ERP and MES Boundary Analysis
Endeavor was retained to execute and facilitate detailed analysis on the overlap identification and boundary definition of the two initiatives.
Through workshops, analyses, and the use of industry standards like ISA-95, detailed schematics and narratives were developed that identified the key boundary areas — as well as the design decisions for detailed interface specs. The deliverables reflected an ERP-MES boundary analysis from three different perspectives:
Functional scope boundaries
Key data objects overlap
Information flow and interfaces
The results of this exercise were detailed narratives, common assumptions, and functional and process maps, all of which were accepted by key stakeholders and team members from both initiatives.
Thanks to Endeavor’s management of the boundary identification and definition process, both initiatives now have a common frame of reference for scope and interface. Before Endeavor’s involvement, neither initiative had refined their respective designs related to the boundaries of the other — now, they can complete their design detail using the same assumptions and functional overlap definitions.
The ISA-95 application to these deliverables ensured adherence to industry standards and terminology as both initiatives progress and interface with one another. This was a key component to the respective software, SAP and WonderWare; a significant amount of rework has been avoided by recognizing and confronting these design issues up-front versus waiting until a design conflict arose down the road.
A major consumer and personal products company was deploying two major, disparate projects — both involving an ERP implementation (SAP) and a global MES solution (WonderWare). Both projects were at different stages of their respective global implementations, and both involved different process scopes and roll-out strategies.
The client recognized the need to address the overlap and boundary definitions between the two initiatives. They decided that a detailed analysis was necessary to ensure both initiatives were working off of the same assumptions and design components. Internally, both initiatives assigned resources to the task of resolving the boundary definitions between the ERP and MES levels of the process scope and architecture of the two respective initiatives.