IMGS White Paper Template

Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
A White Paper
Process, Power & Marine, a division of Intergraph
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Terminology ............................................................................................................................. 2
3.
Business Drivers....................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Use Case Scenarios ........................................................................................................................3
3.1.1 Design Agent Scenario .................................................................................................4
3.1.2 Intra-Enterprise Centralized Design, Distributed Production Scenario ........................4
3.1.3 Inter-Enterprise Distributed Design and Production Scenario......................................4
3.1.4 Intra-Enterprise Highly Scalable Design Scenario .......................................................4
3.1.5 Owner/Operator Life Cycle Asset Management...........................................................4
4.
Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Database Configuration .................................................................................................................6
4.2 Configuring Global Workshare......................................................................................................8
4.2.1 Server Hardware Requirements ....................................................................................8
4.2.2 Concurrent Users ..........................................................................................................9
4.2.3 Project Size Estimates...................................................................................................9
4.3 Access Control.............................................................................................................................10
4.4 Data Interoperability ....................................................................................................................11
5.
Production Testimonials ....................................................................................................... 12
5.1 Marine Global Workshare............................................................................................................12
5.1.1 Initial Workshare Scope .............................................................................................12
5.1.2 Future Global Workshare Scope.................................................................................13
5.1.3 Lessons Learned .........................................................................................................14
5.2 OnShore Plant EPC......................................................................................................................14
6.
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 17
7.
Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 18
7.1 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................18
7.2 References....................................................................................................................................18
7.3 Authors’ biographies....................................................................................................................18
1.
Introduction
The conditions under which modern shipyards are working today require that they become more
efficient in their design and engineering activities and enhance their processes and working
methods in order to reduce lead time and design cost. One way to reduce lead time in design is to
subcontract all or some portion of the work to external partners – at both the design and production
levels. This solution affords flexibility in workforce utilization compared to the alternative of
hiring more resources and it has a potential cost saving aspect. The enabler for such an
environment is a design system that supports a process whereby it is possible to manage globally
distributed projects from a centralized location without using excessive additional efforts in
coordination and control activities.
Odense Steel Shipyard (OSS) has been a founding member and integral partner with Intergraph in
the development of SmartMarine 3D, which has been designed to support the vision of highly
concurrent, scalable, globally distributed design as outlined in the summary above. SmartMarine
3D is architected on commercial, open, relational database technology that takes advantage of
highly reliable remote data replication. This enables shipyards to support a process of working
globally with design centres in distributed networks through sharing of the product model in
geographically distributed sites while supporting consistent workflows through control of user
permissions.
The authors will present a summary of the business drivers for this requirement, an overview of the
issues facing such an approach, outline the details of the implementation, highlight some
production success stories and lessons learned, and summarize the advantages it has produced.
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 1
2.
Terminology
The following terminology is used in this paper:
• Global Workshare Configuration (GWC) – refers to the concept of distributing the
responsibility for some aspect of a marine project’s design and/or construction across
physically separate sites.
• Site – a database server at some physical location, designated as either a host or satellite.
• Permission Group (PG) – a mechanism to control access (i.e. the read and/or write) to
objects within the database.
• Replication – the means by which information at one site is synchronized with information
at another site.
• Business Object (BO) – refers to a software component that represents a real-world
application object (e.g. a plate, a piece of equipment, a pipe, a block, an assembly, a
workcenter, etc.) encapsulating the business rules, logic, and controls necessary to ensure it
behaves in a consistent and predictable manner.
• Host Location – the first site created in a GWC that controls the replication and
synchronization process.
• Satellite Location – one or more remote sites created in a GWC that contains copies of the
data on the host location.
.
Figure 1: Marine industry global workshare
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 2
3.
Business Drivers
As noted in the terminology section and in Figure 1, Global Workshare refers to the concept of
distributing the responsibility for some aspect of a ship’s design and/or manufacture among
physically separate sites while ensuring safe information exchange without the risk of disruptions
to the day-to-day business operations. Examples of this are: delegating design responsibility for
some subset of a ship’s systems given to a sub-contractor by a prime contractor; responsibility for
inter-discipline design tasks among design departments of an enterprise that are in different cities,
states, or countries; responsibility for approving the design by a classification society; or
responsibility for the manufacture of some sub-assemblies and/or blocks by outside subcontractors
or by other shipyard facilities under the control of the enterprise. Not all business cases or drivers
involve outside subcontractors or separated geographies.
Workshare can be, and is, used to support scalability and optimization in highly concurrent design
scenarios within large enterprises. Processes and procedures need to be developed and/or adapted
to take into consideration such factors as permission levels that can be assigned to individual users
and/or groups of users. Through use of “permissions”, design management can control what data
can be created or changed by whom in this distributed digital domain. These types of controls are
not new to shipbuilding; they exist in some form or another in every design office and shipyard in
existence today. However, they are generally not formalized and structured in a manner that allows
them to be exploited by today’s information systems.
The business innovation for the marine industry that is made possible by workshare technology is
one of the most promising bright spots on the horizon. Shipbuilding and Offshore construction is
cyclical, demand fluctuates, and capacity is limited. The ability to compete and survive hinges on
the ability to specialize on some aspect of the overall process, whether that is producing a complete
marine vessel type, or only some specific system, subsystem, or component. The ability to isolate
some subset of the design data and temporarily or permanently assign responsibility for it from one
group to another, while maintaining the data integrity in an integrated product model in a
concurrent design environment, is revolutionary in the marine industry.
3.1 Use Case Scenarios
While the business drivers outlined above may be broadly applicable across multiple industries like
automotive, construction, aerospace, process, and power, it should be emphasized that advocating a
“one size fits all” solution is not what the authors are endorsing. The marine industries have many
unique characteristics associated with large, one-of-a-kind complex products that cannot be
addressed with generic off-the-shelf tools. Factors such as regional vendor and supplier bases,
scalability, integrated design and production processes, and management of large capital assets all
combine to necessitate the need for highly specialized tools developed specifically for the industry.
It is important to make the clear distinction between the need for tools tailored to and for the
specific needs of an industry segment and the use of technology in the underlying architecture of
the tool that applies to a broader market segment. In the case of SmartMarine 3D – the tool – and
global workshare – the technology – just such an approach has been adopted. The following
paragraphs detail a number of common scenarios typical of the industry and highlight
characteristics and issues that present peculiar challenges to be addressed from a Global Workshare
perspective.
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 3
3.1.1 Design Agent Scenario
This scenario is characterized by a relatively low number of client users working with a high
volume of evolving design models and interacting with a varied and ad hoc set of external
consultants and subcontractors. The design timeframe is relatively short, ranging from several
weeks to 3-4 months. The modeling activities are primarily concentrated in the “design” stage
of the lifecycle and limited if any effort is expended in the detailing and production stages.
The deliverables are primarily drawings and reports suitable for conveying design intent,
concept, and estimating cost and schedule. The level of detail, need and use of standardized
details and rate of change are relatively low. The amount of data reuse is extremely high, as is
the need for rich catalogue content.
3.1.2 Intra-Enterprise Centralized Design, Distributed Production
Scenario
In this scenario, the number of design clients is very high, the volume of designs is low, and the
interaction with subcontractors limited. The design timeframe is on the order of 3-6 months. The
modeling activities span the design, detailing, and production stages of the product lifecycle.
Deliverables are design and production drawings, reports, and Numeric Control data for plate and
profile cutting, pipe bending, and robotic welding. Because this scenario is within a single
enterprise, it is possible to tightly control the IT infrastructure, processes and procedures, and
project execution. The projects in this scenario are typically more complex and the design level of
detail, the duration of the design cycle, and the need to provide versions of the deliverables result in
a high level of change that must be managed across all the design stages. The need for design
standardization, automation, and rich catalogue content is high.
3.1.3 Inter-Enterprise Distributed Design and Production
Scenario
What makes this scenario different from Scenario 3.1.2 above is the de-centralization of the design
and production activities. In addition to the physical logistical problems this entails, controlling and
managing the project is complicated by the existence of disparate IT infrastructures and processes
and procedures. Access control, model synchronization, standardization, format and content of
deliverables, and change management become much more important and difficult, requiring more
sophisticated and specialized tools and techniques.
3.1.4 Intra-Enterprise Highly Scalable Design Scenario
This is a specialized case of scenario 3.1.3 where the focus is on optimizing and fine-tuning
database configurations using workshare to balance the load between servers where the design
environment is highly concurrent and interactive.
