Systematization of Performance Evaluation Process for Industrial Productive Systems Considering Sustainability Indicators
- 1k Downloads
Available industrial standards do not explicitly consider how to treat sustainability indicators in PS design and its control system. Therefore, this paper proposes a framework to systematize the performance evaluation process for industrial PS considering indicators that qualify and quantify its sustainability. The framework adopts Petri net technique and extensions of the standard ANSI/ISA95. Simulation-based analysis, decision making techniques and a PS´s classification based on product green seal are also considered. Furthermore, the framework considers the processing information, storing and accessing each component using a Cyber Physical Technology due to the trend of PSs to be, in fact, a network for companies that are, in general geographically dispersed.
KeywordsProductive system Petri Net Sustainability indicator
Over the years, industrial productive systems (PSs) have been modified to include innovation , such as serialization, standardization and reconfiguration capabilities, however, without worrying about the waste of natural resources. Since the mid-80 s, due to the scarcity of raw materials, non-governmental organizations, such as Roman Club, have been warned about the need to include sustainability in the PS design [1, 2, 3]. Thereby the governmental initiatives arose through the United Nations such as World Commission on Environment and Development , and events as Rio 92, Kyoto 97 and more recently Doha 2015. Currently, the PSs performance must be concerned to sustainability indicators, such as: reduction of negative impacts in conservation of energy and natural resources, management practices for safety assurance of the employees, communities, consumers and best practices for business feasibility and profitability). However, available industrial standards like ANSI/ISA95 do not explicitly consider how to treat sustainability indicators into the PS design and its control system . Therefore, this paper proposes a framework to systemize the PS sustainability performance evaluation. Productive systems (PSs) concept used in this work is all industrial automated process, developed to execute activities to produce specific product, defined by stages such as: material preparation, assembly, validation test, and expedition. The framework considers enhancement of PS design requirements related to sustainability, adoption of Production Flow Schema (PFS) and Petri Net (PN) modeling techniques, extensions in the ANSI/ISA95 standard in order to include sustainability indicators. To evaluate the sustainability of PSs, a set of indicators must be measured to quantify and qualify the PS performance related to them. In turn, these indicators also must be used to guarantee certain grade of sustainability for PSs, positive impact on the environment, satisfaction of the employees, proper use of technology and profitable manufactured products. Thereby the framework also supports product classification based on sustainability seal. The performance and sustainability evaluation is based on computational environment of Cyber Physical Systems (CPS), which can be explored in PSs to create an infrastructure for data processing and acquisition, connecting elements to monitor variables that compose the sustainability indicators. According to a cloud computing vision, PS must explore CPS to assure a collaborative environment to (re)configure online productive processes that are executed in disperse PSs independently of its geographical localization.
The text is structured in sections: Sect. 2 describes the importance of CPS to monitor sustainability indicators. Section 3 presents the considerations about industrial standard ANSI/ISA95, sustainability indicators and green seal. Section 4 shows the framework considered for the systematization of the performance evaluation process. Section 5 describes an example of the simulation and the analysis procedure. Section 6 reports the conclusions and further works.
2 Cyber Physical System and Sustainability
The deployment of cyber-physical systems (CPS) in for PSs is fundamental to use resources efficiently providing time economy, waste and cost reduction. PSs must be designed according to sustainable and service-oriented business practices, optimizing production processes to attend customer demand considering product features, deadline, costs, security, reliability, logistic and sustainability, also to achieve resource efficient production.
Then, CPS must be explored to create an smart infrastructure for data processing and acquisition, connecting elements to monitor variables that will compose the sustainability indicators. According to a cloud computing vision, PS must explore CPS to assure a collaborative environment to (re)configure online productive processes that are executed in disperse structure, independently of its geographical localization. These systems form the basis of emerging and future intelligent services, and improve the quality of life in many areas [6, 7, 8], providing the foundation of this proposal, including its infrastructure.
3 Standards and Indicators
Available industrial standards do not explicitly consider how to treat sustainability indicators in PS design and its control system. Therefore, a new approach must be considered, i.e., in this paper the ANSI/ISA95 standard is reviewed to meet the sustainability requirements.
