 Julie Smith been with DuPont for almost 30 years. I've seen a lot of changes in the industry and I've seen some change in the process automation industry as well. I started my career as a plant engineer, just trying to figure out how to make the plant run and how to solve quality and operation problems. And then after I'd been there about a year, someone told me there were these new things called distributed control systems. Kind of been hooked on process control ever since. We've got various control systems at our sites today from lots of different vendors, different vintages and generations. And but a common thing that we need to keep them running, we need to make sure that they are effectively collecting data to support our processes, to enable us to stay ahead of the competition, to figure out how we can make our products better. How can we improve our quality? I'm Brandon Williams, co-founder of Silicon Valley Software Company, Seaplane AI. And I will be your host for this podcast to introduce you to many of the companies and leaders that are transforming industrial process automation through the Open Process Automation Forum. In this podcast, you will get a close-up look of the rapid change in the entire ecosystem of industrial process automation. The Open Process Automation Standard, now entering its third major version, has already moved from an idea onto paper, and now in pilot tests and proofs of concept by leading companies such as BASF and ExxonMobil. So tune in to this guided tour by the experts and decide for yourself if you want to be involved in the imminent future of innovation and commercial adoption of truly open, interoperable and inherently secure process automation technologies. We're gonna start our presentation with someone who has been involved with Open Process Automation from the beginning. Don, please introduce yourself and Opav. Don Bartusiak is my name. I am the Chief Engineer for Process Control in ExxonMobil Research and Engineering. I've been working in automation and control for about 35 years. The vast majority of that was with Exxon or ExxonMobil. With respect to Open Process Automation, you have to see we're about 10 or so years into a journey that we started about 2010, an R&D project, to meet a very big business challenge that we had with the existing technologies that are used for industrial control. What we learned along the way is that the transformational change that we're seeking is not gonna come from continuous incremental evolution of the technologies that we currently have. It was gonna require a big transformation moving away from proprietary closed systems towards standards-based open interoperable technologies because that's what we saw in applicable adjacent industries like telecommunications, like avionics. And so that's really the motivation and kind of the big headline idea that would be the key takeaway in terms of what's driving open process automation. Thank you, Don. From this realization of the need for change, can you comment more specifically on the business drivers that made open systems such an important initiative for the industry? The business problems are traditionally the ones that motivate all for-profit enterprises. It's what do we have to do to enable us to contribute more value to the corporation? So some of the constraints that we have with the currently available products and the way the industrial control industry is structured is that we, the end-user companies are impeded with respect to introducing new technologies, be they of a hardware or software nature because of the closed and proprietary nature of the currently available products. So barriers on new technology insertion for the purpose of increasing the value contribution to the company, that's one motivation and breaking those constraints is the value proposition. The second one is really on the cost side of the ledger. One of the consequences of these closed proprietary systems is the units that have to be changed are you can't break apart once those things are inside of a monolithic closed system. So if you wanna do a relatively simple thing like upgrade a compute capability because of Moore's law or improvements in software operating systems, when you have closed coupled and proprietary connected components, you can't upgrade component pieces. And the cost to us, the asset owning company is when we wanna do upgrades on these systems it is an extremely disruptive and extremely costly proposition. So that's why we want to move towards standards-based open technologies where the interfaces are defined such that we can upgrade components when there's a value proposition to do so not because the supplier has decided to let's say discontinue a product line. The currently available products were designed in an era before we had this ubiquitous internet connectivity and all of the cybersecurity risks that we currently have to mitigate and incorporating designed in cybersecurity characteristics of the systems that we wanna have that that would be a third mechanism of business benefit. Okay, so how then does the OPEF model differ from what came before? So what OPA's reference architecture which is depicted in the slide that you have up here, Brandon, kind of recalibrates us to the highly distributable compute technology that we currently have. So in the OPA reference architecture at the bottom of the stack, you see these devices, the acronym DCN which stands for distributed compute node. That's where we envision the actual edge layer of computing technology. The middle bar there is the networking technology where in contrast to proprietary protocols where a device can only speak to a device made by the same manufacturer, we want to use Ethernet-based industry standards technologies to achieve interoperability. And then the ACP which stands for Advanced Compute Platform is a way of realizing highly scalable compute power akin to what the IT companies do now in data centers and in the cloud but in a small on-premise footprint that's fit for purpose for the requirements of the applications that we use to control a plant. So it's a shift away from what was basically an outdated architectural principle towards an architecture that's grounded more in the computing and networking capabilities of today and looking into the future. So then which parts or layers of the automation system are covered by the OPA standard and perhaps equally as important what's excluded from the standard? So in scope of OPA would be or is rather the input output modules that are used whether you have a DCS, a distributed control system or a PLC system, the DCS itself or the PLCs themselves and the layer of computing technology that is immediately above the DCS or the PLC. So that is what's in scope. The field devices and the communicate the field devices means sensors and final control elements and the communications to the sensors and final control elements is out of scope. The business computing system is out of scope the safety instrumented system AKA safety shutdown system is out of scope. My name is Kirk Smith. I'm principal engineer and director within Intel's Industrial Solution Division. The scope of my current responsibilities in Intel are that I lead an industrial architecture team responsible for delivering a variety of reference solutions to the market for the ODM and OEM and SI ecosystem that we work with in the industrial domain. We believe that with the IoT transformation and the associated changes that are expected in the industrial space we see them accelerating. We believe IT practices are being adopted more and more in the OT domains and the standardization in that space is critical to the realization of true interoperability and portability for the process and discrete industries at large. I'm pleased to welcome Luis Durand from ABB to the podcast. My name is Luis Durand. I'm product line manager with ABB in the process control platform part of the industrial automation group. With the forum, one of the co-chairs with the business working group. For ABB, this initiative is quite important. For ABB as a leader in DCS really we see that part of our success has been to be continuously transforming the DCS in response to end use driven initiatives. Right now we see this transition towards this converge IT or T systems and different type of architectures. And we see OPAP as one very important industry effort that will accelerate these transformations. Luis, how is OPAP different from other standard efforts that you are aware of? We are developing a standard of standards and we're driving towards an open, secure and interoperable products defined by these standards. One of the nice elements that we have in the forum is the membership. And I mentioned before this active participation from operating companies in the industry is really, really very valuable. We have people from the chemical space, pharmaceutical, coupon paper, oil and gas. We have automation suppliers, hardware and software suppliers for that system integrators over 90 different members actively participating in the development of this standard. We're building on the success that have been achieved by other initiatives that the open group sponsor FACE was one of those initiatives that basically as a model aerospace industry we have experiences from the telecommunication industry that we are bringing into play. So overall we are combining a very diverse set of experiences and the main knowledge and needs to make this standard of standards a reality. Welcome Julie Smith from DePont. Julie, what makes OPAP compelling to you? Well, I think as you look across the top of this chart here you can see many different industries represented in the forum and they're very diverse. You know, the business model and needs of oil and gas are quite different from specialty chemical manufacturers like us or pharmaceuticals. But we all have common pain points in dealing with process automation systems. And I think that's what is really nice about this forum and that it brings us together to have a common voice to articulate what are these pain points we're experiencing and how we can work together to affect a change in the industry. We're all seeing that it's becoming harder and harder to integrate best in class components with our process automation systems. We're all seeing that cybersecurity is becoming more important but it's becoming more difficult to do and it's an afterthought in most cases. We're all seeing that we've got to run systems past the end of life but Windows is turning out a new version every five years and there's no way we're gonna update our control systems that frequently. So there's many common threads that allow us from these very diverse industries to band together and say, look, our colleagues in IT have figured out ways to address these challenges. We as OT need to figure out a way to do the same. Okay, so how would you as a process automation practitioner then expect the process automation industry to change with the adoption of the OPA standard? Well, I think we're gonna see breaking down of the silos, particularly in the hardware arena. I mean, there's just no standardization today. There's tremendous benefit for end users to have a consolidation there so that we don't have to have dedicated staff maintaining the systems just because they came from a different vendor. The hardware itself is becoming more commodity. We've certainly seen that in the IT world and I think it's just a matter of time before it happens in the OT world as well. And then what benefits do you anticipate will come from end users implementing systems that conform to the standard? Certainly the one you have in the center there, multi-bender interoperability is huge for us. As I mentioned earlier, we've got many different systems in our plants as we've changed through mergers and acquisitions over the years. We've got pretty much one of everything, but we've all got the same objective in that we're trying to figure out how to run our plants smarter, more effectively and bring new products to market. So any way that we can leverage solutions, even though we have multi-benders is gonna be a huge win for us. Also security, as I mentioned, we know that cybersecurity is only gonna get more important. The old days of security by obscurity are gone. For either of you, why is creating a standard largely from existing standards important? Well, hopefully one way it's important is that it'll allow us to get to the end result faster. Yeah, and that's right. I mean, I think that I see one, the acceleration of the implementation of products that already might have certain, surprise might have already the expertise with some of these standards in implementing the products, but also having really the benefit of that expertise brought into the automation arena by this exercise of creating a standard of standards within the OPAS, we can benefit and leverage that experience from the other industries into the industrial automation space and make our system more resilient. Let's say, easier to evolve, easier to move forward into the future. One of the differences that the forum brings, we see that a key success factor for the forum is to be able to review and ensure that every product that is developed following the standard fulfills and demonstrate conformance to 100% of the specification. Yeah, I think that's something that we're gonna look for. I think when we look to purchase these systems and components, we're gonna ask, are you certified? And there's gonna be a registry that we are able to go and verify. Oh, yes, Joe's product is, yep, it's listed in the registry, it's certified. Okay, that's great. That means it passed the tests that we know it's gonna work. We can plug it in with confidence. Charcot-Pierre, I'm based in the Netherlands working for Shell. I'm in the process automation space, I think overall for more than 30 years. In my role, I look at what's the next step for Shell. I'm also working on other strategies which are related to process automation. This is once in a lifetime opportunity to do something like what we're doing today, help to make some basic choices on the road we're gonna follow for the next couple of years. So that's what I do. Welcome, Jack, to the podcast. What does Shell hope to gain from the OPA standard? OPA is important because it will provide us with things we don't have today. So if the world is changing around us and our company is changing and all the companies are changing, or these are disruptive times, if you will, our process control is gonna play a bigger role. And we have to prepare ourselves for a more flexible way of working. And that's where we said we need to come up with a strategy that allows us to do that. The way to do that nowadays is to standardize on more open platforms. And the OPA was the obvious candidate for that. So Shell joined OPA, I think, in 2018. OPA is already seen as a very credible solution by the whole industry, so that's also why we joined. So basically, technology and the technology outlooks, which are difficult to achieve with the current systems. So Shell is a large end user of process automation systems. And how will the OPA standard influence the way the whole ecosystem of suppliers, system integrators, and others work together in a more open and innovative marketplace? For the industry, it's disruptive. As the technology changes fast, the question is, can we keep up with the technology we're facing, with the technology we use currently? That's really a question. And I think another question is, can our current suppliers keep all the polls in the air without collaboration? So if you think about how fast things are changing and how fast the market is adopting, how the end user companies are changing, I think all those changes together actually require us to collaborate more and to make sure that together we can get the products and the systems we need and want. All together, we have to work towards a model that works in this more complex world and a more flexible world and a faster moving world. And I think our current model doesn't allow us to do that, if you will. And as we come to our conclusion, we have invited one of the leading contributors of the forum to share some closing thoughts. So let me start. My name is Ron Bro. I'm a director of Industrial Solutions Market Development. I work for WindRiver Systems. We develop software and provide professional services for the embedded or intelligent edge market as it's called today. Working in O-Path gives us a clear firsthand understanding of our customer's pain points. And from a WindRiver perspective, this helps us fine tune our product strategy and ensure we're making investments that deliver the most value to our customers. Working hand in hand on complex business and technical issues as we do with our customers and our competitors establishes a strong environment, I'd say, of mutual respect and collaboration, rather than just being faceless names, the kind of interactions that you have when developing standards like this, it really helps to foster meaningful relationships with people. And honestly, you can't put a price on something like that. Ron, you and WindRiver have contributed a lot to the momentum of the OPA standard. What would you say to those companies still sitting on the fence about becoming involved? Momentum is building at this point to produce fully interoperable components from multiple vendors in 2020 and 2021. And in order to support viable products, we're creating the testing and certification mechanisms right now through the end of the year. You see here a picture of a train. And I would say that that train has already left the station. Open interoperable systems for process automation are inevitable at this point. And you really need to get engaged and get on board so that you can be part of it as well. In terms of learning more about OCAF and how do you get the materials that you need to come up to speed? Well, I'd say if you've made it this far into the webinar, I really do hope you'll reach out to us. We have these links that are provided. They can take you to the OPA website. You can read back and get information. We have contacts in there. We have new companies that are joining us and contributing their voice and perspective and expertise even now. And we would love to have you join as well and be part of this and help us chart the future in process automation.