Monthly Archives: July 2017

There are three main factors contributing to the increasing interest in intelligent automation (aka robotic automation) Avanademanaging director Sarah Adam-Gedge (pictured) told iTWire.

The digital transformation wave is continuing to break across most industries, organisations are getting better at handling their data, and they are hitting a productivity plateau after offshoring and industrialising processes, they need to find new ways to improve their competitiveness.

A related issue, she said, is that there are jobs that people are increasingly reluctant to do, as in the case of Woodside Petroleum's experimental use of a NASA Robonaut.

But despite those improvements in data management, data is still one of the biggest challenges to adoption, suggested Adam-Gedge. It is not enough to merely apply fresh technology to existing data, so the area is "very much a work in progress." Organisations should be thinking in terms of "big insights" rather than "big data.

Pegasystemsvice-president of robotics Francis Carden has a somewhat different view. He sees robotic automation as "tactically strategic" in the sense that it allows existing processes to be streamlined as a stopgap until they can be reengineered.

Customers are demanding "modern" interactions with organisations, and "you can't do that with all this legacy (software)", he told iTWire.

But what you can do is look for the frequently performed, time-consuming manual tasks required by legacy software and automate those. For example, a customer or employee onboarding process that involves multiple systems can be made much faster through the use of automation.

Such projects can be carried out very quickly as a stopgap, while new software is implemented on the Pegasystems platform. This approach is being used by the company's customers in the banking, financial services and healthcare sectors, Carden said, adding that Pegasystems' local customers include Telstra, Westpac and ANZ Bank.

Companies using dozens of applications won't be able to compete with those using newer and more streamlined systems, he suggested.

For example, a chatbot built using this sort of technology can work, but it doesn't learn in the way an AI-based bot does. However, such projects have very quick time to value and so are "truly as tactical as it gets".

Apart from any other considerations, legacy systems are becoming increasingly expensive to run, so organisations need to declare them end-of-life. But they need to bridge where they are to where they want to be.

"A large number of Pegasystems customers are doing robotics" and the technology is providing a pipeline of new customers, he said.

He doesn't recommend this approach for customer-facing systems. Established organisations face competition from new companies with low costs, that are "personable," and offer a good user experience (think in terms of some of the newer insurance companies). Robots don't change the experience enough, he said, so it is better to move to modern software more quickly.

People are realising that we are approaching a point where big improvements can be made quickly by replacing legacy software, Carden said. But for now, large numbers of applications have been deployed to fill the gaps in old-fashioned monolithic systems, and that provides plenty of opportunities to gain value through automation.

Robotics "has got to be part of something else", he said, "we're interested in customers who want strategic change".

Forrester has noted the way Pegasystems offers a range of business applications based on the same platform as its digital process automation suite which includes robotic process automation and other functions.

Growing awareness of machine learning will lead to increased attention being paid to data, said Adam-Gedge.

There are also organisational issues, so leadership skills are important. In particular, employees may be "culturally hesitant" about the introduction of automation, with concerns about whether such systems will eliminate jobs, and whether they will actually work in the specific circumstances.

An "HR bot" might be good for handling many routine inquiries such as questions about the annual leave policy, leaving staff to concentrate on issues around the employee experience, wellbeing and wellness.

Or a smart augmented reality system may improve the likelihood that field service staff will be able to fix faults immediately.

Carden seemed sceptical about suggestions that automation would merely free staff to do the more interesting tasks. Saving time will normally mean fewer staff, he said, unless there's a lot of work that's simply not being done at present. (Another possibility is that the improvement in productivity will lead to extra business, providing more work for the employees. But since that's unlikely to happen overnight, it seems probable that some will be retrenched and then other people hired as business picks up.)

Adam-Gedge also pointed to the way "machines are able to do things we never could do", such as using sensor data to drive predictive maintenance programmes that have the potential to save millions of dollars by extending the useful life of assets.

A recent survey of organisational leaders found that more than half of the respondents regard automation as a way of augmenting rather than replacing people, she noted.

But just because it is possible to do something, that doesn't mean you should. This is an "extraordinarily hot issue", she said. Technologists need to understand what is possible in regulatory as well as technical terms, and consider the position of stakeholders with regard to what they are trying to achieve with automation, and what is legal and ethical.

