Progress Energy’s Implementation of CIM

Presentation for the CIM User Group Meeting November 12 th , 2009 Cliff Rice, Application Architect, Progress Energy

Moving toward CIM at Progress Energy

Carolina DSDR (Distribution System Demand Response) CIS Strategy Implementation / Governance 2007 2008 CIMug 2009 Enterprise Information Management Distribution Work Management System

Carolina DSDR

• Distribution System Demand Response.

• A Smart Grid initiative.

• Studied integrations options, particularly the use of CIM.

• Selected and contracted an integrations consultant to help us implement CIM.

• Began creating a project Semantic Model.

Distribution Work Management System

• Replacement for two WMS systems.

• Integrations to two CIS’s and many other systems.

• WMS vendor’s solution has all interfaces on input and output Message Queues.

• webMethods to be used to get/put.

• Interfaces were designed as point-to-point messages, input/output tables, and batch.

Distribution WMS – Decision to use CIM

• Architects proposed to model the data and build the services using the CIM.

• Extended our contract with our integrations consultant to include this project.

• Created complexity for Carolina DSDR project: • Need for a single Progress Energy ESM.

• Need for governance within the project groups pending Enterprise level governance.

Distribution WMS – Challenges

• A significant change to the way we had been building webMethods integrations, which: • Used canonical documents.

• Not model-driven.

• Hope for reusability. Some successes.

• EAI Design Pattern. Data translation in the middleware. End points speak native (proprietary).

Distribution WMS – Challenges (illustration) • Change from EAI Design Pattern to ESB:

Distribution WMS – Lessons Learned

• Integration architects and modelers got involved in the project much later than would have been desired.

• Need for much greater training and participation across business and IT.

• Impact on legacy developers to translate their proprietary data to/from CIM elements and layout.

CIS Strategy Implementation / Governance

• Business asked for a rigorous study of our CIS systems and a robust strategy.

• Approved a “modernization” approach.

• Team comprised of top analysts within the business and IT to “institutionalize”.

• Starting 2010, all integrations will be designed using “common / reusable services”.

• Key: the business is the driver.

CIS Governance beginning January 2010

Carolina IVR Florida IVR Customer Self Service (web) External Agents Portals External Systems Interfaces (GIS, OMS) Agent Desktop App’s Current Interfaces – hundreds of point-to-point solutions built in dozens of Common Services technologies Carolina CIS Florida CIS

Near-Future Plan for CIM for CIS’s

• Starting 2010, all requests from the business will be “multi-company / multi-channel”.

• All new projects will be built with reusable services using the PESM (funded by the project).

• Additionally, we have

proposed

a “top-down” Model Driven Services Analysis & Design.

• Older interfaces will be phased out / replaced over time (tbd).

Enterprise Information Management

• Implemented an EAI tool (webMethods) then evolved into an ESB (webMethods).

• Also implemented SOA Registry/Repository.

• This is the technology layer for our SOA.

• The PESM is the semantic (design) layer.

• Next: expanding our view of Enterprise Information Management beyond real-time integrations.

Future Plans for PESM

• Implement governance at the enterprise level.

• PESM will be fundamental to all Smart Grid initiatives (CIM plus AMI-Enterprise).

• Advocate adoption in more areas across the enterprise, including additional reference models (e.g. financials).

• Be a leader in the industry amongst our peers, through presentations at user groups, etc.

Critical Success Factors for Adoption of SOA, CIM, and PESM

• Business and IT Process changes must be effectively implemented and governed.

• Socialization and Training within the Business and IT.

• Identification and Training of PESM Modelers.

• Recognition/commitment to this initiative as a “paradigm revolution” – very difficult.

Closing Thought…

In

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

, Thomas Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called "paradigm shifts", in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages. Pre-science, which lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followed by "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science..

In

SSR

, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. The enormous impact of Kuhn's work can be measured in the changes it brought about in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science. The frequent use of the phrase "paradigm shift" has made scientists more aware of and in many cases more receptive to paradigm changes, so that Kuhn’s analysis of the evolution of scientific views has by itself influenced that evolution.