We have a big but probably dumb question on the unified namespace (UNS):
With multiple systems feeding the UNS (ERP, MES, SCADA, CRM, etc) → is the data typically segregated by ERP, MES, SCADA within the namespace, or does this defeat the “unified” part of the UNS?
We are discussing work orders for example, and unsure if an update to a work order made by ERP would have to land in an ERP section, and a separate change made by MES must land in an MES section, or if they (ERP and MES) can safely independently update a “work order” topic.
My feeling is that these separate systems would be feeding a single UNS, and the segregation of systems within the UNS is incorrect, but we’re stuck on this.
Yes you could segragate your data within the Unified Namespace into MES and ERP under different levels of your hierachy. For example you can have ERP and MES under LINE_1, and inside MES you can then put your functional namespaces e.g. Production Related Calculations, KPIs (OEE, TEEP), Quality, and Maintenance e.t.c . And under your ERP you can have your “Work Order” namespace.
While I see that you can do this, is it how things are typically organized?
Yes, this is how things are typically organized. However, the essence of the Unified namespace is to offer you the flexibility to arrange your information in a manner that accurately mirrors your reality on the ground and what makes the most sense in relation to your organisational structure. Please view these not as strict directives but as suggestions and guidance to assist you in designing your information hierarchy. Should you require any further assistance or clarification, I’m happy to help.