“sustainability indicators data collection”, that stores the PS indicators data;
“sustainability performance analysis”, that calculates the performance of the PS based on data received from both the MES and PS sustainability indicators;
“sustainability indicators definition”, that deliveries the interface of a performance and a evaluation of sustainability indicators from other PSs that composes the disperse system to ensure compatibility among them;
“execution management”, that coordinates interactions among the SMS sub-modules and equipment located on inferior levels.
3.1 Metrics and Indicators
According to , sustainability indicators have three main objectives: enhance awareness and understanding, inform decision-making, and measure progress toward established goals. These indicators are qualitative or quantitative values used to evaluate the sustainability aspects of a system . However, according to , the measure of the sustainability is more than just a set of indicators and there are different approaches to be considered, such as the definition of the actions set, in which the indicators must be verified. For e.g.,  states that the result of this measurement should support the identification of specific areas to apply enhancements related to sustainability in PS activities. Analyzing the data achieved and its interpretation is other fundamental phase, since the difficulties are due to the complexity related to definition of several indicators [13, 14]. Inter-relationships may bring the conclusions about the level of sustainability and decisions of future improvements.
Example of sustainability indicators (adapted from )
Quantification method (yearly)
Energy intensity (kWh/unit)
Energy consumed/unit of product
According to , the grade of sustainability may be used as a metric to evaluate the performance of PS. There are a pattern set of processes performance indicators, called Key Performance Indicator (KPI), which are measured to quantify and to qualify process performance evaluation. In the ISO standards [17, 18], the performance measure is treated as part of an industrial process creation value.
3.2 Green Seal
Based on similar initiative to encourage industries to produce in accordance to sustainability factors, such as economical, social, environmental and technological, it is also suggested a “green seal”. This seal is also a register that the framework is in working order. All customers that buy products with green seal have the guarantee that they are helping to keep a better world. This way, the industry can show that it is doing something for the welfare of people and nature, and it also produces an extra motivation for its employees and local community.
Based on previous works [19, 20], there is necessity to systematize the performance evaluation process for industrial PS, and a way do this, is through of a framework. Thus, the framework defines a procedure to evaluate the performance of PS considering indicators that qualify and quantify sustainability in PSs.
Specifications of physical machine operations and the types of technologies involved in the processes. Based on these specifications, data are extracted. The environmental resources data, materials and processes that composes the environmental information and are previously defined.
The processes in the PS are described by using a top-down procedure that generates PN models . The PN models are structurally and functionally analyzed including simulation techniques for quantitative/qualitative evaluation for different scenarios. The process modeling describes a practical and systematized way of assessing the performance of a sustainable PS by monitoring the indicators defined according to four dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economical, social and technological.
The expected KPIs related to sustainability, which are obtained from the PN models are stored at SMS database and used to compare the information collected from the productive plants on-line. It is supposed that the information about the current status of the productive plants is available at the MES database; however, there are cases where direct communication from SMS to the supervisory level (lower level) is necessary.
The evaluation of the differences among the expected values of KPIs and measured values are reported to superior level (level 4). Although there are cases where some activation commands are previously established (derived from decision of upper level). In this case, a message must be send to MES to update the tasks to be carried out in the PS.
5 Simulation and Analysis
This measurement structure is applied where the sustainability indexes values are relevant to evaluate the production line.
6 Conclusions and Further Work
To evaluate the performance of a PS considering sustainability the ANSI/ISA95 standard structure is reviewed. This paper also defines a set of indicators which can be used to qualify and quantify sustainability in PSs and presents a framework that considers these indicators. The framework adopts the PN technique to consider the sustainable PS design, simulation-based analysis, decision making and classification techniques based on green seal of products. The seal is a register that the framework is in working order. In the adopted approach, the process modeling describes a practical and systematized way of assessing the performance of a sustainable PS by monitoring the indicators defined according to four dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, social, and technological. The proposed systematization specifies how to execute the evaluation process of sustainability indicators and it could be applied in any type of PSs considering its particularity and complexity. But the framework needs to be to know its limitations mainly in large systems. Due to limited space in this work, the case shown in Sect. 4 is a small sample of simulation and analysis features that they will be detailed in further works.
