Integration of primavera p6 eppm with oracle e business suite - Oracle Primavera P6 Collaborate 14
•
1 recomendación•1,782 vistas
For more slides and tutorials visit www.p6academy.com Source: Collaborate 14
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Similar a Integration of primavera p6 eppm with oracle e business suite - Oracle Primavera P6 Collaborate 14
Similar a Integration of primavera p6 eppm with oracle e business suite - Oracle Primavera P6 Collaborate 14 (20)
Más de p6academy
Más de p6academy (20)
Último
Último (20)
Integration of primavera p6 eppm with oracle e business suite - Oracle Primavera P6 Collaborate 14
- 1. REMINDER Check in on the COLLABORATE mobile app Integration of Primavera P6 EPPM with Oracle E-Business Suite Prepared by: Nikola Škorić Planning and Scheduling Engineer Krško Nuclear Power Plant Session ID#: 15444
- 2. Presenter info ■ Nikola Škorić ■ Master of Computer Science (University of Zagreb, 2007) ■ Licensed reactor operator (2010) ■ Planning and Scheduling engineer (2012)
- 3. Company info ■ Krško Nuclear Power Plant ■ Joint venture of Slovenia and Croatia ■ Westinghouse built pressurized water reactor ■ First criticality reached: 1981 ■ Net power output: 696 MW
- 4. Presentation overview ■ Specifics of nuclear industry ■ Outage planning ■ Motivation for this project ■ Architecture of the solution ■ Problems encountered in implementation ■ End results ■ Current status and future plans
- 5. Outage planning in nuclear industry
- 6. Nuclear industry ■ Large power unit: 17 GWh per day ■ Outage lasts 30-40 days ▪ Large number of activities ▪ Large number of workers ▪ Small operating space (especially reactor building)
- 7. Nuclear industry ■ Nuclear fuel produces decay heat after shutdown ■ Nuclear safety first ■ A part of safety equipment has to remain operable ▪ Power sources ▪ Water sources ▪ Valve lineups
- 8. Outage planning in nuclear ■ "System windows" – a timeframe in which particular system is maintained in certain state ▪ Visual inspection of snubbers on train A — Can be done anytime ▪ Instrumentation venting for SW01 — Has 20 predecessors ■ Work orders are placed into system windows
- 9. Outage planning in nuclear ■ "Tagout" – a safety procedure which ensures equipment or energy source is isolated ■ Hazards: ▪ Hot water ▪ Water under pressure ▪ Electricity ▪ Mechanical forces ■ Tagouts are "placed on" SWs, WOs or operations ▪ Tags have to be hanged before SW/WO/OP starts
- 10. Outage planning in NEK
- 11. Outage planning in NEK ■ 35 days ■ 850 system windows ■ 1,000 tagouts ■ 5,000 work orders ■ 15,000 operations ■ ∑: 23,000 activities ■ 2 Primavera specialists
- 12. Outage planning in NEK ■ Pre 2011 ▪ WOs written in in-house built Work Order System ▪ Everything scheduled in Primavera ■ 2011 – transition to Oracle eBS ■ Post 2011 ▪ WOs written and scheduled in eAM (eBS module) ▪ SWs scheduled in Primavera
- 13. Outage planning in NEK 1. Oracle Primavera P6 Professional (P6) ▪ Only desktop app, web app unusably slow 2. Oracle E-Business Suite (eBS) ▪ Enterprise Asset Management (eAM) 3. Ventyx Shift Operations Management System (eSOMS) ▪ Clearance Module 4. Shift Supervisor Screen (SSS) ▪ In-house built
- 14. Outage planning in NEK Source Approving Start/stop Status Scheduling Backbone activity P6 N/A SSS SSS P6 System window P6 N/A P6 SSS P6 Tagout eSOMS eSOMS eSOMS eSOMS custom Work order eAM SSS eAM SSS eAM* Operation eAM N/A eAM eAM eAM Resource eAM N/A eAM N/A N/A * taking into account SWs in P6
- 15. Problems with outage planning in NEK
- 16. Problems 1. Shift supervisor does not have a single overview of the plant status ▪ Shift supervisor uses 3 different tools 2. Critical path is obfuscated ▪ Only SWs are in Primavera ▪ WOs and operations are in eAM ▪ Tagouts are in eSOMS 3. Detailed planning not possible ▪ No way for linking WOs, operations and tagouts 4. Tagouts planned by custom built tool 5. WOs planned by suboptimal tool ▪ eAM planning capabilities leave a lot to be desired
- 17. Problems 6. WO predecessors scattered across tools ▪ Are all predecessors finished? 7. Planning of operations almost nonexistent 8. Planning of some activities impossible 9. No resource planning ■ Out of sync with industry standards
- 18. Problems ■ INPO 06-008 »Guidelines for the Conduct of Outages at Nuclear Power Plants« ▪ Level I: backbone schedule ▪ Level II: activities into schedule to develop system windows, resource estimates and logic ties for major activities ▪ Level III: resource leveling, logic ties refined ▪ Level IV: cross-discipline horizontal and vertical reviews
- 20. Solution Source Approving Start/stop Status Scheduling Backbone activity P6 N/A P6 P6 P6 System window P6 N/A P6 P6 P6 Tagout eSOMS eSOMS eSOMS P6 P6 Work order eAM SSS eAM P6 P6 Operation eAM N/A eAM P6 P6 Resource eAM N/A eAM P6 P6
- 21. Existing eAM / P6 integration ■ eAM supports export to P6 format ▪ offline — must be run manually, cannot be automated easily ▪ not customizable — no control over what gets exported and in what format ▪ does not work for large projects — OK for 500 activities — NEK refueling outage has over 20,000 activities
- 22. Solution eAM This project P6Outside world eAM P6WOs Schedule P6eAM planned dates eAM P6actual dates WO authors workers
- 23. Solution ■ New WOs eAM→P6 ▪ WOs fall on data date ▪ Makes sense only just before scheduling ■ Planned dates P6→eAM ▪ Change only on scheduling ▪ Makes sense only just after scheduling eAM This project P6 eAM P6WOs Schedule P6eAM planned dates
- 24. Solution ■ As frequent as possible ■ We chose 15 minutes eAM This project P6 eAM P6actual dates
- 25. Implementation of the solution
- 26. The team ■ Nikola Škorić ▪ NEK, project lead ■ Luka Novosel ▪ Primakon Zagreb ■ Andrej Zalar ▪ OSIR Ljubljana ■ Dušan Urbič ▪ OSIR Ljubljana ■ Simon Jurečič ▪ OSIR Ljubljana Primavera eAM
- 27. Implementation ■ eAM: Oracle RDBMS ■ P6: Oracle RDBMS ■ Preparing output from eAM: PL/SQL ■ Reading from eAM and writing to P6: Java ■ Reading from P6 and writing to eAM: PL/SQL
- 28. Implementation This project PL/SQL Java PL/SQL PL/SQL Java eAM P6WOs Schedule P6eAM planned dates eAM P6 actual dates
- 29. Implementation ■ Java ▪ 7,000 lines of code ▪ 36 classes ▪ 700 commits to git repository ■ PL/SQL ▪ 13,000 lines of code ▪ 3 packages ▪ 100 commits to svn repository
- 30. Part 1: transfer of work orders from eAM to P6
- 31. Transfer of work orders eAM This project P6 eAM P6WOs Schedule
- 32. Data sources ■ Dates ▪ Master: P6 ▪ Slave: eAM ■ All other data ▪ Master: eAM ▪ Slave: P6 ■ „Limitation“: data in P6 cannot be modified
- 33. Data sources Operation Waiting WO Planner Waiting Work Week Manager Waiting Shift Supervisor Waiting WO Coordinator Approved for work Work finished WO coordinator Work finished Shift Supervisor Draft Completed Working Finished
- 34. Data sources Imported to Primavera Operation Waiting WO Planner Waiting Work Week Manager Waiting Shift Supervisor Waiting WO Coordinator Approved for work Work finished WO coordinator Work finished Shift Supervisor Draft Completed Working Finished
- 35. Data representation Activity ID Activity Name Activity type Activity code NNNNN Description from eAM Level of Effort D NNNNN-Z Start of WO NNNNN Start Milestone ZD NNNNN-OOO Description from eAM Task Dependent O NNNNN-K End of WO NNNNN Finish Milestone KD Activity ID Activity Name Activity type Activity code OASWNN000Z Start of system window NN Start Milestone Z OASWNN000K End of system window NN Finish Milestone K
- 36. Data representation – work order
- 37. Data representation – system window
- 38. Data transferred – work orders EAM P6 P6 project ID P6 project ID System window Link from SW activity to WO activity + AC + UDF Work order ID Part of activity ID + UDF Asset Part of activity name + UDF Description Part of activity name + UDF Calendar 24/7 Start Constraint on start milestone Duration Planned duration WO type AC ORAM codes ACs Plant system AC Safety train AC Location UDF Department AC WO Planner UDF Work Coordinator UDF HTTP link to eAM WO Notebook
- 39. Data transferred – operations EAM P6 P6 project ID P6 project ID System window AC + UDF Work order ID Link from WO activity to WO activity + AC Operation ID Part of activity ID + UDF Description Activity name Long description UDF Calendar Calendar Duration Planned duration Links Links Resources/Instances Roles/Resources Department AC Tagging required AC Reference WO UDF
- 40. Data transferred – roles / resources EAM P6 Operation Assignment to operation Resource ID Role ID Instance ID Resource ID Resource sequence number UDF Duration Original duration Required Budgeted units Assigned units Budgeted units / time Lag Lag
- 41. Data not transferred ■ Planned start ▪ Work orders — Set as „start on or after“ constraint on WO start milestone ▪ Operations — Calculated by P6 from predecessor relationships ▪ Roles/resources — Calculated by P6 from parent activity + lag ■ Planned finish ▪ Calculated by P6 from planned start and planned duration
- 42. Cancelled/deleted WOs ■ If WO loses status – removed from P6 ■ If WO is deleted from eAM – problem ■ If WO is changes project – problem
- 43. Part 2: transfer of planned dates from P6 to eAM
- 44. Solution eAM This project P6Outside world eAM P6WOs Schedule P6eAM planned dates eAM P6actual dates WO authors workers
- 45. Transfer of work orders eAM This project P6 Schedule P6eAM planned dates
- 46. Data transferred ■ for each work order ▪ planned start (from P6) → start (in eAM) ▪ planned finish (from P6) → finish (in eAM) ■ for each operation ▪ planned start (from P6) → start (in eAM) ▪ planned finish (from P6) → finish (in eAM)
- 47. Part 3: transfer of actual dates from eAM to P6
- 48. Solution eAM This project P6Outside world eAM P6WOs Schedule P6eAM planned dates eAM P6actual dates WO authors workers
- 49. Transfer of actual dates eAM This project P6 eAM P6 actual dates
- 50. Data sources ■ Master: eAM ■ Slave: P6
- 51. Data transferred – work orders and operations P6 EAM status of WO Moment NNNNN actual start NNNNN-Z actual start Approved for work WO Coordinator starts WO NNNNN actual finish NNNNN-K actual finish Work finished WO COOR WO Coordinator ends WO P6 EAM status of WO Moment NNNNN-OOO actual start Working First Line Supervisor starts OP NNNNN-OOO actual finish Finished First Line Supervisor ends OP
- 52. Data transferred – work orders Operation Waiting WO Planner Waiting Work Week Manager Waiting Shift Supervisor Waiting WO Coordinator Approved for work Work finished WO coordinator Work finished Shift Supervisor Draft Completed Working Finished
- 53. Data transferred – operations Operation Waiting WO Planner Waiting Work Week Manager Waiting Shift Supervisor Waiting WO Coordinator Approved for work Work finished WO coordinator Work finished Shift Supervisor Draft Completed Working Finished
- 54. Data transferred – resources ■ None for now ■ Resource actuals are: ▪ A complicated issue ▪ Of questionable demand
- 55. Testing
- 56. Testing ■ Development workflow: 1. Implement solution 2. Run the program 3. Check if data was transferred correctly ■ Checking: ▪ Manual ▪ Automated
- 57. Testing ■ SQL view to P6 database ■ SQL view to eAM database ■ Comparison of: 1. WOs 2. operations 3. roles/resources ■ Very robust testing tool
- 59. Implementation issues ■ Deleted and moved work orders ■ Activity type for work order ■ Linking of tagouts to work orders ■ Calendars ■ Time resolution difference ■ 0 time interpretation difference ■ Resource durations and units ■ Performance problems ■ Reference operations actuals
- 60. Issues: Deleted and moved work orders Imported to Primavera Operation Waiting WO Planner Waiting Work Week Manager Waiting Shift Supervisor Waiting WO Coordinator Approved for work Work finished WO coordinator Work finished Shift Supervisor Draft Completed Working Finished
- 61. Issues: Deleted and moved work orders ■ First choice: work order has to be reset to „draft“ status ▪ Program detects WOs in wrong status for that project and removes them from P6 ■ In practice: WO planners are fast ▪ They change WO‘s project (to next outage) ▪ Or they delete WO from eAM ■ Consequence: program does not find WO with wrong status ▪ WO stays in P6 ■ Solution: manually remove WO from P6 ▪ Administrative solution, albeit effective one ■ Future solution: fully compare eAM and P6 ▪ Problem: not a trivial algorithm
- 62. Issues: Activity type for work order ■ First choice: task dependent ▪ Relationship loops ▪ Does not adapt to changes in operation duration ■ Second choice: dedicated script ▪ Unpractical, has to be run every time operation duration changes ▪ Duplicating Primavera features ■ Solution: level of effort ▪ Requires milestones to avoid loops ▪ Cannot be linked to — Relationships define duration of LoE activity — Serious drawback
- 63. Issues: Linking of tagouts to work orders ■ For each tagout eSOMS: 1. Takes a list of activity IDs 2. Creates hang/remove activities 3. Creates relationships
