Smart manufacturing standards.


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

Wireless moves! More on ISA100 from Nick Denbow


“Honeywell ‘moves on’ with ISA100 specified!” says Nick Denbow in this item from the April issue of  Industrial Automation and Process Control Insider

(The INSIDER is delivered by email as a typically 12 page, 8000 word monthly newsletter in a pdf format and now in mobile tablet or cellphone format. Subscriptions may arranged. The newsletter is read by automation professionals world-wide, in around 80 different organizations. Subscribe here!)


Nick Denbow

Last month the INSIDER discussed the abandonment of the ISA100.12 committee deliberations, without any final result or report. This has produced no comment or reaction from the ISA directly: while they do not subscribe to the INSIDER, they were provided with an advance copy of that issue.

What is more interesting is that a correspondent with close links to Honeywell has confirmed that all “new” OneWireless instruments from Honeywell are now shipped with the ISA100.11a protocol.

Development history
The Honeywell involvement with wireless transmitters, and indeed their ‘OneWireless’ systems pre-dated the ISA100 standard. Indeed Honeywell put in a lot of expertise and specification suggestions gained from their OneWireless systems into the ISA100 standard development process. OneWireless did have a different protocol to the standard that eventually emerged as ISA100.11a. However, Honeywell made the commitment that “all OneWireless pre-ISA100 instruments supplied will be upgradable, or able to migrate to, ISA100 wireless”.

• See also Gary Mintchell’s “Puzzlement In Industrial Wireless Network Land,” written on his return from the Hannover Fair!

Latest release from Honeywell
Honeywell issued a press release early in April, announcing a new version of OneWireless, which is named as “Release 210 (R210)”. This stated to include “over-the-air field device provisioning and a Gateway General Client Interface made possible by the ISA100 standard”. Ray Rogowski, global marketing director for wireless in HPS is also quoted to say: “With OneWireless Release 210, users can benefit from the flexibility and scalability offered by the ISA100 standard….”.

This does seem to be a statement from Honeywell fairly definitely saying that OneWireless Release 210 will be using ISA100, which is a welcome change of emphasis compared to previous news releases. To interpret some of the phrases used I spoke to Soroush Amidi in their Networks and HPS Wireless Solutions Team.

The official HPS view
1wirelesshwellAmidi explained the OneWireless history, in relation to the release versions quoted. Full exproduction ISA100 compatibility came not after the addition of the Cisco Aironet 1552 access point in November 2011, as previously assumed by the INSIDER, but with Release R200, which was announced in June 2010: so actual deliveries started approx from 1-1-2011. In fact, the Cisco Aironet access point was introduced for clients who preferred to have Cisco systems in their IT structure, and needed the wifi interface also provided. Diederik Mols, introducing the Aironet at the HUG European meeting (INSIDER November 2011 page 5) specifically mentioned Shell in this context. The HPS Multinode and separate Field Device access points are both still available and offered with R210.

Prior to R200, the OneWireless R120 had offered all the functionality of ISA100, but did have a different protocol to the standard that emerged as ISA100.11a. However, Amidi stated that “all OneWireless R120 systems and instruments can be upgraded to ISA100 wireless using an over-the-air download”, if the customers have a need to move up/upgrade to this R200 level. In a similar way R200 systems can be migrated to R210 using another over-the-air software upgrade.

New OneWireless features
With R210 Amidi explained the language used in the recent press release, which originates somewhat from the detailed, somewhat esoteric wording of the ISA specification work. Field device ‘provisioning’ relates to the initial acceptance of a new device onto the network, by passing over the network access code: the ISA standard has the option for clients to do this either wirelessly, or via a local infra-red communications device, which is seen to add more security in some situations.

More interesting perhaps is the Gateway General Client Interface (GCI). HPS says  “The GCI feature, enabled by the ISA100 standard, allows operations to continue using legacy protocols and proprietary applications while making it easier to wirelessly expand those applications throughout the plant. The GCI also allows third party client applications to communicate natively using proprietary or common field protocols with wireless field instruments over the ISA100 network.”

