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 wrote recently about two announcements regarding “open” DCS platforms designed for easing the migration and upgrade path for owner/operators. This news looks at the Schneider Electric (Foxboro) announcement.
Schneider Electric announced EcoStruxure Foxboro Software Defined Automation (SDA), the industry’s first open, software‑defined Distributed Control System (DCS). This breakthrough combines the trusted reliability of Foxboro with the agility of open, software‑defined automation, helping hybrid and process industry customers modernize faster, reduce risk, and ensure their operations are future-ready.
I’m not so sure about being the first software defined controller, but I’ll let marketers argue it out.
On the one hand, this looks to be a significant advancement in the state of the art. I was left wanting much more information. I have several other questions waiting for answers.
What is meant by “open”?
What is meant by interoperability? With what? Whom?
Validated by whom?
Is this related to the work of OPAF?
How does it simplify operations?
Does it migrate only Foxboro installed base, or also that of others?
Like I said, this is no doubt a significant advancement. I just wonder how much. Could be a lot. My problem seeing new things is that I visualize even more from the technology than it offers today. I’ve confounded many CEOs and product managers over the years with, “Wow, this is great, can it also do…” Once a product development manager, always one, I guess. I’m always thinking about what’s next.
EcoStruxure Foxboro SDA delivers flexibility, scalability, and cost efficiency without sacrificing reliability.
They conducted some owner/operator research with Omdia which concluded that closed systems cost mid-sized industrial companies 7.5% of revenue through downtime, inefficiencies, and compliance retrofits every year.
“EcoStruxure Foxboro SDA marks a defining moment for industrial automation,” said Hany Fouda, Senior Vice President, Process Automation, Schneider Electric. “By embracing openness and software-defined architecture, we’re giving our customers the agility to modernize without compromise, protecting their investments while unlocking future-ready capabilities. This evolution is a strategic enabler for digital transformation, and Schneider Electric is proud to lead it.”
Developed by listening to real customer challenges; aging systems, rising costs, and the need to do more with less, Foxboro SDA decouples hardware from software to protect existing investments and enable a smooth, lower-risk modernization path. The result is simpler workflows, faster insights, and sustainable performance gains.
Key Features
Open, Software-Defined Architecture: Foxboro SDA decouples software from hardware to deliver vendor independence and interoperability, enabling flexible, scalable architectures that simplify
Cybersecure & Future-Ready: Foxboro SDA is built with secure-by-design principles and IEC 62443-3-3 compliance, delivering a future-ready platform that enables IT/OT convergence, AI/ML integration, and autonomous operations for Industry 4.0 and energy transition.
Simplify Operations & Reduce Costs: Customers can lower CapEx and OpEx, streamline deployment with intuitive tools, and minimizes downtime by avoiding obsolescence and enabling predictive maintenance.
As the first software-defined distributed control system, Foxboro SDA is a validated, software-defined automation architecture for distributed control systems powered by EcoStruxure Automation Expert (EAE). It enables interoperability, rapid deployment, and fit-for-purpose configurations while maintaining high availability. The system ensures digital continuity by keeping data connected and consistent throughout the plant lifecycle—from design to production to maintenance. This enables automated workflows, better product quality, and easy integration with analytics for smarter, real-time business decisions.
Customers benefit from a future-ready upgrade path, built-in cybersecurity, and simplified operations that support IT/OT convergence and advanced technologies like AI and machine learning. Foxboro SDA provides our customers with a control solution that is unbound by hardware, engineered for agility and empowered by data. It’s more than a system – Foxboro SDA is a strategic enabler for digital transformation.
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 wrote a preview last week of two similar news items that have come my way. They suggest ways to deal with a persistent problem—especially one relevant these days with so few greenfield projects and so much need to upgrade old technology. This post looks at the ABB release.
ABB launched an aggressive acquisition campaign a quarter-century ago accumulating the leading share of process control installations. I say this based on the old Control Magazine/ARC Advisory Group rankings (well, along with ABB press releases that always touted market share leadership).
The first thing the company had to do was build a unifying structure—and along came the 800xA platform. They’ve improved that platform over time keeping current with technology advances.
I’m combing two news items here. The first explains their upgrade platform called Automation Extended. The second explains the first instantiation with the aforementioned 800xA.
I am interested in learning about any of your experiences upgrading 800xA to current technology.
The Automation Extended program helps industries modernize distributed control systems without disruption by building on ABB’s proven platforms and safeguarding existing investments
A modern, open and modular automation ecosystem enables advanced analytics, AI and IoT integration, allowing technologies to be adopted at customers’ pace without operational risk
A separation-of-concerns architecture protects the core control while enabling new digital capabilities to be deployed at scale – without touching mission-critical operations
Here is the problem statement.
ABB has introduced its Automation Extended program, a strategic evolution of its distributed control systems (DCS), designed to help industries modernize without disruption. Building on ABB’s long-standing leadership with the world’s largest DCS installed base and vision in process automation, Automation Extended outlines how future automation capabilities can be introduced progressively – preserving system integrity while enabling the flexibility, scalability and efficiency needed for the next era of industrial operations.
The ABB platforms affected.
Operators can continue to rely on trusted ABB systems such as ABB Ability System 800xA, ABB Ability Symphony Plus and ABB Freelance, while introducing new technologies progressively and without operational interruption. This approach provides a structured, low risk path to modernization, preserving continuity while enabling innovation.
An explanation of the implementation including the required adjective I pointed out in my earlier piece. The best I see to define “open” is a reference to OPC/UA. Many companies point to this technology referring to their being open.
The Automation Extended program is implemented through a modern, open and modular environment designed for interoperability, scalability and seamless integration across industrial domains. Based on separation of concerns principles, the automation ecosystem includes two distinct yet securely interconnected environments:
The control environment, a software‑defined domain that ensures robust, reliable and deterministic control for critical processes.
The digital environment, securely connected to the control layer, enabling advanced applications, edge intelligence and real‑time analytics. This space leverages artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning for decision support without disturbing proven control structures.
A single, unified and comprehensive automation service approach for ecosystem lifecycle management and optimization is applied for the management and maintenance of these diverse technological environments.
ABB launches System 800xA 7.0 DCS, bridging today and tomorrow’s automation
Building on ABB’s long-standing approach to modernization without disruption, ABB Ability System 800xA 7.0 distributed control system (DCS) acts as a bridge to future automation technologies
In brief:
Introduces Automation Extended functionality, enabling gradual uptake of advanced digital capabilities while maintaining core system reliability
Long Term Support (LTS) ensures predictable, secure system operation with extended lifecycle coverage and minimal disruption
As a Long-Term Support (LTS) release, System 800xA 7.0 provides a stable, predictable path for both existing installations and new projects, with broad Windows OS compatibility, expanded virtualization support, and long-term continuity without disruptive upgrade cycles.
As the first DCS adopting ABB’s recently announced Automation Extended program, System 800xA enables stepwise digital adoption for process and system monitoring and optimization. Through the “separation of concerns” architecture, with distinct yet securely interconnected control and digital environments, customers can deploy system performance monitoring, advanced analytics, and AI-based decision support applications without impacting the mission-critical control layer that safeguards operations.
Key enhancements:
Extension packs as a new delivery model—System 800xA 7.0 introduces a new, modular software delivery approach through Extension Packs, enabling customers to stay on their base software version while adopting innovations on an independent lifecycle in a non-disruptive way. This reduces the need for large-scale upgrade events, minimizes operational risk and lowers lifecycle costs.
Broader operating system and virtualization support—The system supports two generations of Microsoft operating systems, including Windows Server 2025/2022 and Windows 11/10, enabling flexible upgrade paths. It also supports multiple virtualization platforms including VMware and Hyper-V, giving users more flexibility in how they deploy and maintain their automation system’s infrastructure.
Strengthened cybersecurity and system hardening—System 800xA 7.0 incorporates native Microsoft Defender malware protection, IEC 62443-aligned security capabilities, improved certificate management, and updated core components. Together, these measures help protect critical systems against modern cyber threats while simplifying security maintenance.
Modern engineering tools and expanded connectivity—Enhancements to OPC UA client/server functionality, Ethernet-APL device integration, and network-centric I/O performance improve project scalability and interoperability. Version 7.0 also supports the latest MTP standards for ABB’s Modular Automation Orchestration Designer, helping customers meet emerging requirements for modular production.
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.
“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.
The Open Process Automation Forum has been building a standard of standards to promote open and interoperable technology for process automation. PLCOpen has been at the forefront of international standards promulgation as the organization behind IEC 61131. This latter organization has instituted a Working Group to create IEC61131 process automation standard and certifications for application engineers to efficiently deploy PLC, DCS, and open platform controls in process industry applications.
I’ve been following and promoting open and interoperability for decades. This should be a useful step forward.
Bill Lydon sent this explanation of the background and current status of programming standards.
The cost of programming process automation and control continues to grow and is a significant part of project costs. Each supplier having unique function blocks that do not follow a single worldwide standard increases training, application development costs, and project profit risk. PLCopen standardization and modular methodology lowers training time, project development costs, and lowers project cost overruns risk.
This further expands the base of PLCopen standards that enable No-Code/Low-Code industrial automation programming across vendor platforms including industrial computers. This will include incorporation of the function blocks defined in the O-PAS standard into a new PLCopen standard.
The new PLCopen Process Functions standards and certification make it easier for application engineers to deploy PLC, DCS, and open platform controls in process applications.
Working Group Goal
The PLCopen Process Industry Working Group goal is accelerating the convergence of discrete and process control & automation into harmonized PLC, DCS and open platform system architectures to achieve industrial business digitalization.
