 So, as I introduce the next speaker, there are some people standing in the background. You're more than welcome to move forward and occupy a few of the open seats that are available forward. The next speaker I'd like to introduce is Marty, sorry, that was the first speaker, is Don Bartusiak. He is the Director of Engineering on ExxonMobil, and he'll speak to open and secure control systems. Thanks, Ralph. Thank you, Ralph, for giving me a promotion. I appreciate that. Good morning, everybody. Andy, thank you very much for this opportunity to talk about open process automation, which I'm pleased to report has now become an industry initiative, not an ExxonMobil only initiative. So it gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of ExxonMobil and also the other companies that have joined us in this venture. So what I'm going to do in this talk is first reconnect with what ExxonMobil's motivations are and the work we've done today to try to calibrate everybody to the same page. I'll talk about what our vision for the solution to the business problem that we're trying to solve is and talk about our plan and schedule for the work to deliver that vision. And then I'm going to get into a section of the talk where I'm going to address some of the questions that are being asked in the industry about what's it going to take to succeed about this. And the intent of that part of my talk is really not so much to solve the problems but to acknowledge the reality of them and to signal an intent to work on a consensus basis to find the answers to those problems. And I'm going to close with a very simple message. I think it's probably, I'm going to pat myself on the back, it's the best elevator speech I've ever done. It's one sentence and it's a call to action, okay? Okay, so what's the problem that we're trying to solve? So in ExxonMobil, the majority of our distributed control systems in refining and chemicals need to be replaced because of obsolescence within the next 15 years. And that business problem motivated a request from senior management to engineering to do what we could to reduce the cost to replace these systems and also to deliver a capability that allows us to generate more value from our control system relative to the state of the art today. So that started an R&D program that began in 2010 and at a very high level what we concluded from that R&D program that was just going to a currently available DCS does not solve our business problem. And secondly, at a very high level, the root causes of that fact are a combination of both technical factors and commercial factors with the DCS marketplace. So stated succinctly, our vision for the solution is a standards-based, open, secure, and interoperable process automation architecture. And what we want ultimately is a commercially available instances against that architecture, not ExxonMobil only solutions. And for ExxonMobil's timeline, we would like instances of the systems that conform to this architecture available for on-process use in 2021. Quick background just to bring everybody up to today, I'm not going to restate the point about the R&D. Let me just highlight a couple of very significant influences on our R&D team as we did this work. We tried to look outside our box, look for innovative solutions to the problems. And one source of inspiration was what we saw happening in the avionics industry which has affected a transformation from closed proprietary systems on military aircraft, where the avionics systems on every plane was basically purpose and custom built, very little reuse capability on hardware and software, an absolute transformation towards open and interoperable systems embodied by a standards activity called the Future Airborne Capability Environment Consortium, which we have modeled, which we've used as a role model on how to succeed at solving the business problem that I've described. The second influence was we saw ways to use virtualization and software defined networking beyond anything that we had really envisioned that allow us at least conceptually to think about the control system in a way that's radically different from the Purdue model, the multi-level Purdue model that we've been using arguably since the 1970s. Using not necessarily purpose built hardware, but in ways that we can achieve the reliability and availability requirements that we do have for closed loop industrial control systems. Recently we've seen innovations in cybersecurity that we'd love to have incorporated into our systems to have the characteristic of built-in security not bolted on. And finally, the whole internet of things, cloud and wireless are significant driving forces for change. So in 2014, my team, I'll speak with the word my, I'm very proud of these guys, we wrote a set of engineering documents, we call them functional characteristics that allow us to go to clarify our message and go out to the suppliers and say this is what we want folks and we use that as a basis for a talk at the 2015 ARC forum. Last year we announced the contract that we've let with Lockheed Martin to be our prime contractor for systems integration services for a proof of concept prototype. That was a big buzz last year, Andy gave us a slot in the Tuesday plenary for which again we were very grateful. And this year I'm pleased to announce and I'll detail this more in two slides. We've started up the open process automation forum which is the standards organization that we're going to use to sustain this effort. So coming back to the vision, I'm going to elaborate a bit on that