- 64. Issues: Linking of tagouts to work orders ■ First choice: task dependent WOs ▪ Unacceptable ■ WOs have to be level of effort ▪ Relationships should point to milestones ▪ eSOMS doesn't know how to do that ■ Solution: no tagouts on WOs ▪ Tagouts placed only on SWs and operations ■ Future solution: implement our own eSOMS integration ▪ Our implementation will link to milestones
- 65. Issues: Calendars ■ eAM has only 24/7 calendar ▪ Planning unrealistic ■ First choice: only 24/7 in P6 ▪ Easy solution ▪ Planning unrealistic, defeats the purpose ■ Solution: implementing calendars in eAM ▪ Allows for detailed planning ▪ Considerable effort
- 66. Issues: Time resolution difference ■ eAM has support for fraction of a second ■ P6 has support for minutes ■ NEK plans in hours ■ First choice: transfer data as is ▪ P6 migrates to planning seconds ■ Second choice: round eAM times to hours during transfer to P6 ▪ different data in eAM in P6 ▪ testing impossible ■ Solution: redesign eAM to accept only hours
- 67. Issues: 0 time interpretation difference
- 68. Issues: 0 time interpretation difference ■ If: ▪ Last operation in work order has duration 0, and ▪ Operation before that ends on last second of the work day ■ Then ▪ P6 schedules it for start of the next work day (i.e. 7 AM) ▪ eAM schedules it for end of previous work day (i.e. 3 PM) ■ Consequence ▪ 16 hour discrepancy between P6 and eAM ■ Solution: none ▪ We adjusted all of our programs to ignore that issue
- 69. Issues: Resource durations and units ■ Primavera: duration * units / time = units ▪ Strictly enforced ■ eAM: whatever ▪ In practice, every planner has his own interpretation ■ First choice: Write eAM data to P6 and hope for the best ▪ Didn‘t work ■ Solution: ignore the problem ▪ We do not analyze/optimize resources (yet) ▪ Most practical solution given time constraints ■ Future solution: teach eAM the P6 way ▪ The right thing to do ▪ A major change to eAM
- 70. Issues: Performance problems ■ First choice: iterate through all WOs changed since last run ▪ We relied on eAM‘s internal „last change“ timestamp ▪ WO “changed” every time planned start/finish was changed — That is: on every reschedule ■ Every run lasted for 2.5 hours ■ Solution: use testing engine to find differences ▪ heavily optimized to take as little time as possible
- 71. Issues: Reference operations actuals ■ Reference operation – placeholder operation for another work order ▪ Administratively belongs to parent WO ▪ In practice belongs to some other SW ■ First choice: do not import them to P6 ▪ What if RO has several predecessors/successors ■ Second choice: make it a milestone (duration: 0h) ▪ Gives the wrong impression (nothing lasts 0h) ■ Third choice: start when predecessors end, end when successor starts ▪ What if the only successor is RO? Deadlock!
- 72. Issues: Reference operations actuals Has ordinary predecessor Has reference predecessor Condition for start Date of start Yes Yes All ordinary predecessors finished End of last ordinary predecessor Yes No All ordinary predecessors finished End of last ordinary predecessor No Yes All reference predecessors finished End of last reference predecessor No No Work order started Start of work order ■ Solution for actual start of reference operation
- 73. Changes to eAM ■ eAM had limited support for operation linking ▪ Implemented operation linking ■ eAM had only one calendar: 24/7 ▪ Implemented multiple calendars ■ eAM had support for planning up to a second ▪ Restricted dates to hours ■ eAM Gantt charts had minimal resolution of 1 day ▪ Implemented Gantt charts with 1 minute resolution
- 74. End results
- 75. End result
- 76. End result
- 77. End result
- 78. End result
- 79. Current status and future plans
- 80. Current status ■ Integration operational for ▪ refueling outage ▪ forced outage ▪ online operation ■ Currently we are ▪ Refactoring code ▪ Documenting code ▪ Writing unit tests ▪ Packaging code to run as eAM module
- 81. Future plans ■ Custom P6/eSOMS integration tool ▪ linking tagouts to WOs ▪ resources calculation ▪ conflict check and optimization ■ Better support for roles/resources ▪ better eAM resource support ▪ resource actuals ■ Opening the project for others to use?
- 82. Thank you ■ Thank you for your attention! ■ Email: nikola.skoric@nek.si ■ LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/nskoric
- 83. Please complete the session evaluation We appreciate your feedback and insight You may complete the session evaluation either on paper or online via the mobile app