Ethernet as a standard on the factory was really inevitable given the requirement to sync up production systems with front-office IT systems like ERP and even PLM. It is only with that kind of tight integration that companies can hope to garner the visibility and traceability necessary for boosting the efficiency of their production systems and moving to just-in-time manufacturing.
I had assumed that the migration to Ethernet was a done deal. I guess this article is saying that it is, but that not everyone has made the shift yet. I think we're also seeing something of a taxonomy/nomenclature problem, which is something that has plagued the whole discussion of fieldbuses for a long time. Namely, Ethernet isn't so much REPLACING field buses as it is BECOMING the new, de factor field bus standard (via protocols layered on top of it for safety etc.)
Ethernet has taken a really long time to move into the control world, because of the multiple silos created by different proprietary protocols and because of the big difference in functionality between control protocols and the serial, packet-based Ethernet networking protocols. The determinism issue was a real one. That's why it's taken protocols specially designed for real-time industrial control, such as EtherCAT and Ethernet Powerlink, to make that shift possible.
Ann, you have hit the nail on the head by mentioning protocols like EtherCAT. There are applications where standard Ethernet/IP can be used, but to replace the more specific bus standards like Fieldbus, you need a deterministic protocol. These have now been developed. In the IP realm, the increase in speed to gigabit and beyond helps mitigate some of the determinism issues.
I see a parallel here, sort of, between control and machine vision. In control there's been a gulf separating the functionality and usability of Ethernet/IP versus the control-specific protocols like EtherCAT and Ethernet Powerlink. In machine vision, there's been a parallel guilf, perhaps not so large, between various open-sourced protocols like USB or GigE and their vision-specific versions like the very new USB3 Vision, and the not so new GigE Vision. And the gulfs all about that pesky determinism issue.
Even though Ethernet (the hardware) is becoming standard, the hiccup is the fact that each manufacturer maintains its own protocols. While you can buy an off-the-shelf industrial switch from anybody for your system, that's only half the battle. There is still no easy way (short of bridges or converters) to take Manufacturer A's product and put it into an existing system that used Manufacturer B. The issue gets blown out of proportion when dealing with non-automation people who can't quite grasp why interoperation is not so easy when "they are all ethernet, aren't they?"
One of the fun side effects of IT and plant control running on the same Ethernet pipeline is the question of who's in charge? That battle has been raging for years. Some smart companies have created mixed groups with personnel from both IT and control. But that's not always the case.
They have two different views of the world. IT is concerned about security and control is concerned about uptime. In the past, control was an internal network without security issues. That's changed.
You raise a really important point, Rob. And with control systems becoming a more fully blended mix of traditional automation and mainstream IT technology, it's logical that the person in charge has to straddle or have some sort of oversight of both domains. Perhaps there is an emerging new position?
Yes, it's a widespread conflict. IT says, you need these patches to ensure your security. Control says, you can't reboot these computers until we have planned downtime. The big change is that the control network is exposed to the outside world now that the plant's control network is tied in to ERP and supply chain networks.
This kind of integration is great. The finance folks know what's being consumed and what's being produced. Suppliers know what inventory has been depleted. Customers get to know when their M&Ms have shipped. But the plant is now exposed to all the contagious ills that run on the Internet.
That's an excellent point about security, Rob. One of the good things about the pre-internet days was that, even if you could hack a machine based on one of those old proprietary standards, they weren't connected to the outside world. Now they are, and all that data is exposed.
Yes, it is exposed, which makes IT nervous, especially when control resists the usual overnight patches and reboots. The plant never sleeps, so you can't just reboot.
Interestingly, the perceived threat is not from malicious anonymous hacker or terrorists. What really scares them is former disgruntled employees. Those are the folks who know where all the digital levers are.
Interesting about the disgruntled ex-employees. I would have guessed more on the order of industrial espionage and competitors looking for info on trade secrets. OTOH, some work I did a few years back in security showed that the biggest leaks and potential leaks were not disgruntled current employees with either improperly secured mobile devices, or those where employees turned off security because it gets in the way of operating the machines. Those mobile devices then get lost or mislaid and presto! The company has a security crisis on its hands.
Turning off security because it gets in the way of operating the machines! That's a good one. I've seen that with safety as well, I've seen employees and managers bypass or circumvent safety in order to speed up the line.
Part of what's fueling the security issue is the whole trend around the consumerization of IT. More and more employees, including plant managers and operators, are bringing their own smart phones to work and want to use those devices as part of their work tasks as opposed to maintaining two devices. That makes it hard for IT or the controls group to uphold proper security standards. Also, as Ann notes, the device can get lost or the kids can log on to download some Apps and presto, you have a breach or potential security problem on your hands.
Yes, I've heard that personal smartphones have entered the workplace big-time, and it's causing problems for IT departments. But it's understandable. Employees are accustomed to their Androids and iPhones, and by comparison, their work BlackBerrys are not as advanced.
I hadn't heard that about safety, Rob, but unfortunately, it makes sense. Sounds like the same principle operating in both cases, of security and safety procedures. At least in the case of security, both employee training and more robust safeguards in mobile equipment were required.
Rob - One possible solution to that particular problem is creating a one-way or read-only link. The data can be sent out to the IT systems, but nothing can come in that way. Yes, that adds a layer of complexity regarding updates, but it also makes sure that both the IT and Controls people sign off on the update schedules and implementations.
That sounds like a good solution, Jack -- much more like the former process of sending reports. The real-time network, however, could send the data on a near-continuous stream. Not quite the same as letting other areas of the enterprise peek into the process to ascertain performance and results, but it would solve some of the security issues.
The gets into the whole remote monitoring issue -- the fact that improved data links throughout the factory are enabling sensors to send data back to a central monitoring station. This, in turn, is enabling both tighter control of processes and also a reduction in outages, because failure points can be fixed right away.
Over 6 years of meetings between IT and Controls, there is more emphasis on security from the Controls side now that we have a greater understanding. The controls were determined that IT be "like the cable company" and provide the infrastructure only.
The largest gap now is the issue of urgency, Controls live in a world where "real-time" is milliseconds and IT's definition is hours.
Very interesting, Dave. Sounds like IT backed off once they were convinved that control got religion on the importance of security. Seems like an excellent solution. And yes, you identified another area of conflict between IT and control, the sense of time.
Earlier this year paralyzed IndyCar drive Sam Schmidt did the seemingly impossible -- opening the qualifying rounds at Indy by driving a modified Corvette C7 Stingray around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.
Could our view of distant galaxies be obstructed by a lawnmower? That unlikely question is at the heart of a growing debate between the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and a robot manufacturer that seeks to build self-guided lawnmowers.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.