Document

© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved © 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved

Andrew McBrien, Director, Product Management March 29th, 2010

Why and How ISO15926 Must Succeed A Software Vendor’s Perspective

© 2010 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved | 2

Agenda   Introducing AspenTech

  Standards: Strategically critical to AspenTech

  A Personal History with Standards: Lessons Learned

  AspenTech Implementation of ISO15926:

Philosophy and Approach

  AspenTech and ISO15926: Current Status

  AspenTech Contributing to the Success of ISO15926


Disclaimer

Aspen Technology may provide information regarding possible future product developments including new products, product features, product interfaces, integration, design, architecture, etc. that may be represented as “product roadmaps”. Any such information is for discussion purposes only and does not constitute a commitment by Aspen Technology to do or deliver anything in these product roadmaps or otherwise. Any such commitment must be explicitly set forth in a written contract between the customer and Aspen Technology, executed by an authorized officer of each company.


Introducing AspenTech


Optimizing Process Manufacturing Reduce costs, improve margins, increase return on capital

  Innovate   Optimize capital   Reduce time to market   Increase plant uptime   Optimize throughput

and product value   Design for energy

efficiency

  Maximize flexibility and responsiveness

  Increase throughput   Increase yields   Reduce energy costs   Reduce inventory costs

  Enable demand-driven supply chain

  Reduce supply stocks and run-outs

  Reduce transportation and storage costs

  Optimize inventory levels

Design the Plant

Operate the Plant

Manage the Supply Chain


Standards: Strategically critical to AspenTech


Engineering: A Typical Asset Life-cycle

Many touch-points, between many vendors

Tool selection may differ project to project


Solution value reduced

User’s choice limited

Vendor 1

Vendor 2

Vendor 3

Without standards, life-cycle integration is limited by available proprietary interfaces

Users: Flexibility and agility impeded

AspenTech: High cost of maintaining multiple interfaces

Proprietary interface with AspenTech

Proprietary interface with AspenTech

No proprietary interface


Flexible choice

Standards: Agility and responsiveness for Users and Vendors

Vendor 1

Vendor 2

Vendor 3

Users: Flexibility and agility enabled, solution value assured

Vendors: Development efficiency and responsiveness

Standards-based interface




Manufacturing Execution Chemical Supply Chain

Enterprise Operations: IT Strategies demand standards

Information Management

Production Management

Yield Accounting

Demand Planning

Production Scheduling

Supply Planning

Petroleum Supply Chain

Fleet Optimizer

IMOS

ERP

DCS

ISA S-95 ISA S-88

OPC

ProdML WITSML

.. plus many others


A Long Personal History with Standards: Lessons Learned


A Long Personal History with Standards

ISO 10303/221

pdXi

CAPE-Open

Global CAPE-Open

ISO 15926

1980s 1990s 2000s

  Data interoperability, asset life-cycle

  Data interoperability, process and equipment design

  Integration of models and thermodynamics into simulation

  Data interoperability, asset life-cycle


Scorecard

ISO 10303/221

pdXi

CAPE-OPEN

Global CAPE-OPEN

ISO 15926

… so what have I learnt?


Productized implementations: Essential for practical standards

Development of Interface Standards

Version 0.9 Delivered


“Lab-scale” prototyping

Vendor-implementation

starts


Production-scale implementation:

Surfaced ambiguity and errors, identified impracticalities

Drove significant evolution of Interface Standard


Well-funded, dedicated resource: Essential to develop standards

Voluntary effort

Strong foundation Significant investment

Results applied in practice

$1.8MM (CY 2010)

Formal Investment # Applications

ISO 10303 (Part 221) ISO 15926


It Takes Two to Tango. For Standards to Succeed, it Takes Many

“Watson, please come to my laboratory”

… but what if the telephone had stopped

there?

Zyqad Process WorkBench

1995: pdXi data model

No other adoption

  No interoperability benefits

(now Aspen Basic Engineering)


Glo

bal C

AP

E-O

pen

Inte

rface

s

Adoption differs with need, sophistication

Unit Operations Model

proprietary equipment

Core process engineering

All mainstream simulators

Thermodynamics Model

proprietary chemistry

Core process modeling

All mainstream simulators +

niche products

“Equation System”

Problem-specific

mathematics

Advanced numerics Niche product

Interface Purpose Adoption Knowledge


How does ISO15926 Benchmark?

Lesson ISO 15926 Productized implementations essential

  Off-the-shelf support by multiple vendors

Well-funded, dedicated resource essential

  $70k raised in three weeks   Full-time resource in place

Standards succeed only with broad support

  Support of all major process plant software vendors

Adoption differs with need, sophistication

  Multiple implementation approaches available


AspenTech Implementation of ISO15926: Philosophy and Approach


Anatomy of ISO 15926

XMpLant •  Part 11

iRing •  Part 8

Others •  Part 11

Reference Data Library

Common vocabulary

10s of man-years

Implementation approaches


Organizational Maturity

  “Organizations cannot skip stages or the associated activities without introducing weaknesses into their EIM programs, which will cause them to fail later on.”

  “Organizations cannot implement EIM as a single project. Rather, it requires a gradual building of skills, awareness and technology. It must happen in iterative phases over time.”

  Gartner, "Introducing the EIM Maturity Model" (2009)


AspenTech: XMpLant Selected

XMpLant •  Part 11

iRing •  Part 8



Common vocabulary

10s of man-years

Which should AspenTech choose?

•  Easy entry-point •  Already proven when our implementation

started •  Strong network-effect

•  Fast – first production-quality implementation in 3 months

•  Good platform to contribute enhancements to Reference Data


AspenTech and ISO15926: Current Status


Matrix 123 (Proteus) Project: May 2009

3D to 3D: Matrix 2

P&ID to 3D: Matrix 3

  Achieved

• On specification •  On time

•  On (the vendors’ own) budgets

XMpLant-based

Multiple vendors P&ID to P&ID: Matrix 1

 

 


Example: AspenTech P&ID to AVEVA PDMS

Imported into AVEVA PDMS •  Define logic of 3D Model

P&ID exported to XMpLant file •  Equipment, Instruments, Piping

•  Connectivity

•  Graphics

Aspen Basic Engineering


AspenTech and ISO 15926: Fully supported, project-ready interface

May 2009: FIATECH Conference Demonstration

Fall 2009: Commercial release (XMpLant v3.2)

January 2010: Update (XMpLant v3.3.3)


Driving ISO15926 to Success


Calendar Year 2010: Aggressive Goal

“ISO 15926 fully operational for process plant within

2010”

Endorsed by FIATECH BoD

AspenTech: Funding

Steering Team

Resource


AspenTech Technical Activities in 2010

XMpLant

iRing •  Part 8



Contribute AspenTech Common Core Data Model

Which should AspenTech choose?

•  Active development of XMpLant schema •  Project management

•  Feedback to Reference Data Library

•  Ongoing support for productized interfaces

•  Element 9 Roadmap Champion


Call to Action

  Learn more –  Visit project and vendors’ booth in Technology Showcase –  AspenTech: Booth 6

  Strengthen the network effect –  ISO 15926 delivers value today, bake it into your IT strategy

  Make ISO 15926 fully-operational in CY 2010 –  Support FIATECH and POSC Caesar joint project –  Resource and/or funding –  Use Cases, testing and feedback

Document

Documents

aspentech standards

disclaimer aspen technology

rights reserved andrew

approach aspentech

product management

vendors vendor

product interfaces

agility impeded aspentech