CIM Survey Results 2010 - Home - CIMugcimug.ucaiug.org/Meetings/SF2010/Presentations/Wednesday...CIM...

CIM Survey Results 2010

Presented by John Simmins and Randy Rhodes

CIM Users Group Meeting

San Francisco, CA

October 13, 2010

Agenda

• Survey Scope and Response

• Top Observations

• Q&A

1

A Note on the Format of this Content

Today’s 30-minute summary includes the first 19 slides.

The remaining material shows all the survey results –graphic summaries first, followed by verbatim (free-

form) responses.

EPRI and Gartner reserve the right to re-use this material in reports for their members and clients.

Survey Background

• Goals:

- To assess CIM adoption and measure implementation success

- To improve on prior surveys completed in 2005, 2006 and 2008 (more questions, wider distribution)

• Methodology

- CIM Processes WG and European stakeholders reviewed draft questions

- UCAIug and EPRI mailing lists received invitations in September 2010

- Gartner hosted the survey tool and compiled results

- Respondents invited to submit their emails to receive results – but all responses remain anonymous

2

Survey Response

3

49

45

19

31

Number of respondents

Electric Utility

Technology Provider

Systems Integrator

Consultant

N=144

Base: All

144 respondents qualified themselves as

“knowledgeable about their organizations’ use and

planned use of CIM standards”

2010 Survey Respondents

4

Interconexion Electrica (South America)

National Grid (UK)

New York ISO

NRECA

Pacific Gas & Electric

PowerGrid India

Progress Energy

PSE (Poland)

RTE (France)

RWE (Germany)

Southern California Edison

Statnett (Norway)

SwissGrid

Transba South America (Argentina)

Vector (New Zealand)

Western Power (Australia)

AEP

AESO (Canada)

Alliander (Netherlands)

BC Hydro (Canada)

Centerpoint Energy

Colorado Springs Utilities

Copel (Brazil)

DTE Energy

Eirgrid (Ireland)

Elektro - Slovenija,

Empresa Eléctrica Centro Sur C.A. (Ecuador)

Enexis (Netherlands)

ENTSO-E

Fingrid Oyj (Finland)

HydroQuebec (Canada)

HydroQuebec Research Institute

Indian Electric Cooperative

• These 33 utilities were identified only by email domain names

• Some responses used personal emails; some didn’t submit email addresses

• Only four utilities had more than one employee respond

Past Survey Respondents (Utilities)

2008 Responses (22)

5

* Note: These utilities had reported CIM projects in 2006 Survey, but did not respond in 2008

AEP Hydro Quebec

AESO ONS

Alabama Power PacifiCorp

CenterPoint PJM

Cleco* RTE*

ConEd* SCE

EDF SDG&E

ERCOT SRP*

ETRANS TVA

Exelon TXU

FinGrid WAPA

AES Electropaulo Manitoba Hydro

Alabama Power Company Oncor Electric Delivery

CenterPoint Energy PacifiCorp

COES PJM Interconnection

EDF Powerlink Queensland

EMS ‐ Elektromreza

Srbije

Progress Energy

ERCOT Seattle City Light

Essent SCE

Exelon Corporation Statnett SF

Hydro‐Quebec TVA

Idaho Power WAPA

2006 Responses (22)

Survey Response by Region

6

59%

28%

42%

34%

22%

35%

56%

16%

33%

20%

8%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

North America

Latin America

Western Europe

Central/Eastern Europe

Middle East/Africa

Asia/Pacific

Regions covered by organization

Regions served by respondent

N=144

Base: All

Which of the following geographic regions does your organization cover and which do you personally serve in your current role?

% of respondents

Utility Respondents - Type

7

29%

16%

14%

6%

12%

10%

12%

0% 20% 40%

Investor-Owned Utility

State/Municipal/Public Utility

Public Transmission Owner/Operator

Investor-Owned Transmission Owner/Operator

Independent System Operator

Electricity Cooperative

Other

N=49

Base: All utilities companies

Which of the following best describes your utility organization?

% of respondents

Utilities – Number of Customers

8

19%

7%

11%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Less than 50,000 customers

50,000 to 199,999 customers

200,000 to 799,999 customers

800,000 customers or more

N=27

Base: All utilities companies that have end customers

Which of the following best describes the total number of customers your utility serves?

% of respondents

Top Observations

1. IT decision makers are less informed about CIM than Operations Technology (OT) staff

2. Utilities value CIMug tutorials and conferences

3. Vendors ESB offerings outstrip reported utility use

4. Harmonizing with other standards is a high priority

5. Most organizations have low CIM expertise

6. Half of utilities report implementing CIM without consultants or integrators

9

Top Observations, cont.

7. Observations from Utilities’ verbatim responses:

a) CIM does not meet all the needs of the electric utility industry

b) Reference and instructional materials are scarce or non-existent

c) There is a growing risk of local extensions not being forward compatible (especially for DMS)

d) Utilities feel there is a lack of necessary tools

8. Observations from Tech Providers’ verbatim responses:

a) Documentation is scarce or non-existent

b) WG14 activity is too slow and painful

10

IT Decision Makers are Less Informed than Operations Technology (OT) Staff

11

N=49

For the following people within your organization, how would you describe their typical expertise and experience with CIM?

% of respondents

10%

6%

16%

2%

6%

33%

22%

41%

43%

63%

37%

49%

24%

0% 50% 100%

C-Level Executives

Line of Business Management

Engineers/Technicians/Operations

IT Management

IT Analysts/Developers

Expert Novice Has Awareness


Utilities Value Tutorials and Conferences

12

61%

30%

48%

55%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

CIM tutorial material

Software vendor assistance

Consultant assistance

CIM Users Group conferences

Other

N=33

Base: All utilities companies evaluating, funding, developing or already operating model-driven application integration using CIM

Which of the following has your organization used to progress with model-driven application integration?

