Control Asset Performance Analysis System

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Manufacturing facilities lack a systematic and universally comparable method to assess control asset performance, separate process variation impacts from control asset capabilities, and determine the effectiveness of variation reduction, leading to inefficient investments and potential project failures.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method and system for comparative operational and process control performance analysis using unique algorithms, graphical presentation methods, and economic gap calculations based on reduction of process variability, which collects and processes datasets to calculate induced variability, output variability, and variability reduction ratios, providing actionable advice for improving control asset performance.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If control assets are invested to reduce process variation, then production quality and efficiency improve, but the ability to separate process variation impacts from control asset capabilities is lost

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveproduction qualityVSAvoidseparation of process variation from control capability

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the total process variation into two distinct components: process variation (inherent variability in raw materials, operations, and equipment) and control asset performance (the reduction of variation achieved through control systems). This segmentation is achieved through mathematical decomposition and statistical analysis, allowing independent measurement and evaluation of each component without confusion.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary analytical framework that acts as a mediator between process variation and control asset performance. This framework includes intermediate metrics and calculation methods that enable the separation and comparison of these two components, providing a structured approach to evaluate control asset effectiveness independently from inherent process variability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Manufacturing precision

If control assets are tuned more aggressively to reduce variability, then control performance improves, but operator acceptance decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecontrol performanceVSAvoidoperator acceptance

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements feedback mechanisms that provide operators with real-time information about control asset performance, process variation, and the impact of tuning changes. This feedback enables operators to understand the relationship between aggressive tuning and performance improvements, allowing them to make informed decisions about acceptable performance levels while maintaining operational comfort and acceptance.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Productivity

If new control assets are installed to reduce variation, then production efficiency improves, but investment costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveproduction efficiencyVSAvoidinvestment cost

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent enables evaluation of partial actions by quantifying the specific contribution of control assets to variation reduction. This allows organizations to determine the minimum effective level of control investment needed to achieve acceptable performance, avoiding both under-investment and excessive spending on control assets that provide marginal benefits.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent utilizes parameter changes in the form of adjustable metrics and evaluation criteria that can be modified based on organizational priorities and constraints. This allows flexible assessment of control asset effectiveness under different investment scenarios, enabling optimization of the balance between investment cost and production efficiency improvement.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

4Ease of operation

If control assets are de-tuned to improve operator acceptance, then operational comfort improves, but control performance and variability reduction decrease

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoperator comfortVSAvoidcontrol performance

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces dynamic evaluation frameworks that allow the performance criteria and acceptance thresholds to be adjusted based on operational conditions and operator preferences. This dynamic approach enables the system to adapt between performance optimization and operator comfort based on real-time needs, rather than being fixed in one state.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS8718976B2Control asset comparative performance analysis system and methodology

Publication Date: 2014.05.06 HSB SOLOMON ASSOCIATES LLC

AI summary

A system and method is provided for determining the variability induced on a process output. The method includes the analysis of input variable values to determine the total variability. A series of processes may be analyzed and ranked so that a process owner may gain an understanding of how a target process performs relative to the processes of other process owners. The method includes the generation of graphical process comparisons and advice regarding asset performance. The method also includes the estimation of cost impacts due to changes in induced variability.