3.1.5 Owner/Operator Life Cycle Asset Management
This scenario is one virtually untapped in the Marine Industry today and can be described as the
“onboard product model” delivered to the owner operator in the form of an “as-built” database. The
characteristics unique to this scenario are the challenges it presents to the IT infrastructure with
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 4
respect to database synchronization; the extended level of detail of catalogue content (vendor
content, spare parts, diagnostics, technical manuals, etc.); and the duration of the operation stage of
the life cycle – extending over several decades for commercial vessels and approaching a halfcentury for some Naval vessels. The design level of detail and volume of change slows markedly
from that during the design and production stages and is relatively low except for periods when the
vessel undergoes planned, scheduled maintenance or repair, making the feasibility of live updates
via satellite or periodic updates at ports of call a distinct possibility. Client access to the design
stage data and catalogue, on the other hand, is extremely high and most likely needs to be
supported on mobile clients. Uses of this data include training, inspection, supply, support,
maintenance, and repair.
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 5
4.
Infrastructure
Database replication, while supported by functions and features in the application, is not done
within SmartMarine 3D. It is a feature available from the database vendor. A full discussion on the
topic is outside the scope of this paper and is left to literature in the public domain (see reference
1), however, from a high-level perspective, it involves servers playing the roles of publisher,
distributor, and subscribers. The publisher is the server or database that sends its data to another
server. The distributor is the server or database that manages the flow of data through the
replication system, and the subscribers are the servers or databases that receive data. The role of
distributor may be combined with that of the publisher on the same server. In the content of this
paper, the term site is synonymous with publish and subscribe servers – each of these would be a
separate site that would be synchronized via replication.
There are different types of replication, namely snapshot, transactional, and merge. Snapshot
replication is the simplest and works by copying all replicated data from the publisher database to
the subscriber’s databases on a periodic basis. It is best in situations where the size of the data is
not very large and the data changes infrequently. Transactional replication captures all changes and
stores insert, delete, and update statements in the distributor database. These changes are then sent
to the subscribers and applied in the same order as they were made. This type of replication is best
for frequently changing data and large data stores. This is the model most commonly employed
with SmartMarine 3D in the Marine industry. Merge replication is the most complicated and
captures all incremental data changes in the source and target databases and reconciles conflicts
according to rules the user configures. It is best used to support autonomous changes of data on the
publisher and subscriber servers and databases. Given the global nature of today’s marine user,
replication and work sharing offers the potential to efficiently and effectively manage a
shipbuilding or offshore project among several design teams, consultants, sub-contractors, and/or
yards.
The following paragraphs outline some of the necessary infrastructure for supporting global
workshare.
4.1 Database Configuration
From a conceptual user viewpoint, the system can be described as a single, virtual database
solution. The physical implementation, however, makes use of multiple databases – more or less
transparent to the designer using SmartMarine 3D – for the purposes of effectively and efficiently
segregating the information. In order to properly setup and utilize global workshare, the database
administrator must understand the databases that SmartMarine 3D uses. Figure 2 graphically
depicts these databases, which are: catalogue; catalogue schema; model; site; and site schema. The
Catalogue database contains reference data, which includes part dimensions and industry standards.
The catalogue database is the sum total of the non-graphical information derived from the reference
data (catalogue content) delivered with the software. The delivered reference data can be modified
or custom reference data can be used to create a new catalogue database for a specific project.
The model database contains all instances of parts in the physical representation of the model.
The catalogue and model databases share the same schema. A marine design project (i.e. a ship
or offshore structure) is all three databases used together: catalogue database, catalogue
schema database, and model database. The site database and schema are containers for the
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 6
Site
Schema Db
Site Db
Catalog Db
Catalog Db
Catalog &
Model
Schema Db
Permissions
Permissions
Catalog &
Model
Schema Db
Filters
Filters
Model Db
Model Db
Model Db
Figure 2: Database configuration
other databases. The site database stores work-breakdown and user access for the model. A site
database can have multiple model and catalogue databases. Typically, there is one site database
set for each customer location.
The global workshare configuration (GWC) allows sharing all the data within one marine
project with remote sites. Designed for companies running projects from multiple sites (EPCs or
owner/operators, for example) or for multiple companies that are working on a single marine
project, the global workshare functions involve a single, central database in which all the changes
come together as if they were created at the same site. Pivotal in the sharing of data within a
workshare environment are the geographical hubs known as locations. Two types of locations are
required to share model data among multiple sites: a Host location and one or more satellite
locations.The host location is a set of one or more database servers on a local area network (LAN)
that contains the original set of databases associated with a site. The satellite location is a set of one
or more database servers on a LAN that contains the replicated database associated with a site. The
host location is created automatically and as such, the host location is the first location created.
satellite locations, on the other hand, are created manually. Once they are created, locations can be
associated with permission groups and models as part of the workshare replication process. In the
global workshare solution, data sharing between different locations is achieved through real-time
Model database replications of the entire ship at all satellite locations. The catalogue and catalogue
schema databases and the site and site schema databases are maintained on the host server while
satellite locations have read-only replications of these databases.
For the catalogue, catalogue schema, site, and site schema, the host should control the data. The
other machines are satellites of the Host. The host is a publisher of catalogue, schema, and model
data to the satellites and a subscriber of model data from the satellites. The satellites are
Subscribers to the host for catalogue, schema, and model data. They are publishers of model data to
the host. In small and midsize configurations, the database server is usually its own distributor.
However, in the case of large configurations or multiple smaller configurations, it is possible to use
a dedicated distributor server.
Consolidation is the process of merging back all the replicated databases on the different satellite
servers to the databases on the host server so as to form a single database of each type. The
resulting merged databases resemble the original databases; users can work with them as if the
databases were never replicated or, at some later point in the design process, the databases can be
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 7
replicated again with either the same or with different satellite locations. The ability to easily grow
the workshare configuration by creating additional satellite locations after the project start as
demand dictates and then to just as easily shrink the configuration by consolidating databases
provides the ultimate flexibility in meeting the fluctuating demands of the industry.
While this setup is overhead that must be undertaken in a GWC, it is something that is typically
done once at the start of the project and then run autonomously during the project execution.
4.2 Configuring Global Workshare
Projects intending to use global workshare need to properly configure the hardware and software
based on a number of factors, such as:
• The number of concurrent users per site.
• The number of sites.
• The size of the project (which translates into the size of the databases).
• Other software that is running on the machine.
The paragraphs below provide a more detailed discussion of these factors.
4.2.1 Server Hardware Requirements
At the time of writing, the following specifications are adequate for a typical database server
supporting 30-40 concurrent users:
• 4x Dual Core Processor
• 16 GB RAM
• 100 BaseT or higher network interface
• Digital tape or DVD backup system for server
• CD-ROM drive access, either locally or through a network connection
For optimum performance, the server should be configured with multiple hard drives. The size of
the hard drive is not as important as the speed and 15K RPM or faster is recommended. You can
add disk arrays to maximize performance and avoid I/O bottlenecks. RAID 10 is recommended for
performance and redundancy.
The following example shows a typical configuration for a small project using SQL Server 2005.
Three disks is the recommended minimum:
• C: Drive – Operating System and SQL Server Software
• D: Drive – Database Files
• E: Drive – Database Log Files
A configuration for a large project using SQL Server 2005 is shown below:
• C: Drive (Raid 1) - 2 hard drives internal to the server for the operating system and Page
File
• E: Drive (Raid 10) – 8 SAN drives for the data file for the Model database
• F: Drive (RAID 10) – 4 SAN drives for the Model log file
• G: Drive (RAID 0 or 1) – 2 SAN drives for the temp database
• H: Drive (RAID 10) – 4 SAN drives for the Catalogue, Site, Site Schema, Catalogue
Schema, Report, and Report Schema data files
• I: Drive (RAID 1) – 2 SAN drives for the Catalogue, Site, and Schema log files
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 8
•
•
J: Drive (RAID 1) – 2 SAN drives for the Master database data
K: Drive (RAID 1) – 2 SAN drives for the log file
4.2.2 Concurrent Users
The size of the system depends partly on the number of concurrent users, that is, users actively
working at the same time. In a GWC, it is probable that work will be done at several sites in a nonconcurrent way. In this case, there is less impact on performance. For example, if you have two
sites with 60 users at each site but the users at the two sites do not work at the same time, you could
consider the user load to be 60 users. In a GWC when users are working concurrently at several
sites, the work done at one site will impact each site as the data is replicated to the other sites. In a
“hub and spoke” configuration (where a single hub server is designated as the distributor and the
spokes are all satellite servers), the data is first pushed to the hub and from there, pushed to the
other sites – effectively increasing the user load (i.e. the “equivalent user load) on the servers (see
Figure 3). Determination of the equivalent user load is based on the number of actual users on the
server plus a factor applied to the total of concurrent users of all the other sites. For example, the
equivalent user load would be less for a configuration of 6 sites with 40 users each where only 3
sites would be working concurrently – say because of time-zone differences – than it would be for
a configuration where all 6 sites would be working concurrently.