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Utilities Reported Low Involvement with ESB Frameworks

13

10%

30%

20%

10%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

IBM WebSphere

Tibco

Oracle BEA Systems AquaLogic Service Bus

SAP

Microsoft BizTalk

Oracle Fusion (including WebLogic)

Red Hat JBoss

webMethods (Software AG)

Progress Software SonicESB

Progress Software SonicMQ

Utility (N=10)

N=10

Which of the following Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) frameworks is your organization involved with its CIM-based messaging? (In development or in operation)

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Base: All utilities companies.

Technology Firms Reported High Level of ESB Support in Market Offerings

14

N=95

Which of the following Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) frameworks does your organization support or plan to support with its CIM-based messaging?

% of respondents

14%

5%

5%

5%

3%

3%

4%

12%

3%

6%

6%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

7%

4%

8%

6%

1%

1%

7%

9%

8%

4%

14%

14%

11%

17%

7%

9%

11%

22%

8%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

IBM WebSphere

Microsoft BizTalk





Red Hat JBoss

SAP

Tibco


CIM in Operation CIM available to clients CIM in development CIM planned

Base: All technology providers, systems integrators and consultants.

Harmonizing CIM with Other Standards Is a High Priority

15

18%

71%

37%

22%

76%

49%

26%

95%

32%

16%

77%

39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

COSEM

IEC 61850

Multispeak

Utility (N=49) Technology Provider (N=45) Systems Integrator (N=19) Consultant (N=31)

N=144

In your opinion, what other standards should be further harmonized with CIM?

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Base: All

CIM Experts are Relatively Rare

16

N=95

How many CIM full-time equivalent "experts" are employed by your organization to support its utility clients?

% of respondents

20%

11%

3%

60%

58%

68%

13%

21%

3%

2%

13%

4%

11%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Technology Provider (N=45)

Systems Integrator (N=19)

Consultant (N=31)

None 1 to 4 experts 5 to 9 experts 10 to 19 experts 20 or more experts


Utilities Use Fewer Integrators/Consultants than Expected

47%

47%

6%

% of respondents

Yes

No

Don't know

Company Mentions

SISCO 4

Xtensible Solutions 4

EDF R&D 2

IBM 2

Accenture 1

Ardans 1

Langdale Consultants 1

Cybersoft Oy 1

EPCON spzoo 1

HP 1

Incremental Systems +

PowerData Corp. 1

Jelovac Solutions 1

KEMA 1

NISC 1

Siemens PTI 1

PWC 1

UISol 1

SNC 1

Total Mentions 26

17

N=49


Did your organization use consultants or integrators to help it implement CIM?

Randy Rhodes, [email protected]

John Simmins, [email protected]

For further information, contact:

18

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Complete Slide Set Follows

CIM Survey Results 2010

19

Utilities – CIM Involvement - 1

20

N=49

For each of the following, please state whether your organization has...

% of respondents

20%

20%

4%

8%

8%

12%

8%

12%

22%

12%

16%

14%

18%

8%

12%

14%

6%

12%

14%

22%

10%

12%

14%

27%

27%

43%

43%

35%

43%

41%

33%

0% 50% 100%

Exchanging power system models

Defining message payloads for system integration project

Basis of design for an enterprise data warehouse or operational data store

Basis for definition of enterprise semantic model for management of business objects/terms

Improving data sharing across the organization

Combining CIM with other reference models and standards

Support for Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) frameworks

A model-driven application integration process

CIM in Operation CIM in development Funded plans for CIM Evaluation of CIM Standards


Utilities – CIM Involvement - 2

21

N=49


% of respondents

18%

8%

8%

4%

8%

4%

8%

2%

20%

8%

14%

12%

12%

6%

6%

4%

14%

6%

10%

4%

10%

6%

2%

22%

31%

27%

41%

37%

27%

35%

10%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Network Operation

Records and Asset Management

Operational Planning and Optimization

Maintenance and Construction

Network Planning and Analysis

Customer Support

Meter Reading and Demand Response

Generation Plant

Other Business Functions

CIM in Operation CIM in development Funded plans for CIM Evaluation of CIM Standards


Utilities – CIM Priorities

22

N=49

Please rank in order of importance the top three business benefits sought from successful CIM implementations in your organization.

% of respondents

39%

22%

20%

8%

10%

22%

31%

22%

10%

4%

16%

18%

35%

16%

2%

0% 50% 100%

Cost Reduction on Integration

SOA Deployment, Need for Semantic Consistency

Governance on Internal Interfaces (Company Internal Policy Decision)

Governance on External Interfaces (Regulatory or Market Requirement)

Other

1st

2nd

3rd


Utilities – Number of CIM Interfaces

23

20%

55%

10%

0%

2%

6%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60%

None

1 to 9 interfaces

10 to 19 interfaces

20 to 29 interfaces

30 to 49 interfaces

50 interfaces or more

Don't know

N=49


Please estimate the number of individual interfaces based on CIM in your organization?

% of respondents

Utilities – CIM Experience

24

N=49

For the following people within your organization, how would you describe their typical expertise and experience with CIM?

% of respondents

10%

6%

16%

2%

6%

33%

22%

41%

43%

63%

37%

49%

24%

0% 50% 100%

C-Level Executives

Line of Business Management

Engineers/Technicians/Operations

IT Management

IT Analysts/Developers

Expert Novice Has Awareness


Utilities – Migrating to New CIM Versions

25

67%

11%

11%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

We have not migrated to newer versions of CIM

We have migrated some interfaces to newer releases of

CIM

We have an ongoing process to stay current with CIM releases

Other

N=36

Base: All utilities companies with at least one CIM interface

Which of the following best describes how your organization migrates to progressive CIM versions?

% of respondents

Utilities – Model-driven App integration

26

61%

30%

48%

55%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

CIM tutorial material

Software vendor assistance

Consultant assistance

CIM Users Group conferences

Other

N=33

Base: All utilities companies evaluating, funding, developing or already operating model-driven application integration using CIM

Which of the following has your organization used to progress with model-driven application integration?

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Utilities – Vendor Tools

27

49%

33%

12%

6%

4%

2%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Sparx Enterprise Architect

CIMTool

CIMSpy/CIMDesk

IBM Rational Rose

CIMphony

InterPSS OpenCIM

Other

N=49

Which of the following vendor tools are currently used to implement CIM in your organization?

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed


Utilities – Use of Integrators/Consultants

47%

47%

6%

% of respondents

Yes

No

Don't know

Company Mentions

SISCO 4

Xtensible Solutions 4

EDF R&D 2

IBM 2

Accenture 1

Ardans 1

Langdale Consultants 1

Cybersoft Oy 1

EPCON spzoo 1

HP 1

Incremental Systems +

PowerData Corp. 1

Jelovac Solutions 1

KEMA 1

NISC 1

Siemens PTI 1

PWC 1

UISol 1

SNC 1

Total Mentions 26

28

N=49


Did your organization use consultants or integrators to help it implement CIM?

Utilities – ENTSO-E Member Priorities

29

8%

58%

50%

67%

33%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

DSO <=> DSO-model

TSO <=> DSO-model

TSO/DSO <=> Service provider-model

TSO/DSO <=> Market-model

TSO/DSO <=> Generation-model

TSO/DSO <=> Customer-model

N=12

For each of the following, please indicate if they are a priority for your organization.24% of utilities companies are members of ENTSO-E.

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Base: All members of ENTSO-E

Technology Firms – CIM Areas Supported

30

36%

31%

24%

20%

31%

38%

38%

38%

58%

37%

53%

37%

47%

26%

42%

37%

42%

61%

42%

42%

42%

61%

55%

39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%









Technology Provider (N=45) Systems Integrator (N=19) Consultant (N=31)

N=95

For each of the following, please state whether your organization is currently supporting utility clients with CIM.

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed


Technology Firms – CIM Involvement - 1

31

N=95

For each of the following, please state whether your organization currently supports or plans to support utility clients with CIM.

% of respondents

42%

42%

36%

31%

38%

43%

44%

38%

42%

40%

36%

45%

45%

44%

33%

40%

0% 50% 100%









Currently Supports Plans to Support


Technology Firms – CIM Involvement - 2

32

N=95


% of respondents

21%

9%

13%

5%

13%

11%

15%

1%

6%

13%

16%

11%

11%

13%

8%

9%

6%

5%

27%

18%

24%

15%

22%

9%

22%

8%

7%

22%

23%

20%

20%

23%

24%

27%

24%

20%

0% 50% 100%

Network Operation

Records and Asset Management

Operational Planning and Optimization

Maintenance and Construction

Network Planning and Analysis

Customer Support

Meter Reading and Demand Response

Generation Plant

Other Business Functions



Utilities – ESB Frameworks

33

10%

30%

20%

10%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

IBM WebSphere

Tibco


SAP

Microsoft BizTalk


Red Hat JBoss




Utility (N=10)

N=10

Which of the following Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) frameworks is your organization involved with its CIM-based messaging? (In development or in operation)

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Base: All utilities companies.

Technology Firms – ESB Frameworks - 1

34

29%

20%

18%

13%

13%

13%

16%

11%

9%

7%

32%

21%

5%

16%

11%

11%

5%

0%

5%

0%

23%

29%

26%

23%

23%

23%

19%

16%

10%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

IBM WebSphere

Tibco


SAP

Microsoft BizTalk


Red Hat JBoss




Technology Provider (N=45) Systems Integrator (N=19) Consultant (N=31)

N=95

Which of the following Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) frameworks is your organization involved with its CIM-based messaging? (In operation, available, or in development)

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed


Technology Firms – ESB Frameworks - 2

35

N=95

Which of the following Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) frameworks does your organization support or plan to support with its CIM-based messaging?

% of respondents

14%

5%

5%

5%

3%

3%

4%

12%

3%

6%

6%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

7%

4%

8%

6%

1%

1%

7%

9%

8%

4%

14%

14%

11%

17%

7%

9%

11%

22%

8%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

IBM WebSphere

Microsoft BizTalk





Red Hat JBoss

SAP

Tibco




Technology Firms – CIM Interfaces

36

15%

35%

12%

11%

2%

13%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

None

1 to 9 interfaces

10 to 19 interfaces

20 to 29 interfaces

30 to 49 interfaces

50 interfaces or more

Don't know

N=95

Please estimate the number of individual interfaces based on CIM that your organization has implemented for others, or which are supported with your products?

% of respondents


Technology Firms – CIM Migration

37

N=68

Which of the following best describes how your organization migrates to progressive CIM versions?

% of respondents

36%

45%

50%

24%

9%

17%

33%

27%

29%

6%

18%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Consultant (N=24)

We have an ongoing process to stay current with CIM releasesWe have migrated some interfaces to newer releases of CIMWe have not migrated to newer versions of CIMOther

Base: All technology providers, systems integrators and consultants that has implemented at least one CIM interface.

