right what is the advantage of PlantPAx for Rockwell Automation and again
this is a great solution I love PlantPAx I love plant I'm not
picking on Rockwell here I'm not in for in and I'm not even completely totally
opposed to closed architectures in certain applications okay there are
applications where it's appropriate what I'm saying is is that if I were a if I
were Rockwell Automation I would you know if my business is built on the
closed stack I would also still support open architecture right so that I could
serve both the solutions where it's closed and and open but let's use plant
PAx and factor talk analytics for machines as a perfect example of
solutions out there in the space that are an example of closed architecture so
what is PAx? PAx is basically Rockwell's Development Group created
objects create objects that run inside of our PLC that map to an object that
runs in our HMI that maps to an object that runs in SCADA that maps to an
object that runs in factory talk analytics okay I can use a single object
that originated in the PLC we could use any of them you know the plant packs
motor or the plant packs valve it maps to an object in the HMI which maps to an
object in the SCADA which matches maps to an object in factory talk analytics
so as long as I am using Allen Bradley PLC s Rockwell Automation
factory talk HMI panel B plus whatever as long as I'm using factory talk view
here and I'm using factory talk analytics then I'm golden this is a nice
great closed loop system the problem is is that what if I want to take that same
object and I want to share that object with a non Rockwell's partner solution
right I want to use I doesn't matter what it is let's say I want to I want to
publish this object to using an open protocol to a data link somewhere that's
not and I mean Rockwell's is a microsoft partner right
so they play well with Microsoft they don't play well with AWS well what if
I've already what if I've been settled on AWS and now I've essentially created
a barrier between my data and my information right that's a closed
architecture okay this is and there's a reason that Rockwell does this right
again we'll go back to our automation stack okay we go back we go back to our
automation stack Rockwell sells products at all of these layers they don't sell
ERP they have Rockwell partners that sell ERP okay but they sell products at
each of these layers and so if I'm a really large organization I have product
groups in the cloud that want to make money the MES product group wants to
make money SCADA wants to make money and PLC wants to make money what companies
who support closed architecture are trying to leverage the install base of
their PLC's to get you to buy their SCADA system by selling you their plant
px okay and they sell it as value they sell it as value driven value based and
there's an argument to be made there from an industry 3.0 perspective but not
from an industry 4.0 perspective the name of the game is open fair and
accessible data that's the name of the game in industry 4.0 closed
architectures don't don't work this way what I what in a in a in an open
architecture I want to be able to use Allen Bradley PLC s which we we can't I
want to be able to use the ignition or factory studio or induce soft was voted
the number one SCADA platform this year and controls engineering that's complete
hogwash but that's what it was voted factory studio mes we want to use maybe
Traxxas or MES 4.0 maybe an ERP I want to use s APB one and in cloud I want to
use AWS or Influx data or Sorba ok I need an open architecture to be able to
mix and match these solutions and then once I scale my application I'm moving
down the road I may want to build web apps I may want to integrate
ArcGIS and an geospatial data using ESRI tools I may want to do lambda functions
out on the edge yep using green grass and what I need to do all of that is an
open architecture this is the idea of industry 4.0 taking our data getting our
data into a unified namespace and then just plugging node applications into our
namespace right that that's the difference between open and closed
closed as unified it's controlled it's limited open is open is free and it is
boundless it is scalable open is scalable the reason that you wanted
proprietary protocols in the old days was because the network infrastructure
was so minimal you needed to have highly efficient communications between your
PLC's in your HMIS that's part of the reason that Siemens and Rockwell made
the way that their HMIS in their PLC's talked to one another a proprietary
language was because they wanted to be very efficient language because of the
limited bandwidth you had on the networks we have unlimited bandwidth
today ok we I mean in literally and I want someone to comment and down below
how much faster our plant networks today than they were in 2000 and I loathe the
answer but I'd like I'd like someone to answer in in terms of how many times
faster are the networks today in 2019 than they were in 2019 years ago ok
anyway that is what is open architecture and honestly why it matters open open is
should be 90% of the the deployments that we're doing there are very very
specific applications where you want to use a closed architecture and there will
be fewer and fewer of those applications as we move into the future yeah if you
want to know specifically what those applications are or you want help in
architecting those solutions then that's what 4.0 solutions the organization is
for 4.0 solutions is built the company is built to help OMS end users and
integrators go from closed to open
from industry 3.0 to industry 4.0
from non IIoT to IIoT