Spoke
(subscriber)
Spoke
(subscriber)
Clients
Clients
Hub
(distributer)
Spoke
(subscriber)
Spoke
(subscriber)
Figure 3: Hub and spoke GWC
4.2.3 Project Size Estimates
The model database is an important factor in determining project size, but it is not the only factor.
In addition to the explicit design clients, there are remote and batch processes for such things as
generation of deliverables (drawings, reports, manufacturing output, etc.), licensing, and
“interference detection” that run as additional clients and increase the user load on the server.
Characteristics for three prototypical project scenarios (small, medium, and large) are provided
below:
Small Project:
• 1 to 15 effective users on one server
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 9
•
•
•
•
•
•
Model database up to 8 GB
Server used for model and catalogue databases and catalogue file server
Separate interference checking server (or workstation)
Separate batch server (or workstation)
Name generator server and licensing server (or workstation)
Modeling and Administrator workstations can be separate or they can use the same
workstation
Medium Project:
• 16 to 50 effective users on one server
• Model database 8 – 15 GB
• Databases and catalogue file server
• Separate interference checking (IFC) server (or workstation)
• Separate batch server (or workstation)
• Name generator server and licensing server (or workstation)
• Modeling and Administrator workstations can be separate or they can use the same
workstation
• Separate distribution server for GWC
Large Project:
• 51 to 100 effective users on one server
• Model database 15 GB or more
• Databases and catalogue file server (have a separate catalogue file server for multiple large
projects or ships sharing the same catalogue)
• Separate interference checking (IFC) server (or workstation)
• Separate batch server (or workstation)
• Name generator server and licensing server (or workstation)
• Modeling workstations
• Administrator workstation
• Separate distribution server for GWC
4.3 Access Control
Access control is addressed through the concept of “permission groups” (PG’s) that play several
key roles in the system. At the most basic level, they enable segregation and control of design
responsibility, while at the most advanced level they enable partial backup and restore; form
natural boundaries for change propagation; and are the backbone of multi-site distributed design
(database replication and global work sharing). Every business object (BO) created in SmartMarine
3D belongs to one and only one PG. The system creates a default PG, however, users are free to
create as many additional PG’s as are necessary to control their design process. Within each
SmartMarine 3D task, the user selects the PG to be used for the creation of new objects. The means
are also provided to enable a user to easily modify the PG of an existing object. A PG serves as a
“logical” grouping of BO’s within the model database.
Access control in SmartMarine 3D is rule-based. Access rights are defined by a list of access rules
and granted to a user or a group (as defined by the operating system). The currently supported
access rights are read, create, update, delete, and approve. Access control is orthogonal to data
stores, that is, several data stores (catalogue and /or model databases) can support the same PG, and
hence an access rule will apply to all these data stores. In general, access control is not intended to
replace security. Rich clients (the client workstations on the network used by SmartMarine 3D
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 10
designers and engineers to model and interact with the model) have direct access to the database
and security is managed by using the security features of the database vendor. When an application
or a Web server hosts services, access control may be used as a security feature.
PG’s serve as the basic mechanism for partitioning data to support distributed design through
database replication and work sharing between two or more sites. A given site has “read-only”
access to the data of the other sites. Two sites cannot have “write” access at the same time to the
same data. It is better when the partitioning of data does not change frequently, for example, a site
is given “read/write” access in the morning to some data and another site is given the “read/write”
access to the same data in the afternoon. The reason being that the partitioning of data needs to be
controlled at a central location by an administrator because changing the partitioning is a heavy
operation and requires that the data stores at every other site be put “offline” while the changes are
made.
As with the project setup for database servers in a GWC, setting up the proper PG’s is something
that is typically done once at the beginning of the project. Determining the proper PG’s takes some
time and thought, however, once done, it can be used as the basis for future projects where only
minimal changes need to be made to address changing team players or roles.
4.4 Data Interoperability
Global workshare projects based on homogenous software applications and tools can avoid having
to deal with interoperability issues stemming from the need to exchange and share data. It is
essential that product data can be exchanged among stakeholders in the broad process. Designers,
suppliers, customers, subcontractors, class societies and others must be assured of timely access to
the relevant data with full security and integrity. Sadly, despite significant investments in human
and capital resources, the adoption of ISO standards for the exchange of product model data
(STEP) have had a minimal impact on the ability to share data among today’s shipbuilders – except
possibly as a kind of super-IGES translator of geometry and topology. Despite the adoption of
three shipbuilding-specific application protocols (AP’s) over 5 years ago – there are few, if any,
commercial offerings of STEP translators for these AP’s by software vendors in the marine
industry. Whether this is because of the complexities of data to be shared, the low demand within
the shipbuilding industry, or the pace of the standardization process, it remains a fact that
workshare in the near-term must continue to rely on the use of similar software systems or the
development of point-to-point solutions to address data sharing between systems. This absence of
standards means that factors like: open architectures, the availability of floating license
configurations; hardware costs; ease of use; and training requirements will be significant
discriminators in technology solutions. Products like SmartMarine 3D based on commercial,
relational database technology and an open architecture offer a proven path to meeting this need.
