Breaking Free from the Tyranny of Low Expectations in the Industrial Controls Industry

First - A note for those whose tendency is to read half of an article and fly right to the comments - make sure you understand what is actually being said.

To ensure that all readers approach the forthcoming article with a clear understanding of its intent and scope, I have prepared a "Table of Triggers." This table is designed to preemptively address potential sensitive points for proponents of specific technologies such as low code, Node-RED, Python, JavaScript, and the KISS principle. By highlighting areas that might be perceived as critical, I aim to clarify the context and limitations of such critiques as a way of thinking.

The table also emphasizes the inherent value of these technologies, acknowledging their significant contributions to various fields. My goal here is not to undermine these tools or the preferences of those who utilize them but to discuss specific applications and scenarios where they might face limitations. This approach allows us to engage in a balanced discussion about advancing technology in industrial control systems without diminishing the importance and utility of these popular tools.

For those who may find the critical aspects of the discussion challenging, this table will help you decide whether to continue reading the article. It ensures that all readers can engage with the content in a way that respects their perspectives and experiences, promoting a constructive dialogue based on what the article is actually saying.

Now to the good stuff.

The Cost of Low Expectations

Industries reliant on precise and efficient control systems, such as manufacturing, utilities, and transportation, have much at stake when it comes to embracing technological and procedural advancements. However, an overemphasis on current staff capabilities leads to stagnation, affecting competitiveness and the ability to adapt to new technologies.

Misaligned Focus: Usability and Compatibility Over Innovation

A stark example of misaligned priorities is the overemphasis on usability, backward compatibility, and interoperability in control system design, which often overshadows the importance of future-proofing and performance enhancements. While ensuring seamless integration with existing setups and platforms is crucial, it can result in conservative decisions that avoid adopting transformative technologies.

The Space Shuttle’s Limitations: A Lesson for Industrial Control Systems

The story of the Space Shuttle program serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of prioritizing immediate, achievable goals over more ambitious, future-oriented projects. When NASA developed the Space Shuttle during the 1970s, it was primarily designed as a low Earth orbit (LEO) vehicle, intended for tasks such as satellite deployment, space station servicing, and scientific experiments. In short, it was designed to "be compatible" with the systems and ideas of the day. While these goals were significant, the shuttle's inability to travel beyond LEO ultimately limited the scope and future potential of the U.S. space program.

The Space Shuttle: A Vision Constrained

The Space Shuttle was an engineering marvel, celebrated for its reusability and versatility in near-Earth missions. However, its design—focused on LEO activities—meant that deeper space exploration missions were off the table. It lacked the capability to venture into deeper space, such as to the Moon or Mars, which required entirely different technologies and strategies.

Since we had already proven that technology was sufficient for us to venture further than low earth orbit, this was more of a reflection of strategic decisions to focus on short-term, practical objectives that seemed more manageable and financially justifiable at the time. The consequence was a space program deeply invested in the Shuttle's success, at the expense of developing technologies for broader space exploration goals.

Parallel Challenges in Industrial Control Systems

Similar to the Space Shuttle program, the industrial controls industry often faces the temptation to prioritize immediate operational needs and existing technological capabilities over potentially groundbreaking innovations. Many systems are designed to operate within the constraints of current technologies and infrastructures, focusing on compatibility with legacy systems and incremental improvements.

Systemic Issues from Incremental Approaches

Limited Scope and Innovation: Just as the Shuttle's design limited NASA's reach in space exploration, industrial control systems that do not consider future capabilities can hinder a company’s ability to adopt new technologies and processes. This can prevent businesses from seizing opportunities that arise from technological advancements, much like how NASA missed the chance to push the boundaries of human spaceflight beyond LEO for decades.

Increased Long-Term Costs: Over time, maintaining and upgrading systems that are inherently limited by design becomes more costly and less efficient. In the space program, immense resources were poured into maintaining the Shuttle fleet, which could have been allocated toward developing new exploration technologies. Similarly, industries that stick too closely to outdated systems may face higher operational costs and the eventual necessity for more drastic and expensive overhauls.

Vulnerability and Obsolescence: The focus on immediate capabilities often leaves systems vulnerable to evolving external threats, such as cybersecurity in industrial controls. In space, the Shuttle’s aging technology became increasingly risky, as highlighted by tragic accidents and operational challenges.

The Misapplication of "Keep It Simple, Stupid" in Industrial Controls

The "Keep It Simple, Stupid" (KISS) principle, a design rule advocating for simplicity in system architectures, has widespread appeal across engineering disciplines. However, when applied inappropriately, especially in complex fields like industrial controls, it can have detrimental effects. The KISS principle's effectiveness largely depends on the context in which it's applied and varies significantly across different groups or generations.

Contextual Simplicity and Its Pitfalls

Subjective Simplicity: What is considered simple can vary greatly depending on the individual's background, training, and generational influences. For example, to a veteran engineer who began their career in the mid-20th century, a control system based entirely on relays might be seen as the simplest and most straightforward solution. This technology, purely mechanical and well-understood by those trained on it, aligns with their perception of simplicity.

Conversely, newer generations of engineers, raised in the digital age and familiar with software solutions from an early age, might find a digitally controlled, AI-based system simpler. These systems, which can automatically adjust parameters and predict maintenance needs based on real-time data, might align more closely with their training and intuitive understanding of control systems.

The Impact of Inappropriately Applied Simplicity

Stifling Innovation: Adhering rigidly to what is perceived as simple according to outdated standards can severely limit technological adoption and innovation. When older generations dictate system designs based solely on their understanding of simplicity, it can prevent the integration of advanced technologies that could enhance efficiency, scalability, and performance.

Reduced Flexibility: Systems designed with an oversimplified approach might lack the necessary flexibility to adapt to new challenges or integrate with emerging technologies. This can render them obsolete more quickly as technological advancements continue at a rapid pace.

Increased Long-Term Costs: Ironically, while simplicity aims to reduce complexity and cost, inappropriate applications of the KISS principle can lead to higher costs down the line. Systems that are not built with future upgrades or expansions in mind will require significant rework or replacement to meet new operational demands or to incorporate next-generation technologies.

A Balanced Approach to Simplicity

Evolving Definitions of Simplicity: Organizations need to recognize that the definition of simplicity evolves with technology and varies among different user groups. Adopting a flexible approach to what constitutes simplicity can help ensure that systems are both accessible to current users and capable of evolving with future needs.

Inclusive Design Processes: By involving a diverse group of stakeholders in the design process, including representatives from various generations, skill levels, and technological backgrounds, companies can develop systems that are genuinely simple for a broader user base. This inclusiveness helps ensure that systems are not only easy to use and maintain but also robust and forward-looking.

Education and Training: To bridge the gap between different perceptions of simplicity, ongoing education and training are essential. By equipping all employees with an understanding of both traditional and emerging technologies, companies can create a more cohesive and adaptable workforce.

The Challenge with "Easy" Programming Languages

The preference for "easy" programming languages like Python and JavaScript is another reflection of this issue. These languages are favored for their simplicity and rapid development capabilities but often fall short in applications where real-time performance and system security are crucial. Python's interpreted nature and JavaScript's inconsistent performance across different execution environments can lead to unpredictable behaviors in real-time systems, undermining the reliability required in industrial controls.

The Limits of Low-Code: Extending the Challenge

Further compounding these challenges are low-code platforms, which abstract the programming process even further. While low-code platforms enable a broader range of users to develop applications quickly, they distance users from the underlying system mechanics. This abstraction can prevent users from understanding and addressing the complexities necessary for high-stakes industrial environments.

Where Should Low-Code Stop?

Low-code solutions are best applied in less critical areas that do not demand high-performance or intensive security measures. They should be avoided in core system areas where precise control, real-time data processing, and robust security protocols are non-negotiable. The limitations of low-code, including issues with performance, customization, and scalability, make it unsuitable for the foundational aspects of industrial control systems.

The Node-RED Problem: A Case Study

Take, for example, the widespread use of Node-RED in production environments. Node-RED’s appeal lies in its usability, with an intuitive interface that simplifies the process of connecting devices and services.

However, this popularity also brings with it a significant risk: the assumption by many that Node-RED is a universal solution suitable for all types of applications, leading to the misconception "I can use this for anything." It is crucial to understand the specific contexts where Node-RED excels and the scenarios where it may not be the best choice.

Performance Limitations

One of the primary limitations of Node-RED is its performance in high-stakes, real-time environments. Built on Node.js, Node-RED inherits the single-threaded nature of its underlying technology. While suitable for handling I/O-bound tasks, it struggles with CPU-intensive operations that are common in industrial settings, where processing speed and real-time data handling are critical. The event-driven, non-blocking model of Node.js can lead to delays in scenarios where millisecond precision is required, potentially compromising the operational integrity of control systems.

Security Concerns

Node-RED's extensive use of npm packages to extend its functionality introduces another layer of complexity—security. The npm ecosystem, while robust and diverse, has been noted for its security vulnerabilities. Each additional package potentially opens up new avenues for security breaches, particularly concerning when Node-RED is employed in critical infrastructure systems. The ease of adding these packages can lead users to underestimate the security implications, especially when proper vetting and updates are not rigorously maintained.

Scalability Issues

Scalability is another critical area where Node-RED might not be the ideal solution. While Node-RED is excellent for prototyping and small-scale applications, scaling these solutions to enterprise-level might introduce challenges. Managing large-scale deployments using Node-RED can become cumbersome, as the tool is not inherently designed for managing complex, large-scale industrial processes. The visual nature of the tool can also clutter as systems grow, making maintenance and troubleshooting more challenging.

Appropriate Use Cases for Node-RED

Understanding where Node-RED should be deployed involves recognizing its strengths and limitations:

• Prototyping and Testing: Node-RED is highly effective for rapid prototyping, allowing developers to build and test new ideas quickly without extensive coding.
• Integration Projects: It is well-suited for projects that require integration between APIs, devices, and online services, particularly in non-critical environments where real-time processing is not a priority.
• Educational Purposes: Node-RED is an excellent tool for educational environments, where learning the basics of programming and system integration is the goal rather than deploying high-performance, secure industrial applications.

Limitations in Industrial Application

Conversely, Node-RED should not be used for:

• Critical Control Systems: Any industrial control system that requires real-time operation, high reliability, and intensive data processing should avoid using Node-RED.
• Large-Scale Deployments: Systems that require scalability and complex functionality might find Node-RED limiting.
• Security-Sensitive Applications: Environments where security is a paramount concern should be wary of implementing Node-RED without rigorous security assessments and enhancements.

The Impact on Innovation

The industrial controls sector has often grappled with the dilemma of either "dumbing down" the complexity of systems to accommodate the existing skill levels of the workforce or elevating those skills to match the sophistication required by modern technologies. Overemphasizing simplification not only limits the scope of what can be achieved with these systems but also potentially undermines the intrinsic value and robustness of the innovations that are essential for mission-critical applications. Instead, the focus should be on enhancing skill development and fostering an appreciation for the nuanced challenges of innovating in critical environments. By prioritizing comprehensive skill development and deeper understanding oversimplification, the industry can ensure that its workforce is not only prepared to handle current technologies but is also capable of driving future innovations. This approach not only retains high-caliber talent but also reinforces the industry’s capacity to advance safely and efficiently within the complex landscape of industrial controls.

This reluctance to push beyond current capabilities stifles innovation and prioritizes immediate integration over long-term strategic benefits. Such an approach sends a discouraging message to the workforce—that maintaining the status quo is sufficient and that their personal and professional growth is not a priority.

Overcoming the Tyranny of low expectations.

Escaping the tyranny of low expectations requires a cultural shift towards continuous learning and improvement. Companies must balance the need for system compatibility with the imperative to adopt cutting-edge technologies that enhance performance and future readiness. Investing in training programs to equip the workforce with the skills necessary to handle more advanced systems is crucial. Furthermore, adopting modular system designs can facilitate incremental upgrades without disrupting existing operations.

Transforming Organizations into Learning Entities To resolve these deep-rooted issues, transforming the entire organization into a training-oriented entity could be key. By fostering a culture of continuous learning and adapting, organizations can elevate their workforce's capabilities to match and exceed current technological demands. This shift can mitigate the risks associated with outdated systems and practices, aligning development with future-focused strategies.

Educating for the Future Implementing comprehensive educational and training programs that cover both foundational principles and cutting-edge technologies will equip employees to handle more sophisticated systems and think beyond the limitations of existing solutions. This proactive approach in education ensures that the workforce is not only prepared to use current technologies but is also ready to innovate and implement the technologies of tomorrow.

How We Could Get There: Centers of Excellence

As we navigate the complex challenges highlighted throughout this article, it becomes evident that a collaborative approach could provide viable solutions to overcoming the "tyranny of low expectations" in industrial control systems. One particularly promising strategy is the creation of a Center of Excellence (CoE), which would serve as a collaborative hub for organizations within the same sector, geographic area, or supply chain.

A successful CoE should be aligned primarily with the needs of end users and operators in manufacturing and other industrial sectors, ensuring a focused and practical approach to innovation.

Benefits of a Center of Excellence

1. Resource Optimization: By collaborating through a CoE, organizations can pool resources, sharing access to expensive technologies and specialized expertise that might otherwise be out of reach. This pooling of resources ensures that even smaller firms can access cutting-edge tools and knowledge, democratizing innovation across the sector and reducing the individual burden on any single company.
2. Attraction of Talented Staff: A CoE can serve as a beacon for talent, attracting individuals who are eager to work at the forefront of technology in industrial systems. The center's reputation for leadership and innovation becomes a magnet for skilled professionals looking for dynamic and impactful careers. Talented staff are often drawn to environments where they can challenge themselves and grow, and a CoE provides just such an environment.
3. Cross-Training and Skill Development: Perhaps one of the most significant advantages of a CoE is the opportunity it presents for cross-training. Employees from various organizations can receive training on new technologies and systems, broadening their skill sets. This not only enhances their personal capabilities but also ensures that their home organizations benefit from updated and diverse skills. Furthermore, the collaborative nature of a CoE fosters an environment where knowledge sharing is the norm, enhancing the collective capability of the industry.
4. Alignment with End-User Needs: By focusing on the needs of end users and operators, a CoE ensures that developments are immediately applicable and beneficial within the industry. This alignment helps to bridge the gap between technological possibilities and practical usability, ensuring that innovations are both advanced and relevant to the needs of those on the ground.

Standards are not going to get us there: Bridging the Gap between Standards and Practical Application

Standards bodies are adept at achieving alignment on what needs to be done and how it should be approached theoretically. This approach ensures consistency and interoperability, which are crucial in complex industries like industrial controls. However, this often leads to a disconnect where end users are left without the means to apply these standards practically in their specific contexts. The standards are developed, but the tools, software, or systems that embody these standards in a user-friendly, accessible manner may lag significantly behind.

This gap between standard creation and practical implementation can perpetuate the very issues these standards aim to solve. End users need not only guidelines but also tangible solutions that they can deploy within their operations.

The tyranny of low expectations is more than a mere barrier to individual company growth; it is a threat to an organizations overall advancement and relevance. By shifting focus from merely satisfying current capabilities to what is necessary for future success, companies can reignite their innovative spirit and ensure they remain competitive. This change not only benefits the organizations but also empowers employees by offering them opportunities to grow and adapt in a rapidly evolving landscape. Breaking free from this tyranny means embracing a forward-thinking approach that prioritizes technological advancement, security, and the long-term operational efficiency over mere immediate ease of use.