Multiple Versions of CIM (Tech Provider)

• I do not know. I expect that we do not support multiple versions, except where older versions are consistent.

• No. We are using different version in different clients.

• Using extensions, idea is to implement same version always (to all).

• Our messaging infrastructure is designed to support multiple schemas and multiple versions

• We have not had to deal with this yet - we are working on some of our first CIM import/export mechanisms.

• Only a single version of CIM is currently supported.

• Not been an issue thus far.

• Mapping between two models

• CIM profile_and_context system is implemented -so the multiple versions are supported through the cim_version`s id.

• Some of our products are model neutral. The CIM version is configured using a schema import function.

• We Don't

• Not supported. 38

How does your organization support multiple versions of CIM within the same client environments?

• All of our interfaces are versioned. We provide backward compatibility and we have a published policy for support periods on older revisions.

• Through roadmap plan

• Support interfaces for new model and support backwards compatibility up to certain level.

• Multiple versions are controlled by product functionality, where the need for additional functionality controls the version of CIM that is used per integration. The version is referenced in the technical payload of each message which provides a great reference for what is available in the client's environment.

• Our products support versions 10-13 of CIM. The customer must align their CIM models to whatever version(s) of CIM are applicable. One way is to use extensions to develop a global CIM schema incorporating the features required from each version.

• Software migration

• Manage namespaces.

• We are working with the latest version only at this point.

Multiple Versions of CIM (Systems Integrator)

• CIM is used as a reference model for corporate common Enterprise Semantic Model (ESM). ESM is used to generate interoperability artifacts such as message payloads, staging tables, DB schema, Web services etc. This strategy provides necessary "decoupling" from CIM and reduce dependency (enables organization to schedule migration from one version to another since everything is driven from ESM). Centrally - managed ESM enables common semantic understanding across systems, services, etc. It should be seen as interoperability enabler. It supports also top-down and bottom up approach. For bottom up approach, existing standard interfaces are used as-is. Those interfaces are also "semantically connected" (they are leveraged as reference models as well)

• We do not have the case of multiple versions

• We started development based on v13 and the impacted areas were not affected, so we could more or less just call our work v14 right away. Keeping up with the sub-versions, however, is a different matter.

• New version is adopted only when the system of client is refurbished.

• It depends on customers requirement

• Yes. One CIM version means one CIM schema. Our products are based on CIM Schema.

• We are using a CIM version as a base (13) and we are extending this profile using concepts of new CIM versions (14 and 15) until we change to the new CIM version

• On demand

39


Multiple Versions of CIM (Consultant)

• Not currently doing this

• Configuration management

• Use of namespace to identify which version is in use. Newer attributes are defined as optional to maintain backward compatibility; in this way older systems ignore the optional attributes.

• Through ESB

• Mapping

• No support.

• We don't, yet. Applications currently focus on distribution CIM, which does not have any previous mature versions.

• Message payload schemas and/or data model schemas are the testable artifacts. Each is based on an enterprise semantic model which includes only those portions of the CIM that the client needs in their ESM. When a new release of the CIM is available, the integration competency center evaluates and makes a decision if the EMS should be updated or not. If so, then any existing schemas need to be evaluated to see if they are impacted by the changes or not. If they are, case by case a decision is made whether to update a schema or not.

• No need to.

• No experience with multiple CIM versions used concurrently.

• Assist with mapping/migration

• No, any client have your version.

• Not yet at this point of development

• Via version number and specific parsers

• Each interface is based on a context/profile. The version of the CIM being used for creating the project artifacts from the context/profile is understood at that time. Each time a new version of the CIM is adopted by the utility, existing interfaces are not necessarily updated unless there is a business reason to do so.

40


Technology Firms – Versions Supported

41

17%

16%

22%

63%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

V10 or earlier (March 2006 or prior)

V11 (October 2006)

V12 (May 2007)

V13 (June 2008)

Other (V14+)

N=95

Which versions of CIM does your organization support?

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed


Technology Firms – CIM Experts

42

N=95

How many CIM full-time equivalent "experts" are employed by your organization to support its utility clients?

% of respondents

20%

11%

3%

60%

58%

68%

13%

21%

3%

2%

13%

4%

11%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Consultant (N=31)

None 1 to 4 experts 5 to 9 experts 10 to 19 experts 20 or more experts


Extending CIM to New Areas

43

33%

24%

67%

58%

56%

67%

63%

63%

63%

65%

61%

84%

0% 50% 100%

Gas Networks

Water Networks

Electricity Generation (Thermal, Hydro, Nuclear)


N=144

For each of the following please state whether or not you personally would like CIM standards to be extended to these areas.

% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Base: All

Harmonizing CIM with Other Standards

44

18%

71%

37%

22%

76%

49%

26%

95%

32%

16%

77%

39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

COSEM

IEC 61850

Multispeak


N=144


% of respondents

Multiple Responses

Allowed

Base: All

CIMug Satisfaction - All

45

5.175.13

5.105.035.03

4.984.93

4.804.78

4.724.72

4.694.69

4.46

4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Meeting sites

CIM documents

User login and account maintenance

“What's new”

Working group sites

Overall site usability/navigation

Project sites

Email/forums/messaging

Help desk

Tutorial information

FAQs

Site search

Shared calendars

Blogs

N=112

How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the CIM Users Group website (www.cimug.org)? 78% of respondents were CIMug website users.

Mean (1=completely dissatisfied, 7=completely satisfied)

Base: All CIMug Users

CIMug Satisfaction - Utilities

46

5.395.355.32

5.185.185.155.12

5.004.95

4.904.89

4.734.65

4.33

4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Meeting sites

“What's new”

Working group sites

CIM documents

Help desk



Project sites



FAQs

Site search

Shared calendars

Blogs

N=35

How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the CIM Users Group website (www.cimug.org)? 71% of utilities respondents were CIMug website users.