GCI examples
Soroush Amidi explained this in terms of working with Enraf radar level gauge systems, which use a proprietary protocol to send custody transfer data to the Enraf Entis Pro software application, or GE Bently Nevada vibration monitoring systems which use a proprietary protocol to send the vibration signatures to their System 1 software application. This data can be wrapped in an ISA100 compatible packet, which is allowed within ISA100, and transmitted over the network, for unwrapping at the other end, and delivery to the appropriate analysis system: the whole process is described as ‘tunneling’ the data. Vendors such as Enraf and Bently Nevada are pleased to take advantage of this system, says Amidi, as it retains their intellectual property and proprietary information processing, takes advantage of a plant wide wireless network, but does not require the significant development work and investment by them in producing a fully ISA100 compliant sensor.

Further information on ISA100
Amidi pointed out that much of the information about ISA100 installations is passed by personal contacts, and by such routes as the ISA100 interest group on ‘Linked in’ – where Amidi seems to have been the main recent commentator. A recent addition there is a video from the ISA WCI technical seminar in Kyoto back in 2011, where Berry Mulder from Shell Global Solutions, who is also a director of WCI, explains why wireless is so important to Shell.

Wireless gas alarms
The Shell presentation laid emphasis on the need for wireless gas detection (and personnel location) which brought to mind the Honeywell wireless gas detector, a product development mentioned as essential in relation to the Shah Gas project some two and a half years ago (INSIDER November 2010 page 3, and November 2011 page 7). Still no listing for such a product on the WCI ISA100 product lists, so presumably the devices that were quoted as delivered to Shah Gas in 2012 used plain OneWireless compatibility.

GasSecure on WCI list
However, the GasSecure infra-red hydrocarbon gas detector from Norway mentioned at the Invensys OpsManage11 conference (INSIDER November 2011 page 7) does have a WCI listing, even if no approval is quoted.

Walt, wireless and the curate’s egg


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 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.

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,

ISA Ireland MIS seminar success


Kieran Coughlan (ISA Ireland), John McKeon (Astellas), Michael Lawlor (Genzyme), Charlotta Johssen (Lund University Sweden) David O’Brien (President ISA Ireland) and Barry Lawlor (J&J Jannssen Biologics).

The Ireland Section of the International Society of Automation had a very successful half-day seminar in Cork city on 12th April 2011.

The over seventy attendees were very positive about how the event went. For a volunteer led function it was remarkably professional and smoothly run.

ISA Ireland SeminarOverheard!

I thought the event was good as it bridged the gap between automation & information/execution systems; or IT versus Engineering if you like. A different perspective. As a Mechanical Engineer dedicated for years to IT, it is nice to see the dots joined!

First impressions are always important and in this case the venue (Rochestown Park Hotel) was the right fit, easy to access with plenty of room for atttendees and sponsors and the sound, lighting and projector capabilities were good. The quality of the speakers was superb and they knew how to use the facilities and the power point presentation software. There were no embarrassing pauses as things had to be adjusted. (We also liked the hotel as they have free WiFi access throughout the building – other top-class hotels please copy!)

The subject matter was interesting and drew a substantial number of the user community especially but not exclusively the pharma sector. The fact that the speakers were not aligned with any particular vendor and included actual users made the event more attractive and useful.

So what was discussed?

First off  Barry Lawlor, Janssen Biologics (J&J), spoke on the development and roll-out of a core MES Solution across the J&J global pharmaceutical supply group. He addressed the initial plan, its ongoing execution and the future development plans.

Michael Lawlor of Genzyme followed with the view from the Pack Line level up in design, selection, and integration of a Serialisation/Product Security Project. He drew on his experience in leading several projects as well as been on the integration team of the MES system to the Production Systems and Automation Lead on the Corporate Serialisation Project. This project was initiated in late 2007 and is still running today in the implementation of French market CIP13 requirements.

Each speaker was presented with a commemorative plaque!

The next speaker, Dr Charlotta Johnsson is Associate Professor in the Department of Automatic Control at Lund University (S). She is also a voting member in the ISA SP88 and ISA SP95 standardisation committees. Her contribution to te event was a valuable insight into Make2Pack and ISA88-part5, where the standarisation is coming from and where it hopes to go and how the standards are arrived at. She also gave a brief outline of ISA 95 developments.

Finally John Mckeon, an engineering professional who has worked as a consultant to Astellas Ireland for many years. He has worked in a number of automation and system integration projects, including their response to counterfeiting and the implementation of track and trace. His talk was a fascinating expose of global serialisation, anti-counterfeit and track and trace. He outlined the different regulations and standards in different countries and regions and their impact on production and supply.

