THE LAST WORD

INSISTING ON OPEN CONTROL End users – be demanding

John Pogson of Yaskawa Electric Europe GmbH explains why end users should be concerned about ‘open’ automation as underpinned by standard interfaces

n July 2003 the ARC Advisory Group achieved in the computer world,relies on I(www.arcweb.com),reporting on the components and equipment from uptake of ,stated:“For many users different manufacturers acting together fieldbus compatibility is becoming a key via a mutual interface. It also requires that criterion for control system selection.” components from different suppliers are Another ARC paper reports that there is a able to take on the tasks of other “plethora of communications alternatives components in turn. at the device and sensor levels”. The In Yaskawa’s view,for manufacturers warning is that piling one of complex or critical components,it communications protocol on top of should be obligatory to ensure another is causing what ARC described interoperability with different and as a “Tower of Babel”that will come standardised interface definitions. crashing down.The report goes on to Manufacturers of automation equipment suggest that as Ethernet and other should be compelled to support a range fieldbus options open up the scope for of interfaces.This is why as standard all true interoperability,there will be “pain Yaskawa Mechatronic drive equipment and suffering caused for those who resist supports seven discrete interfaces – by attempting to maintain closed ,MechatroLink,CANopen, “Interoperability proprietary communications protocols”. DeviceNet,SERCOS,SynqNet (Ethernet) There is little to argue about in ARC’s and Firewire. must be driven by findings and most large automation Even at machine control level, vendors would support the arguments incompatibility remains rife. In a recent end users voting publicly.In reality,however,there is a long example encountered by Yaskawa,there way to go. Demands of end users for was a servo system from one with their greater speed,capabilities and ease of manufacturer under supervisory control use have come hand in glove with an of another maker’s PLC.The end user specifications. Only equally stringent stipulation that costs wished to replace the servo system with a must be reduced in hardware,software superior specification,which in this case then will vendors and maintenance.Against this backdrop, happened to be a Yaskawa system. Only automation equipment makers have by Yaskawa producing a special motion comply.” suffered declining margins and increased control interface (here running on research and development costs. Profibus),was the end user able to John Pogson It is little wonder then that delivery of upgrade.Without Yaskawa’s intervention, new ‘open’technology and a willingness this user was ‘locked out’from making the Yaskawa Electric Europe to jeopardise the business from an retrofit and achieving a benefit. otherwise ‘captive’end user has been If this end user had been aware of slow to reach fruition. Fears over loss of future lock out,it may have been more product differentiation are a further insistent on open control architecture at inhibitor to opening up automation the machine’s point of sale. systems to all who could contribute. Interoperability must be driven by end The quest for a similar level of users voting with their specifications. interoperability in automation to that Only then will vendors comply. M

MACHINERY 16 April 2004 ● www.machinery.co.uk 32