Base: All utilities using CIMug Website

CIM Users Group Site Satisfaction (Utilities)

• CIM UG seems to be aimed primarily at UG members, not the general community. If you want to foster widespread adoption of the CIM you need to open up, make more materials freely available, and build your site navigation with an eye to the CIM non-expert.

• I understand that there is a way for us to submit our extensions to CIM, but is there an informal portal where we can collaborate on works-in-progress that are not ready for submission? For example, my company will soon be collaborating (sharing models) with a peer utility. We will do it between the two of us, but if there were a centralized repository for collaborations, perhaps they could be more useful.

• I would like to see a Executive Overview Presentation of "What is CIM and the benefits" , which can be explained easily to a IT/Business Management in the Electric Utility. There need to be quantifiable benefits of CIM to engage the Management in the organization to gain sponsorship in the organization

• Overall, the CIM is too complex for successful adoption and too less Business oriented. There is no good overview level documentation or tutorials that may help Business professionals (who often are sponsors), novices, consultants or application vendors get to adopt the CIM. If this is substantially improved, than it might become a major catalyst to get things really rocking.

• Please introduce auto-messaging feature to automatically inform about changes on the website.

• Web-conferences of the meetings.

• Technical support in Spanish.

• Would be a huge job, but I am missing an oversight of WHY things are done as they are in CIM and an abundance of examples/how to's.

• Learning curve for CIM is immense, this should be made less to encourage CIM usage by low entry level.

47

If there are any aspects of the CIM Users Group site (www.cimug.org) not mentioned previously that you would like to see improved, please indicate these below.

CIMug Satisfaction – Tech Providers

48

5.044.97

4.884.85

4.774.72

4.684.67

4.634.584.584.56

4.464.14

4 4.5 5 5.5 6

“What's new”


CIM documents

Meeting sites

Working group sites


Project sites

Help desk

Shared calendars

Site search


FAQs


Blogs

N=33

How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the CIM Users Group website (www.cimug.org)? 73% of technology providers were CIMug website users.


Base: All technology providers using CIMug Website

CIMug Satisfaction – Systems Integrators

49

4.934.934.93

4.884.774.77

4.694.62

4.584.464.464.46

4.384.33

4 4.5 5 5.5 6




CIM documents

Working group sites

“What's new”

Meeting sites

Site search

Project sites

Blogs

FAQs


Help desk

Shared calendars

N=16

How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the CIM Users Group website (www.cimug.org)? 84% of Systems Integrators were CIMug website users.


Base: All systems integrators using CIMug Website

CIM Users Group Site Satisfaction (Tech Providers and System Integrators)

• Tutorials/discussions on CIM profile development, and CIM upgrade path

• Overview page that describes what is public information and what is restricted.

• Better support for copying multiple files / directories at a time.

• I don't use the site directly in any of the groups. I've browsed for meeting information and events and "what's new". Appears useful and robust.

• Reach agreement with IEC and make all standards / documents widely available

• More case studies with discussion

• Meter readings standard discussion (e.g. readings. interval readings )

• The verification for prospect users are not clear enough till today

• CIM Models should be available for Rational Tools such as Rational Software Architect.

• CIM UML Model documentation

• Harmonization of different areas of CIM

• Smoother migration paths between versions in order to support migration

• Examples of CIM usage, especially xml messages as the standard left space for interpretation.

• More privileges for CIM Users Group members, especially for the working groups

50

If there are any aspects of the CIM Users Group site (www.cimug.org) not mentioned previously that you would like to see improved, please indicate these below.

CIMug Satisfaction – Consultants

51

5.565.50

5.325.29

5.235.15

5.005.00

4.964.91

4.834.834.80

4.70

4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Meeting sites

CIM documents



Project sites

Working group sites

Blogs

Shared calendars


FAQs

Help desk

“What's new”

Site search


N=28

How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the CIM Users Group website (www.cimug.org)? 90% of Consultants were CIMug website users.


Base: All consultants using CIMug Website

CIMug Priorities- All

52

5.87

5.79

5.67

5.61

5.53

5.36

4 5 6 7

Education and support for CIM users

Communication across CIMug, IEC 61850, OpenSG, IEC TC57 WGs, etc.

Model management and version release processes

Interoperability testing and certification

Research projects to extend CIM and coordinate with other standards

Tools development and support

N=144

How important are the following CIM Users Group strategic priorities to you personally in your role?

Mean (1=not at all important, 7=extremely important)

Base: All

CIMug Priorities- All

53

5.57

5.44

5.40

5.36

5.43

5.15

5.93

5.89

5.73

5.77

5.68

5.29

5.89

6.11

5.95

5.50

5.44

5.74

6.23

5.97

5.80

5.81

5.52

5.55

4 5 6 7

Education and support for CIM users

Communication across CIMug, IEC 61850, OpenSG, IEC TC57 WGs, etc.

Model management and version release processes

Interoperability testing and certification

Research projects to extend CIM and coordinate with other standards

Tools development and support

Electric Utility (N=49) Technology Provider (N=45) Systems Integrator (N=19) Consultant (N=31)

N=144

How important are the following CIM Users Group strategic priorities to you personally in your role?

Mean (1=not at all important, 7=extremely important)

Base: All

Standards Harmonization (Utilities)

• Utilities

- ICCP TASE.2

- ICCP

- IEC 60909; IEEE 421; other IEEE for dynamics

- ENTSO-E standards

- Multispeak works well. No CIM required

- Open GIS, UN/CEFACT

- Standards in generic (horizontal) domains like Human Resources (f.e. hr-xml), Finance (f.e. XBRL)

- OAGIS for ERP, HR-XML for HR and on a distance some OASIS standards.

