Why does Industry 3.0 cost more than Industry 4.0?

Hi all! It's been a bit colder than expected here in Pittsburgh, PA in the US...I'm not complaining, mind you when I think about the humid 90-degree F days we've had over the summer. Fall and, sadly, the end of our baseball season is upon us...we have a sad 10-year-old boy here on that point. Get out the sweaters!?

Costs of IIoT Ecosystems for Digital Transformations

Let's change directions and talk about money...or better yet, costs of IIoT ecosystems for Digital Transformations, for connecting your plants and getting real-time visibility for better decision making.

We do a lot of work for manufacturers, from small to Fortune 500. We're an Industry 4.0 systems integrator, so we're connecting to machines, people, and multiple data systems. The focus is to help manufacturers get value out of ALL of the data where it's connected into one single version of the truth.?

On some projects, we run into companies that have internal or external influences towards using technologies and architectures we think of as very Industry 3.0 focused.

Industry 3.0 was about automating manufacturing processes. There were older architectures and technologies used at the time. The problem is manufacturers are still using these concepts and Industry 3.0-focused integrators are still selling these solutions to the manufacturing decision-makers.

(Note: We have been very pleasantly surprised by a couple of Industry 3.0 integrators that have had open minds to the newer ideas, architectures, and technologies.)

But what those decision-makers don't know is that?Industry 3.0 solutions can cost 1.5X to 5X as much as an Industry 4.0 solution.?

"Wow!", you say. "Is that really true? How can that be?", you ask. Well, let me tell you. I'll have to keep it brief for this communication medium.?

It comes down to 3 causes:?

1. Old security model;?
2. More engineering is required;?
3. Proprietary (i.e., expensive) software.?

Here's the quick breakdown:?

1. Old security model?- The old security models, like the Purdue model, were protecting the plant and assets in the OT network from issues based on a certain assumption. That assumption is that they must use data communication protocol that relies on the poll-response concept, such as OPC-UA. This concept requires an edge gateway to reach into the secured OT network, through firewalls to ask for an asset’s status or data updates and get a response to pull back the data. That's not the only way to do things nowadays. It's possible to use other tech that only pushes or "publishes" data out from the asset on the edge, across the OT barrier, and over to the IT network. That "publish" is one-way communication. No holes in firewalls are required to get communication to come into the network. Therefore, far less security software, devices, and engineering are required.?
2. More engineering required?- With technologies like OPC-UA engineers need to do extra work that isn't necessary with Industry 4.0 technologies. To set up a new device with OPC-UA you need to set up the device at the edge and then anywhere else you want to retrieve data about the device you need to set up the device again, and again, and again. What if we were to use something like MQTT Sparkplug B with this Publish-Subscribe architecture, with the data published as edge-driven. The asset will need to be set up at the edge to connect to the edge gateway. Then that device’s data is published throughout the rest of the IIoT ecosystem. Software products consuming that asset's information and data will automatically see the new asset and consume its data. The asset doesn't need to be set up multiple times across the whole IIoT ecosystem. Also, think about when the configuration of the asset using OPC-UA needs to be changed after it was originally set up...more changes in multiple places. That's A LOT of extra engineering work, especially across a large enterprise with many assets.?
3. Proprietary software?- One of the principles we work by is to use Open Technology (or Open Architecture). Open Technology means the data within the IIoT system to connect everything in the plant and company is accessible to all other systems (consumers) using an industry-standard messaging format (e.g., JSON or similar). For us, this means using products like Canary Labs for an industry-proven historian rather than Aveya Pi. Pi isn't an open technology product; it's difficult and expensive from which to get data. Companies often make their systems closed so they can drive more sales directly to themselves. What about doing right by your customer and not yourself and your shareholders!? (Note: Pi historian isn't the only culprit...many other systems out there also share this sad attribute, like Rockwell Automation and others.)?

If you stepped back and looked at the additional costs above, it's easy to see how old security models, protocols driving extra engineering work, and proprietary systems can make the older Industry 3.0 approach 1.5X-5X more expensive than Industry 4.0 solutions.?

I welcome your comments, however contentious they may be. This can turn into an emotional and personal conversation which we'll avoid. Let's simply talk and keep it to the facts. Hopefully, you'll be able to see what we see. We'll also both agree to keep open minds.?

With that, I bid you all a great October, keeping an open mind to this changing weather! :-)?