I tell publicists continually that this is a personal blog. That I write everything—except for quotes and relevant parts of releases.
Bill Lydon has been colleague and media competitor for decades. I had experience and some technical skills. His puts mine to shame. I saw this article about Open versus Proprietary systems on LinkedIn. He sent the document with a couple images. I’m posting without interposing commentary.
I first left the factory floor to begin writing at the rise of “PC-based Control.” These “open systems” were supposed to make control and programming better, cheaper, faster. The PLC suppliers promptly adapted some of the technology. The PC suppliers did not have the market muscle to displace the incumbents.
Systems Integrators told me that open systems would put them out of business. I counseled them that on the contrary it would take more integration expertise to apply these systems. I was also annoyed by the reliance on technology explanations. If the solution does not make business sense, it should not be considered.
I’m passing the commentary over to Bill to expand his thoughts on the subject. It’s worth saving and discussing with your team.
Open , Proprietary, or Managed Ecosystems
By Bill Lydon, Digital Manufacturing Transformation Consultant
Key Highlights
Open Systems Investments Require Critical Business Management Decisions
Open industrial control & automation systems investment decisions at user companies need to be made based on clear technical and business criteria to be successful. The fundamental decision process for industrial manufacturing businesses is what investments are required to reliably continue to be competitive and profitable over time? As technology development and system integration become easier with plug-and-play and no-code programming of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies, the criteria change for making these decisions.
Analysis that simply looks at raw costs without considering other factors, including lifecycle costs, is incomplete and misleading.
When deciding to purchase any control and automation solution, the first question: Does the solution meet my project application performance requirements? Additional fundamental questions must also be asked about initial and lifecycle costs, reliability, and system maintainability:
Lifecycle Investment- System maintainability
Maintenance People Training, Knowledge, & Skill Requirements?
Software Maintenance Resources Required, Service Contracts, & Lifecycle Investment?
Control & Automation System Integration Investment
Software Integration Investment
The analysis needs to be performed internally and possibly with the assistance of an unbiased consultant that would NOT be involved in any of the ultimate system design, project engineering, system installation, and/or system integration. Using accurate information “Kicking hard” against assumptions is a critical part of this process.
Industrial Digitalization Imperative
Understanding the trade-offs and using accurate criteria to measure and judge investments to create an integrated real-time industrial manufacturing business is an important strategic management activity. Companies are becoming more aware of the need to modernize creating an integrated real-time industrial manufacturing business using production methods and automation to compete globally. Organizational competitiveness and flexibility can only be accomplished by critical business management decisions rationally and deliberately leveraging advanced technologies, centering on automation, to enable a successful transition. Taking advantage of the new technologies and initiatives have allowed leadership companies to leapfrog competitors. The process requires avoiding looking for “silver bullets” to achieve long-term goals.
Make versus Buy
Some believe using open computer platforms and open-source software is the best solution rather than integrated control and automation software and hardware from traditional suppliers. This reminds me of the early days of PCs, some businesses thought they saved a significant amount of money buying motherboards, cards and pieces of software to create internal systems. Those businesses learned that integration was not trivial and, depending on the vendor selected, keeping systems running could become a challenge over the lifecycle. Control and automation systems used for discrete or process industries are significantly more complicated and must meet performance and system availability requirements for manufacturers to be profitable. Manufacturers of products continually are faced with fundamental make-versus-buy decisions for their business to be successful.
Industrial Automation Open Systems Ongoing & Evolving
The entire controls & automation industry has been on a journey from completely proprietary systems driving towards open systems since the 1980s.
Architecture Models
Closed System Model
The Closed System Model describes the computer industry when mainframe and minicomputer companies were vertically integrated including hardware, software, peripherals, and service. Distributed Control Systems (DCS) serving the process industries adopted the same closed system model.
Fully Open System Model
Personal Computers and open standard data networking introduced open architecture concepts starting in 1970. Hardware from multiple vendors could be used in the computer when the Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus became common. Competing operating systems, particularly CP/M and the more dominant MS-DOS, allowed people to write computer applications since these ran on open platforms. Windows and Linux came later, allowing developers to create applications. Linux had the distinction of being open source.
Gated Ecosystem Model
Gated Ecosystem Models came into being centered vendors including Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat’s with these vendors qualifying third-party suppliers to give users confidence systems meet reliability and performance requirements. For serious businesses, including industrial, applications it became apparent building and integrating hardware & software components to create internal systems was not trivial and, depending on the vendor selected, keeping systems running could become a challenge over the lifecycle. Responsible management at end user companies thoughtfully and accurately performed make/buy investment analysis for purchase decisions. This represents the model today and the PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) industry has adopted this model.
