In the 1990s, the IT and OT (operational technology) worlds were still somewhat similar: Microsoft dominated the world of operating systems. Providers of proprietary systems grew and earned a lot of money. These companies drove innovation. What was feasible was what could be bought. A vendor lock-in by the user was welcome. Most users accepted this.

This changed towards the end of the 90s. The first initiatives no longer wanted to accept this situation. Groups of like-minded people came together. During this time, early versions of Linux were created; web servers such as the Apache web server or projects such as the Samba project, which aimed to integrate Linux servers into Windows networks. Those responsible called this form of collaboration: Open Source (OS). At the time, OS was primarily based on the C and C++ languages. Over time, Java displaced these languages from the top positions. At this point, IT and OT parted ways.

The open source peculiarities

The open source philosophy found more and more followers. The problem: only a few were willing to familiarize themselves with complex projects with C and C++. Java removed the complexity. OS pioneers developed the first open source build systems, which were intended to eliminate the problems of C and C++ based systems and enable everyone to become part of an OS community.

While commercial software developers had no interest in questioning a working solution, many different solutions to the same problem emerged in the OS environment. Not all solutions were accepted. One solution could also be replaced by a better one within a very short time. What may seem like a waste to an outsider is, however, one of the greatest strengths of OS: many people try things out, the good ideas prevail, the bad ones go under. The solutions that survive adopt good parts of other solutions and become stronger as a result. Detached from commercial interests, developers tried things out. The motivation: often curiosity or simply because no one else had done it before. This way of thinking has triggered a huge surge in innovation. The problem was that the industrial world was unable or unwilling to embrace this dynamic. In a market where planning takes place in cycles of years, the OS world with its short innovation cycles was unmanageable.

Evolution in the IT world

The first cloud offerings emerged between 2000 and 2010. Amazon and Google did not want to give away unused computing power. The technology gave birth to new concepts: Big Data, microservices and containers were direct results of this development.

But it wasn't just new business models that emerged. The way in which software was developed also changed fundamentally during this time, as did the methodology of how software projects were organized. While development in the 90s and 2000s was still predominantly carried out using classic techniques such as the waterfall model or RUP, there was an increasing switch to agile methodologies in order to keep up with the growing dynamics and speed of development.

At this speed, it was no longer possible for many companies to keep the know-how for all technologies in-house, which is why an ever-growing market emerged in the IT field in which consultants offer their services as traveling know-how carriers in several companies. This development led to a situation where a company wishing to introduce a new technology would turn to a consultant. This brought the know-how in-house. In contrast to proprietary products, the transfer of know-how, if the customer so wishes, is usually included.

And a business model is also developing in the OS communities. Some OS projects have become so successful that commercial companies have formed around them, which then offer specific services: Consulting, training, support. Often there are also commercial extensions to these open source products, which are particularly tailored to the needs of large companies. Even the operation of the software is sometimes outsourced: SAAS (Software As A Service) is now on everyone's lips.

Many changes in the IT world, but little has changed in OT. Some users updated their operating systems, but there were hardly any real innovations as in the IT world. As a result, only a few experts in OT were intensively involved with developments in IT - a mistake that is now paying off.

The Industry 4.0 wave

Since 2012, concepts such as Industry 4.0 and Smart Factory have aroused the desires of the OT world. This was also driven by traditional automation providers, who kept riding the Industry 4.0 wave with gigantic budgets - including in marketing. Hardly any of the major providers today can do without their own 4.0 platform in their offering.

On closer inspection, however, the expert quickly realizes that there have long been mature open source solutions for most of the problems covered by the term "Industry 4.0". What's more, many of the automation specialists' commercial solutions are largely based on open source solutions "under the hood".

There was no universal solution for data exchange with industrial hardware alone. The industry developed a "new" protocol, OPC-UA, to address this problem. In addition to OPC-UA, MQTT has also become increasingly established in recent years. However, both require existing systems to be retrofitted.

As there was no satisfactory communication solution in the open source sector, the Apache PLC4X project was created in 2017. The aim of the project: to simplify communication with industrial hardware by enabling communication with new and existing systems using their native protocols. It is now possible to implement a completely OS-based solution for almost all Industry 4.0 use cases without having to rely on a retrofit(see box).

The industry's IT skills problem

If it has not already done so, the industry should recognize that Industry 4.0 is more of an IT issue than an OT issue. For the most part, automation companies have recognized this since 2017 and have started to bring the relevant expertise into the company - by acquiring appropriate companies or by recruiting the relevant experts.

Unfortunately, it is currently almost impossible for IT specialists to gain a foothold in the world of OT. Firstly, due to their rigid structures and procedures, traditional corporations are only marginally interesting employers for OS freethinkers. In addition, many specialists specialize in certain technologies, and a single company often does not offer enough freedom of development to keep them happy in the long term.

This is why many IT specialists in the OS environment work as consultants. Purchasing in larger companies is usually geared towards working with preferred vendors. Unfortunately, the companies where these consultants work are often not listed as such. Anything that goes beyond a small proof of concept is therefore often not possible without further ado.

In contrast to the classic IT world, there is still no infrastructure in the OT world that enables freelancers to work via intermediaries. This is where companies must first establish themselves and be listed as preferred vendors. However, it will probably be a few years before this happens.

When recruiting specialists, disproportionately low salaries are often offered - higher salaries would not fit into the salary structure, is a common argument. The problem, however, is that the rest of the world is quite used to and willing to pay these salaries. So why should a qualified specialist voluntarily give up a higher salary just so that it fits into the salary structure? Furthermore, in the rest of the world, additional things such as remote working, flexible working time models, the promotion of professional exchange and freedom of choice are often standard. These points are still quite unknown in the OT world and are often not offered. The consequence remains: Potential employees simply do not apply.

Some companies are trying to get around these problems by spinning off digitalization hubs. Detached from the rigid corporate group, these are intended to offer an environment in which the IT specialists they are looking for feel comfortable and can realize their potential. Unfortunately, however, they are usually still tied into the rigid structures of their parent companies and this freedom is significantly reduced as a result.

OS and the value system of the industry

In addition, historically evolved value systems and structures exist in the OT world, which unintentionally work almost automatically against the use of OS. For example, the prestige of managers is often measured in terms of their budget rather than their profitability. The use of open source would inevitably lead to a reduction in costs. This would result in a lower budget, which in turn would reduce prestige. The price structures in the automation environment are also usually very opaque. Many prices are negotiated and agreed individually. Many purchasers are afraid of losing certain privileges or conditions if the company starts using other products. Probably the biggest problem, however, is that everything in the industry is generally considered a trade secret. There is an almost paranoid fear of leaking even the slightest bit of information about how the company works.

The author: Christofer Dutz is Senior Software Engineer at Mapped

© C-goods

The traditional approach of German industry is therefore being put to the test: in order to keep up with the competition in the long term, especially from abroad, consistent digitalization is essential. This cannot be bought and installed like a product; the company has to get involved and adapt at all levels. The modern IT world, and the open source world in particular, has mature solutions for most of the industry's current problems, as well as the specialists to implement them or help with them. However, the industry must realize that different rules apply in the IT world and that it will not adapt to all of the industry's wishes. Full capacity utilization also existed in the IT world before the Industry 4.0 wave, and it will continue to exist. German industry needs to get out of its comfort zone as quickly as possible or it will sooner or later turn into a cage.