For Endress+ Hauser, it will also take some more time until device integration is no longer an issue — at least as long as the division of labor between host system and device driver exists. “I am however firmly convinced that with FDI we can move the issue of device integration in process automation away from its negative connotations and thus show the end customer that an open system interface is to his advantage, said Birkhofer.
What Was, What Is and What is Yet to Come
In particular, the close collaboration has paid off and might be seen as a model for future projects. For this reason, not only Birkhofer is satisfied: “It was a great step forward to have taken time to reflect on how the end customer can finally eliminate the “pain of integration”. I believe that this cooperative way of providing standard software can also be replicated in other areas, such as the issue of physical characteristics of intrinsically-safe Ethernet transmission. A common solution for a basic problem might also be possible here, paving the way for a return to the competitive rivalry for better device technology.”
Pelz is also convinced that FDI has emerged as a model: “With FDI the largest possible common denominator has been found. The number of networked connections in companies and thus also in automation will increase in the future. Here, we need new solutions that can only find jointly.” He names as an example the already specified forward-looking vendor-neutral OPC-UA interface.
For Gregor Kilian of ABB, proprietary systems related to device integration belong ultimately to the past.
(Picture: ABB)
While Pelz does not believe this should be implemented in the host system immediately, it should by all means be implemented as a next step. “If we are thinking in the direction of Industry 4.0, a straightforward readout of information must be possible without the tedious step of setting up a second channel,” said Pelz.
* * The author works as freelance technical writer for PI (Profibus & Profinet International).