Industrial Automation Managed Ecosystems vs Open Systems Debate
The industrial control & automation open systems debates bring the light valid points of view. I have been reflecting on automation & control system architectures with the latest frenzy about open systems since I have participated in design, architecture analysis, discussions, and standards for many years including being a cofounder and president of an industrial software company.
PLC Gated Integrated System Architecture Model
The PLC industry has been more progressively slowly adopting open system building blocks compared to DCS systems that have basically remained closed architecture. Major PLC vendors have been on an open systems journey using a gated system architecture model. The gated system architecture model is based on each supplier’s core propriety systems architectures designed for system integrity including performance, reliability, lowest Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), and quality. The system architecture leverages third-party hardware and software with partner programs that create a managed and gated ecosystem that expands capabilities by leveraging vetted and qualified third-party companies. Inherently the architecture and commercial policies do not provide users with seamless multivendor application program portability and field hardware interchangeability.
The PLC industrial automation & control vendors gated integrated system architecture model certainly improved price/performance with the adoption of many open and commercial technologies including industrial network standards including Modbus, Profibus, DeviceNet, PROFINET, EtherNet/IP and, EtherCAT, and MQTT. OPC UA systems interfaces are more recently is being embraced. Microsoft Windows HMI and Linux server implementations of SCADA, data historians have been another step forward. Using open I/O intelligent protocols including Modbus, PROFIBUS, DeviceNet, HART and I/O Link enable more intelligence to be driven into edge devices including sensors, analytic instruments, valves, and drives.
PLC hardware remains closed architecture controller backplanes with only third parties allowed to provide I/O and peripheral hardware modules after rigorous analysis and licensing agreements. In some cases third party partners are given access to proprietary interfaces through tight licensing agreements so they can provide specialty hardware modules.
PLC systems however have greater flexibility and lower engineered & installed cost than traditional DCS systems.
DCS Remain Closed Proprietary Architecture
Major DCS vendors have maintained closed systems. DCS suppliers have made innovations inside of their closed proprietary architecture. DCS suppliers based on user demand have interfaces in their controllers for select open architecture field I/O networks particularly HART communication protocol for field instruments.
Closed architecture DCS systems suppliers’ resistance to open standard adoption inspired creation of the Open Process Automation System (O-PAS) initiative driven by a group of process industry users primarily oil & gas producers.
PLC/DCS Convergence
PLCs have been displacing DCS process control systems for several years with powerful PLCs and industrial edge computers leveraging more open standards. Some industries, particularly oil & gas producers, have primarily continued to use closed architecture DCS for process control which I find hard to understand. In the early days going back to 1970s PLCs addressed discrete control & automation but over the years with increased performance with technology advances PLCs have been displacing DCS process control systems.
Critical Manufacturing Business Decision
Industrial control & automation systems investments require critical business management decisions for long term competitiveness, growth and profits over time applying technical and business criteria to be successful. Evaluate purchases should always be done in-house & as appropriate engage consultant(s) that will NOT be involved after purchase in project design, engineering, installation, and integration. Using accurate information “Kicking hard” against assumptions.
I entered the editorial world in the late 1990s during the excitement of something called PC-based control. Technologists of the time were convinced that they could knock off the leading PLC manufacturers with cheaper and easier-to-use technology based on the common personal computer.
This was also the heyday of Open Modular Architecture Controller (OMAC)—a group of engineers working on a standards-based PLC built on a CompactPCI computer that the leading suppliers could build best-in-class modules for but reducing cost and vendor lock-in.
Later, I interviewed many company leaders convinced that their updated PLCs would displace the two acknowledged PLC leaders at the top of the market share pyramid.
All failed.
I asked each one simple question—how are you going to go to market when the leaders have salespeople embedded at every possible customer?
Now comes news that a leading venture capital firm (called by someone on LinkedIn the leading and most influential VC in our space) has invested in yet another attempt to replace the leading PLCs.
I ask of them the same question. Further, does the world really need a new PLC? Are there other customer problems out there to solve?
Here is the news. I wish them well. It will be a tough climb in a mature market. I’m interested in seeing how they will tackle, not the technology, but the marketing.
Momenta, the Industrial Impact venture capital firm, has led the seed round in Autonomy backing the company’s vision to modernize how PLC software is built, deployed, and governed. Through its Autonomy Edge platform, Autonomy brings cloud‑native development discipline to industrial control without compromising determinism, safety, or security.