statement about standards-based open secure and interoperable process automation architecture. And the nine bullet points there are a synopsis of draft language from the open process automation forum. And I'm only going to pick out three just in the interest of time, otherwise you'll all be looking at your phones. Point number one, the characteristics of what we're trying to achieve is we want conformant components to be integrated into systems that are fit for purpose for the end user's specific needs. Moving away from a kind of a one size fits all scenario that we're in today to allow the asset owner, the owner operator to purchase the functionality that he or she needs for his business problem. Okay, that's characteristic number one. Characteristic number two is this one of what we call adaptive and intrinsic security. Okay, design it in, built it in, don't only bolt it on. And the third one, reflecting the needs of the suppliers, we would like to have expanded markets for suppliers and for systems integrators, for components that conform to the standards and for services that go beyond what you're currently able to access. So this is the vision for the open process automation forum. So this is a slide of a reference architecture. This is an Exxon mobile drawing. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this because it's been circulated in literature quite extensively. I'm just going to use it to highlight a couple of points of what we envision in the future state. So IO is to be done by this device here that we call the DCN for distributed control node. What we envision is a configurable IO capability as well as basic regulatory control which digitizes that signal and communicates on the north side in an industry standard protocol in a manner such that association with the computer control layer is done by software and not physical wiring. Again in contrast to the Purdue multi-layered model, we envision this entity called the real-time advanced control layer acronym ARTAC that looks more like data center rather than a multi-layer network of combination of purpose-built appliances and commodity hardware. And thirdly, and I won't mention anything about the security aspects, but thirdly with respect to the network, what we envision here is an industry standard communications protocol, not proprietary. We depict it in a flat manner like this. This is not to communicate that we don't envision segmentation and we're clearly going to have to manage bandwidth. We're clearly going to have to manage security. The signaling here is that we want in effect a kind of a universal bus against which applications can draw data. Okay, this chart is important. I'm going to spend a little bit of time on this. So there's multiple tracks of activity that we have going on right now and I want to spend a little bit of time making sure that everybody understands what we're doing, the relationship between the Lockheed Martin work, the relationship between what we're doing with the open process automation forum and our path to commercialization. That's what's depicted on what I call the three-track chart. So the first task is the building of the proof-of-concept prototype. So if you see the green bubble is ExxonMobil, the blue bubble is systems integrator in the nomenclature of this slide that's Lockheed Martin and we're going to be working with multiple suppliers again to build that proof-of-concept prototype. I have a slide that will detail the status of that work in a minute. Just bear with me for just a minute or two. The second track is the open process automation forum. So the task there is to establish the standards for what is envisioned. This is the open process automation forum activity of the open group. So we depicted this diagram here that depicts the relationship between the owners, the users, the systems integrators in blue, the suppliers in red around the standards organization which in this case is the open group and I've got two slides to detail that in a minute where I'll talk about milestones and dates. The third track I'm only going to speak to from this slide and this is our path to build commercial instances of a system that conform to this standard. So what we envision is this activity starting in earnest in 2018. It is to be ExxonMobil and systems integrators still to be specified. We are open to the possibility of other end user companies joining us in this phase of the work. We also have no, it would be great if we have actually multiple threads during this period to create different proofs that we can make this work in practice. So that's what we envision again. And so what we're going to be doing during 2017 is what we call the collaboration structures. How do we identify who's interested in participating? When are we going to make the selection on systems integrators for that phase of the work? So for that point, I brought a large team with me and I want to acknowledge my ExxonMobil colleagues that are working on open process automation. I'm actually going to ask you guys to stand briefly so the audience can see. If you want to know more, don't be constrained by getting to me or Steve Bitar. So the technical team, Pat Schweitzer, John McBride, if you guys are here, I want to just stand up and be noticed. Okay, Whit McConnell is here. Okay, the commercial team, Jeff Woolery, Paul Berlowitz, and Gene Sliwinski in the back corner. So we've come to share information, we want to talk with folk about what we envision here. Okay, I want to move on now. I want to talk about an update on what we're doing with