Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Intel Businesses The Almighty Buck

Factory IoT Saves Intel $9 Million 50

jfruh writes Want a good way to sell someone a new technology? Prove to them that you believe in it enough to use it yourself. Intel has been trying to get customers to buy into the concept of the "Internet of Things," in which tiny distributed networked sensors would improve manufacturing processes. To prove its point, they implemented such a system in one of their Malaysian factories, and claimed $9 million in savings.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Factory IoT Saves Intel $9 Million

Comments Filter:
  • by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @04:14PM (#48041649)

    And that's a theme park, with blackjack and hookers.

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @04:20PM (#48041709)

    the next giant leap in ubiquitous mass surveillance.

    I just can't wait for all the devices that surround me to snitch on me and report all my life habits to their corporate or state masters 24/7...

    • by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @04:24PM (#48041749)
      This is just simple equipment monitoring with networked devices.This has been done for decades. Just a PR puff to get some brand names out.
      • by sl3xd ( 111641 )

        It's just a toilet seat that reports when somebody's on it. Everybody poops! There's nothing to worry about!

        Until you realize that it's able to find usage patterns, and your insurance rates go up because they think you may be getting colon cancer.

        Everything's connected, and I don't want every facet of my life being reported to some corporate overlord.

        • It's just a toilet seat that reports when somebody's on it. Everybody poops! There's nothing to worry about!

          Just think about the other side of the coin, now your crapper can serve as your alabi when the police ask "Where were you last night at 10:00 p.m.?

      • You would be correct if it weren't for the name of Intel. And I don't mean the name as such, I mean Intel as in Intel-rubbing-the-back-of-the-NSA.
        You owe Rosco P. Coltrane an apology for your red herring.

    • by gnupun ( 752725 )

      the next giant leap in ubiquitous mass surveillance.

      And to add insult to injury, we are supposed to pay the people spying on us by buying their products.

  • by Quantus347 ( 1220456 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @04:22PM (#48041721)
    As somebody who designs networks of sensors and controls for manufacturing processes, I want to know what the investment was, and what payback period they are using to calculate those savings. Depending on the size of the plant $9 million might not even come close to covering that kind of mass retrofit.
    • Re:Investment? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sandytaru ( 1158959 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @04:31PM (#48041819) Journal
      I RTFA. They didn't go into specifics, but it seems to have been cheap WiFi point communications coupled with thermal sensors. So if a machine was running hotter than expected, they could stop that line and fix the problem before it broke completely and took that line down for a few days. So the "savings" could be what the cost of that line going down previously had been. Or something.
  • by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1.hotmail@com> on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @04:35PM (#48041855)
    "...CPU tester modules in a semiconductor manufacturing line at the plant were retrofitted with sensors. They then sent data to Mitsubishi Electric C Controller gateway devices powered by Intel Atom chips. After some filtering, the data were then processed using software from Revolution Analytics. Putting the data results into practice resulted in a reduction in component failures, increased equipment uptime and productivity, according to Intel....."

    Could someone who actually knows something about what they did write the fucking article please? I have no idea what was improved using this technique by reading these sentences which are the only concrete part of the entire story linked.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      >Could someone who actually knows something about what they did write the fucking article please?
      Yes. Hence the A.C.

      Real time SPC. It's actually pretty cool.
      Understand that the Malaysian factories are predominantly test and assembly. The chips are made in the US.

      The real differentiation is the installation. Just scatter them around the machines and meshy wireless protocols get the data home. Manually hooking scada crap up to scada networks would be a nightmare and then they'd get hacked like the Iranians

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @04:40PM (#48041901) Journal

    This story has pretty much nothing to do with the "Internet of Things" they are trying to sell us.

    I seriously doubt that any of the WiFi sensors in Intel's machinery required an account with a third party company which then collected data on how Intel used their machines.

    We already have an Internet of Things. It's called, "things".

    • by Animats ( 122034 )

      This story has pretty much nothing to do with the "Internet of Things" they are trying to sell us.

      Right. It's ordinary industrial automation. It's also strange that Intel would have CPU testers that weren't networked and reporting to some machine aggregating statistics and looking for process variance. It's pretty much routine in factories today to network the machines. That's been going on since the 1980s.

      The Mitsubishi C Controller mentioned is just a CPU board packaged as a Mitsubishi Electric industrial automation module [meau.com] for convenient mounting in industrial automation cabinets. "It includes two

    • The more precise term is Industrial Internet [wikipedia.org] which is considered a subset of the Internet of Things. It is considered a subset because the same types of technologies are being used.

      The Internet of Things doesn't require third-parties, but such third-parties are often helpful if they provide useful services.

  • As a software testing intern, I found a crash bug on the test server that I could reproduce 100% of the time. My supervisor couldn't reproduce the bug despite watching my steps, decided it wasn't important, and approved the code release to the production servers. The production servers ran for a day before entering a crashing loop. The company was forced to take the production servers offline and lost three days of revenue ($250,000+ USD). Three months later they declined to renew my contract and two-thirds
  • by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @05:00PM (#48042047)

    I've been through these sales pitches before.
    Ok Intel, how much did it COST to install?
    Did you factor in that you sent in all of your Intel experts for free? And that you'll charge me $200 per hour just to ask them what kind of outlet to plug this into?
    What was the volume of that plant? Is it producing $10million in product? Or $300 million? Scale matters.

    $9 million in savings in a large production plants is shit. They have single machines that cost more than that. To take a gamble on a large change like this, the savings need to be insane. Cut my costs in half and it might be worth the risk. Saving $9 million when my costs average $300 million and, yes... that's nice... but its not worth the risk of new tech.

    • Re:uh huh... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @08:05PM (#48043463)

      $9 million in savings in a large production plants is shit. They have single machines that cost more than that. To take a gamble on a large change like this, the savings need to be insane. Cut my costs in half and it might be worth the risk. Saving $9 million when my costs average $300 million and, yes... that's nice... but its not worth the risk of new tech.

      Actually $9million is $9million regardless how how you cut the pie. Just because a business turns over several orders of magnitude more means they should stop factoring in potential savings as *small* as $9million?

      I ask you, what is a gamble? How are you gambling when you monitor your equipment? What is the risk when it goes wrong? Back to potential $9million outages? Oh calamity!

      The only reason people are up in arms about this is because someone used the phrase "Internet of Things". If this article was started with "Lean Six Sigma", "Kaizen", or "a Continuous Improvement Project" no one would bat an eye. I am a reliability engineer and creating this type of monitoring is my day to day activities. Sometimes they pay off really well, sometimes they produce no benefit and we wasted a few $100k, but all of a sudden when someone says it's an "Internet of Things" project rather than project everybody shouts about risk?

      Get a grip. Oh and I work for a plant that turns over approximately $4bn in product annually, yet if I could save $9m I guarantee there would be prizes, parades, and all sorts of untold honours directed my way. Never under-estimate how hard it is to squeeze the last bit of financial efficiency out of a place.

  • isn't that why you deploy IoT?

  • It shouldn't be called the Internet of Things; it should be honestly called the Panopticon of Things.

    But expecting honesty from the largest tech company is like expecting the DOJ to prosecute bankers.

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...