This investment reflects Momenta’s conviction that industrial automation has reached a true inflection point. As factories face rising cyber risk, tighter labor constraints, and accelerating demands for flexibility, control systems can no longer remain static, proprietary, or isolated from modern software practices. The next phase of automation must be software-defined, interoperable, and designed for continuous change.
Industrial automation remains constrained by proprietary PLC hardware and closed development environments. These systems lock engineers into outdated workflows, fragment IT and OT responsibilities, and slow modernization at the moment when factories need faster outcome-focused iteration.
]Autonomy addresses this constraint directly. Rather than replacing control systems, it modernizes how they are developed and governed. By applying DevOps discipline to PLC software while preserving real-time execution at the edge, the platform aligns control engineering with the operational realities of modern industrial environments.
Autonomy Edge is built on OpenPLC, the world’s leading open-source, IEC 61131-3 compliant, Programmable Logic Controller. Engineers develop PLC logic directly in the browser, with no local installation, and deploy virtual PLCs to any Linux-based industrial device through the Autonomy Orchestrator agent.
This architecture delivers a pragmatic and efficient path for iterative modernization. Existing infrastructure stays in place while control software becomes portable, versioned, and easier to secure. Virtual PLCs run in isolated execution environments and remain centrally managed, combining operational safety with modern lifecycle management.
The result is a rare combination: cloud-native development paired with deterministic edge execution.
A core differentiator of Autonomy Edge is its execution model. Control logic runs in strict network isolation while updates, monitoring, and governance are handled remotely. This air-gapped execution approach significantly reduces attack surfaces while preserving operational visibility, reflecting how industrial operators actually manage risk in production environments.
“We did not just move PLCs to the cloud. We redesigned how control software should be built and governed,” said Thiago Alves, Founder and CEO of Autonomy. “Autonomy Edge modernizes automation without breaking real-time guarantees. Open standards, edge execution, and cloud-native workflows are no longer optional. They are the future of industrial control.”
Autonomy builds on more than a decade of open-source development and field validation:
OpenPLC Runtime with 1,400+ GitHub stars and 560+ forks
Cited in more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers on industrial cybersecurity
Adopted globally by universities for automation and ICS security education
Industry partnerships with pre-eminent companies like FreeWave Technologies, Arduino, and Movensys
The release of OpenPLC Editor v4 marks a major platform milestone, delivering a modern interface, cross-platform support, and native integration with Autonomy Edge’s cloud management capabilities.
Autonomy Edge introduces software engineering practices that industrial teams can operationalize today, including browser-based IEC 61131-3 development, cloud-managed versioning and deployment, and hardware-agnostic execution across industrial PCs, gateways, and edge devices.
The global PLC market exceeds $11 billion and is under increasing pressure from cybersecurity requirements, workforce constraints, and the need adapt quickly to changing requirements. Software-defined control, open ecosystems, and edge-native architectures are shifting from optional to essential.
Momenta sees this transition clearly because we operate at the intersection of industrial execution, software platforms, and long-cycle infrastructure. Autonomy exemplifies the kind of operator-aligned innovation required to modernize control systems without disrupting production.
Industrial control is no longer defined only by reliability. It is now defined by adaptability. Autonomy is building the control layer that enables industry to evolve safely and at scale.
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.
I met a new neighbor the other day. We talked a bit about what we had done in our prior employment lives. Turns out she has a friend who gave her a copy of his book. She loaned Software Test Attacks to Break Mobile and Embedded Devices by Jon Duncan Hagar to me to read. It’s 10 years old, but it seems quite contemporary. (Not that I’ve done any embedded systems programming for decades.) The book is also thorough.
After reading through it, this press release dropped into my mailbox about yet another report from a security company. If they don’t scare you into taking action on software security, they’ve overestimated their impact. Using AI as a programming assistant is all the rage currently. Reports indicate that there are good uses, but also that you had best not use AI-generated code as your final build.
This 2025 report investigates AI adoption and the security of AI-generated code in critical embedded systems. It is certainly timely.
RunSafe Security, a pioneer of cyberhardening technology for embedded systems across critical infrastructure, announced the release of its 2025 report, AI in Embedded Systems: AI Is Here. Security Isn’t. The report is a snapshot of how artificial intelligence (AI) usage is unfolding across embedded software development and provides insights into what the data means for engineering, product, and security leaders who are integrating AI into their workflows.
Surveying more than 200 professionals throughout the US, UK, and Germany who work on embedded systems in critical infrastructure, the report reveals that AI-generated code is already running in production across medical devices, industrial control systems, automotive platforms, and energy infrastructure. The report finds that AI has quickly moved from an experimental curiosity to an operational reality in embedded systems development. While adoption races forward, security concerns loom large.