Lockheed Martin. I went too far. Okay, so let's see. We announced the contract in January of 2016 and Lockheed Martin issued a request for information. We received 53 responses to that RFI that we very diligently processed into a database about what suppliers wanted to bring to the initiative. And we have a fairly large database and a ranking of who's strong and what areas, who's willing and what areas. During the year, what the Lockheed Martin team has accomplished, they've completed documenting the scope of work. They've conducted what they call trade studies, which you can map to whether it's a literature search or preliminary selection of technology bases or standards. They've been at our manufacturing facilities interviewing our end users or instrument engineers or systems engineers or applications engineers, getting their own sense about what the requirements are at that level, at the factory floor level. And finally, we've established the bases for the proof of concept building. In December, on December 22nd, we issued a Lockheed Martin issue to request for proposal for the proof of concept prototype. It went out to 82 companies, 82 suppliers. It was both a combination of RFI respondents, a short list of companies that we supplemented and an open call, and an open call. And those RFP responses are due next Monday, February 13th. And it's my goal to have the proof of concept prototype delivered in the fourth quarter of this year. Now let me talk about the Open Process Automation Forum. What it is, it's a collaboration of end users, suppliers, and systems integrators. It's going to do three things. It's going to establish the business framework by which all participants have a win. It's going to select standards. The first motivation is to select standards from the applicable ones, rather than creating new. Okay? That's a prime objective. And the third characteristic of this collaboration is to establish a conformance certification process that will be available at day one, which we have learned is a kind of a key success factor to making these types of things work in practice. So working with the Open Group, we started this up in September of this year. We had the inaugural members meeting in the middle of April in San Francisco, co-located with the AICHE annual meeting. I mean, it was a fabulous meeting. I mean, I really felt like I had the industry brain trust in the room. It was just awesome. 57 attendees from 30 member companies of the forum. And the table shows the roster of companies that are current, the current members. And I may, there may be one that's about a late addition. This is as of January 20th. But let's just take a look at this table for a minute. So there's nine end user companies that span oil and gas, chemicals, pulp and paper, pharma, industrial gases. Okay? You see what I call the DCS companies there. I want to use Sid Snitkin's taxonomy of automation companies. Okay? They definitively state that 89% of the automation companies have joined the forum, okay, using Sid's taxonomy. We have a healthy representation of hardware and software component suppliers. And the beginnings I would submit of the representation of the systems integrator community in the persons of Accenture, Lockheed, Martin, Radix and Tata. But let me ask the audience here. This is not a rhetorical question. This is audience participation time and don't make me call on you guys, okay? So if we've got 89% participation from the automation companies, would you say that we have two-digit percentage participation of the end users or one-digit participation? One, that's what I think too, okay? So my call to action, folks, is going to be end users. We need you, okay? All right, this is not to talk about org charts. I want to make a couple of points with this picture. On Thursday morning, there is a session about the Open Process Automation Forum. You will see all of the folks whose names are on this chart. In the interest of... I wanted to say everybody's name, but the time for that will come on Thursday. I want to highlight what's different about this standards activity in contrast to the ones that we're perhaps more familiar with. The ones that I have been familiar with historically, a standards activity would just dive deep down what's called the technology working group branch there. We would just be working on the technical aspects of the standard. What's unique about the process that's coming to us from the Open Group is explicitly addressing the business framework by which the participants can win, okay? And that's what's embodied by the business working group here that's being co-chaired by Dennis Stevens of Lockheed Martin. Is Dennis here today? Okay, I'm not sure. Hi, Dennis. Excellent. Okay, and Paul Berlowitz, my colleague Paul Berlowitz from ExxonMobil. We are also addressing interfaces with existing standards organizations co-chaired by Don Clark and Dave Emerson, and it's really exciting to watch this group here. This is real competency that the Open Group brings enterprise architecture, which is really says, you know, understand your workflows, understand what you're trying to automate before you dive into the technical work of doing it, okay? And it's really fantastic to watch this play out in practice, and I really hats off to Mark Bush from Shell and, again, Dave Emerson from leading that subgroup. And again, I don't want to shortchange anybody, but we have a whole session on this activity on Thursday. I want to acknowledge the contributions of the Open Group staff. So our director is Ed Harrington, who's not here with us today, but I'm going to call. I have four Open Group folk in the audience. Please stand, Dave Lounsbury. So I want you guys to talk to them as well. Jim Hitella, Lauren Baines, and Steve Bortcher. Okay, so if you want to know about the Open Group, please go talk to those folk. They'd be happy to share. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of our trade journalists who really have been essential at getting this word out. I mean, Harry Forbes of ARC has been absolutely fantastic. ARC in whole, but Harry in particular, Bill Leiden has been fantastic. Walt Boyes, John Rezabek, Paul Studebaker. I'm going to leave some names out, I'm sorry. Stephanie Neal, Keith Larson, you guys have really helped us a lot. And I'm interested in the trade journalists being the voices of truth, okay? So let's actually talk about the good news and the bad news because we do want to solve the problems, okay? But thank you trade journalists for helping us out with that. All right, and at this stage of the talk, I want to get into a discussion of these four industry questions. Again, what I'm signaling here is a willingness to dialogue. The four I want to speak to is, okay, the schedule. Why was the RFP late compared to our initial announcement? The second one is ExxonMobil, the only company that's asking for this change. The third one is, how are we going to address accountability in the future state of interoperable systems rather than monolithic ones? And finally, I want to start the conversation of where's the win for the suppliers? Now, I'm not going to answer the lower questions. I will not definitively answer. I'm just signaling a willingness to address and wrestle these things to the ground. So the first one's quite straightforward. What we tried to do with Lockheed Martin last year is really put in place the commercial basis that saw us all the way through to full commercialization of on-process systems. As it turns out, there was just way too much uncertainty in that tire proposition. So we pulled back from that big goal and just hammered out a deal to get us through the proof of concept prototype. We lost a bit of time on our schedule in that deliberation, okay? So that's why even though we said in January that those RFPs were going to go out in July, we got them out in December, that's why, okay? Question number two, and I have a slide for this one. You know, is ExxonMobil the only driver for change? Pretty easy to point to some evidence that that's not the case, okay? There's certainly this activity that I'm sure that some of you are aware of. Certainly the suppliers are aware of it. The Namur Open Architecture Initiative, we're very aware of that. Christian Klettner, who's the lead author on the first paper that's cited here, is going to give a talk in a session this afternoon. And I don't want to steal any of Christian's thunder about what that is. What you should take away from my remarks is there are other operating companies who want change at the shop floor and at the automation level. There's also an initiative underway by Saudi Aramco. There's one citation here of published work by Professor Sight at King Fahd University and Dr. Al-Hashim of Saudi Aramco, basically attacking the architectural principles of the DCS itself. And I would also submit it as evidence the fact that we have eight other end-user companies that have joined us in the Open Process Automation Forum. Now on this question about accountability for the performance of an open and interoperable system. Two basic pieces of evidence I'm going to submit at this point in time. The first one really is the experience of the avionics industry. So what I depicted in that pyramid on the right is really the hierarchy of the suppliers of avionics systems. I got this from an academic paper that was in the transactions of the ACM. So there's really what that paper described is a five level ecosystem going from the prime contractor all the way down to the material suppliers. So we tend to probably consider only maybe four levels of that hierarchy. And so aircraft are successfully built by prime contractors who assemble components for multiple suppliers and we don't have aircraft falling out of the sky. The phase consortium itself is already active. Procurements are being written against the phase standards. And we're seeing evidence that systems are being delivered at lower cost without any complex and faster what Dennis likes to talk about. Technology insertion relative to the old ways of working. There's well established procurement methods embodied in public domain documents that you can look to in terms of how do asset owners buy with confidence, specify and buy with confidence. And in fact, the final bullet point there is that five of the 38 companies that are in the open process automation forum, corporately are among the top 50 US federal systems integrators. Okay, I think this can be done. Point number two, I wanna acknowledge I've had several discussions with people in the systems integration community in our world, in industrial control systems world. And I know that these systems integrators are not only working in SCADA and PLC systems. These guys are taking on DCS jobs. We've ex on mobile have had experience with some members of the control systems integrators association. We know what they do for us. Yes, the future state is gonna be different. There's a danger of apples to pairs comparisons here. But we do think the business foundations are there to deliver a systems integration capability that make this proposed business transformation a success. And finally, okay, this is my next to last slide. And it's meant to address this question about what's the impact on the supplier's gonna be. So this graphic here is something that I adapted from a book on business transformation by Alan Holmes. And I modified it a little bit to suit the purposes for this talk. And I don't have time to verbalize all of the forces for change that are depicted around this circle. But I would submit to you that every one of those forces is in effect for the case at hand. When I wrote this talk, I was gonna say except for regulations until I went to yesterday's sessions and heard all the NERC SIP stuff. And I guess, again, I'm not thinking about electric power. But clearly regulations are a big factor for a portion of the DCS using community. But let me speak to these three mechanisms by which I think, and I submit to you for consideration, that the suppliers can win. And I'm gonna give one example in each case. Mechanism number one, reduced systemic costs. Let's consider how the input output functionality is delivered to us. So what do we owner operators want? We wanna land a wire, we wanna land a field wire. We want that system to be digitized on the north side of that IO block. And we want that signal to be associated with the computer control layer in a loosely coupled manner, software association, not a hardware association. That's what we want. That's what we want. And we hear from the suppliers to the suppliers that it makes no sense to them to have flavor A, flavor B, flavor C of component pieces that deliver that basic function. I submit there's an opportunity to systemically take cost out of the whole supply chain, both the suppliers to we the end users and pass those savings along to the end users. Mechanism number two, allow the suppliers to go after increased margins by letting you specialize in areas where you have differentiating advantage. Let me cite one, this is a big one, it's a hard problem. One thing that we acknowledge in the future state that's gonna be really important to get right is how do we manage the namespace? How do we do the dynamic memory allocation that allows our system to run reliably while we're building points, deleting points, adding executables, deleting executables? That's an important attribute. And that's an asset I think that can be brought forward and allow the suppliers to specialize on what they're uniquely good at. And maybe relax their attention on providing all of the things that are required in this one size fits all world that we're in right now. Particularly where you feel competitive pressures from other third parties who arguably are specializing themselves and are coming up with better products. So that's mechanism number two. And mechanism number three, opportunities to increase revenue by expanding markets. And I can tell you from my perspective in Exxon Mobil, I see tons of opportunity from looking up the ISA 95 stack to bring process systems engineering concepts, concepts like feedback, concepts of those nature to some of the planning, scheduling, and supply change functions. And I just envision that as a way to grow the pie, as Jeff Woolery likes to say. And I could cite other examples of opportunities for growth by looking horizontally, but in the interest of time, I'll stop there. So before I close, I just want to reflect a little bit. Take a breath and pause. When I think about what we have in distributed control systems right now, to some extent it's almost like we're still in the days when the railroads had their own, every railroad had a different track gauge, okay? And you had to offload freight from one railroad and reload it to a car on the other railroad. And in those days, we called it a rail yard. And for us today, we call it gateways. I think we can change that. Now, many of you who heard me speak before know I use cell phones as an analogy. And I use the artifice, would you accept if your Verizon phone couldn't talk to your ATT phone, which couldn't talk to your China mobile phone? But think, I want to go beyond that this time for this venue. Just think about how much value you're getting from your life, from all of those third party apps that you can load on your smartphone. And we can't do anything like that in our world. All of that stuff gets loaded on level three in the Purdue model. And I know in my case, in my case, there's significant compromises to that. We can't get the data bandwidths that we want. And there's just a lot of compromises. So we think we can revisit some of those issues. And the third and last point I want to make as I reflect before closing, we're on like a 20 year technology refresh period with DCS is now. Can you imagine if we can't, how are we going to keep pace with cybersecurity threats that are evolving at the pace of the IT world? If we only refresh technology on a 20 year period, I just think we have to change. So when I reflect on the situation, we just have to change. So I'm going to close with a very simple statement. I would submit to you that the lessons of history of our standards development activities have taught us that a key to success is for the end users, it's got to be driven by customer demand, okay? And because of that, the end users have to get actively involved in the sausage making of the standards activity. So if anybody wants to summarize, what did Bartusiak say at the 2017 ARC forum? It really is end users join the open process automation forum and actively participate, end users join the forum and actively participate. Thank you very much.