The authors would like to thank CNPq, CAPES, FAPESP for the financial support.
- 1.Senge, P.M., Carstedt, G., Porter, P.L.: Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 42(2), 24 (2001). Winter 2001, ABI/INFORM GlobalGoogle Scholar
- 3.McDonough, W., Braungart, M.: The NEXT industrial revolution. The Atlantic Monthly 282(4), 82–92 (1998)Google Scholar
- 4.WCED - World Comission on Environment and Development: Our Commom Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York (1987)Google Scholar
- 5.ANSI/ISA-95.00.03.2005: ANSI-American National Standart Institute and ISA–The Instrumentation Systems and Automation Society, Enterprise-Control System Integration Part3: Activity Models of Manufacturing Operations Management (2005)Google Scholar
- 6.NIST- National Institute of Standards and Technology: Cloud Computing and Sustainability: The Environmental Benefits of Moving to the Cloud NIST, Cyber-Physical Systems: Situation Analysis of Current Trends, Technologies, and Challenges, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Columbia, Maryland (2012). http://events.energetics.com/NISTCPSWorkshop/pdfs/CPS_Situation_Analysis.pdfi Google Scholar
- 7.Sundmaeker, H., Guillemin, P., Fries, P., Woelffle, S.: Vision and challenges for realising the internet of things. In: CERP-IoT Cluster of European Research Projects on the Internet of Things (2010)Google Scholar
- 8.Colombo, A.W., Karnouskos, S., Bangemann, T.: A system of systems view on collaborative industrial automation. In: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT 2013), 25–28 Feb 2013, Cape Town, South Africa (2013)Google Scholar
- 11.Amrina, E., Yusof, S.M.: KeyPerformance indicators for sustainable manufacturing evaluation in automotive companies. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 6–9 Dec 2011Google Scholar
- 13.OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Sustainable Development: Critical Issues. OECD Publishing (2001)Google Scholar
- 14.OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Sustainable manufacturing toolkit - Seven steps to environmental excellence, START-UP GUIDE. OECD Publishing (2011)Google Scholar
- 15.Tan, H.X., Yeoa, Z., Nga, R., Tjandraa, T.B., Song, B.: A sustainability indicator framework for Singapore small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. In: The 22nd CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Procedia CIRP, vol. 29, pp. 132–137 (2015)Google Scholar
- 16.US Department of Commerce: Sustainable manufacturing initiative. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Sustainable Manufacturing Summit, Chicago, USA (2009)Google Scholar
- 17.ISO Std.22400-1:2010, Automation systems and integration—key performance indicators (KPIs) for manufacturing operations management–Part 1: overview, concepts and terminology (2010)Google Scholar
- 18.ISO Std.22400-2:2014, Automation systems and integration—key performance indicators (KPIs) for manufacturing operations management–Part 2: definitions and descriptions of key performance indicators (2014)Google Scholar
- 19.Watanabe, E.H., Blos, M.F., da Silva, R.M., Junqueira, F., Santos Filho, D.J., Miyagi, P.E.: A framework to evaluate performance of disperse productive system through the sustainability performance indicators. In: 15th IFAC/IEEE/IFIP/IFORS Symposium Information Control Problems in Manufacturing, Ottawa, Canada (2015)Google Scholar
- 20.Watanabe, E.H., Blos, M.F., da Silva, R.M., Junqueira, F., Santos Filho, D.J., Miyagi, P.E.: Key performance indicators of disperse productive system to evaluate performance and sustainability. In: 23rd ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil (2015)Google Scholar
- 21.Miyagi, P.E.: Controle Programável - Fundamentos do Controle de Sistemas a Eventos Discretos. (In Portuguese). Editora Edgard Blücher, São Paulo, Brasil (2001)Google Scholar
- 24.da Silva, R.M., Watanabe, E.H., Blos, M.F., Junqueira, F., Santos Filho, D.J., Miyagi, P.E.: Modeling of mechanisms for reconfigurable and distributed manufacturing control system. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Baldissera, T.A., Di Orio, G., Marques, F. (eds.) DoCEIS 2015. IFIP AICT, vol. 450, pp. 93–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar