zenithie

[Discussion] Do you think a framework for building and implementing a (simple) SCADA is needed?

6 posts in this topic

I hear a lot of people talking about the annoyance of price estimates (meaning they don't get a clear, transparent price from the beginning) and the costly engineering that seems to never end.

Do you think that a step-by-step, clear process and course of action from A to Z would be beneficial for companies?

And I'm not talking here about SCADA software, like Ignition.

I'm talking about using Ignition to build and implement a fully working SCADA solution, customized to your company BUT you know exactly the price and the methods/processes that will be used (it's a replicable framework to get similar results for multiple companies - and the results would be a SCADA solution without the headaches of the unknown prices and engineering characteristics). Basically, a clear project-based approach rather than an hourly approach where things can get confusing. 

 

Do you think the industrial space could use something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go for it.  Clients always appreciate reducing cost/schedule uncertainties.  As long as you meet functionality and performance expectations.  Of course, that's the kicker.  If it was easy, it would already be on the market.

The fundamental issue it sounds like you wish to solve is financial risk.  SCADA integrators (like me, an Ignition integrator) generally will offer fixed prices on well-specified scopes.  I do, for a majority of my projects.  A well-specified scope contains the risk for the integrator while the client knows what they will get.

The problem is that many potential clients do not know enough about the possibilities of SCADA platforms to generate a good scope document.  Someone has to take the time to learn and then do this, and time is not free.  A middle ground can be hiring an integrator on an hourly basis to produce a scope document, from which fixed bids can then be procured.  I sometimes do this.  The specifying integrator naturally has an advantage in the bidding, which may or may not be unfortunate. (:

When scope is too vague for agreement, the only way forward is for the client to purchase incremental development.  All the risk is on the client.  If you can solve this, you will win.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pturmel  Get out of my mind!  LOL.  Your comment is exactly what i was thinking, but couldn't phrase as well.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2022 at 7:01 PM, pturmel said:

Go for it.  Clients always appreciate reducing cost/schedule uncertainties.  As long as you meet functionality and performance expectations.  Of course, that's the kicker.  If it was easy, it would already be on the market.

The fundamental issue it sounds like you wish to solve is financial risk.  SCADA integrators (like me, an Ignition integrator) generally will offer fixed prices on well-specified scopes.  I do, for a majority of my projects.  A well-specified scope contains the risk for the integrator while the client knows what they will get.

The problem is that many potential clients do not know enough about the possibilities of SCADA platforms to generate a good scope document.  Someone has to take the time to learn and then do this, and time is not free.  A middle ground can be hiring an integrator on an hourly basis to produce a scope document, from which fixed bids can then be procured.  I sometimes do this.  The specifying integrator naturally has an advantage in the bidding, which may or may not be unfortunate. (:

When scope is too vague for agreement, the only way forward is for the client to purchase incremental development.  All the risk is on the client.  If you can solve this, you will win.

 

Yeah, you're right! I'm looking to minimise the risk as much as possible with standardised processes, a transparent price, and engineering as cost-effective and hassle-free as possible. Consulting for the beginning stages, to know what's needed, is key (we provide that as well). 

We're still in the development stages of this, of course. Your comment is very helpful, though, so thank you very much for your input! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that standardized processes won't work without standardized content and functionality, too.  Which means you need to pre-build content and functionality that covers all of your potential client needs.  Hmmmm.

Good luck!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hmmm", indeed. We have a lot of "hmmm" ourselves, haha! :-D 

 

Thank you very much! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now