The local ISA President, David O’Brien concluded afternoon’s proceedings by thanking all involved, speakers, sponsors, those who attended and particularly the committe of volunteers, especially Kieran Coughlin who did trojan work to make the MIS Technical Seminar a great event for the Section.

View showing large attendance at ISA Ireland Seminar

The sponsors of the event were Rockwell Automation, Emerson Process Management, Zenith Technologies, Crest Solutions, nne Pharmaplan, Enterprise System Partners, and Siemens.

Large pictures fro Creative Photography!

Wireless committees get their wires crossed


By Andrew Bond, Industrial Automation Insider
See links to other reports at bottom of page!

The long running saga of the ISA 100.11a wireless standard took a further intriguing turn in Orlando, Florida last month when a number of related sub-committees met alongside the ARC forum. Perhaps the most significant meeting was that considering the results of the “Nice Use Case Analysis Project”, so called because it originated at a meeting in Nice, France in 2008 (pleasant places these meetings have to be held in!).

  • Concerns over security remain the number one barrier to the adoption of wireless solutions in industry, according to the results of the first end-user survey to be conducted by WINA, the Wireless Industrial Networking Alliance. Half of survey participants who had not yet implemented wireless believed that wireless solutions were less secure than wired. However users in industries with more experience of the technology such as oil and gas most frequently perceived wireless to be as secure as or even more secure than wired devices.Presenting the results during the recent ARC forum in Orlando, WINA president Steve Toteda noted that “Heavy industry moves slowly, but very methodically. The growth of wireless devices from the current average of 5% to that of between 20 and 30% in five years represents a staggering advance for wireless.” But he added that “… the industry as a whole has failed to adequately address the misconception that wireless security is not as effective as hard wired – the truth is wireless is far more secure because of the use of strong encryption technology and network controls that eliminate unauhorized devices on the network.” That present rates of growth are set to continue or even accelerate is indicated by a fifth of respondents to the survey expecting wireless devices to make up 30% of their field devices by 2015, and another fifth believing that they will account for 20% or more within the same time frame.With 55% of respondents indicating that they were not influenced by brand names in selecting wireless devices, Toteda argued that future purchase decisions would not depend on brands already installed on site, suggesting that opportunities exist both for existing vendors to gain market share and for new entrants to make an impact.
  • Cooper Wireless, which brings together Cooper’s Canadian acquisition Omnex Controls and Elpro Technologies, the Australian company acquired by MTL in 2008, had its first public outing in Orlando, making a busy week for WINA president Steve Toteda who was recently appointed VP and general manager of the newly created Cooper Bussmann business unit (INSIDER, January 2010, page 3). “The merging of these brands allows us to provide our customers with increasngly comprehensive, highly-specified solutions for improving productivity and safety in demanding industrial and mobile control applications around the world,” he explained.
    Omnex, an early adopter of Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) technology, claims to have become the leading supplier of robust, ‘never-fail’ remote controls for the shipping, concrete pumping and placement and mobile boom sectors and has migrated its Trusted Wireless technology into industrial I/O and networking for fixed plant and field environments. The result is enterprise-wide wireless infrastructure solutions for water and waste water treatment, oil and gas extraction and refining and process manufacturing.
  • Missing elements
    Funded by Shell Global Solutions, the  analysis considered just one use case – that of a temperature transmitter sensing sea temperature and displaying it ashore – and only looked at about a third of the complete ISA 100.11a specification. Nevertheless it is understood to have come up with more than a dozen elements of the standard which were either missing, didn’t work or conflicted with other elements.

    What’s so interesting about these findings, apart from the suggestion that the standard, as approved in August of 2009, is incomplete and potentially unworkable, is that they relate back directly to issues raise by the appeal against its ratification made by, among others, Walt Boyes of CONTROL magazine, Sicco Dwars of Shell Global Solutions and Frederick Enns of Dust Networks. That is hardly surprising, perhaps, as no doubt supporters of the standard will be quick to  point out, since Dwars was apparently responsible for initiating the Nice use case project and Enns was one of those involved in conducting the analysis and made the presentation on it at the Orlando meeting. Readers will recall that it was rejection of that appeal by ISA on the grounds that it was submitted after the deadline which led to the failure of the America National Standards Institute (ANSI) to accept the standard at its November 2009 meeting (INSIDER, January 2010, page 5). Supporters of that appeal are now arguing that the Nice use case analysis confirms what they had been arguing all along, namely that by failing to follow their own procedures correctly when assessing technical comments on the standard prior to its final ratification they allowed previously identified deficiencies and inconsistencies to remain in the final document.

