Controls News 13
8
Main theme: Lean automation |
Processes
Therefore, to automate building developments and
operate them throughout the life cycle, one should
only choose «suppliers» one knows well and who
are close geographically and/or thematically. The
companies should know each other as if it were a
partnership. They should fit together easily.
Opportunistic «one-off relationships» should be
avoided in automation solutions, as should life-long
cycles of dependency.
It’s like in personal relationships: trust and long-
term thinking are fundamental to the best relation-
ships.
Of course, this completely contradicts the idea of
the cheapest bidder. Who would willingly be treated
in the cheapest way possible or choose the cheap-
est hairdresser? One-off relationships are, according
to game theory, advantageous and sustainable for
those who «cheat». Not a good foundation for being
happy in life!
What kills lean automation? What is the polar
opposite of lean automation? «No go!»
In the context of construction automation, what is
a concrete example of the philosophical musings of
John Ruskin, who we quoted above on the subject
of «Cheap in Mind»? What makes optimization to
«
Good Fit» expensive, and the step to «Perfect Fit»
practically impossible? The most powerful response
to these questions can be found in the subject of
software. It is an invisible thing that is as far re-
moved as could be from the world of construction.
In the simplest case, with «cheap in mind» hando-
ver and implementation for a building’s automation
system, the application software simply does not
become the property of the building’s owner. He
pays less and also receives less of this invisible stuff.
But no one notices for a long time. It’s only in the
optimization and operation phase that the cost is
counted and frustration unleashed – and this time
it’s massive. In the worst case, the original «solution
provider» no longer exists and the operator cannot
make any changes. Every tiny defect becomes a ma-
jor building site.
Alternatively, the application software for the build-
ing’s automation system was supplied and correctly
delivered; but the manufacturer of the automation
system has such a clever licensing policy for soft-
ware maintenance (engineering/programming)
that it earns money for every optimization and ad-
justment. Since these changes are crucial to achieve
the «Good Fit» or «Perfect Fit», the manufacturer can
claw back the money saved at the time of handover.
This confirms the rules of the capitalist economy as
described by John Ruskin. Every market player plays
its own game. No one breaks the rules. These finan-
cial aspects are not in themselves a barrier to lean
automation.
The investor reduces the initial investment sum
while delivering to the vendor at the cheapest price.
The vendor, who has good financial sense, subsidiz-
es the initial equipment and becomes a joint inves-
tor in the property. Thus the vendor acquires the
moral right to earnings throughout the life cycle. He
gets a good rate of return on the life cycle costs for
his initial investment.
To increase this return and cut risk, the vendor uses
the cheapest material and tries to achieve the «Basic
Fit» as cheaply as possible. The cheap material soon
breaks and can no longer be extended as a dedicat-
ed controller or even programmed. So the positive
effect is two-fold.
Another good starting points for higher rates of
return is the definition of «Basic Fit». This is deter-
mined by planners on the basis of the description.
«
Cheap in Mind» means no money should be spent
on planning control technology or automation, and
an economically sustainable planner cannot defy
the laws of capitalism to produce the required level
of performance. This is where the major automa-
tion technology manufacturers come to the rescue.
They ensure that the planning includes one of their
many simple system configurations. This is quickly
installed in the construction phase and commis-
sioning, to save costs. The further the «Perfect Fit»
is from actual requirements, the higher the future
costs incurred over the life cycle.
Thus «Cheap in Mind» kills of each
stage of lean automation, from the initial
investment.
Cheap material becomes defective after a few
years and causes constant breakdowns. This in-
terferes with the continuity of added value and is
«
non-lean». Cheap material also involves dedicated
devices that are time-consuming to optimize and
adjust. Lean means small-scale projects and local
implementation.
«
Cheap in Mind» in automa-
tion technology means
the contractor becomes
a «creditor» charging
exorbitant rates of interest
throughout the life cycle.
Dedicated controllers or
compact controllers = single
purpose. Not for lean automa-
tion! Works perfectly for the
manufacturer, not for the
operator!
