small-to-midsized process units, the percentage under APC control during
transition is even smaller at a little more than 10 percent. ARC believes,
however, that the actual percentage for both cases is much lower. Inter-
views with several companies indicate that the majority of manufacturers
using APC during transitions are in the polymer industry. Many compa-
nies in this industry have fully automated grade changes. Companies
outside the polymer industry indicated that they do not rely upon APC for
transition management. Many stressed the importance of training opera-
tors for these types of situation using Operator Training Simulators,
providing operator guidance, and using sequence control particularly for
startups and shutdowns.
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
All
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Large Units/Plants Small-Midsizde Units/Plants

Current Level of APC Adoption for Abnormal Situations in
Continuous Processes
Only a small fraction of the survey respondents large and small-to-
midsized units have advanced technology for detecting and preventing ab-
normal situations. The interviewees do not trust APC during these types of
situations. They rely upon other methods such as sequence control and
Emergency Shut-Down (ESD) systems to name a few.
ARC believes that there is an enormous opportunity for manufacturers to
improve asset utilization with the detection and prevention of abnormal
situations. Abnormal situations are costly. They can cause production
downtime, emergency repair, equipment damage, environmental damage,
product variability, injury and even death.
Potential problems of using advanced technology for detecting process and
equipment faults include difficulties in implementing and maintaining the
application as well as interpreting the results to avoid false positives.
Transition Management
Most plants do not always operate at steady-state and do not always rely
upon APC to manage transitions. Instead, they use varying degrees of ma-
nual and automated procedures to manage its complex procedures during
shutdown, startup, grade changes, and other planned and non-planned un-
steady-state events. MPC has the potential to be used to mitigate potential
process threats by reducing operating
rates and bringing the plant to a safe
state. Unfortunately, moving beyond its
initial purpose has been slow to devel-
op.
Today, the common methods of manag-
ing transitions include providing
guidance and operator assistance, se-
quence control, and to a much lesser
extent MPC. Our research indicates that
there are no major differences among
the leaders, competitors, and followers
concerning the objectives using these
methods. It appears that improving
quality, increasing throughput, safety,
and energy savings are top priorities for
providing operator assistance and guid-
ance during transitions. Man-hour
savings and improving switchover
speeds do not appear to be a priority.
For sequence control, safety appears to
be the top priority. Other highly rated
objectives are increasing throughput,
improving quality, and switch over
speed. Less important objectives in-
clude man-hour savings and increasing
energy savings.
Two very important objectives clearly
emerged for model predictive control
during non-steady state operations: im-
proving quality and improving
throughput. A second group of objec-
tives appear to be important to
manufacturers as well. This group con-
sists of safety, increasing energy savings,
and increasing switch over speeds. Again, process manufacturing compa-
nies rate man hour savings as one of the less important objectives.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Man-Hour Saving
Faster Swith Over
Improve Quality
Increase Throughput
Increase Energy Savings
Safety Consideration
Very Important Important Somewhat Important Less Important Not Important
Transition Management Objectives for MPC
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Man-Hour Saving
Faster Swith Over
Improve Quality
Increase Throughput
Transition Management Objectives for
Sequence Control
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Man-Hour Saving
Faster Swith Over
Improve Quality
Increase Throughput
Transition Management Objectives for Operator
Assistance
Current and Planned Use of Online Optimization
Unlike APC, which has proven to be a mainstream control technology, ex-
hibiting rapid growth, RTO usage is tentative and its adoption is slow.
There are certain situations, however, where RTO is being readily applied,
e.g., ethylene plants and refinery blending. In these cases, it is appropriate
because there is an economic optimization possible. In many other cases, it
does not make sense because the operating
philosophy is fixed and does not lend itself
to the flexibility required for applying RTO.
Other areas where optimization is useful
includes utilities and fuel gas systems. Al-
though the technology has been around for
a while, it is still not easy to maintain. The
large complex models and many process
measurements increase the risk of failure.
Recently, however, ARC has seen a trend
toward smaller scope projects to reduce the
risk associated with large scale, costly
projects that ultimately fail or are too diffi-
cult to maintain and are turned off within a
year or two of implementation. In addition,
a few companies are developing and using
rigorous models in an advisory and deci-
sion support open-loop fashion. The
advantage is that the cost and risk is lower.
The use of a real-time On-Demand deci-
sion support system using validated models
and current plant data has the potential to
improve asset effectiveness by monitoring
the performance of equipment and process
units. Since these support tools are model
based, users can perform what-if analysis to
see how their actions affect plant perfor-
mance.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Batch
Dyn Opt
Small Units
Large Units
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Batch
Dyn Opt
Small Units
Large Units
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
r
s
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Batch
Dyn Opt
Small Units
Large Units
F
o
l
l
o
w
e
r
s
Current Focus Area of Optimization
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
All
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Large Units Small Units Dynamic Optimization Batch Optimization

Current Level of Adoption for Online Optimization for Various Situations
Still, respondents of the survey indicate that large continuous units are the
major area of focus. Leaders, competitors, and even followers have imple-
mented online optimization on their large continuous units. Nearly half of
all the companies surveyed have implemented or are implementing at least
one online optimization application on a large process unit. Although
many have not yet implemented online optimization for smaller continuous
units, nearly one-third of the respondents state that they have plans to do
so within the next two years. Other areas, such as transient operations and
batch operations will lag behind.
The actual saturation or penetration of online optimization application is
still relatively small. The leaders are the only group that deploys online
optimization to any significant extent.
For small-midsize continuous units, users rate increasing throughput and
improving energy savings as key objectives. However, improving quality
and reducing material costs rate quite high as well. For batch operations,
users specify key objectives as improving quality and increasing through-
put.
APC for Batch Operations
The most used approach for batch control is S88 automation and recipe
management. However, manufacturers also use a variety of other ad-
vanced control techniques to help control and improve their batch
operations. These techniques include profile control, run-to-run control,
model predictive control, and using soft sensors to predict product quality.
For batch operations, leaders tend to use soft sensor over other techniques.
Profile control is also a popular choice among the leaders and is being im-
plemented for numerous batch applications. Leaders, on average, deploy
advanced techniques at twice the rate of the competitor group.
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
All
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
Soft Sensors Profile Control Run-to-Run Control MPC

Current Level of APC Adoption for Batch Processes
MPC has not yet taken hold in the batch area. MPC usage for all groups
combined is only a small fraction of potential applications. However, lead-
ers are deploying MPC on some of their batch operations with considerable
success. The benefits for batch operations are just as compelling as they are
for continuous processes. For example, one chemical company is using
MPC on several batch reactors at one of its plants. Prior to MPC implemen-
tation, the reactors used PI temperature control. The dynamic behavior of
the exothermic chemical reactions caused the PI control to oscillate between
heating and cooling. About 5 to 10 percent of the time, the oscillations were
large enough to initiate a safety shutdown before the completion of the
two-hour batch run.
The company decided to use MPC on the reactors. The main reactor uses
approximately 20 different recipes. It took about 4 months to perform the
model identification process for all 20 recipes using data collected from
open loop experiments. Since implementing MPC, the company has nearly
eliminated all process stops.
Technology
The technology used by companies contributes significantly to the business
benefits they achieve. Leaders, competitors, and followers all have access
to similar technology; however, some companies are able to deploy and
exploit it more extensively to obtain greater benefits and a competitive ad-
vantage. Within the technology category, ARC examined the similarities
and differences of manufacturers regarding their use of performance moni-
toring applications for both regulatory control and APC. ARC also
examined commonalities and differences among users concerning integra-
tion between APC and advanced plant applications such as alarm
management, plant asset management, LIMS, management of change, and
plant databases. ARC did not include in this section specific APC technol-
ogy such as nonlinear controllers, fault detection, soft sensors, etc. because
many of these technologies are implicit in the other sections.
Control Performance Monitoring
Over the past couple of years, ARC has noted that performance monitoring
of control asset is getting a significant amount of attention from process
companies. The reason for this is simple, tight process control is one of the
critical factors in achieving consistent product quality and high asset effec-
tiveness. Maintaining control assets at peak performance is challenging to
say the least. Organization must be constantly vigilant to prevent deteri-
oration of performance of regulatory control loops and APC since they are
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Regulatory
APC
Regulatory
APC
Regulatory
APC
F
o
l
l
o
w
e
r
s
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
Control Performance Monitoring Focus
essential to operating the plant at peak
efficiency. Most companies have ade-
quate maintenance programs concerning
the reliability of equipment; they often
lack similar capabilities for regulatory
control and APC. In addition, since con-
trol engineers typically are responsible for
hundreds of control loops, it is not possi-
ble or even advisable to attempt to have
all your loops run optimally since the
time, effort, and expense are exorbitant.
Hence, the need for monitoring applica-
tions that indicate which improvement
efforts to control performance provide the
largest benefits
Companies are rapidly deploying tools to
monitor the performance of control assets
including PID loops and Advanced
Process Controllers. The results of the
survey confirm this observation. About
60 percent of the companies surveyed in-
dicate that they have implemented or are
in the process of implementing both Ad-
vanced Process Control and regulatory
control performance monitoring applica-
tions. Only 20 percent of the respondents
do not have immediate plans to imple-
ment Advanced Process Control
monitoring and only 12 percent do not
have short-term plans to adopt regulatory
loop monitoring. A small percentage of
companies have their own in-house solution.
There are some striking difference between leaders, competitors, and fol-
lowers. All of the leaders are using some form of regulatory control
monitoring application. This does not mean that they are using it on every
regulatory loop, only that they are using it for some important aspect with
their organization. Nearly 80 percent of the leaders indicate that they use
APC monitoring applications. This is in stark contrast to competitor, where
about 20 percent of them are currently using some form of control monitor-
Performance Monitoring: COTS vs. In-House
Development
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Regulatory
APC
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
COT In-House Combination
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Regulatory
APC
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Regulatory
APC
F
o
l
l
o
w
e
r
s
ing applications. A striking difference between
competitors and followers is that the majority of
competitors are in the process of adopting con-
trol performance monitoring applications.
An interesting point about monitoring ap-
tions is that more leaders use less commercial-
off-the-shelf products than either competitors or
followers. The real difference is that they tend
to use a commercial module that is customized
and integrated with their in-house applications.
Automation Integration with Plant
Applications Used for Process Control
For the past several years, ARC has been
pousing the need and benefits of integration of
plant systems to improve visibility of
tion, performance analysis, and distribution to
create an agile and flexible enterprise. Compa-
nies are clearly seeing the value in integrating
process data. Nearly all leaders, competitors,
followers have integrated, at least some portion,
of their process and control applications.
Over the past several years, companies have
made progress in integrating their Laboratory
Information Management Systems (LIMS) with
production operations. Companies are also
lizing that alarm management is becoming an
important element to safe and reliable operations. Function change history
or management of change (MOC) is often overlooked, but with the com-
plexity of automation and production systems increasing, and experienced
personnel, decreasing function change history is rapidly growing in
tance. Many companies are making progress in this area, but ARC feels
that they are not doing enough in a multi-supplier environment. Most
companies still have not done much in the integration of plant asset man-
agement area.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Process Data Storage
Alarm History
MOC
LIMS
PAM
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
Fully Integrates Being Integrated Short-term Long-term No Plans
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Alarm History
MOC
LIMS
PAM
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
r
s
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Alarm History
MOC
LIMS
PAM
F
o
l
l
o
w
e
r
s
Current Level of Automation Integration
for Plant Databases for Process Control
There are significant difference between the
leaders, competitors, and followers in terms
of the level of automation integration of
plant databases used for process control.
With the exception of plant asset manage-
ment, most leaders have integrated a
significant portion of the automation and
plant applications. Most of the competitors
have integrated or are currently integrating
automation with plant applications. Unfor-
tunately, the progress of the followers lags
significantly behind the leaders and com-
petitors.
Information
Companies use a variety of methods to ob-
tain information and KPIs about the
process, assets, and about the automation
system so that they can make real-time ad-
justments to the process, initiate process
improvements, and maintain a high per-
formance level of automation systems.
Control Performance Monitoring
It was noted earlier that performance moni-
toring software for control assets is getting
a lot of attention from users. Some of the
important KPIs that users find useful for
monitoring regulatory control loops include
% utilization, % control accuracy, % loops at
limit, and % loops normal. For APC control monitoring, % utilization is the
most significant KPI.
ARC found that there are no major differences among leaders, competitors,
and followers concerning which KPIs that find useful. However, there are
differences between the groups for the actual KPI or metric because of the
fundamental differences in skill levels of their experts and the emphasis
upon which they place on their APC applications.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Alarm History
Alarm Analysis: Frequency
Alarm Analysis: Combination
Alarm Filtering
State Based Alarming
Alarm Analysis: Root Cause
Reducing Standing Alarms
Reducing Peak Alarms
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
Deployed Being Integrated Short-term Long-term No Plans
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Alarm History
Alarm Filtering
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
r
s
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Alarm History
Alarm Filtering
F
o
l
l
o
w
e
r
s
Current Level of Adoption and Functionality
of Alarm Management Applications

With their superior skill level and their ability to make APC a competitive
advantage, leaders are able to achieve an APC utilization of over 95 percent.
Competitors achieve an 88 percent APC utilization. However, followers are
struggling to keep pace. Their APC utilization is around 60 percent. APC
utilization for followers is quite low because of number of companies had
difficulty keeping their APC up and running at all.
Alarm Management
Alarm management is one of the most undervalued and underutilized as-
pects of process automation. The primary issue with alarm systems is there
is too much information for an operator to assimilate and act on. Many of
the alarms in existence today are often related only to the process variable
they are connected to, they are not aware of other alarms. This can result in
a phenomenon known as alarm showers or cascading alarms. These occur
when one failure causes many process variables to trip their preset alarms.
The result can be catastrophic when the quantity of alarms masks the real
source of the problem and causes delays in
operator corrective actions.
The first step toward an effective alarm
management program is to develop a sound
alarm management philosophy. Next, there
needs to be a recognized best practice for
alarming, and a methodology that provides a
framework to execute these best practices
and facilitate continuous improvement.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
%Loops Normal
%Loops at Limit
Control Accuracy
Prediction Accuracy
%Utiliztion
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
%Loops Normal
%Loops at Limit
Control Accuracy
Prediction Accuracy
%Utiliztion
KPIs for Regulatory Control
KPIs for APC
KPI for APC Monitoring
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Followers
Competitors
Leaders
APC % Utilization
There is currently a big gap between what the leaders are doing compared
to what the rest of the companies are doing
with respect to implementing an alarm man-
agement solutions. In nearly every aspect of
alarm management functionality, the leaders
already have or are in the process of imple-
menting a rich set of functions that include
storing and analyzing alarm history, doing
alarm filtering, analyzing root causes, and
working toward reducing standing and peak
alarms.
Operator Assistance and Decision Support
The current level of adoption for operations assistance and decision support
applications is broad. All companies have implemented or are in the
process of implementing numerous applications that assist and guide oper-
ators in their daily routine. ARC did not find any significant differences in
the categories of quality control, performance monitoring, sensor diagnos-
tics, efficiency monitoring, and PV-MV correlation. The difference between
leaders, competitors, and followers in control monitoring were noted else
ware.
Data Analysis Applications
There are a number of companies that are using data mining technologies
to improve quality control, identify key process factors, estimate key prop-
erties, improve batch operations, and detect critical conditions. The level of
adoption is not is nearly evenly spread
among the applications.
To perform the data mining and analysis,
principle component analysis and multiple
regressions are the most common techniques
employed, particularly for improving quali-
ty control, identifying key process factors,
and estimating key properties. Root cause
analysis is used significantly for determining
the cause of critical conditions and events.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Abnormal Situation Detection
Improve Batch Ops
Improve QC
ID Key Process Factors
Estimate Key Properties
Data Analysis Applications
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Control Monitoring
PV-MV Correlation
Efficiency Monitoring
Sensor Diagnostics
Performance Monitoring
QC
Operator Assistance and Decision Support
Best Practice Recommendations
For most process manufacturers, improving asset effectiveness by using
best practices described in this report will require significant changes in
culture, organizational philosophy, and business practices. The best prac-
tices are aligned according to the four dimensions of People, Processes and
Applications, Technology, and Information.
People
Create program to attract and retain highly skilled APC experts.
Leverage in-house skills to implement and maintain APC applications
Establish standardized methodology for APC implementation, use, and
maintenance that includes continuous improvements, lessons learned,
collaboration, and shared practices.
Processes and Applications
Develop plan to expand use of APC throughout organization. In addi-
tion to traditional targets of large units, look for other opportunities on
smaller units and batch operations.
Deploy applications to manage automate transitions
Technology
Utilize latest technology for performance monitoring of control assets
Increase level of integration of automation, production, and operations
applications
Information
Adopt KPIs for control performance monitoring that translate into
business forum
Establish or enhance an Alarm Management program
Reevaluate or adopt Decision Support Systems to ensure they provide
operators with timely on-demand information that improves opera-
tions
Adopt tools and programs to perform data mining
Analyst: Tom Fiske
Editor: Larry OBrien
Distribution: MAS-P Clients
Acronym Reference: For a complete list of industry acronyms, refer to our
web page at www.arcweb.com/C13/IndustryTerms/
APC Advanced Process Control
CMM Collaborative Manufacturing
Management
COTS Commercial Off the Shelf
DCS Distributed Control System
ESD Emergency Shutdown System
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LIMS Laboratory Information
Management System
MISO Multiple Input Single Output
MOC Management of Change
MV Manipulated Variable
MPC Model Predictive Control
PAM Plant Asset Management
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
PV Process Variable
QC Quality Control
ROA Return on Assets
ROI Return on Investment
RTO Real-time Optimization

