Smart manufacturing standards.

28/11/2018

A major international standards program on smart manufacturing will receive end-user input from the International Society of Automation (ISA), the developer of widely used international consensus standards in key areas of industrial automation, including cybersecurity, safety and enterprise-control integration.

In early November (2018), the International Electrotechnical Commission held the first meeting of a new IEC systems committee on smart manufacturing in Frankfurt (D). An IEC systems committee is intended to set high-level interfaces and functional requirements that span multiple work areas across the IEC and its partner, the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), to achieve a coordinated standards development plan.

The definition of smart manufacturing to be used by new IEC systems committee is:

Manufacturing that improves its performance aspects with integrated and intelligent use of processes and resources in cyber, physical and human spheres to create and deliver products and services, which also collaborates with other domains within an enterprise’s value chain. (Performance aspects can include agility, efficiency, safety, security, sustainability or other indicators. Enterprise domains, in addition to manufacturing, can include engineering, logistics, marketing, procurement, sales or other domains.)

Major supplier and government organizations from across the globe were well represented at the Frankfurt meeting, but participation from end users in industrial processing and manufacturing was noticeably low. However, ISA’s long-standing focus in its consensus industry standards on end-user performance, safety, and security, will be important in filling that void, as evident already in widely used IEC standards that are based on original ISA standards: 

  • ISA-99/IEC 62443: Industrial Automation & Control Systems Security
  • ISA-95/IEC 62264: Enterprise-Control System Integration
  • ISA-88/IEC 61512: Batch Control
  • ISA-84/IEC 61511: Functional Safety
  • ISA-18 IEC 62682: Management of Alarms
  • ISA-100/IEC 62734: Wireless Systems for Automation 

ISA’s participation will be facilitated through an IEC organizational liaison by which ISA standards and technical reports, both published and in development, can be directly circulated and reviewed within the systems committee as appropriate.

“The liaison status will enable ISA to participate more efficiently than would the traditional country-based structure of the IEC,” points out Charley Robinson, ISA’s Director of Standards, who attended the Frankfurt meeting. “This is important and appropriate because ISA’s standards development committees are open to experts from any country.”

In fact, experts from more than 40 countries participate in ISA standards—many on the committees that developed the original work for the widely used IEC standards noted above.

@ISA_Interchange #PAuto @IECStandards @isostandards

Walt, wireless and the curate’s egg

03/10/2011

Earlier this month we published a release which, at first glance, appeared to be the approval of the ISA 100.11a 2011 Industrial Wireless Standard by the IEC. We entitled it ISA100 receives IEC approval – yes and no!. What it was in fact was an announcement of recognition of the standard by the IEC “as a publicly available specification, or PAS.”

The release was carefully worded and indeed further down it quoted the chair of IEC’s SC656 Committee, which would in fact oversee the actual approval of the standard, as saying “An IEC PAS allows the early publication of a standard that has obtained consensus in a professional society such as ISA, and will further promote the use of this standard throughout the world!”

As we published our article a commentary was published by the well respected Editor in Chief of Control, Walt Boyes, who is in fact a voting member of the ISA 100 Wireless Systems for Automation Committee. This was critical of the release and of the procedure adopted to get this approval. His article, Truthiness is next to Godliness, in effect stated that the release was, if I may quote the old English expression, “like the curate’s egg.” We quoted from this as a sidebox on our blog. His beef was that the procedure adopted was irregular for the obtaining of full IEC approval and in that it did not follow the usual ISA rubrics in obtaining this approval. In this case the approach to IEC was through a Canadian standards body. He also maintained that the release implied that the standard had in fact full ANSI approval, which it hadn’t, and that as an ANSI approved body it was obliged to process all standards through this, the US standards authority. He also challenged the “openess” of the standard. (Truthiness,” is an Americanism for shading the truth in your favour!)

See also the British based Industrial Automation Insider’s comment in their October issue reproduced below! There is an interesting discussion on this as well on the LinkedIn Industrial Wireless Group.

It now appears that he was tackled by somebody in ISA, in what he thinks were fairly intemperate terms. He has not felt free to divulge the actual correspondance without the agreement of the other party but from a blog he wrote the other day, Truthiness Clarified! we may perhaps make certain broad assumptions.

This person apparantly felt that there were significant errors and misinformation in what he had written about the press release and what it really meant. In the course of this dialogue Boyes believed his integrity was impugned and that, in essence, he was accused of being in the pocket of certain vested interests. Now I have known Walt Boyes for over forty years and somebody less likely to be in anybody’s pocket it would be difficult to imagine. Indeed he says, and I have no difficulty believing it “…as Editor in Chief, I think it is pretty clear that I am an equal opportunity offender,” when it comes to anything he writes. He takes few hostages!

It is more than likely at some stage that ISA100.11a will in fact be approved as an IEC and ANSI standard but perhaps this might happen more quickly if a more unified and regular procedure were adopted by the committee as is the case in the multitude of other ISA standards used throughout the world.

• We had hardly published the above piece when the latest Industrial Automation Insider hit our post box and Nick Denbow corroborated and agreed with a lot of what Boyes wrote in his original piece. We append Nick’s piece here:

Liars, damned liars and manipulative PR writers

One of the main functions of the INSIDER is to read a press release, then sit back and ask how it relates to any other press releases, or even known information about the same subject. The title above is a variation on Mark Twain’sreported comment about “statistics” being worse than even “damned lies” (but no-one knows whether it was a phrase from Mark Twain, or Disraeli, in around 1890). A similar phrase was used in the journal ‘Nature’ in 1885, in the context of describing witnesses as: “Simple liars, damned liars and experts”. But then they had never met a PR agent, because they had not been conceived in 1885 – propaganda, and public relations, was really invented in WW1, probably by the US Government (employing Edward Bernays, nephew of psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud, and Ivy Lee).

Publish: it must be true!
These days, there are so many websites available that merely reproduce any press releases submitted to them, as submitted, that the word-manipulations of the PR agent can sail through to “officially endorsed” publication. Not many of the regular ISA releases reach the INSIDER, because most advertise their future events, rather than present useful information. However their latest release promoting the actions taken over ISA100 with the IEC stretches to the lower depths of the PR art.

ISA finds new route into the IEC The title of this ISA release claims that the ISA100 Wireless Standard Receives IEC Approval: even the capitals imply that the words are formal. But the ISA100 wireless specification is not yet a standard with a capital “S”, in IEC terms, and their approval, with a small “a”, is maybe ‘approval, but not as we know it’, in the words of Star-Trek: in other words, actually, the IEC has agreed to a proposed course of action by the ISA. That course of action is to publish the specification, presumably the one called ISA100.11a-2011, as a “Publicly Available Specification (PAS)”, and that has to be an excellent idea. It is just a pity it has taken what seems to be three years for the queries raised by the participation of a user [Shell Global Solutions] – about the identified problems in ISA100.11a in the “Nice Use Case
Analysis Project” – to be answered (See the background published on www.iainsider.com and in the INSIDER, dated March 2010). This puts a new light on the oft repeated claim that the ISA100 specification is developed with “direct enduser participation and support”.

Hopefully the publicly available version of the specification will be posted soon on the ISA website, for public consumption. Regrettably it will probably, in reality, be available only for an exorbitant fee, via the Wireless Compliance Institute, one of the money-making commercial arms of the ISA, and probably will not encourage or enable the easier design of products meeting ISA100 by smaller companies. We should maybe remain alert and look out for a continuing closed shop.

False claims and knocking copy
The ISA release also makes comments about how their procedures have followed an “open consensus process as accredited by ANSI”. This claim is covered and dismissed very effectively by Walt Boyes in his weblog for September 16.

Boyes also highlights the traditional ISA slap made in their press release against the WirelessHART standard, which was accepted as an IEC Standard, IEC62591, over 18 months ago. ISA says “Unlike non-accredited processes typically used by vendors’ consortia to develop specifications, ISA’s [claimed as] ‘ANSI approved’ procedures call for direct participation and voting by experts from end-user companies”. Boyes asks how long the ISA is going to “continue flogging this really dead horse”, which does appear to reflect poorly back on the ISA themselves. But there is a more general comment to be made: how long is the vendor and user community expected to wait for these venerated, very slow moving standards committees to catch up with the faster strides of technology? The ISA is three years late.

Satisfying market demands
In that time, the dynamic engineers and marketing people in the vendors, using the market knowledge gained from customers, i.e. end-users, have developed the products that these users wanted, and to a standard that works
in practice, WirelessHART. The experts in the enduser companies have participated, and voted, by investing in testing these WirelessHART products and systems, and then installing them in ever-increasing numbers. Not only is WirelessHART an IEC standard, it is the de facto market standard. ISA100 has to do something positive to gain more than their existing toehold it has in this market, rather than keeping on talking about what happened years ago. A PAS is only the first step, and a very small step, forward. It is time for the ISA to look to the future, and that future might well have been in a back-haul standard. But maybe that is now too late.

