Evolving Industrial Automation Architectures: Navigating Beyond PERA and ISA-95 in the Digital Transformation Era
In the landscape of industrial automation, the Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture (PERA) and the International Society of Automation standard 95 (ISA-95) have long been pillars of structured system design and integration. These frameworks have guided the delineation and orchestration of operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT) within the manufacturing sector, offering clarity and security. However, the rapid pace of digital transformation, characterized by advancements in the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, and cybersecurity, alongside the push for OT and IT convergence, necessitates a reevaluation and evolution beyond these traditional models.
A foresight shared in 2018 highlighted the transformative impact of IoT and Big Data on industrial automation, predicting the challenge to hierarchical architectures and the blurring lines between operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT). This vision underscored the readiness of the process industry for a digital era marked by cloudification and data-driven operations.
The Legacy of PERA and ISA-95 in Industrial Automation
PERA and ISA-95 were conceived in a different technological era, one where the distinction between operational and enterprise systems was clearer and the pace of technological change was more gradual. PERA offered a hierarchical model for organizing automation systems, while ISA-95 provided a standard for integrating enterprise and control systems. These frameworks helped to simplify the industrial automation landscape, but they were designed for a world where the boundaries between OT and IT were rigid and the threats to industrial systems were less complex and interconnected.
Challenges Prompting Change
Emerging Architectures in Industrial Automation
In response to these challenges, new architectures are being developed to provide the flexibility, scalability, and security necessary for modern industrial systems:
Challenges and Considerations of Emerging Architectures
While the shift towards new architectures in industrial automation heralds significant improvements in flexibility, scalability, and security, it also introduces a set of challenges that industry professionals must navigate:
Recommended by LinkedIn
1. Complexity and Integration Challenges
The adoption of advanced frameworks like RAMI 4.0, IIoT, and cloud-based architectures increases the complexity of industrial systems. Integrating new technologies with existing infrastructure requires substantial expertise and can lead to compatibility issues, requiring extensive customization and potentially driving up costs.
2. Increased Cybersecurity Risks
Although new architectures are designed with enhanced security features, the expanded attack surface presented by interconnected devices and systems introduces additional vulnerabilities. The reliance on digital technologies and networked systems can expose critical infrastructure to sophisticated cyber threats, requiring ongoing vigilance and advanced cybersecurity measures.
3. Skill Gap and Workforce Transformation
The deployment of modern automation architectures necessitates a workforce skilled in emerging technologies, including IoT, cloud computing, and cybersecurity.
4. Reliability and Dependence on Connectivity
New architectures often rely on continuous internet connectivity and cloud services, which can introduce points of failure in the event of network disruptions. Ensuring the reliability of these systems in critical industrial applications requires robust failover and redundancy mechanisms.
Conclusion
The transition from traditional models like PERA and ISA-95 to new, dynamic architectures marks a pivotal shift in the industrial sector's approach to automation, reflecting an adaptation to the digital era's demands. These emerging architectures, with their focus on flexibility, scalability, and security, are essential for leveraging the benefits of digital transformation. This overview represents my current understanding of the evolving industrial automation architectures. I welcome feedback, corrections, and insights from industry professionals and experts to refine, enhance my understanding and also help this discussion.
Tags: #IOT, #IIOT, #Industry4.0, #Cloud #HierarchialArchitectures, #ITOTConvergence, #EDGE, #ISA95 #RAMI #PERA
Industrial Enterprise Architect and Industrial digitalisation advisor at AFRY
6moLooking at statements "[PERA and ISA-95] .. .have long been pillars of structured system design and integration" it is easy to fall into the trap and perceive the ISA-95 functional hierarchy as a prescription on how to organise industrial applications. I see this error all around me, and concepts like "the automation pyramid" is just one, very widespread misinterpretation of ISA-95. The functional hierarchy is - well, functional. It depicts business process layers in a useful way. Applications support business processes, but do not have to be organised in the same way. This is crucial. That is they key to understanding why Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing is still advocating ISA-95 when others deem it antiquated. ISA-95 does support IT/OT convergence just fine, but you must read it carefully. It is very vague on certain things, which can deceive people. The automation pyramid, a (mis)interpretation of ISA-95, I mean, is certainly deprecated, but the standard is not. That is why RAMI 4.0 uses ISA-95 as its foundation.
Solution Architect
8moInsightful
Author | Principal Consultant | Digital Manufacturing | MES | Industry 4.0 | IT & OT convergence | IIoT
8moSmart manufacturing needs new IT Architecture such as RAMI model to seamlessly connect various aspects of manufacturing such as Product Life-Cycle, Resilient Operations, Supply chain management, tracking, hierarchies, customer satisfaction, sustainability, etc. It posses several challenges and opportunities that may be different for green field and brown field projects with legacy systems. Also, the hierarchies may not be defined as single-axis any more but can split into multi-axis. For example, hierarchy for Materials management may differ from Operations management. Also, there could be different hierarchies for Physical, Logical or Organizational entities. However, for a new and successful Enterprise architecture approach all hierarchies may need to be redefined and linked at each level with each other to establish the meaningful relation to analyse data for different KPIs and business goals that was not possible so far.