Here follows the obligatory quote.
“AI will transform embedded systems development with teams deploying AI-generated code at scale across critical infrastructure, and we see this trend accelerating,” said Joseph M. Saunders, Founder and CEO of RunSafe Security. “Our report reveals an industry at an inflection point, where transformation is happening faster than security practices have evolved. Organizations that navigate it successfully will be those that maintain the same rigor with AI-generated code that they’ve traditionally applied to human-written code while also recognizing that AI introduces new patterns, risks, and security requirements. At RunSafe Security, we provide greater visibility into software and risk so organizations can properly manage their security while deploying AI in embedded systems.”
RunSafe Security’s report highlights the following key findings:
AI is already widely used in embedded software development workflows:
80.5% of respondents currently use AI tools in embedded development
83.5% have deployed AI-generated code to production systems
93.5% expect usage to increase over the next two years
Risk from AI-generated code is widely recognized, but framed as manageable if organizations modernize:
53% of respondents cited security as their top concern with AI-generated code
73% rated cybersecurity risk as moderate or higher
Runtime resilience is a central pillar of embedded security:
Runtime protection for AI-generated embedded software is rated “highly important” by most respondents
91% of respondents plan to increase investment in embedded software security over the next two years
60% already use runtime protections to address memory safety vulnerabilities
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.
The comment brought memories from many years ago when I first heard about a new programming language/operating system. Java. I rushed to the local bookstore to purchase a book. It was huge. I downloaded the Java Development Kit. Eventually, I downloaded eclipse, an IDE for writing Java.
The key marketing message for Java? Write once, run everywhere. You just had to have a target to download the code to a runtime instance.
The comment that brought back ancient memories occurred during a briefing at the Rockwell Automation Automation Fair event in November.
Executives from Rockwell were discussing how their latest control platforms were amenable to software defined automation. A colleague asked about their support for IEC 61131 programming languages, especially about the part where they hope to have “write once/run anywhere” programmable controller code. That is, write a control program in the void, then download to any target be it Rockwell Automation, Siemens, ABB, or name your favorite.
The executives returned a blank stare. The inquisitor said that he supposed that that was a “no.”
I had long forgotten that nirvana of PLC Open. Discussions often grew heated in the early part of the century on this topic. Personally, I don’t see how it can happen. To bring that hope of PLCOpen to fruition, all controller manufacturers would have to agree to commoditize their hardware. Some users may think that driving control to commodity to reduce the cost would be good. But that would disincentivize innovation.
That’s not going to happen.
In fact, looking at software-defined and model-based programming with AI assistance, I wonder how long IEC61131 will be necessary.
I’m quoting Ed Sheeran and just “Thinking Out Loud.” Where will all this go? What impact will the ubiquitous AI have on this entire discussion—if any? What will machine control look like in 10 years?
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.
The Rockwell Automation Control team could not contain their enthusiasm for their latest product—ControLogix 5590. Yes, they are master at branding 😉 I saw long-time contact Dennis Wylie on the show floor. He shared his excitement with me there—and later.
At a later gathering of media and analyst people, the team talked up the product. The marketing team has chosen the word “powerhouse” to best describe the advances included in the product. The last controller news that came my was was years ago, so I’m a bit rusty analyzing this. See below for a list of capabilities and features. I’m sure machine designers and other automation geeks will love this.
Rockwell Automation announced the highly anticipated launch of its newest controller, ControlLogix 5590, the powerhouse at the core of the Logix platform. Designed to meet the evolving demands of modern manufacturing, this all-in-one controller delivers seamless software integration and multidiscipline control across the enterprise to streamline operations like never before.
All in one refers at the least to including safety as part of the package.
Manufacturers are navigating a perfect storm of challenges, from rising global competition and workforce shortages to growing safety and security risks. Contributing to the complexity are disconnected control and data systems built on propriety technologies, which limit flexibility and keep costs high. The ControlLogix 5590 controller is a purpose-built solution to help manufacturers tackle these challenges with ease and take control of their operations.
“The ControlLogix 5590 controller isn’t just an upgrade, it’s a powerhouse engineered for the future of industrial automation,” said Dan DeYoung, global vice president and general manager, production design & control, Rockwell Automation. “We’re giving our customers the ability to build smarter and more secure systems right out of the box, with a platform designed to meet the demands of today and ready to scale for tomorrow.”
Key capabilities of the ControlLogix 5590 controller include:
Integrated Safety: Every ControlLogix 5590 controller includes advanced, integrated functional safety capabilities designed to help protect people, equipment and operations, without the need for separate safety models. Certified to meet rigorous global standards, it helps customers build safer systems with less complexity and more confidence.
