The importance of standardisation

Can you imagine a world where telephone systems only worked within a city but not outside it? Or where emails could only be sent within a company’s intranet but not externally? Can you imagine the resultant inefficiency and lack of productivity? Had it not been for the implementation of standards, these sorts of incompatibilities would be the norm for most technologies.

During the development phases of a new technology, standards rarely exist, so products can’t comply with them. Standards only become viable when multiple vendors are active for some time, and it becomes clear that certain methods or features are universally accepted as desirable. However, standards are only as good as the closeness with which vendors adhere to them.

Industrial communication protocols are a classic example. Users have been demanding intercommunication between devices sourced from different vendors for many years. It’s only when the underlying technology has matured that open protocols can be considered and that vendors can utilise them for their products. We’ve seen this repeatedly with protocols like DeviceNet, EtherNet/IP, EtherCAT and many more.

Other examples abound in the process and automation industries. ANSI/ISA-S88 is now seen as ‘the approach’ to batching systems. The IEC61131 suite has become the yardstick for programmable controllers, with 61131-3 establishing programming methodology. Similarly, PLCOpen’s safety and motion control offerings will almost certainly become the programming standards for industry. In these cases, not only have the particular standards become entrenched, they’re often seen as the sole approach. Alternatives, if they exist at all, are discarded.

Standards provide a commonality of performance and a consistency of expectations. Once established, they allow end users to make real and valid comparisons between vendors’ products. The sensitive issue of electronic safety systems is a prime example. It’s been handled very effectively by robust safety standards, such as EN ISO 13849-1 for Performance Level requirements (PLr) and IEC 61508 for Safety Integrity Levels (SILs). These standards have been universally accepted by vendors, giving users great confidence to benchmark products and even interchange them.

More recently, OMAC (Organisation for Machine Automation and Control) established two working groups, for the packaging industry and machine tools. PackML (Packaging Machine Language) lays the ground rules for devices from different vendors to communicate with each other. It does not define a control language, only a method of passing status information between devices.

There have traditionally been two arguments against standards. Firstly, there are too many of them, nullifying the whole point of having standards! This is still somewhat true in areas like the plethora of industrial ethernet protocols. However, various vendor-neutral organisations, like the ODVA and EtherCAT Technology Group, promote technologies to users, educating them and finally allowing them to make better choices.

Standards also tend to freeze technology. The time lag for a standard to be developed, subjected to review and compromise, promulgated and actually used could mean better methods are available. One solution is for vendors to comply with the standard as a minimum, but then add incremental features that exceed it. Standards are often regularly updated to account for product improvements.

Harry Mulder has been involved in the industrial control industry for around 25 years, with the last 22 years at Omron Electronics. With a degree in computer science, his experience includes sales, engineering and product management. He currently manages an engineering team across four states but still likes to get involved with day-to-day problem solving.