Convergence of ERP-GMS-WMS-CIS-DM-WFMS-OMS-LIS-DMS—Who
Owns the Overlaps? What is the Importance of Integration?
Jean Jerger, Carolyn Bakke
CP&L / Intergraph
412 S. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27601
Utilities have been accelerating the implementation of independent applications for the
last decade. Most have come to the realization that integration of these independent
systems is the only solution for achieving the efficiencies required in the new competitive
environment. With the current investment focus now on integrating both applications
and business processes across the enterprise, it is imperative that companies analyze
potential system overlaps in order to design a compatible and adaptable going-forward
strategy. Convergence of these independent systems presents options for either planned
integration or unchecked expansion of existing systems into inappropriate application
areas, which can generate software that will hinder future integration rather than embrace
it. This paper will discuss where seven potential overlaps occur within nine converging
systems. The potential overlaps are with the geofacilities model, detail drawings and
image management, job workflow, O&M inspection and maintenance, trouble call taking,
crew management, job scheduling, outage analysis and distribution management. The
converging systems that have elements that present the options for unchecked expansion
or controlled integration include: Enterprise Resource Planning, Geofacilities
Management System, Work Management System, Customer Information System,
Document Management, Workforce Management System, Outage Management System,
Land Information System, and Distribution Management System (DSCADA).
In the early to mid-90’s, the first software emphasis began with the replacement of
antiquated Customer Information Systems. This was followed in the mid to late 90’s
with equal vigor to develop Work Management, Mobile Service Order, Outage
Management, Geofacility, and Distribution Management systems. At CP&L, we
followed that trend and developed and implemented all these systems by 1999. Each
system project was independent with separate sponsors, separate timelines, and separate
budgets. We managed scope to existing interfaces, designing overlaps as current
functionality dictated, all driven primarily by budget and schedule limitations. New
applications like Distribution Management (DSCADA) were foreign to the traditional
enterprise applications like Work Management and GIS and they were more iterative in
development due to the infancy of the software available. For these reasons, Distribution
Management was even more an island unto itself during the development and
implementation phases.
Another important factor worth mentioning was this was also during the time of
Hammer’s Reengineering focus – with concurrent emphasis on processes and
organizations in addition to technology systems. Why was this important? Primarily it
convoluted everyone’s perception of ownership. Every faction of the Utility
Organization was in the constant state of flux and change. While streamlining was a
focus, the defense mechanisms were also in place to avoid changing job accountabilities.
To accommodate these defense mechanisms, and to expedite implementation, functional
duplication was built into the systems.
But now since most utilities have developed these independent systems and have become
operationally dependent on them, it is now time to analyze your options for planned
integration that will embrace future integration rather than hinder it. The upcoming
material will examine the 7 potential overlaps and discuss ownership and operational
efficiencies.
