WirelessHART Versus ISA100.11a: a Serious Conflict Appears to Be Developing

Related Vendors

DÜPERTHAL Sicherheitstechnik GmbH & Co. KG

TURCK GmbH

EagleBurgmann Germany GmbH & Co. KG

BASF SE

PROCESS:Users criticised WirelessHART for only providing diagnostic data. ISA100 is pursuing a considerably larger application scenario here. Can you confirm this after your field test? And does the ISA100 approach therefore not clearly lead the field?

Schwibach: It is correct to say that our application scenarios have, to date, focused on the transmission of measurement information, rather than the transmission of diagnostic information. The WirelessHART protocol provides these process signals as well, and we also use these in our applications. To say that WirelessHART only provides diagnostic data is therefore incorrect. However, it is right to say that the ISA100 approach is broader. This need not represent, or remain, a contrast. Maybe my perception is naive, but I think that supplementing or further development can result in a win-win situation for both sides, technologically speaking.

Morr: We are of the opinion that the existing conflicts lie more in the area of business policies or marketing.

PROCESS: However, protectionists of the different standards maintain that their particular favourite has a suitably-large installed base. Who’s in the right here?

Morr: The amount of the installed base of devices is at present relatively limited. And this is exactly one of the reasons why efforts to achieve convergence still make big sense. If a too large number of solutions were already installed, it would be doubtful if our efforts could ever achieve any success.

PROCESS: Does this “killer” argument (that the installed base is an indication that users have already, so to speak, opted for a standard) count for anything in your opinion? Or are other aspects, such as security, configuration capacity, availability or reliability, not more important?

Morr: Regardless of the manner in which one estimates the size of the installed base, it is important to warn against any desire to win this conflict. We continually talk about WirelessHART and ISA100. However, there is also the “Chinese standard” (WIA-PA) for wireless sensor networks, which has also already been included in the IEC. We are all aware of the importance of the Asian economic region. A convergence of WirelessHART and ISA100 on its own therefore makes no sense. NAMUR is already involved in discussions with the Chinese institutions with regard to endeavours to also integrate WIA-PA in convergence efforts.

Schwibach: I would prefer to answer your question with regard to the technological aspects of individual solutions in a somewhat sardonic or ironic manner: every standard must meet the end user requirements. If this was taken into consideration with respect to all the drafts on the table, there could be no differences with regard to such aspects. However, products will differ with regard to characteristics such as availability or usebility. But, as has already been said: we want competition exactly here.

(ID:23174050)