Founded in 1986, ARC Advisory Group has grown to become the Thought
Leader in Manufacturing and Supply Chain solutions. For even your most
complex business issues, our analysts have the expert industry knowledge and
firsthand experience to help you find the best answer. We focus on simple,
yet critical goals: improving your return on assets, operational performance,
total cost of ownership, project time-to-benefit, and shareholder value.
All information in this report is proprietary to and copyrighted by ARC. No part
of it may be reproduced without prior permission from ARC.
You can take advantage of ARC's extensive ongoing research plus experience
of our staff members through our Advisory Services. ARCs Advisory Services
are specifically designed for executives responsible for developing strategies
and directions for their organizations. For membership information, please
call, fax, or write to:
ARC Advisory Group, Three Allied Drive, Dedham, MA 02026 USA
Tel: 781-471-1000, Fax: 781-471-1100, Email: info@arcweb.com
Visit our web pages at www.arcweb.com

3 ALLIED DRIVE DEDHAM MA 02026 USA 781-471-1000
BOSTON, MA | WASHINGTON, D.C. | PITTSBURGH, PA | PHOENIX, AZ | SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CAMBRIDGE, U.K. | DSSELDORF, GERMANY | MUNICH, GERMANY | HAMBURG, GERMANY | PARIS, FRANCE | TOKYO, JAPAN | BANGALORE, INDIA | SHANGHAI, CHINA

ARC BestPractices

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ARC BestPractices

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

By Tom Fiske

ARC BEST PRACTICES

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi