Interview: Twain Drewett, Rockwell Automation

Recently I was given the opportunity to interview Twain Drewett, Managing Director, Australia and New Zealand for Rockwell Automation. I asked him some questions about how he sees the automation sector has been faring of late, and about Rockwell Automation’s views in relation to integrated safety and wireless networks.

The market Glenn Johnson: With the GFC, and with some very high-profile closures like that of Pacific Brands, some people are predicting the demise of the manufacturing sector in Australia. In Rockwell Automation’s experience, has the GFC had a significant influence on business, particularly in manufacturing? Twain Drewett: The South Pacific market is my area of responsibility, and from a business perspective we have done well during the downturn. I guess that one thing that we’ve noticed is that some of the projects we have been working on, specifically in the commodity space, have been delayed to some extent, or put on ice. But where we’ve been fortunate is that in the past we have concentrated on industry sectors that are benefiting from the investment and stimulus spending that is coming through, so we have held firm in the food and beverage space, in infrastructure and power and energy. These established customer relationships have enabled us to ride the wave.

Twain Drewett

GJ: So would you say that the government response to the GFC has helped?

TD: Well, automation obviously comes in at the back-end, so many of our projects this year have derived from spending commitments prior to the GFC — that is, the civil works get done, the mechanicals get done, and then the electrical and automation goes in at the end.

But I think more than anything else, what the government has done is given a sentiment boost. Because the government says it is going to spend in certain areas, people are releasing projects and the projects are going ahead. I think actually seeing these projects turn into purchasing could take a little longer, but the added government focus on infrastructure has allowed these projects to be ‘taken off ice’.

GJ: And do you think people are spending more on automation to cut costs in the long run as well?

TD: I think our customers are reacting to the global financial crisis and they are doing it in several ways. Firstly, they are striving to drive waste out of their businesses in order to match their cost structures to their lower revenue assumptions, and at the same time improve their bottom line. One way of achieving this goal is to use automation. But they can also use automation to help them compete outside of Australia. With the recent weakening of the Australian dollar down to 70c US, we’ve found that Australia can have a pretty robust automation OEM market, just because we can be relatively competitive. We certainly would not be the lowest price on the table, but because of our culture and the high regard for our engineering capabilities, we usually get the work. But when the dollar gets closer to 90c, the work can easily disappear.

The way the dollar has been lately — tied with the way our customers are trying to improve efficiency in order to get their productivity up and try to remove costs from their business to improve their bottom line — has definitely helped us in the market.

GJ: So, it’s not all doom and gloom then?

TD: Definitely not! We are working with our customers every day to ensure their success.

Integrated safety

GJ: I have recently come across some debate about the wisdom of integrating safety functions and control functions in the same system. I gather that Rockwell Automation is supportive of the integrated approach, while some people are of the opinion that the redundancy provided by disparate systems is lower risk. Do you have any comment on this?

TD: Well I would have to say that the most important thing is we can do it either way — so it’s a case of horses for courses, and it’s generally customer-driven. We can still provide a safety system as a separate bolt-on, similar to the industry standard. This is where you have a control system and a separate safety system that will crash stop the plant in the event of an emergency.

Our view is that if your consultant completes a risk analysis and maintains the safety system should be separate, and you’re happy with that, then we can do it that way.

But an integrated safety system, on the other hand, can help with productivity in a safety context. If you have an integrated safety system, then in the event of an emergency situation we can shut down the plant in a managed way, and start it up again in a managed way. This is so that your production losses are smaller and more manageable, and you have a more managed shutdown process.

So an integrated safety system provides a benefit from a productivity perspective, but in addition you don’t have to train your guys on a separate control system and safety system with different software — the hardware and software system is the same. And because there is only one type of hardware, there is only one set of spares.

So as I said, the question of integrated versus dedicated safety systems is really a horses-for-courses approach, where we can offer both approaches. Both are fully certified safety systems. Having said that, in most recent applications we have been putting in integrated safety systems, because customers really do see the value. And once again it comes back to the economics — integrating safety helps the customer take costs out of the business, and allows them to get to market quicker.

Of course, there are many customers who want to apply safety separately, with hard-wired safety relays etc, but as soon as we’re onboard as a partner and the economics are off the table then sometimes we can convince them of the merits of an integrated system.

GJ: Does Rockwell Automation have any opinion on when you definitely would not integrate safety?

TD: Part of designing and implementing a safety system is that it is derived from a risk analysis, so we wouldn’t do anything different from what is recommended. But in many instances what we have found is that safety consultants do really see the value of integration.

Basically, a safety system is either SIL certified or it is not. And both of our architectures are. Therefore, the consultant has the peace of mind that the integrated safety system he has recommended is SIL 3, certified by an independent body, so he has absolutely no risk. The customer benefits from one set of spares, one set of training, and one set of software and hardware, totally integrated.

But it doesn’t stop there, because we can add imbedded information solutions, process controls and motion systems all on the same platform.

Wireless

GJ: I understand Rockwell Automation’s integrated architecture makes use of ethernet networking technology for the higher level network integration, partnering with Cisco. There’s also been a lot of buzz in the industry for some time about wireless networks in industrial environments. Is there any reason that RA doesn’t appear to be obviously getting involved in wireless?

TD: Well first of all, as part of our strategy with Cisco, we are really trying to push the convergence between automation and IT.

There are several reasons for it, but the output of the Cisco relationship is a range of co-branded switches, that have all the smarts built in to them and all the hooks to make them really plug and play. And they are technology that the IT people are comfortable with because they are Cisco — and of course the automation people are comfortable with Allen-Bradley.

From a wireless perspective, it’s really just a case of ‘watch this space’. We are already comfortable with wireless as a media, and we have been using it for years as a media, just as an ethernet radio medium. But I assume you are referring to an Allen-Bradley badged device?

GJ: Well there are companies providing, for example, wireless instruments, and they are not often standard wireless ethernet devices, but may use some sort of resilient mesh network technology.

TD: Yes, well this is something we may look at in the future with our chosen partners such as Cisco and Endress+Hauser, but the key thing we need to keep in mind is that we want to keep to our principles of being multi-discipline and using ‘open’ technologies. We see openness as a key differentiator in our product range, and we want to maintain that. And using technologies from companies like Cisco, we are using a good proven architecture, which lowers the risk for our customers and us.

The credibility that Cisco has in the IT industry is really helping with the acceptance and convergence of IT technologies with automation technologies.