Organisations are spending more time considering such issues, said Adam-Gedge, and are "no longer just giving a set of requirements to a technologist".

Setting the right boundaries makes it possible to seek the benefits of automation while avoiding its bad side.

Continued here:

Two steps to automation - iTWire

As a company that specializes in automation controls, we field a lot of different requests from clients who want a quick budgetary quote to retrofit an older piece of equipment. These requests usually come in after a piece of machinery has failed and the company has encountered one of three scenarios: 1) The company doesnt have any documentation. 2) The last person to work on this machine has retired, and no one has been trained. 3) Replacement parts have finally become too difficult to find, even on eBay. There are other reasons, of course, but most often a client is responding to some situation that has left the company exposed to a much larger downtime risk than previously thought.

I want to discuss two different prevention techniques in hopes of providing some insight for companies to consider as they wrestle with keeping equipment currentand we all do! First, dont be caught off guard with not knowing how and when a piece of equipment is likely to fail. There are several software options available today that provide performance data and maintenance scheduling, helping companies avoid unplanned downtime. Second, consider a machine retrofit as a way of preparing for tomorrows manufacturing instead of just reacting to a problem with a rush to update the machine.

Software solutions for machine monitoring have come a long way in the past five years. I dont know if it can be considered a mature market, but there are many established providers that have proven their solutions. Conveniently for users, there are several options available from complete software platforms that monitor everything from CNCs, robots, PLCs and test stands to simple offerings that are designed to provide real-time monitoring per single device. Regardless of your specific needs, be assured that you have options that can be found with some basic Google searching. To make matters easier, a lot of these software providers offer their solutions via a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model, which reduces the risk of overcommitting and lowers upfront costs.

All this to say that it is wise to seriously consider employing a machine monitoring software tool of some sort sooner rather than later. The advantages of doing so far outweigh the risk. Consider some of the benefits: scheduled maintenance events based on known wear, use or observed conditions; dashboard monitoring and/or reporting available via desktop computer or mobile devices; uptime and throughput reports to monitor trends; and automated alarming provides alerts that will send alert condition messages to supervisory personnel to facilitate an immediate response. With so many software solutions available provided as flexible options like SaaS, it is a good time to develop and implement a strategy that takes the guessing out of machine monitoring.

The second key aspect to keep in mind when maintaining or updating older equipment is when you evaluate a retrofit investment, consider what you can do to make that piece of machinery or that production line ready for the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). In the not so distant future, experts predict whole manufacturing floors will be populated by intelligent machines that are able to monitor themselves, schedule their own maintenance and provide constant monitoring. This future state will allow machines to interoperate and create dramatic efficiencies not possible today. Machines will do this by dynamically adjusting to manufacturing conditions to ensure maximum efficiency. Although all of what is predicted is very exciting, we wont get there overnight. The clear majority of manufacturers will use a phased approach to slowly migrate equipment to Industry 4.0 requirements over the next decade, since very few companies have the luxury of starting their production strategies from scratch.

Companies can prepare for the future by utilizing their automation roadmap, or 3- to 5-year manufacturing plan, to ensure that any investment made in a machine retrofit will not only be applicable in the future, but will also be an advantage as they phase in more Industry 4.0 equipment. Learn why an automation roadmap is essential to remaining competitive. Not sure how to get started? Learn how to get started on an automation roadmap.

Here are some important things to consider with a retrofit: network compatibility, whether wired or wireless; security protocols to ensure all data is protected; virtualization (consider server consolidation and thin client architecture); and an interface that provides operators and decision-makers with valuable information to make appropriate, timely decisions.

In todays world, the information coming at us is unlimited and it can feel like we are constantly reacting to issues and scenarios. When updating or maintaining older equipment, it is crucial that we take a proactive approach. To do this, ensure you have maximum visibility into plant operations as described above and make every investment dollar count when you retrofit equipment to be fully prepared for tomorrows manufacturing.

As a final comment, integrators certified by the Control System Integrators Association (CSIA) can be an invaluable resource whether you are considering manufacturing software or creating an automation roadmap. Often, integrators have worked in a vast range of manufacturing scenarios and they can leverage that knowledge to the benefit of the client.

Michael Lindley is vice president of business development and marketing at Concept Systems Inc., a certified member of the Control System Integrators Association. See Concept Systems profile on the Industrial Automation Exchange.

Original post:

Preventing Extensive Downtime From Equipment Failure - Automation World

Australia is spectacularly unprepared for automation and this time it is more dramatic than the industrial revolution.

Let's be blunt: government and corporate Australia is spectacularly unprepared for automation.

You may think that's an especially provocative statement or blazingly unfair.

But try naming a government program or corporate plan to tackle the predicted massive impact of technological change on employment?

It's not like there haven't been clear signals of what's coming.

Oxford University, the OECD and MIT have long warned of the effects of job automation. Media, industry, unions and the tech sector have said we need to act on this.

Governments commission and consume studies and tacitly accept the extent of change coming. For example, the CSIRO has come up with a national-level to-do list via its report "Tomorrow's Digitally Enabled Workforce". Released early in 2016, the CSIRO's recommendations gather dust.

Australia's business community is actively examining roles ripe for automation, but many corporates are holding back on unleashing these changes, conscious of the job impacts flowing from such decisions.

Joined up government and industry preparedness is wholly absent and there is only so long this can go on for.

Businesses must reduce costs where possible, to compete and to pass savings to demanding customers and shareholders. Embracing this change early can lead to new jobs, as new companies and industries arise. Sadly, an absence of data and insight forces a short-term focus.

Companies that defer tough decisions make hasty, ill-considered "catch-up plays" that hurt employees and likely trigger community backlash. The cumulative effect of industries and government doing this too late, too fast, and with too little data and no overarching plan will be fewer people in work, and economic and social pain for all.

But we shouldn't feel compelled to assume the worst.

Technological change isn't new. It's been a constant since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Yes, this time, things are different.

The speed of tech-driven change, globalised markets, the automation of white as well as blue-collar roles and the geographic density of work, where whole communities rely on the salaries of jobs that will be automated, make today's changes sharper and, left unaddressed, more threatening.

Automation can both remove repetitive tasks from the workplace and create new opportunities. That's why government must plan ahead and focus on education that provides training so people can make the most of those opportunities as the world of work changes.

Few people left education for the challenge of filling out forms, and tomorrow's work will demand the skills computers don't have, like creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, curiosity, communication and care.

Leaders that show they have a plan to build tomorrow's companies, for tomorrow's jobs, with tomorrow's technologies can play a huge role in calming fears about the future. However, it's crucial to build this plan in a holistic and thoughtful way, with more than fly-by-night platitudes.

The worst thing that could happen is to have faith in a "just-in-time" response to automation hoping that just shoving affected workers through a plethora of "re-training" courses will fit the bill.

The key to managing the change will rest in leadership and insight, two ingredients noticeably absent in the national landscape.

We need leadership that is equipped to see commitments through to their conclusion, and do so collaboratively, across government, industry, major agencies and peak bodies.

And leadership needs to be informed with insight. In Australia, there are those that have tried to scope out different scenarios for the future of work.

The role of government is crucial from encouraging a greater take-up of lifelong learning, supporting the emergence of new industries through to thinking about and acting upon the likely impact of automation on areas such as taxation and superannuation.

Most of all, both companies and governments need insight to build durable strategies and policies that see Australian industries and communities through this transition. This is no time for two or three-year pet projects that expire when new CEOs or new governments arrive.

Ultimately, we need the future of work in Australia to become a much more prominent part of public discussion. We must not blandly "mitigate" the effect of change, but ensure that Australians feel like they have enriching, more secure jobs in a globally relevant economy as a result of it.

Ed Husic is Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy and Future of Work and Mike Priddis is CEO and founder of Faethm, an R&D firm focused on the Applications and Implications of emerging technologies

Original post:

Australia unprepared for automation of its workforce - The Australian Financial Review

The US presidential election last year was a choice between two second world war acronyms: snafu (situation normal, all f***** up) and fubar (f***** up beyond all recognition).

American voters faced a choice between a candidate who personified the political status quo, and a candidate who promised the disruption of that status quo. With Hillary Clinton, there was the certainty that nothing much would change. With Donald Trump there was the chance of quite a lot of change, but the risk was that it would be change for the worse. Twelve months ago, it was dawning on me that there might just be enough voters willing to gamble on Trump, knowing full well that the outcome might be fubar.

Since Trumps election, I have tried to swim against liberal opinion. The more commentators proclaimed the advent of tyranny and the end of the republic, the more I tried to argue that the Trump administration belongs firmly in the tradition of American populism. The more journalists cried Watergate, the more I tried to show that Trump isnt Richard Nixon: with his dynastic approach and louche personality, he more closely resembles John F Kennedy.

My goal has not been to defend Trump, but rather to expose the inconsistencies of his critics. However, the time has arrived to break the bad news to those who voted for Trump.

You wanted change. You got it. But the result is a political system that I can now officially certify as fubar. This is not politics. This is fubatics.

Seven months ago, House Speaker Paul Ryan was proclaiming the opportunity of a lifetime for Republicans. Having achieved unified government control of the White House and both Houses of Congress their party was poised to enact a transformative legislative programme: repeal and replace Barack Obamas Affordable Care Act, comprehensive tax reform and a roll-back of economic regulation.

Yet,the Senate could not even agree on a skinny bill to repeal just parts of Obamacare. The same week, the Republicans abandoned all hope of passing the border adjustment tax, without which there can be no permanent cuts in corporate and income tax. As for deregulation, this was also the week when Steve Bannon, the chief presidential strategist, said he wanted to regulate Google and Facebook like public utilities.

Wait. Right now Google and Facebook are free. By contrast, I pay hundreds of dollars every month to the utilities.

Fubatics is to politics what comedy is to news. Ever since Americans began to get their politics from comedians such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the danger was that the politicians would respond by providing their scriptwriters with material for gags. We have now reached that point.

Newly appointed White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, last week told a New Yorker journalist that his colleague, chief of staff Reince Priebus, was a f****** paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac ... I want to f****** kill all the leakers and I want to get the presidents agenda on track. He took to Twitter to imply that Priebus was guilty of a felony in leaking details about his finances. By Friday, Priebus was gone. The previous weeks casualty was press secretary Sean Spicer. Next on Trumps hit list: Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Unified government? These guys are unified the way the cast of Reservoir Dogs were unified. Or maybe Goodfellas.

Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, the plan to render most Americans, and most humans, unemployed goes forward. If you dont live in northern California, you tend to assume that it will be decades before self-driving vehicles are the dominant mode of transport.

Nearly half the jobs in America are at risk of being automated over the next decade or two

Michael Gove, the British environment secretary, announced that the sale of new diesel and petrol cars would be banned in the UK by 2040 to encourage people to buy electric vehicles. This surely underestimates Tesla founder Elon Musk, not to mention the car makers chasing him in the race to bring e-cars to the mass market. Goves worries about diesel fumes remind me of The Times 1894 editorial warning that by the mid-20th century every street in London would be buried under horse manure. Despite evidence of the accelerating pace of technological change, we humans remain chronically bad at making realistic projections about our economic future. The American Trucking Association says the number of jobs for truck drivers will be 21 per cent higher in 2020 than in 2010. Yet self-driving vehicles are already on the road in several US states.

There are 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the US. It is the most common job in most states. But they sit where drivers of horse-drawn carriages once were: on the brink of unemployment. Nor are they alone. Nearly half the jobs in America are at risk of being automated over the next decade or two, according to Carl Frey and Michael Osborne of Oxford University. Looking at global employment, the McKinsey Global Institute has concluded that half of todays work activities could be automated by 2055, but this could happen up to 20 years earlier.

Trump voters thought it was globalisation that destroyed the good jobs in American manufacturing. In reality it was globalisation and technology. Now technology is getting ready to destroy the not-so-good jobs too.

As an economic historian, I cling to the hope that predictions of the impending redundancy of humanity, like similar predictions at earlier stages of industrialisation, will turn out to be wrong. As a reader of Dostoyevskys Notes from Underground, I also expect bloody-minded humanity to put up more of a fight against the automation of the world than Silicon Valley expects. This is why Google and Facebook are the new targets of Bannons populism.

Yet, as I watched my son play gleefully with a toy robot called Robosapien, the Action Man we gave him for Christmas forgotten, suddenly I felt a sense of kinship with that poor, discarded doll.

The goings-on in Washington are the comedy politics of a distracted age. But the more attention we give @realDonaldTrump on Twitter, the less we pay to the economic revolution all around us. The future belongs to robotics, not fubatics.

Niall Ferguson is a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford

See the original post here:

White House comedy distracts America from the age of automation and looming job losses - South China Morning Post