No more ten or 15 fieldbuses - just one standardized communication solution for deterministic cyclical and acyclical data traffic from the field level all the way up to the cloud. This is the dream being pursued by the Shapers - a conglomerate of companies initiated by Kuka in March 2015 that want to establish TSN plus OPC UA as "the" communication standard in the industrial world.

But how to manage all the tasks required to establish and enforce a global standard? Ideally, all of this work should be carried out under the umbrella of the OPC Foundation - as proposed by the majority of shaper companies. There is indeed a working group within the Foundation that is dedicated to these tasks of an industrial TSN plus OPC UA standard. However, the shapers have so far been biting their teeth out at the OPC Foundation - after all, the Foundation "only" "allows" the idea of real-time controller-to-controller communication. The additional consideration of real-time capable controller-to-field communication, i.e. mainly to drives and generic I/Os including the associated functional safety, has so far been taboo in the Foundation, according to the Shapers. This is the same stance that Siemens and Profinet International have taken on the subject - a prankster who thinks evil of it. Neutrality must be maintained as far as connection standards are concerned; the use of OPC UA plus TNS for cyclical traffic can only be justified down to the controller/controller level. - These are all arguments put forward by the top management of the OPC Foundation for their negative stance.

Is it perhaps the personal sensitivities of the OPC leadership? Is it the vested interests of some companies on whose payroll the executives on the OPC Foundation Board sit? Such arguments for the Foundation's rejection of the Shaper dream are quickly put forward.

The OPC Foundation - plaything of the giants?

© Computers&AUTOMATION

However, during our discussions with both Siemens and Rockwell managers, it was clear that, whether in Cleveland or in Nuremberg-Moorenbrunn, they do not see themselves merely as founding members of the OPC Foundation! Of course, both companies only have one vote each on the OPC Foundation's governing body - just like the other companies. But the market power of Siemens alone makes it clear that it is very difficult to establish a widely accepted standard against the company. And just like Siemens, Rockwell Automation also knows how to put forward convincing arguments of its power. - An OPC Foundation can therefore hardly operate without the blessing of these two automation giants.

It is therefore no coincidence that Rockwell's announcement at the Hannover Messe caused a stir: the company will join the shapers, according to a press release. So is Rockwell Automation making a strong case for the "one" communication standard TSN plus OPC UA? Will the shapers and their wishes now slip under the umbrella of the ODVA because the OPC Foundation is steadfastly refusing to address the controller/field issue as well? Or will Rockwell work to anchor the necessary activities under the umbrella of the OPC Foundation? The answers that Paul Brooks, the responsible Business Development Manager, gave us at the trade fair do not necessarily clarify the situation: Yes, you have to help the OPC Foundation to be successful! And yes, they are convinced of OPC UA and TSN - but not as the exclusive solution.

Of course, both Rockwell and Siemens need to protect their and their customers' investments in Ethernet/IP and Profinet for as long as possible. However, it would be possible to do one without the other. The market and the customers are mature enough to deal with these changes - as long as you communicate openly and honestly with them. Actions such as keeping controllers/fields quiet are not part of this!

So have the shapers really brought Rockwell Automation on board as a partner that supports the project of a single uniform OPC UA TSN standard? Or will we also get a TSN plus Ethernet/IP variant in addition to the 15 fieldbuses - with TSN plus OPC UA according to the Shapers? Profinet, Sercos and EtherCAT via TSN already exist.

Wouldn't it finally be time for the top brass of the market-dominating systems to sit down together and finally put an end to this nonsense? When will the die-hard fieldbus warriors finally understand that - as in the consumer world - business is much better for all players if you can build on a uniform infrastructure standard in line with market requirements. Competition is a must, but in the products, not in the communications infrastructure. At some point, every poker session has to come to an end!