- OGC

54


Standards Harmonization (Non-Utilities)

• Technology Providers

- ClimateTalk Alliance CIM

- ISA.95/88, ISO 15926, Zigbee, OPC, communications networks. Complete harmonization may not be needed in all cases.

- Smart Energy Profile

- Zigbee Smart Energy Profile

• Systems Integrators

- OGC

- Relevant Asset management standards

- SEP 2.0

• Consultants

- Those standards that are not specific to an electrical utility e.g. Financial, HR standards

- OPC UA

- GML

- ANSI C12,19, ANSI C12.22

- RDS-PP

55


Concerns or Criticisms (Utilities - 1)

• Dictionary is too small and development moving too slowly

• I'm completing this survey on behalf of Electric Cooperatives in the US. Most co-ops utilize MultiSpeak instead of CIM. MultiSpeak is more mature and more complete than CIM and therefore requires little or no customization by the user. Software products are specified to require a MultiSpeak interface and it's up to the vendor to make sure the interface works.

• It does not cover all data models needed for the electrotechnical industry.

• It does not cover all messaging needed for Enterprise Integration.

• It does not fulfill all the needs of electrotechnical industry.

• Translation to implementation, Vendor support

• Slow speed, large file, not user friendly

• The good point: CIM is developing rapidly.

• But be aware of keeping consistency in the development of classes.

• See ENTSO-E IOP July 2010 report Section 5

• My concern is that only technical personal are aware of CIM. High level administration hardly heard about it.

• No vision on how CIM is aligned with the standards

• Too difficult to learn what is in it.

• Not much explanatory material freely available. We paid for a couple of the standards docs, but as a mid-sized 4-service utility I couldn't get budget to buy everything. So we have to do a lot of reading between the lines.

• Scoping. 56

What are your main concerns or criticisms about CIM today?


• Focus on Electricity specific business functions and objects and loosely couple with other standards like IEC61850, Open-GIS, Un/CEFACT, etc.

- hard follow up of constant development and creation of new CIM versions

- not clear idea about GID development

- not enough support by big market players (EMS/SCADA systems, business solutions...)

• Main concerns are:

- to get stakeholder buy-in

- to set up a business case

- to find our way to the complexity of the model. (tutorial and education facilities are important)

• The lack of high level business focused documentation to aid enterprise and solution architects to 'sell' CIM to our business. If we can convince the business of the value of the CIM, they will drive its continuous development rather than question its value.

• CIM extensions for distribution (DMS) are very common. There's no easy mechanism/guidelines for ensuring that these extensions are aligned and coordinated with IEC future versions

• Different versions and implementations.

• Too complex, model should be tuned back to essential classes and attributes only, based on information that needs to be exchanged between parties only. Simplicity will increase adoption rate enormously. Model governance rules need to be developed to prevent the model from coming too complex. Focus only on information exchanged, leave out all other entities/attributes.

• CIM still has to prove it is usable, that version management is well managed.

• Lack of real recognition by important organizations. 57



• Risk of disappointment still exist.

• Difficult to startup for novices

• Lack of tooling for Extending CIM to local use, meanwhile keeping track of changes.

• CIM should not try to elaborate on branches where they are not expert (e.g. ERP).

• Since we have more disciplines then Electricity ( meaning Gas ) It would be nice if all core (Distribution) stuff would be discipline-independent so we can easily sub-class for each discipline.

• Some IEC working group members have an insufficient understanding of object-oriented type theory.

• We'd like more visibility into what the working groups are doing relative to incorporating changes into upcoming standards releases.

• Better tools to do mapping from various legacy models to the CIM.

• It has not been spread around the world properly.

• There are interoperability issues from different users.

• Backwards compatibility between versions

• Different vendors create CIM extensions (with their own interests in mind) which make it back to the CIM in an uncoordinated fashion, which make the model very bloated, getting away from a concise standard.

• Progress on harmonization with IEC 61850?

• In WG14 there is not a released standard profile for interface definitions at this time. Currently, only message types are released as standards. Also, the CIM message development time needs to move to a more agile and iterative approach.

58


Concerns or Criticisms (Tech Providers - 1)

• Overly broad, seeking to be all inclusive. Instead, should focus on common core and not include extensions in the standard until broadly accepted. Current approach is too complex to understand, implement and maintain, and does not exert sufficient discipline on industry use of the standard.

• Too many to name here.

• My concern is keeping me updated.

• Too many standard document's and model's with different time-lines of adoption, which makes life difficult when one asks the utility to adopt. Always, there is an opponent who can come with a situation, where CIM standards / models are incomplete or some stages are still pending - models or inter-operability tests not completed etc,

• Separation of "Eurostandard" (Entso-e) and USA driven standard.

• My present perception of CIM is that it is much like the OSI Reference Model of the 80s/90s where MultiSpeak is the TCP/IP. CIM is complex and has moved very slowly in the OMS/DMS space. On the other hand standards are helpful - and we understand consensus is hard - need to a mechanism where practical progress can be made prior to universal consensus. Some mistakes will be made - the alternative is irrelevance.

• That the people in the industry that create the products are not involved in the CIM that they will ultimately will need to implement in the end.

• It is hard to find a good overview of CIM that is updated regularly. Even understanding the version numbers in the model is difficult.

• Main concern is completion of the standard for distribution and harmonization with MultiSpeak.

59



• Too abstract/academic. Not focused enough on real-world implementation of actual interfaces.

• Harmonization between CIM and IEC 61850

• whole set of IEC 61968 messages definition

• CIM is becoming 7-vendors driven policy ("majestic 7").

• Lack of "Best practise guide".

• Consistency within TC57 should be a priority, CIM being one part of TC57 reference architecture.

• Extension for Distribution is proceeding painfully slowly...

• While CIM defines a common dictionary of sorts to define what data is, it has no formal structure for exchanging that data. Typical implementations utilizing ESB frameworks add additional licensing costs to the end utility and black box dependencies to developers. By utilizing well established, documented, open, communication protocols with multiple programming language and implementation support, vendors and utilities who choose to write to the standard have more leverage to get started without binding their implementation to a particular vendor or increasing cost.

• Evolves too slowly.

• Current WG14 modeling activity is too slow and painful.

• It would be interesting to hold more meetings in Europe.

• The possibility to emerge as "European model" and "USA model", not developing a single model.

60



• It would be great to have better descriptions for CIM objects and attributes along with examples used in the industry.

• I have not had the opportunity to attend end user training for the site and the overall model usage concepts. From my perspective the lines between the message model and the database model are a little blurry, but that may be due to lack of training. That may be an important factor for more success... training, possibly area based seminars in densely populated locations of CIM Users.

• The standard keeps changing, often for no good reason (i.e. slight name changes to classes/attributes with no meaningful change to the overall model). This makes it difficult to write applications since you have so many different standards to write to. It needs to stabilize more quickly or it will never end.

• Users groups get bogged down in details while large areas of the model like handling HAN devices and Distributed Generation are missing or incomplete.

• The IEC Governance Model creates reliance on politically positioned, highly specialized technocratic consultancies. For reasons largely beyond their control, these consultancies have a mixed record of integrating resource diversity, and thus developing a diversity of applications outside of the immediate utility client base. In the marketplace of standards relevance, this is causing CIM to remain balkanized within the utility integration boundaries. I expect other integration paradigms, such as but mot limited to Zigbee, to find more rapid evolution and adoption everywhere else, since they have more diverse brain trusts, better vendor buy-in, and more futuristic technology perspectives.

• CIM development goes too slow. CIM experts participate on a volunteer basis and thus have difficulty staying engaged. Interop tests are too few and far between.

61


Concerns or Criticisms (System Integrators - 1)

• Interoperability and adoption increases with availability of freeware and ensuring that developer community has sufficient examples available to interface with the vendor products. This aspect has to be focused for easy and wider adoption and to benefit the utility industry fast.

1. It should be more open and accessible to wider audience.

2. CIM usage patterns must be captured in a structured way rather than ad hoc.

3. Benefits of common semantic understanding across an enterprise is still not widely understood

4. Reduce ambiguity about usage of word "CIM". It still means different thing to different people. E.g. for some is a network model dataset (rdf) for other is semantic model.

• Immature/changing standards (e.g. meter readings)

• Lack of spatial/location model

• Lack of validation tool

• I am concerned that CIM is not complete and profiles are not defined except for several areas. Hence, current utility implementations require extensive customization -which will result in many non-interoperable implementations and future utility disappointment.

62


Concerns or Criticisms (System Integrators - 2)

• IEC 61970 and 61968 should be merged to create a single standard.

• The ESB Implementation Profiles outlined by EPRI in "Integration Using IEC 61968" should become part of the standard.

• There are areas where harmonization with MultiSpeak is lagging. This forces the use of two standards where a single one could be enough.

• An abstract model (as opposed to an interface) does not insure interoperability.

• "Interop" tests are rather ugly from an IT perspective, encouraging point-to-point solution architectures.

• Very steep learning curve - this is in itself fine (it's complicated stuff!) but I wish there were some more accessible documentation than the standards-documents and random academic articles. Some higher-level white papers with IT- and business focuses would be very useful.

• The benefit for customers are not clearly transparent yet

• CIM used in the actual project is too little, resulting in slow development of CIM

63


Concerns or Criticisms (System Integrators – 3)

• There are some issues with CIMs ability to map against the specific anomalies of local businesses. In Particular there are concerns that it doesn't adequately cope with fully deregulated markets where retail and distribution are brokered through an independent marketplace.

• Concern: too comprehensive to be fully supported by software systems, at least helping to speak the same language to some degree which makes it easier to map interfaces

• Versioning and maturity

• Still lacking of maturity/stability in several domains

64

Concerns or Criticisms (Consultants - 1)

• Lack of a truly common industry model, despite strong and viable models currently available. The lack of commitment to and adoption of a standard will inevitably require vast amounts of money and rework to redesign the "temporary" solutions being deployed. What about real security, not just the "moat and bridge" solutions?

• Each country has own way to implement its electric grid to best fit with its economical/social/political environment. I am afraid Japanese electric grid has especially been evolved in its own way just like animals in Galapagos Islands and worrying that it will be continued in Smart Grid era, too. Thus, we will have little benefit from CIM.

• Some of the working groups that support the development of CIM need to be better organized, with better meeting documentation and coordination, i.e. group calendars, meeting minutes documenting why/how decisions were arrived at (not simply what decision was made).

• Only a few experts available

• Few introductory materials

• The objective of supporting data repository was not in the original scope, and now it overly complicates the model for other purposes.

• Another concern is the required tool investment. For the past couple of years it's been nice to have only EA and CIMTool required. I hope the UG doesn't migrate away from that.

•65


Concerns or Criticisms (Consultants - 2)

• Lack of documentation

• Compatibility between versions

• Different modeling styles in different areas

• Model management.