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 11
5.
Production Testimonials
Up to this point, the authors have described and discussed the technical issues underlying the
adoption and use of technology to facilitate global workshare. The authors would now like to shift
the focus to highlight several real-world applications of this technology in production projects.
5.1 Marine Global Workshare
Odense Steel Shipyard (OSS) in Denmark started practical use of SmartMarine 3D more than four
years ago, beginning on a small scale and growing at a measured pace. Today, SmartMarine 3D is
the major design tool and plans are under way to phase out all legacy systems by early 2008. OSS
has recently completed the design of the first in a series of a very large and advanced container ship
– by far the biggest ship the yard has ever built. The engineering centre in Odense did not have the
capacity to design such a ship in the allotted timeframe so it was decided that subcontracted
resources would be utilized. Likewise, none of these organizations had the capacity to undertake
the whole design themselves and it was necessary to use a number of geographically distributed
subcontractors located in Lithuania, Finland, Spain, Holland, and Germany in order to meet the
schedule. Further complicating the picture, the classification society was located in the USA and
the owner in Denmark. Significant key components were purchased in different countries including
as far away as Japan, Korea, and China. This project became a textbook example of the need for
tools and technology supporting globally distributed workshare. The following paragraphs
highlight the evolution of the implementation and some of the major lessons learned during its
execution, noting that this is an example of a project having the characteristics described in
paragraph 3.1.3.
5.1.1 Initial Workshare Scope
Given the situation of having a short window of opportunity for project start-up coupled with the
fact that each subcontractor had resources trained and experienced with a variety of different
systems and tools, it was apparent that the project would have to accommodate several different
traditional, legacy CAD systems being used in parallel. While this shortened the project start-up
time, eliminated the need for acquisition of new hardware and software systems, bypassed the need
for training, and guaranteed a known level of productivity of the subcontractors due to familiarity
with the tools, it came at the cost of rather expensive centralized, manual control and coordination
efforts. In addition to being built on a commercial, relational database, SmartMarine 3D is designed
with an open architecture and this enabled OSS to successfully use it as the central repository for
data from all the other systems using custom XML-based import interfaces.
The subcontractor models are placed directly in an SmartMarine 3D “satellite” database and the
content of that database is replicated at the OSS site. Access, however, is controlled by the
Information Technology department through permissions (See Figure 4). In this configuration,
distribution of work is managed by giving the responsible site “write” permissions and all the other
sites “read” permissions, thus eliminating the possibility of multiple sites modifying the same data
concurrently. Release of finished work was based on email or telephone communication and the
same process was used for addressing and managing change. When approved, OSS generated final
production information from the central database at OSS. This proved to be a practical, acceptable,
and functional way of doing business.
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 12
Steel design
Outfitting design
Production Eng.
Steel
Steel design
design
Lindø
Outfitting design
Production
Production Eng
Eng
SITE A
SITE B
Steel
Steel design
design
Outfitting design
Production
Production Eng.
Eng.
Figure 4: Distributed workshare – IT controlling database access
5.1.2 Future Global Workshare Scope
Following the completion of the 1st vessel in the series, OSS began work on the 2nd vessel and
continues to advance their efforts in the implementation and use of global workshare. Plans are
being developed to move away from having several model databases – which was done to
minimize risk – to incorporating everything into a single model database (see Figure 5). Tools for
centralized control, especially related to the use of standards controlled by detailing and
manufacturing rules embedded into SmartMarine 3D that ensure less expensive designs by
enforcing consistent application of the organizations best practices continue to be extended and
developed. The technology has proven to be sufficiently reliable for such an operation, and OSS
has found that their customized rules can automate 90 percent of the detailing of slots, clips,
collars, and welds in the design, providing significant productivity gains and advantages over their
legacy systems. More details on how this was accomplished can be found in reference 2.