Powerful Performance for Demanding Applications: Delivers high-speed processing and expanded memory capacity to support complex operations. From process and batch to discrete, motion and robotics applications – the ControlLogix 5590 controller is ideal for manufacturers looking to design scalable architecture, optimize throughput and drive efficiency on a single high-performance and interoperable platform.
Built-In Cybersecurity: Includes built-in security features designed to help protect systems from current and emerging cyber threats. These protections are based on global standards (IEC 62443) and help customers keep their operations connected and compliant with modern security requirements.
Streamlined Engineering Experience with a Unified Software Suite: A unified software suite, including Studio 5000 Logix Designer® and FactoryTalk® Design Studio™*, helps streamline development, accelerate deployment and simplify workflows across the enterprise.
Key Features:
Up to 80 MB user memory
Integrated Dual 1-Gigabit Ethernet ports with CIP Security
Expanded and scalable performance for motion and safety applications
Higher performance for high availability process systems
Integration with Studio 5000 and FactoryTalk platforms
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.
Festo never ceases to amaze me with their pneumatics advances. Here introducing digital closed-loop control.
Festo introduces Controlled Pneumatics, a digital closed-loop control strategy for delivering energy efficiency, high dynamic response, and precision movement. Controlled Pneumatics is an ideal solution for web tensioning; welding; surface processing; flexible gripping, including vacuum gripping; dispensing and pumping; PET bottle blowing; and diaphragm pump control.
Controlled Pneumatics lowers compressed air usage by up to 50%. The reduction in energy improves the sustainability of the operation by lowering carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from electricity generation. Precise proportional pressure control also conserves gases used in food and beverage, chemical, and semiconductor processing applications.
Controlled Pneumatic systems are composed of digitally controlled proportional pressure regulators, sensors, high-speed communications, and control algorithms. Controlled Pneumatics proportional pressure regulators feature piezoelectric valves, a technology Festo has been applying for decades and now mass produces.
Piezoelectric valves consume 95% less energy than solenoid valves. Piezoelectric valves open proportionally for precision control of pressure and flow and are fast acting for highly dynamic applications. Closed-loop control of these valves ensures an accurate, stable, and linear flow rate – without hysteresis. Repetition accuracy is rated at +/-0.25% of setpoint. Piezoelectric valves do not generate heat and can be densely packed. Low friction prolongs service life. These valves have a peak particle size per switching cycle of 0.1 μm, which is about five times smaller than proportional pressure regulators that do not use piezoelectric valves. These valves operate silently.
The Festo Controlled Pneumatics product range includes the VPPI proportional pressure regulator for high flow rate applications. The VTEM motion terminal is used for multi-channel control of large and small workpieces. The VEAB low flow rate proportional pressure regulator is designed for highly precise applications. The VTEP is a compact valve terminal for multi-channel low flow rate pressure control. It features high precision and dynamic response. These proportional pressure regulators can be used in addition with solenoid valves for hybrid functionality. The VEAB is a proportional pressure control valve for pressure ranges up to 6 bar. The VEFC is a compact mass flow controller for inert gasses.
Festo offers control algorithms to operate the VTEM Motion terminal, including:
Flow control
Selectable pressure level
Positioning over the entire stroke of the cylinder
Preset travel time
Operating actuators with minimum pressure
Leakage diagnostics
Soft stop
Model-based proportional pressure regulation (no need for external sensors)
Proportional pressure regulation – two pressure regulators per valve slice at the two valve outlets that can be used to regulate pressures independently of each other, including vacuum.
These algorithms can be downloaded as apps on demand for the VTEM motion terminal.
Case studies:
A silicon wafer manufacturing plant applied Controlled Pneumatics to its Nitrogen gas (N2) purge application. Controlled Pneumatics cut N2 flow rate for oxygen flushing by 75%. For every 1,000 nitrogen purge systems, the plant saved $163,000 (U.S. dollars) in lower energy costs. The reduced energy lowered CO2 emissions from energy generation by 1,045 metric tons. In other words, Controlled Pneumatics removed CO2 emissions equivalent to burning 1.2 million pounds of coal.
At a tire manufacturing plant, small pneumatic cylinders were used to apply various tread patterns, depending on the layer of rubber being applied. These cylinders had to be precisely controlled in a pressure range of 0.05 to 8 bar. Previously, a proportional valve was used for each individual pressure zone in this application. The multi-channel VTEM motion terminal reduced valve slices by 50%. For the application’s control algorithm, the plant used model-based control for proportional pressure, which did not require external sensors.