- There is little in terms of strategies, guidelines or tools for the management of the model within an enterprise and even less in a cross enterprise environment. There are no mechanisms or processes for managing read/write. While the concept of different model authority exists there is no implied discipline.

- There is little in the way of model release management. While the network planning tool may be the means to manage the network topology model the classes and attributes not directly related to it do not have clear version management source.

• High barrier to entry for new participants; -not well understood 'compliance' and 'interoperabilty'; -governance weak at times lends to confusion on output

• There should be a published XML standard. Every organization has to build their own message models and schemas, which are fine for internal use, but not for external use. CIMUG should dictate the message structures.

66


Concerns or Criticisms (Consultants – 3)

• In our view, CIM should provide a common definition platform for all data objects which are generated, transported and exchanged across a smart grid network. It appears to us that CIM does not see its mandate to be a universal platform for payload standardization across the entire smart grid network.

• Missing fields and attributes, e.g. cooling type

• Incompatible changes between different CIM versions

• Not enough independent organizations that can verify compliance with the CIM-based standards. The CIM will continue to evolve and the industry needs efficient and low cost options for testing XSDs in various test environments without it becoming a big production. Existing interoperability is appreciated as a start-up, but it's time to scale up testing by giving vendors and users more options in terms of how tests are structured and who performs the tests.

67


CIMug Meeting Topics (Utilities)

• How to use CIM for Enterprise Application Integration?

• How to use CIM for Smart Metering?

• How to use CIM for Smart Grid applications?

• Improve the efficiency of CIM file processing.

• How coordination between standardization bodies (IEC, IEEE, CENELEC, etc) will be organized to avoid overlap and to maintain CIM model which follows updates of other concerned standards

• Coordination of CIM development

• Presentation of a working interfaces on GIS/DMS, more focus on DSO's, Connection with other standards.

• Use cases share most experienced utilities 68

If there are any topics you would like addressed at the next CIM Users Group meeting, please briefly describe them below.

• BPM

• Strategies of software providers to be CIM-compliant

• Available CIM compliant applications on the market.

• CIM/61850 harmonization status and common plans (IOP test ?)

• IOP tests as priority #1

• Tools for mapping various legacy models to a CIM model

1. Utility experience

2. Smart Grid requirements on CIM

3. CIM tool for model management and message creation

• Backwards compatibility. Don't want to have migration problems in future...

CIMug Meeting Topics (Tech Providers - 1)

• Wish that I had enough time and resources to attend, but this is only one of many issues, and not the top priority. It would be useful to have non-commercial tutorials / newsletters on the essentials of CIM and on recent results of the Users Group (see UWIG newsletter for example).

• The CIM UG seems to be completely focused on 61970 topics and neglects the 61968 topics altogether.

• CIM vs. MultiSpeak.

• Public planning model in CIM.

• CIM User Group should focus more on China / India / ME - These are emerging markets and adoption interest could be even more.

• We are just getting back into this...no comments just yet.

• Assess interest in spinning off separate CIM-mapping subgroups, whose focus is on getting non-CIM environments to interoperate with CIM. The work there is more about mappings, between Zigbee and CIM, Z-Wave and CIM, etc. and CIM. That way, the core CIM integration consultancies can continue to serve their utility clients and maintain the technical integrity of CIM, while the subgroups can serve the broader marketplace, and fill a two-way feeder role with better focus on their accelerated, and often more tactical, concerns.

69


CIMug Meeting Topics (Tech Providers)

• First, globally unique identifiers is one topic I'd recommend. When an electric utility domain needs an identifier such as a customer account number or AMI meter number, who is the global authority to assign that identifier such that duplication is minimized in a situation such as utility acquisition.

• Second, security. How do multiple vendor applications at a utility maintain a consistent identity, authentication, and confidentiality for the purposes of security audits?

• Third, standardization of communication protocols. By not defining how data moves between applications, vendors are left using multiple ESB frameworks if they want to continue to support the standard; thus increasing integration costs. Additionally by utilizing proprietary ESB frameworks, smaller utilities who cannot afford the licensing costs are marginalized and cannot use CIM. For the small number of low/no cost communication frameworks currently supported (EJB for example) the implementations are limited in either number or programming language.

• Best techniques for database construction using the CIM Model for future maintenance and modifications to CIM for the system.

70


CIMug Meeting Topics (Systems Integrators)

• CIM Usage Patterns (e.g. top-down and bottom up)

• How to measure level of semantic understanding based on CIM

• CIM as reference model for utility enterprise semantic modeling

• Use of common semantic model in an utility enterprise

• More case studies in complex applications (network operations, customer care, SCADA, OMS)

• Schematics support (internal layouts)

• Although I am considered an expert in my company, I don't have time to attend physically in these meetings - online and/or teleconference attendance would be appreciated.

• Harmonization

• CIM focuses on the exchange of model or data?

• Issues and solutions about versioning and model manage into utilities. Route for adopting CIM standards into utilities.

71


CIMug Meeting Topics (Consultants)

• Experiences from utilities

• Roadmap for CIM covering energy systems of the future

• Please see comments under criticisms above.

• How to rationalize the interoperability testing in CIMug with the lab certification in 61850ug and the efforts of OpenSG to work with the SGIP SGTCC

• Harmonization of CIM with IEC 61850 and ANSI C12.22.

• How to handle different versions of CIM

72


CIM Survey Results 2010 - Home - CIMugcimug.ucaiug.org/Meetings/SF2010/Presentations/Wednesday...CIM...

Documents

Transcript of CIM Survey Results 2010 - Home - CIMugcimug.ucaiug.org/Meetings/SF2010/Presentations/Wednesday...CIM...