PackML provides clarity, but clarifications are needed

What can be done to help the world better understand the differences between all of the PackML versions and to accurately communicate which one is being discussed? (PackML develops naming convention guidelines for communications between production machinery within the packaging industry.)

PackML has really improved the world of packaging automation, I’m not sure how many versions/guidelines exist but I can identify the following bodies of work:

- PackML Version 2.2 - March 2002;

- PackML Version 3.0 - June 2006;

- Tag Naming Guidelines (PackML V3.0) July 2006; and

- ISA TR88.00.02 - August 2008.
There are many similarities among all three versions, and people often used the term “PackML” and don’t farther clarify precisely which version is being referenced, which can lead to some very interesting and unintended negative results, and can dilute the success of PackML.

I know there is confusion around the ISA technical report, which started out life as TR88.00.05 but ended up as TR88.00.02 and often gets confused with the ISA88 Part 5 work. The group that developed the report was part of the ISA88 Part 5 committee and developed the report as a way to move the PackML concepts from an industry guideline into an internationally recognized body of work that would hopefully improve its acceptance with the global packaging industry.

To help with this possibly the OMAC WEB Site could be improved to use the full name of the Technical Report?

From:
ISA88 Technical Report on Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA88
To:
ISA-TR88.00.02 Technical Report on Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88

The OMAC site makes the statement that:

“This technical report incorporates the OMAC Packaging Workgroup’s PackML and PackTags documents with the industry standard ISA88 terminology.”

The statement implies that the PackML Version 3.0 bodies of work and ISA TR88.00.02 are identical and interchangeable, which is not the necessarily the case. And leaves out that there are improvements that the were incorporated into the Technical Report which are not found anywhere on the OMAC site. The PackML 3.0 has a section that describes what is different from PackML 2.2 and is very useful.

Would it be of benefit to develop a simple white paper that could be included on the OMAC web site that doses the same for PackML 3.0 and the Technical Report? It seems to me that this would be a great tool to use to help reduce confusion and improve acceptance of the PackML concepts!

Any volunteers? I’d be happy to collaborate in any effort but really would need some expert advice and input from the OMAC Packaging Work group!

COMMENTS: Below are Nov. 17 comments from PG’s Robert Aleksa, added to this post Nov. 19.

- PackML Version 2.2 - March 2002 - (good but too many execution issues. P&G decided to minimize deployment.)
- PackML Version 3.0 - June 2006; (good version, deploying)
- Tag Naming Guidelines (PackML V3.0) July 2006; (good however way too many tags for our use, implemented only what we needed)

In the end, the business benefit is having the same operating procedure for machines which can be achieved with both 2.2 and 3.0. The issue was complexity of executing. More complex to do 2.2.

I agree that it would be better if the OMAC WEB Site would use the full name of the Technical Report, as suggested.

Yes, it be of benefit to develop a simple white paper that could be included on the OMAC web site, as stated above.