Through the use of global workshare, the yard has increased their ability not only to use design
resources more effectively across the group, but to improve their ability to move work between
different resource pools and subcontractors as availability and schedule dictate. By doing this in the
context of a virtual engineering centre, significant costs related to travel are eliminated simply by
moving data between sites over the network. Expert skills can be shared on the same model in real
time between different design offices in the yard or group. There is full transparency across the
group and SmartMarine 3D’s unique features for rules and reference data are imbedded directly in
the model. OSS is convinced that the more knowledge and experience they gain using this
technology, they can:
•
Significantly reduce the total design time needed
•
Insure more efficient use of limited resources
•
Ease the process of outsourcing and managing the project
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 13
Figure 5: Engine room and deckhouse model from central database server
5.1.3 Lessons Learned
Based on the project success achieved to date, it can be stated that work share certainly is feasible
today. OSS realizes that it must be able to utilize Global Workshare as the business landscape has
fundamentally changed and they do not foresee a situation where they will have sufficient design
capacity within their organization to undertake projects of this scope without it. OSS also realizes
that while this project was successful, it was approached and executed in a rather primitive way and
they are far from an optimum solution sufficient to meet a situation where they could work around
the clock and take advantage of time zone differences. These advances will further shorten the
design time and lead to further improving their competitive position in the global market.
While technology makes global workshare feasible, it is not enough to make it fully successful.
This statement comes from the experiences and problems encountered while working with other
organizations in a shared data environment. Prior to acting as a prime contractor, OSS was not
accustomed to sharing data and design responsibility with other companies. In fact, it was realized
that this was also true within their own organization, and even between departments and groups in
the same office. How the various organizations within the shared environment plan, execute, and
manage their work also varies. It was observed that there were big differences between how
disciplined the different organizations were when it came to execution of plans and to follow-up
within OSS and within and between OSS and the subcontractors. Some were good, some were even
very good, but others were rather primitive and none were even close to what an around-the-globe
and around-the-clock operation would require. As GWC’s becomes a more integral part of day-today operations, more knowledge will be gained that can serve to drive the application developers,
software vendors, and technology companies towards better solutions. While there will always be
some boundary where business sensitive data must be protected, inter-organization cooperation and
worksharing will ultimately require process and procedural changes, and a shift in attitudes and
thinking from the perspective of partners and competitors.
5.2 OnShore Plant EPC
While SmartMarine 3D is the tool for the Marine Industry, it is built on the same technology
developed by Intergraph for Process and Power Industries. SmartPlant 3D® (SP3D) is the
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 14
equivalent counterpart to SmartMarine 3D for this segment of the industry and a license of
SmartMarine 3D includes all the functions and features of a license of SP3D in a single, integrated
package. One of the benefits of this multi-industry product coverage is the leveraging of the
technology across a broader market segment. This not only spreads the cost of development over a
larger market base, but it accelerates the product development and certification through collective,
general requirements common to these related industries. For example, in the area of global
workshare, Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) organizations face the same
business drivers as shipbuilders. The underlying functions, features, and technology of
SmartMarine 3D and SP3D are the same and, regardless of industry, global workshare is global
workshare, whether it is applied to designing and producing a ship, offshore structure, or an
onshore process plant. From a purist’s point of view, a Floating Production Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) vessel is essentially the blending of a ship and an offshore plant. The following paragraphs
highlight a successful production project in the onshore area, similar to what marine customers are
doing and having the characteristics of paragraph 3.1.4.
Suncor Energy Inc. has established a strategic corporate goal to move them from their current
capacity of 260K bbls/day of production to 550K bbls/day by 2012. In order to achieve this goal,
Suncor is in the process of a significant capital expenditure program to develop the required
infrastructure to achieve this. Early in this program, Suncor realized that the limitations of their
existing Design Engineering tools posed a risk to their ability to reach their goals.
Colt
Calgary
Jacobs
Calgary
Suncor
Host
Jacobs
Charleston
Jacobs
Mumbai
Current
Current SmartPlant
SmartPlant 3D
3D Implementation:
Implementation:
–– 250
250 Users
Users
–– 55 Workshare
Workshare Sites
Sites
–– Single
Single Replicated
Replicated Model
Model
Figure 6: Onshore plant workshare configuration
To mitigate this risk, Suncor undertook an evaluation of all major engineering design offerings and
in 2006 selected the SmartPlant Enterprise suite of tools as their solution of choice for all future
capital expenditure (CAPEX) programs. SmartPlant Enterprise was first deployed on Suncor's
Firebag Stage 3 Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) development, which is now in the
detailed design phase. Firebag Stage 3 is a large project involving two engineering firms in five
locations spanning three countries and two continents. Over 250 concurrent Engineers are
accessing the 3D model across these sites with virtually instantaneous replication of all data
between all sites (See Figure 6).
Beyond Firebag Stage 3, SmartPlant Enterprise has now been further deployed on the Firebag
Stage 4 SAGD program which is now in the Front End Engeering and Design (FEED) phase and
builds on the same Stage 3 model. In addition, Suncor has implemented SmartPlant Enterprise on
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 15
smaller projects such as Plant 89, Plant 310, and EDP; all of which are components of the larger
Voyageur South project which is currently in early planning stages.
Workshare was a major reason why Suncor chose to go to SmartPlant 3D. Suncor knew that the
level of work that was to take place on all the Stages of Firebag (3, 4, 5 and 6) meant that there
literally wasn’t sufficient engineering capacity left in Calgary to handle it. As such, it was crucial
that they be able to workshare with multiple sites globally.
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 16
6.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the authors believe they have identified business drivers underlying the need for
organizations to balance the demands that complex, time-critical projects place on engineering
resources with the flexibility provided by dynamic, distributed, virtual workforces that can
share data on a global scale in a transparent, seamless workshare configuration. An overview
of the technology and infrastructure to support such working arrangements and environments
was described. Against this backdrop, the authors attempted to characterize a range of
scenarios and configurations typical of today’s marine industry ranging from small, design
projects to large, globally distributed inter-enterprise projects in the context of how Global
Workshare technology could be adapted and/or applied to offer beneficial solutions. Lastly, the
authors presented the results – in the form of implementation strategies, details and lessons
learned – from two recent, real-world production projects that used the tools and technology
described in this paper. One of the key lessons learned is that in a global workshare
environment, workflow and change management are critical. Enterprise solutions, such as that
described in reference 3, that provide tools and techniques for dealing with change across the
project life cycle are fundamental to their success.
It is hoped that the reader is left with the conclusion that: the technology to support global
workshare exists in the commercial marketplace today; applications and systems exist that
were developed on modern architectures and database technologies to fulfill the vision of
distributed, concurrent design; and that the benefits and promises of this technology and these
solutions more than offset the incremental project setup and administration activities required
for a GWC as has been borne out and demonstrated on a number of projects in the marine and
process industries.
Figure 7: Odense Steel Shipyard’s 11,000 TEU container ship, Emma Maersk,
designed using global workshare
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 17
7.
Appendix
7.1 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank their respective organizations for providing the support and
information for this paper. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and not necessarily those of Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd., Suncor Energy Inc., or Intergraph
Corporation.
7.2 References
1. Microsoft Online Books, SQL Server 2005, http://msdn2.microsoft.com, May 2007.
2. K. Cochran, Rule-based Product Development, ICCAS 2007, September 2007.
3. T. Szoka, Marine Enterprise Solutions, ICCAS 2007, September 2007.
7.3 Authors’ biographies
Michael Polini holds the current position of SmartMarine 3D product manager at Intergraph
Corporation. He is responsible for defining the scope and requirements of the product and coordinates the activities of the product centre (development, support, and certification), business
development, sales and marketing, and product management. He has both a B.S.E. and M.S.E.
in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from the University of Michigan.
Christian Schmidt holds the current position of senior vice-president of engineering at
Odense Steel Shipyard, Ltd. He is responsible for all design activities, implementations, and
system and tool selection at the main design centre in Odense and all satellite locations for all
projects and products, including shipbuilding and offshore. His duties also include technical
support for all sales, marketing, and procurement. He is chairman of the board of the Baltic
Engineering Centre in Lithuania.
Integrated Product Development Using Global Workshare
Page 18
Headquarters
Intergraph Corporation
170 Graphics Drive
Madison, AL 35758
For more information about Intergraph,
visit our Web site at www.intergraph.com.
Intergraph, the Intergraph logo, and IntelliWhere are
registered trademarks of Intergraph Corporation.
Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft
Corporation. Other brands and product names are
trademarks of their respective owners. Intergraph
believes that the information in this publication is
accurate as of its publication date. Such information
is subject to change without notice. Intergraph is not
responsible for inadvertent errors. ©2007 Intergraph
Corporation, Huntsville, AL 35824-0001. All Rights
Reserved. 11/07 PPM106A0