CIM vs CAM: Integrating Technology and Preventing Industrial Disasters

Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM)

Microprocessors have been part of the manufacturing process since the 1960s. At first, they were only used for certain processes in high-profit companies, primarily because early computers were very large and expensive.

By the end of the 20^th century, a totally new and more efficient approach had become possible. This approach, known as Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), interlinks various technologies to create an optimal manufacturing environment, spanning the entire process from initial order to final delivery.

The Scope and Requirements of CIM

CIM spans all facets of business, although engineering plays the central role. However, a critical requirement for successful CIM implementation is that all software and hardware must be compatible—that is, able to communicate seamlessly with each other.

CIM vs. Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM)

Because of the strict compatibility requirements, many companies are currently unable to fully implement CIM. They often rely on the alternative, Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM). With CAM, every step may be computerized, but each remains a discrete process.

For example, in a typical CAM environment, the process involves:

• Orders being logged into the computer.
• Designers producing detailed drawings, often using Computer-Aided Design (CAD).
• Data input for CAD coming from the customer’s specification, as well as current research in product development and manufacturing technologies.

Future Adoption of CIM

CIM is clearly the future of manufacturing. However, companies typically introduce CIM only to new factories, and will continue to rely on CAM in existing facilities due to the complexity of integrating legacy systems.

Case Study: The Piper Alpha Disaster (1988)

Piper Alpha was a gas rig located in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland, designed to extract natural gas from beneath the seabed. In 1988, the platform was tragically destroyed by fire.

Safety Systems and Maintenance Failure

Natural gas extracted from underground wells must be kept compressed at all times. Loss of compression, even for a few minutes, would cause serious damage to the rig. Therefore, as a fail-safe measure, the rig was equipped with two compressors: Compressor A and Compressor B.

On that day, Compressor A was shut down to remove a pressure release valve for maintenance. The corresponding tube was temporarily sealed, several meters above the sight-line. A maintenance report detailing this temporary seal was made, but unfortunately, it was filed in the wrong location.

The Critical Decision and Catastrophe

Subsequently, Compressor B failed. The manager, having only a few minutes to make a critical decision, had to determine if Compressor A could be safely reactivated. Because the maintenance report regarding the sealed valve on Compressor A was wrongly filed, the manager was unaware of the temporary seal. Assuming that all was safe, Compressor A was activated.

Pressurized flammable gas immediately escaped from the temporary seal on the compressor, causing a catastrophic explosion beneath the platform.