Seth Godin wrote, Gall’s Law is appropriately simple:
“A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.”
This is why sudden change rarely is, and why persistence and user feedback end up changing the systems that run our world.
Process control is a complex system. It built up over decades from analog devices to digital computer systems housed in large operator stations. I’m not about to argue Gall’s Law for process. But everyone involved knows the painful, expensive, time-consuming project of upgrading their current system once it becomes a bit too aged.
And upgrading is today’s problem.
There are few new projects—what are called greenfield. Especially in the United States where perhaps 60% of my readers live and work.
Two companies sent news releases charting their paths to upgrading existing process control systems within a week of each other. One touting the largest installed base. The other most likely with a much smaller installed base. Different approaches to solving the problem of simplifying the upgrade path.
OK, so much for the suspense. One came from ABB. The other, announced at an analyst conference this week, from Schneider Electric/Foxboro.
First, I had to think through the common words used by both in order to get to that golden nugget of real news.
Here’s a list of those words. Perhaps you see them or hear them often from your sales engineers.
- Modern
- Open
- Modular
- Modernize
- Flexibility
- Scalability
- Efficiency
- Interoperability
Once I cancelled out all the “buzz” words, I was able to focus on the reality. I love it when I get a release or an interview where they actually say what they do rather than hiding behind generalities.
I thought for quite some time about what these releases really said. I’ll post them here after I receive answers to many questions. I like definitions for such terms as “open.” Both are active members of OPAF. Neither mentioned that. Is there a correlation? How interoperable is interoperable?
These companies have taken different paths owing to their installed bases and objectives. I criticize neither.
I will delve into the technologies next week after I hear back. Perhaps you’d like to grab a half-hour of quiet time (OK, many of you are smirking, but it’s possible) to reflect on your needs and your plans for upgrading. Will it be complexity squared? Or, can you find a simpler path.
Some famous physicist advised that your solution should be as simple as possible—but not too simple. Consider that.
Click on the Follow button at the bottom of the page to subscribe to a weekly email update of posts. Click on the mail icon to subscribe to additional email thoughts.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks