139

MAP Progress for Europe C. HOPTROFF European MAP User Group, c /o Jaguar-Cars, Brown Lane, Alleslet, Coventry CV5 9DR, UK

Since March, 1985 when the first conference on MAP in Europe took place, there has been rapid progress to balance the effort between USA and Europe to speed up the develop- ment of International Standards for MAP.

There are now over 200 firms in the European MAP User Group (EMUG) and three working groups with EMUG shar- ing work with their USA counterparts.

The coordination of European National Standard Bodies via EMUG, CEN/CENELEC, CNMA and SPAG must be enhanced to speed up formulation of International Standards for MAP. Towards this objective countries have or are for- ming, National Chapters to advance MAP progress with each country whilst supporting EMUG as the centre of Technical Development for MAP.

Keywords: MAP, EMUG

North-Holland Computer Standards & Interfaces 7 (1988) 139-143

1. Why European Industry Wants MAP

MAP by itself does nothing for industry. MAP solves one of the major constraints on achieving cost effective Computer Integrated Manufacturing installations. Lets get one point clear I must stress that it solves the major constraints however there are other hurdles that progressively are being solved, or will need to be solved to make CIM even more cost effective.

So the sole reason for MAP is because industry wishes to use more widely Computer Integrated Manufacturing concepts. I use the word "in- dustry" because it is just as applicable to Manu- facturing, which is everybody's immediate conclu- sions, but it is equally applicable to process in- dustries.

Many firms and institutions across Europe in- cluding the European Commission have carried out in-depth studies looking at the advantages in using Computer Integrated Manufacture and I would suggest all have come out concluding that European Industry requires to employ Computer Integrated Manufacturing concepts urgently so that we can improve our competitiveness world- wide. Europe and America in particular need to deploy rapidly Computer Integrated Manufactur- ing to meet the challenge from the developing nations who have got other cost benefits that they can deploy which in our societies we cannot achieve. For example that we like to work in a nice environment some of our competing nations' industries work in environments which cost sig- nificantly less to achieve than those which our societies, quite understandably, have come ac- customed to working in, so we must have other means to redress that difference to achieve our competitiveness. CIM is a key to achieving this.

Within European manufacturing firms there is currently a lot of evaluation ongoing to explore the deployment of Computer Integrated Manufac- turing Facilities (CIM). Many firms have Islands of Automation but few have made significant pro- gress on CIM.

The majority of CIM installations will involve linking individual computer based tools and sys- tems controlling differing manufacturing applica- tions and related Company operations.

140 C. Hoptroff / MAP Progress for Europe

From where can the manufacturing firms purchase such facilities? Well; if you want material handling then you look at material handling peo- ple. If you want robots then you look at the robot manufacturers. If you want CAD systems then you look at the CAD firms. If you want straight forward business computing systems you look at mainframe computer suppliers. This sounds ele- mentary, however, it inevitably leads you into a multi-vendor environment. Within that multi- vendor enviroment the current state of technology is that the computer based systems vary greatly in a number of ways. Hence communications to achieve CIM is a major problem. Because of this attempts have been made to single vendor source, one firm has sufficient depth of the required skills so this approach generally fails. I suggest there are unique specialised skills and evolution related to each of these vendors and market sectors. Hence in the current state of the art there are fundamen- tal differences from vendor to vendor and even more from sector to sector. Currently all computer based equipment vendors have developed their own Computer concepts in isolation of each other. Such differences currently create for the users a string of cost penalties due to very high one off development costs and extended project durations, specialised training, spare holding unique support etc. Many manufacturers have learned this from their islands of automation experience.

Currently solving these problems requires much unique development per application. As there are literally 100's of different computer based prod- ucts world-wide applicable to CIM installations. Each installation will have a unique selection of these products lending currently to a unique com- munication solution for every installation. Each such solution takes a disproportionate amount of time and cost; typically many tens of thousands of pounds each, and that's only the start of the problem because the user must maintain all these unique communications for the full life of the facility typically 10 years.

I suggest - would you invest millions of pounds dependent on so much one off software, and hardware development plus be dependent on a unique small team for support for the life of the facility? The answer must be n o . However, there is an alternative. General Motors took the initiative with Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) in 1982. Prior to the initiative the vendors were

content to ignore the users multi-vendors di- lemma. However General Motors concept is based on two key points:

1. That the protocol must be based on interna- tional standards. Where necessary current standards must be enhance to achieve the re- quired functionality. That the protocol must be deployed universally on all computer based products used in CIM installations.

2. That all vendors must submit their products to an independent conformance centre for certifi- cation. Only after obtaining certification of conformance and interoperability can they be sold as MAP units.

In addition GM have forcibly told its vendors if you do not develop and market MAP products in place of current products, GM will no longer buy from that vendor.

Such pressure has already converted many sup- pliers including IBM, DEC and HP, and a small number of European vendors including Siemens, ASEA and GEC.

Jaguar and many other European users have determined that the assessments made by General Motors are correct and that within Europe we should be actively supporting and working on the MAP effort in parallel with US effort to ensure its more rapid introduction and equally the capability of MAP products to be produced by European vendors.

To that end in March '85 a Conference

Table 1

Citroen BP International FIAT Eurotherm GEC Ford of Europe Honeywell Lucas Peugeot Philips Renaults Siemens Jaguar Elsag Shell Valmet Volkswagen Unilever

C Hoptroff/MAP Proy;ressfor Europe 141

organised by CAM-I, Unilever and Beale Elec- tronics was held at the Sheridon Hotel, London, Heathrow, at that conference an initial adhoc European MAP User Group was elected to evolve a formal concept for a MAP users group in Europe. The adhoc group were mandated at that March conference to achieve this by the end of 1985.

That adhoc team consisted of 11 users and four vendors, they are listed in Table 1. Working with that group were some associations such a CIGREF of France, VDI, VDMA for Germany and CIAD for the Netherlands.

2. Inauguration Meeting

We first met on the 12th April '85 at Unilever House, London at which time Mr. Vic Gregory from Unilever was voted as the European MAP User Group Convenor. It was decided that we should have five task teams and they were to establish: 1. A constitution and Secretariat configuration

which I lead. 2. A technical Group chaired by Mr. Segarra of

Renault. 3. A Pilot project evaluation group chaired by Dr.

Scholten of Philips. 4. A Training Group chaired by Dr. Birchinall of

Lucas. 5. A process related group chaired by Mr. Mc-

Kenna of BP International. After six months of intense work under Vic

Gregory's leadership they had formulated a way to achieve a MAP User Group in Europe without a lead firm with funding and personnel as GM is doing in USA. To date no such firm has emerged within Europe. At the Frankfurt VDI meeting on the 4th October the adhoc Committee tabled a draft constitution who's key points are that the user group should have the objectives listed in Table 2.

In June 86 a fourth classification for observing members of non-commercial academic bodies with an annual subscription of £100 was established.

The intentions are that both classifications of participating membership can vote for their re- spective kind in electing the representatives for a Steering Group and that all participating members can participate in their choice of the technical working groups.

Table 2

• Harmonise European efforts to achieve an international MAP format

• Ensure MAP products are produced in Europe • Establish independent European MAP conformance testing • Promote full appreciation of MAP for European users and

vendors • Encourage and support development of international stan-

dards • Encourage and support MAP pilot and demonstration pro-

jects in Europe • That it should have a Steering Committee with overall

accountability not exceeding 20 in number and should con- sist of users and vendors in relationship of 3 to 1.

• That it should have a self funding capability through a membership subscription and memberships will be in three classifications: l. User participated members - firms with an annual sub-

scription of £1.500. 2. Vendor participation member firms with an annual sub-

striction of £1.500. 3. Obse~'ing members firms with an annual subscription of

£50O. • That the European MAP User Group Secretariat (Cranfield

College of Technology Bedford UK) should co-ordinate the activities of the membership, the Steering Group Commit- tee, the Technical Committees, and collating the informa- tion flow from the American User Group to the European MAP effort.

As a member of the adhoc team under Vic Gregory I knew that we needed a minimum of 40 participating members to be viable following the tabling of the proposal at Frankfurt on the 4th October.

The next three months demonstrated that we had well in access of that amount of people wish- ing to join and hence in December 1985 we ini- tiated the balloting on a postal basis of all those who had joined by the end of November to for- mally set up the European MAP Users Group. By early January the balloting results were issued and we had a formally elected Steering Group. Through this period the adhoc team had continued and had started the technical committee with its three working groups as it was understood that this was urgent in order to get ourselves quickly active so that we could effectively work with our American colleagues. These groups were launched from the end of November.