Postscript:
The ISA saga continues on the Walt Boyes SoundOff blog, where Walt continues to try to present his logical reasoned views, while not being allowed to quote the critcs from the ISA directly.
Any similar communications or corrections to the INSIDER viewpoint will be published, as they happen, on the INSIDER blog,


Stumble into standardisation leads to top award

20/10/2010

Bernard Dumortier on the left receives the Lord Kelvin Award from Jacques Régis, IEC chaiman.

Bernard Dumortier has been awarded the IEC’s Lord Kelvin award, the highest distinction granted by IEC, by Jacques Régis, Président of the IEC. The presentation was made at the gala dinner of the annual meeting of IEC at Seattle (WA US). Lord Kelvin was the first President of the IEC.

Bernard Dumortier has been active in IEC work for over 25 years, starting as a member of the French shadow committee and working as expert in the Fieldbus projects developed within SC65C. He is currently ISA-France Vice-president and secretary and an influential member of the ISA standardisation Board and memeber of several committees.

In 1993, Bernard became the Secretary of the SC65C and took the challenge to finalize the standardization of Fieldbus.  Under his management SC65C successfully standardized the Fieldbus and is now taking a leadership role in Industrial Wireless.

Since 2001 Bernard serves as TC65 Secretary.  He has been instrumental in facilitating the new organization of TC65 with, among other things, the creation of SC65E dedicated to device integration in enterprise systems.
The nomination says “in recognition of his substantial contributions to the IEC in the field of Industrial Automation.  Bernard has displayed skills in managing difficult and controversial negotiations without confrontation, reaching instead agreement with logic, persuasion and inclusion.  Bernard has been a key contributor to the re-organization of the TC65 which now gathers all the worldwide players in the automation fields.”

He stumbled into standardisation a bit by chance he told e-tech’s Philippa Martin King. “Standardization wasn’t a career decision,” he says. “It was my boss’s idea. I’d been working for around 15 years in the company as an engineer and head of the electronics laboratory when one day my boss called me into his office and told me he was sending me out the next day to take part in a special fieldbus project. I wasn’t a fieldbus specialist but he obviously had ulterior motives. They needed someone who spoke English, he told me.”

Standardization role wasn’t a career decision
Dumortier, as his boss had obviously intended, ended up doing quite a bit more than simply attending a meeting about fieldbuses. Almost immediately, he found himself leading a group drafting the FIP (Factory Interface Protocol) specifications for the Eureka Field Bus project, a European umbrella project for technology collaboration, which was itself destined to be included in a standardization process.

Dumortier says the standardization situation for fieldbuses was hazy: “There were two similar regional teams both working on more or less the same projects, and they seemed to have somewhat similar aims. It’s not really surprising perhaps since the Project Leader for both groups, the ISA-S50.02 group and IEC WG (Working Group) 6 of IEC SC (Subcommittee) 65C: Industrial networks, was the same person. ISA (International Society of Automation) used to meet every month and IEC met every three months with the result that each time, the week-long meeting started under one banner and then we switched hats to cover the other project.”

Franco-German confrontation on American soil
Dumortier describes his first international standardization experience: “Progress was hard going because we French with our FIP project were up against the Germans who were defending their own PROFIBUS project. Fortunately, the Americans were there to channel our animosity. It was in that context that I met Tom Phinney, who later became the editor of the mammoth 10 000-page standard we finally produced [with IEC SC 65C]. Today, we can laugh about the first ‘Franco-German war’ to take place on American soil. It was Phinney who coined that phrase. I was able to appreciate not only his qualities as a technician, but also his ability as an excellent strategist. He was just so clairvoyant in his whole approach during that Franco-Germanic standardisation confrontation.”

Paving the way for taking a systems approach
The American intervention finally led to consensus between the two groups with their different allegiances and an agreement to draw up IEC International Standards that took very much a systems approach. The result was a series of (TYPE) protocols and (CPF – Communication Profile Family) profiles in IEC 61158 Industrial communication networks – Fieldbus specifications, and IEC 61784, Industrial communication networks – Profiles, with new editions released in June 2010. They define a set of protocol-specific communication profiles that can be used in the design of devices involved in communications in factory manufacturing and process control, as opposed to being based on a single protocol.

The importance of industry in achieving consensus for standardization
Before that state of consensus could be achieved however, it took a summit meeting with representatives of all the stakeholders gathered together in the office of Anthony Raeburn, IEC General Secretary 1988-1998. The IEC TC 65 officers were present, as was the IEC President of the time, Mathias Fünfschilling (1999-2001), together with representatives of each IEC NC (National Committee) and top management of all the industries concerned. “He told us we needed to come to a mutual agreement”, says Dumortier.

“That’s when you see the importance of industry in these matters,” he says. “It needed technical representation from the companies concerned – and in this particular case we’re talking CEOs, who came accompanied by technical advisors – not political representatives – to come to a mutual agreement on a matter that was entirely technical. We couldn’t have solved the problem satisfactorily between NC representatives. We needed that technical expertise and the involvement of the industry specialists themselves to be able to take a really qualified decision.”

Participation in TC work means working actively
Another important change had also come about when the WG (Working Group) had previously met in Ottawa, Canada. “We needed to redefine various things because we weren’t quite ready to vote on our standardization work,” says Dumortier. “But there was no point in someone giving a negative vote if they didn’t submit any corresponding technical comments. That’s not a valid way of proceeding.”

Dumortier produced some efficient people management skills. He simply told the former Chairman of the SC (Subcommittee) that he wasn’t going to sign the CDV (Committee Draft for Voting) until he had received the relevant comments. “I’m not dogmatic”, he says, “and, even if my own personal choice isn’t what we finally choose, I believe in consensus.” Instead of continuing with the raised-hand voting, he proceeded to summon each member by alphabetical order to obtain their individual vote. “Of course some people weren’t too happy,” he underlines, “but it gave everyone the opportunity to say what they really felt and gradually the situation broadened out to become what it is today: smooth and consensual. Today, we have all these publications to show for it.

“But we’d still never be where we are today if we hadn’t had an editor like Tom Phinney. He’s a major element in the team.”

Today, Phinney is Convenor of TC 65/WG 10: Security for industrial process measurement and control – Network and system security, and TC 65/SC 65C/WG 13: Cyber Security, in addition to eight other member roles in various TC 65 groups and liaison roles with ITU-T /SG 17 and ISO/IEC JTC (Joint Technical Committee) 1/SC 27 for IEC TC 65: Industrial-process measurement, control and automation, and with ISA/SP 99 for IEC SC 65C. [ITU-T stands for the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector. ISO stands for the International Organization for Standardization.]

Another person Dumortier cites as being instrumental in helping the group get the results it did is Graeme G. Wood. He’s on the 2010 list of honours as a recipient of the IEC 1906 award. “Graeme is someone I’d call a true expert”, says Dumortier. “He’s in all the fieldbus committees and is liaison officer with the Joint Working Groups [ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25] and incredibly willing. He has a truly remarkable capacity in a Working Group to take minutes that reflect exactly what happened. If the SC 65C works so well, it’s also thanks to people like Graeme.”

But their first encounters were not so unequivocal. “‘I’ve never met such a silly engineer in all my life.’ That’s what I know Graeme was muttering in his beard – I understood him perfectly,” smiles Dumortier. “I know my English wasn’t precise. But it’s not so easy when you’re not speaking your mother tongue. You don’t weigh the effect of your words in the same way.”

Working in standardization helps understand the competition
However, he soon learnt to appreciate Wood’s expertise. “In our Working Group discussions we were talking about various technologies produced by our various companies. Wood was obviously backing his own. The technology we [the French] were pursuing wasn’t yet finalized but we were quite confident about the developments we’d made until he criticized our messaging system, telling us it was totally inefficient. He’s such an excellent technician and so implicated in technology that he couldn’t help but propose us a new solution. The changes we eventually made didn’t exactly follow what he suggested. They didn’t make good enough use of the protocol. But thanks to his intervention, it opened our eyes to the fact that our company’s messaging system was inefficient and we revised the entire programme. Essentially, he was instrumental in our system changes. That helped the world advance. It also made for a friendship that has never diminished.”

Consensus is what counts
“In standardization you can have some quite heated discussions, but once out of that formal meeting context, you find you have real friends with whom you have a lot in common. That’s when you create the consensus.”

Dumortier cites a third person whom he claims is part of the success of SC 65C. He names Ludwig Winkel, “the person who set off the Ottawa discussions where there was so much hostility”, he adds. “I persuaded Winkel to take on the task of Convenor of SC 65C MT (Maintenance Team) for IEC 61158 and IEC 61784-1 and 2 (Fieldbus). [Winkel is also Convenor of SC 65C/WG 17: Wireless Coexistence]. Winkel is at ease in international meetings and is most competent when it comes to fieldbuses. So he was the perfect choice for the task in managing a multi-protocol standard. In a committee, you can defend your own ideas and interests. Just because a person doesn’t have the same vision as you do doesn’t stop them having clairvoyance and using it for the good of the group. That’s what consensus in international standardization is about.”

Consortia need international recognition
“Why is TC 65 so successful?” says Dumortier. “It’s because all the main actors are present. Industry really has something to gain here. They all sit around the same table. Consortia can’t work on their own. Once they have developed their solutions, they need the seal of approval of an international organization in order to gain international recognition for their standardization work.”

The importance of a non-hierarchical officer status
Returning to the subject of committees and the officers, Dumortier says: “It’s important to underline the importance of the complicity between the roles of Chairman and the Secretary of a TC. As you know, in an IEC TC the two officers are always elected from different countries. That makes for a particular quality in the IEC. If, within a TC there weren’t that relationship with a mixture of cultures and instead, you had officers from the same country, you would likely find a hierarchical relationship. In IEC TCs, that simply doesn’t exist. The Chairman and Secretary have mutual respect for each other. It’s the mixture of cultures that makes the difference.

“There are three such Chairmen I want to mention,” says Dumortier. “First, there’s Otto Ulrichs”, says Dumortier. “That makes two Lord Kelvin Awards for TC 65!” [NB Otto Eberhard Ulrichs, Germany – received the Lord Kelvin Award in 2003]. It’s thanks to Otto Ulrichs”, says Dumortier, “that we were able to set down the basis for the TC 65 strategy. My relationship with Otto had started off on bad terms. There was such mutual hostility between us. It was only once I’d pleaded for help that the original friction turned into a relationship of trustful collaboration which, from that day on, never wavered.

“Later on, I completed that original plan for TC 65 with the present Chairman of TC 65, Roland Heidel. With Roland, we’re very complementary. Our relationship is one of incredible complicity. It has been largely instrumental in giving TC 65 the world leading position it has in industrial automation today.

“Finally,” continues Dumortier, “there’s Tony Capel [Chairman of SC 65C], the person who introduced me to the world of Anglo-Saxon culture, something that can’t be underestimated in standardization. It is he too that backed me in helping us reach consensus. I use him as my sounding board to test out my ideas.

“Over the years, these three people have become real friends. Without them I would never have received the Lord Kelvin Award. I owe them such a lot.”


European wireless standard approved

24/07/2010

The HART® Communication Foundation has announced that the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has approved the WirelessHART® specification as a European National Standard (EN 62591). CEN released the standard to CENELEC, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, whose members are the national electrotechnical committees of 31 European countries. CENELEC approved the WirelessHART European Standard on 01 June 2010.

European Committee for Standardization“In March, the WirelessHART specification was approved by the International Electrotechnical Commission as a full international standard (IEC 62591Ed. 1.0),” – see our story “First international standard for wireless” – says Ron Helson, Executive Director of the HART Communication Foundation. “Approval as a European National Standard further confirms acceptance of the technology by users and suppliers as a technically sound, reliable and secure solution for wireless communication in process automation.”

The IEC Standard was approved by CENELEC as a European Standard without any modification. According to the announcement of approval issued by CENELEC, “members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration”.

A growing number of WirelessHART compatible products are available today from major global suppliers including ABB, Emerson, Endress+Hauser, MACTek, Nivis, Phoenix Contact, Pepperl+Fuchs, Siemens and others.

Released in September 2007, WirelessHART is an open and interoperable wireless communication standard designed to address the critical needs of industry for reliable, robust and secure wireless communication in real-time industrial process measurement and control applications.

WirelessHART is a backward compatible, evolutionary enhancement to the HART Communication Protocol, the leading communication technology for intelligent process measurement and control field devices and systems with more than 30 million devices installed and operating in process plant applications around the globe.

The CEN was founded in 1961. Its 30 national members work together to develop European Standards (ENs) in various sectors to build a European internal market for goods and services and to position Europe in the global economy. CENELEC is a non-profit technical organization set up under Belgian law. CENELEC members have been working together in the interests of European harmonization since the 1950s, creating both standards requested by the market and harmonized standards in support of European legislation.