Open process automation systems advance

summary

The Open Process Automation (OPA) initiative has been a major topic of discussion in the industrial automation community since it began with the announcement of Exxonmobil at the ARC Forum in 2016. Shockwave has been felt throughout the industry, and has recently been echoed in an Exxonmobil presentation at the ARC Forum earlier this year.


During the presentation, the ExxonMobil Lighthouse Project was described in detail and demonstrated the viability of the OPA when used as a design foundation for automating a plastic factory near Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Yokogawa is the System Integrator (SI) of the project and has implemented an open automation SI kit with third-party hardware, third-party control software, and other non-Yokogawa software applications to prove the OPA concept defined by the Open Process Automation Standard (O-PA). The factory has been in operation since November 2024 without any major issues, and the presenter joked that it was comfortable enough to leave town for several days without unfair concerns about the ongoing operation of the automated system.


But what does this mean for the future of industrial automation systems? Will it proceed as well as servers in large automation systems that have moved from their own minicomputers to off-the-shelf hardware over the past few decades? Or will a real-time control system not capable of switching from one vendor’s controller to another, and will it remain one of the last fortresses of a more closed, unique system for a foreseeable future?


To answer these questions, let’s look at why OPA can be a turning point in the development of open systems.

Why Oppa?

Exxon proves the viability of an entire automation system based on OPA standards, including real-time control engines. All automation system vendors claim that the system is open, but this does not apply to these systems, the controller center. Now and for the first time, end users can actually choose the best best controllers and other components from a variety of vendors, and can guarantee they will work together in the present and future.


The most notable aspect of this interoperability is the pressure on prices, with cost savings estimated to be “at least 20% less than life expectancy compared to traditional industrial control systems,” according to a recent Automation.com article based on the release of the ExxonMobil newsroom. Hardware cost savings in particular can exceed this amount due to intense competition between vendors. End users can choose from multiple device sources, such as the ability to replace hardware with components from another vendor. Pricing for replacement parts is a competitive situation, with end users having the option of choosing between multiple bidders.

End-user efforts need to be expanded

A balance between these cost savings is that end users need to perform system integration at a higher level than when purchasing automated systems from a single vendor. The Open Process Automation Standard (O-PAS) is supposed to ensure that all components work together in a plug-and-play manner, but there should be bumps on the road on the way to achieve this goal.


Early involvement in the market is important, just like the Exxon project, as large end users can take more risk than fewer users and absorb development costs and market fluctuations. The OPAF business model underscores the need for SIS and service providers (SPS). SIS is required to procure, build and test components and applications before deployment. Once installed, the SP can be taken over. The SI and SP may differ, and you can change the SP if necessary. This ensures that SPS costs remain competitive with each other by avoiding end users’ permanent reliance on a single company.


Initially, costs may be higher than what is desired for software, hardware, and services. As these open systems experience grows within large enterprises, system integration costs should decrease, but software and hardware savings should remain stable or increase as more vendors offer compliant and competitive products.


Do these new open systems make sense for small end users? All circumstances are different, but in general, smaller end users also benefit from exploring open technology by reducing hardware costs. Small end users with very limited automation skillsets usually already use SIS and SPS, so this model isn’t new to them, but there’s some technology.

Choose your partner carefully

In either case, selecting the right partner is extremely important in closed or open automation systems. This has always been true with a more closed, unique system that most end users have experience and some confidence.


However, with open systems, SI partners are undoubtedly even more important as they need to ensure that the entire automated system with many different vendor components will work together both initially and in the future. Since end users have no experience in this field, it is even more difficult to choose the right partner even in an open system. The solution for some people is seeing SIS that have done this type of work in the past and showing success.


Given these circumstances, it appears that open systems will coexist with more traditional automated systems over the next few years, and open systems will slowly gain market share. Whatever the outcome, praise for ExxonMobil, Yokohama, and all other OPAs could prove to be a boon for end users around the world.


OPA’s efforts are coordinated by open groups on its website, called “a global consortium that enables business goals to be achieved through technical standards and open source initiatives by promoting collaboration, inclusivity and mutual respect among diverse groups of over 900 membership.”