    Face saving
    Ironically, however, these latest developments look as if they may provide ISA with a face saving solution to the dilemma posed by ANSI’s insistence that the appeal be heard. While nobody is going to admit that there is anything wrong with the existing version of the standard, the word on the Orlando street is that ISA 100.11a will undergo “maintenance” over the coming months to render it “more robust” and that the resultant revised document will then be put out to ballot in time for it to be released in the early autumn, ideally at the new ISA Automation Week event in Houston in October. The beauty of this solution is that, while it tacitly overcomes the original objections, it obviates the need to hear the appeal since it will be a new, rather than the original, document which will eventually be submitted to ANSI and which should therefore meet with that body’s unqualified approval – assuming, of course, that ISA manages to follow its own procedures correctly this time around.

    Meanwhile, also meeting at Orlando was ISA 100.12, the sub-committee charged with finding a way to converge ISA 100.11a with WirelessHART. Logically one would expect that any sign of further delay in finalizing the ISA standard, which can only increase WirelessHART’s already substantial lead, would encourage efforts to accelerate the convergence project, not least because, as Gary Mintchell of Automation World reported in his own ‘Feed Forward’ blog, “…a panel of practitioners at one session at the ARC Forum uniformly pleaded for a single wireless standard.”

    Mintchell’s own assessment of the current state of the convergence project is blunt in the extreme. “… attempts to rationalize the differences between the two standards appear to be dead,” he says. And he’s not alone in pointing out that while the HART Foundation has been repeatedly criticized for being a ‘pay-to-play’ supplier consortium, dominated as many believe, or at least find it convenient to suggest, by a single supplier, Emerson, the ISA’s own wireless activities, which purport to be user driven, are in fact increasingly being identified with Honeywell and the chip supplier Nivis.

    If all that’s giving you a feeling of déjà vu, it’s probably because you’re being reminded of such alleged but largely spurious past red herrings as Rockwell – DeviceNet, Siemens – Profibus and Emerson – Foundation fieldbus or even, if your memory stretches back far enough, IBM – Token Ring and Xerox/DEC- Ethernet!

    The above articles appeared in the March 2010 issue of Industrial Automation Insider (IAI) and are reproduced by kind permission of the author.

    Some other links which may interest readers of this article! Industrial Wireless – not ready for prime time? – (Bill Lydon, Editor InTech, reports on the Industrial Wireless Standards Session)

    Control Engineering: Wireless interoperability? What is that? (Control Engineering process industries editor, Peter Welander)

    ARC World Industry Forum: Where Industry Leaders Meet to Solve Their Most Challenging Issues (8/11 Feb 2010)
    End Users Plead for a Single Wireless Standard at ARC Orlando Forum ARC clients may view this report by Harry Forbes (11 Mar 2010)

    ISA100 Wireless Complience Institute – Industry leaders from major manufacturing and automation control system users and suppliers have formed an organization to establish essential specifications and processes to be used in the testing and certification of wireless products and systems for the ISA100 family of wireless standards.

    See also the box entitled Table 2 Discussion on our item Conquering Complexity (January 2010) which talks about WirelessHart and Emerson and the Wireless Standard!

    Highlights from the ARC 2010 Orlando Forum General Session by Paul Millar and Dick Hill (ARC Advisory Grp 12 Feb) This has a pdf downloadable report. It is available as a html page from

    Managing Automation: Collaboration, Security are focus at ARC Forum (Stephanie Neil)

    Automation World: Gary Mintchell Video Report – 2010 ARC Forum (you’ll have to log in!)

    Packaging World: Editor Pat Reynolds talks about controls, automation, sustainability, and cyber security with South African Breweries controls engineer Garth Basson. (you’ll have to log in!).
    Operational excellence a strong draw to ARC Forum (Pat Reynolds Editor in Chief)