Today there are a diverse number of ways to program applications for process control and automation. The goal is to develop PLCopen function block standards for process control functions. Function Blocks are encapsulations of variables, parameters and their processing algorithms. Similar standardization has been done with PLCopen standards developed for motion control, safety, fluid power, XML Program Interchange, and OPC UA.
He notes process control applications being done using PLCs. I actually sold a PLC to a chemical plant engineer, who used it to control one of his processes. That was in 1995. So, while unusual, not unheard of.
Today many process control applications are being done using PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers) since the capabilities of these devices is far beyond original 1970s relay replacement applications. The emerging use of industrial edge computers with IEC 611 31 runtime software engines is another segment that benefits from the results of the PLCopen Process Industry Working Group.
PLCopen Background
PLCopen has been successful defining IEC 61131 functions and certifications used widely throughout industry worldwide increasing engineering efficiency, quality and empowering a wider number of people in motion control, fluid power, safety, and other functions. The standards define common inputs outputs and behaviors with vendor certifying conformance to accomplish the functions or additional features.
Logic – The PLCopen basis is provided by the world wide standard IEC 61131, and especially Part 3 – Programming Languages.
Motion Control – Creating reusable, hardware independent Motion Control applications via IEC 61131-3 and PLCopen Function Blocks including Fluid Power.
Safety -PLCopen Safety integrates safety functionality into the IEC 61131-3 development environments. Meets IEC 61508 & related standards.
Communication – PLCopen and OPC Foundation combine their technologies to a platform and manufacturer-independent information and communication architecture.
XML Exchange – PLCopen added independent XML schemes to IEC 61131-3
Movements including Industry 4.0, Industrial Internet of Things, The Open Process Automation Forum, and Smart Manufacturing are creating a drive for more standards. IEC 61131-3 along with PLCopen extensions and certifications are well established in discrete and hybrid applications and with the addition of OPC Function blocks is already part of the newer Industry 4.0 and Industrial Internet of Things offerings.
As part of our ongoing efforts to drive standardization and interoperability in industrial automation PLCopen will start a new workgroup exploring the incorporation of the function blocks we have developed for the O-PAS standard into a new PLCopen standard.
The O-PAS (Open Process Automation Standard) is an open, interoperable, and vendor-neutral standard developed by the Open Process Automation Forum (OPAF) to enable flexible and modular process automation systems. It is designed to replace traditional, proprietary DCS’ with a standards-based, plug-and-play architecture, allowing components from different vendors to work seamlessly together. O-PAS is based on existing industry standards, such as (among others) IEC 61131 & IEC 61499.
Part 6.4 of the O-PAS defines a set of standard function blocks to ensure interoperability, consistency, and comparability across different process automation systems. These FBs provide a reference model with standardized inputs, outputs, and behaviors. By establishing a uniform function block framework, part 6.4 supports modular automation, making it easier to adopt open, vendor-independent control solutions. PLCopen helped creating several pre-defined function blocks for part 6.4 of the O-PAS standard.
In order to standardizing these function blocks within PLCopen we are starting a new workgroup to create a new PLCopen standard for the process automation.
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.
Yokogawa is a company I just can’t figure out. A former CEO and I had several friendly and informative interviews many years ago. But their automation business in America collapsed, although they retain the office outside Houston along with the instrumentation office outside Atlanta. A marketing person will occasionally send a release.
Discussion the Open Process Automation group, a colleague suggested Yokogawa as a prime mover. I expressed some doubt. I see Foxboro (Schneider Electric) as the company who stands to gain the most from OPAF. I’m not sure where Yokogawa will go.
But their engineering continues its broad involvement with open systems. This news regards its joining the Open Invention Network.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation announces that it is joining Open Invention Network 2.0 (OIN 2.0) as a community member. OIN 2.0 is being launched on this date by OIN, an open source patent non-aggression community, to promote the protection and adoption of open source software.
The Open Invention Network (OIN) community promotes the use of open source software through a cross-licensing framework that enables mutual use of patents related to the Linux System*1. The over 4,000 companies that currently belong to the OIN community are provided access to approximately three million patents and patent applications through mutual licensing. The newly launched OIN 2.0 expands the scope of patent protection beyond the traditional Linux System to include emerging areas where open source software usage is growing rapidly, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the energy sector. This evolution enables a cross-licensing framework that supports a broader range of technologies.
Yokogawa signed a license agreement with OIN in 2016 with the aim of accelerating product development and reducing the risks associated with patent litigation, thereby establishing a secure environment for developing system products that utilize Linux. Linux technologies are also used in Yokogawa system products in the OpreX Control and Safety System lineup, such as OpreX Collaborative Information Server. By joining OIN 2.0, Yokogawa has further expanded the range of areas in which open source software can be used with confidence. As a result, customers can benefit from having Linux-based applications and system products that enjoy stronger intellectual property protection.
Yokogawa will continue to promote open innovation and intellectual property protection through co-creation with multiple companies and organizations.
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.