The first formal EMUG meeting was held in Genoa on the 6th February 1986 at which the Steering Committee elected its officers, you can

142 C. Hoptroff / MA P Progress for Europe

see from this chart that I was fortunate to be elected Chariman of this new body. The adhoc's committee's proposals for technical committee and its three working groups was ratified so as of 6th February 1986 EMUG was formally operative on all fronts. At that stage we had 140 members. The distribution of members covered 11 countries within Europe and had a very good balance be- tween those countries of both users participating member firms, vendor participating member firms and observer member firms.

EMUG has held its first AGM in April which included a vendor presentation in Europe. It will be staging more vendor presentations in the latter part of the year to enable the emerging MAP vendors within Europe to present in detail their evolving and issued products relating to MAP such that the EMUG members are fully informed of the marketable state within Europe.

At the end of EMUG's first six months mem- bership had increased by 36% to 202 members. The attendance at three working groups was aver- aging at about 30 attendees per meeting/working group and the interest, enthusiasm and enquiries across Europe meant that the Secretariat was stretched to its limits and beyond and that the Steering Committee doubled the manning within the Cranfield Secretariat.

The three Working Groups under the Chair- manship of Mr. G Segarra from Renault went to America in May with each of the three Working Group Chairmen and had detailed discussions with their opposite numbers within the GM teams such that they could start effectively proof reading all the hundred plus drafts emerging for MAP 2.2 and MAP 3.0 and this task had a progressive number of sign off dates from July to December 1986. EMUG with GM also established electronic mail links between each of the Working Groups in Europe and America for speedy effective peer to peer type working operations for the Working Groups.

Also within those first six months, the European Commission stated that they were endorsing MAP deployment for Esprit 1 and Esprit 2 projects and within their range of projects the CNMA project was the major project deploying MAP in three vendor plants in the UK, Germany and Italy plus a demonstration project at the Hannover Fair. These will take place progressively from the latter part of 1986 into the early part of 1987.

In addition to promote the awareness of MAP further within Europe, because although we have a growing membership, there are still many key areas of Europe that have not absorbed the re- quirement. General Motors promoted a stand to move through Europe starting the CIM 1986 ex- hibition in London in June proceeding to Paris for the SICOB meeting in September, INTERKAMA in Dusseldorf early October and SYSTEC 1986 in Munich towards the end of October.

In the United Kingdom the Department of Trade and Industry organised a MAP awareness event called CIMAP which was held at the Na- tional Exhibition Centre in Birmingham in the first week of December. The MAP/TOP aware- ness event had a backbone involving some 60 vendors in 15 cells. Each cell demonstrating how MAP/TOP can improve effectiveness of a selected business function from CADCAM, Quality Moni- toring, Flexible Assembly etc.

On the very important front of conformance EMUG has been actively trying to encourage that a world conformance operation with the Corpora- tion of Open Systems (COS) in America plus co-ordinate conformance teams from both Europe and Japan. Within Europe EMUG has been active in the lobbying for a concerted effort involving institutions within Europe co-ordinated by the European Commission. EMUG has actively been lobbying the leading Governments within Europe to support this European approach.

On December 3rd EMUG called a unique meeting at the National Exhibition Centre during CIMAP attended by 8 European bodies involved in conformance plus COS and ITI from USA with a Japanese team also attending. The meeting dis- cussed various ways of uniforming worldwide map conformance testing. Also resulting from this meeting EMUG has formed Working Group No. 4 chaired by K. Heger from Fraunhofer Institute Karlsruhe. The objective of this group is to en- courage the speedy uniformity of the European MAP conformance effort to establish the world format to ensure the user objectives are realised.

TOP interest has grown in recent months within Europe generally and EMUG members in particu- lar EMUG had a ballot of its participating mem- bers and over 30% want to actively get involved in creating TOP with the USA teams.

Taking account of this and the OSITOP User Group launched in Geneva on l l th October

C. Hoptroff / MAP Progress for Europe 143

EMUG has created Working Group No. 5. lts objectives are to immediately get involved in the Technical drafting of standards for TOP 3.0. EMUG has opened this Working Group to all potential OSITOP User Group participating mem- bers plus EMUG members.

EMUG wish to move this working to OSITOP as soon as it is mutually practical to both user groups.

In conclusion I should say that my first year of Chairmanship of EMUG is now eleven months through and that the drive of both the individuals within the Companies and the Companies them- selves that have joined EMUG is exceptionally impressive and supports the points that I made at the start of this paper of how vital it is that we overcome this major constraint to CIM implemen- tation as quickly as possible.