Industrial automation is undergoing something of a sea-change, with Industry 4.0 promising a new generation of communications technology capable of gathering and processing data at speeds close to real time. The virtually instant availability of this data drives the formation of a new ecosystem of ultra-efficient, highly connected and intelligent manufacturing. Set against a proliferation and legacy of both established and associated industry communications protocols, Industry 4.0 could appear as a threat to traditional industrial automation systems, such as some older versions of fieldbus. So, what barriers might stand in the way of a seamless Industry 4.0 future?
Perhaps inevitably, a period of transition in any scenario involves some natural element of psychological hesitancy. For Industry 4.0, a number of interplaying factors potentially exacerbate this, not least of which is an industrial landscape somewhat historically dominated by two ecosystems, similar to closed versus open source smartphones. Taking this analogy a step further, the more ‘open’ nature of open source versus closed proprietary systems is akin to the industrial automation reality that exists around several communications ‘languages.’ An Industry 4.0 future which operates seamlessly, regardless of a company’s existing communications language loyalty, is arguably the vision for openness that underpins a full realization of Industry 4.0.
Findings from the recent State of Industry 4.0 Survey conducted by Molex, in collaboration with third-party research firm, Dimensional Research, largely conclude that, although some progress has been made, the original vision for Industry 4.0 remaking the manufacturing landscape, with fully automated end-to-end manufacturing generating revenue in the billions of dollars range, is yet to be materialized. The survey examined whether there is a fundamental flaw in the business case for industrial automation and looked at what the main barriers might be.
Survey respondents expressed that “existing communication protocols are too restricted,” while 39% thought that current remote access is too limited. But then, 36% thought traditional solutions are adequate for current needs. There was clearly frustration with communications protocols, and in particular remote access, with vast variation in responses indicating clear hurdles to technology adoption as well as a stand-off of sorts between IT and OT.