2009 July Issue- One Size Does Not Fit All   One of the most complex and unique aspects of a multi-site, diverse company is the manufacturing facilities. These locations are usually component- or product-specific and require different equipment, processes and work flows at each location.   There is a perception in some companies that a single paperless manufacturing software solution can solve the quality and cost problems in a paper-driven environment across multiple production locations.   Why then do most major corporations have multiple paperless manufacturing solutions for the shop floor?   One of the answers is that the plants are as different as the processes and people within. If a single customized solution were implemented, it would have to be the lowest common denominator solution - meaning that many plants and people would have to operate in a sub-prime manner with one hand tied behind their back. Each plant would be less efficient than they could be with a solution that best fits their local needs.   One solution can be made to work for corporate needs such as the ERP functions for finance, human resources and the like because the information at that level is translated to a common language that can be easily shared. The way that products are manufactured is the key competitive advantage for a manufacturing plant. This is not easily translated to a common language unless it is a sub-optimized set of information that reduces the effectiveness of the operations in all plants.   Is a company better off having sub-optimized plants and a simpler IT organization or the inverse? Does a company become more competitive by increasing revenue generated by each optimized plant or does it become more competitive by reducing the cost of one of the cost centers - the IT organization?   What is the answer for a solution that works best in all locations?   What if there was a solution with the capability to be configured, not customized, to meet local, specific needs? It could serve local demands and optimize local processes, keep the IT organization highly efficient and provide a common structure that is easy to support across all locations. Then, even if there was a legacy solution for the shop floor, each plant is free to implement a more flexible solution that works within their processes and avoids the common denominator situation.   Technology advances have been accelerating such that decisions that may have been the best solution three, or even two, years ago for shop floor digitization may now be obsolete in some applications. Flexibility to meet ever changing technology and ever changing shop floor needs is now an important requirement for systems being deployed for the next decade or more. One technology advance is configurability in a way that custom programming is not needed at each location to shape a system to meet local needs. It can also be reconfigured by the customer without calling back the vendor.   Most software companies claim their solution can be configured to meet local needs. Almost any good software company can custom program a system to meet local needs and call it configuring. However, unless the system is designed from the bottom up for configurability, they then have to support each unique version of the software. That is expensive and can lead to even more restrictions or poor customer support at some locations.   Getting back to the above question, the reason major companies select different solutions for different divisions of the company is because they try to avoid sub-optimization through the use of a lowest common denominator that is not a fit for all production sites.  If a single solution is really the answer for a company then at least select one that does not compromise the operations of your production facilities that are producing all of your revenue. Select a solution that can be centrally supported in an efficient way by a small IT force and yet can be configured by the local operations people at each location.   One size does not fit all - unless everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator.