Industry 4.0 marks a paradigm shift; the classic automation pyramid has had its day. Instead, networks of autonomously operating cyber-physical systems are emerging - intelligent, interconnected systems, components, modules and machines that control themselves. In addition, business and production-related IT processes are merging.

As part of this transformation, companies are faced with the task of seamlessly coordinating their processes and devices. A highly efficient process, data and monitoring cycle can only be created if the machines, modules and components of the various manufacturers are in harmony with each other.

The platform dilemma

Plant and component manufacturers in particular are currently developing their own Industry 4.0 platforms. For operators, this means that they receive their own IT platform from each provider. However, these are not compatible with each other, which prevents comprehensive monitoring of all systems and a standardized operating and maintenance process. An example: A manufacturer offers 'predictive maintenance' for one of its machines. However, the structures for this machine are mapped both in the manufacturer's service system and in the operator's maintenance system - and differently in each case. In addition, both deviate from the actual physical form of the system. This is fatal. After all, in order to exploit the added value of predictive maintenance, it must be possible to clearly identify patterns. In the event of a fault, it must also be clear which component is affected and how it can be replaced. This requires establishing correlations - between the time series and structural data, between the pattern and the spare part. Identical data is therefore required in the operator's maintenance system and in the manufacturer's service system.

Top premise: Standardize

All participants in the value chain require the same data in their various production-related IT systems - the plant operator for its maintenance, the manufacturer for its service, the supplier for its components and the service provider for installations, maintenance and repairs. The biggest challenges arise in maintenance and at the automation level.

Problem area maintenance: Manufacturers still usually maintain their systems manually, and they are often not linked to each other. For example, if a service technician wants to replace a component and does not have the right spare part with him, he often replaces it with another component with the corresponding function. The change is not recorded in the system; the system and its digital image are no longer identical. This lack of transparency makes end-to-end Industry 4.0 processes more difficult.

Problem area automation: Device manufacturers are obliged to support a wide range of communication standards - depending on the regional location or industry, different serial fieldbuses and Ethernet-based real-time systems prevail. Certification is carried out by fieldbus organizations. This can pose problems, for example if evaluations are based on subjective judgments or criteria that are not clearly defined. In fact, the spectrum ranges from certification regulations that are rather remote from practice to plug tests that are used to check interoperability in production-related operations. The influence of the relevant control system manufacturers through their technical characteristics and competitive positioning also has a strong impact on the communication systems.

In addition, different standards have to be taken into account when designing components and therefore also different performance data and functionalities. Depending on the standard, the display of device diagnostics varies enormously. This delays maintenance and therefore has a direct impact on the overall effectiveness of the system.

Ethernet communication is a matter of course when commissioning new systems. However, existing fieldbuses must be taken into account in the company-wide rollout of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Industry 4.0 concepts. And for the foreseeable future, the majority of these will still be based on serial communication. The costs of configuring, servicing and maintaining field devices such as sensors or actuators are largely determined by the engineering tools available for this purpose. Because the relevant standards have so far been defined by the control system manufacturer, the presentation and description of the components in the respective tools differ. In addition, device or component manufacturers cannot access their devices installed in the field themselves, which significantly restricts their ability to position their own software products.

Industry 4.0 also requires a rethink in terms of semantics: at all levels of the reference architecture, it is necessary for the companies involved in value creation to agree on the semantics to be used. The operational data from sensors and actuators must be supplemented with information and made available. In future, product development will therefore have to provide more than just the documentation available today at the level of engineering tools and PLM systems.

Simplified, open collaboration models are also needed throughout the entire IT/OT ecosystem. Only then can genuine cooperation develop from the product supplier or machine manufacturer through the integrator to the plant operator.

A solution approach

How can the aforementioned challenges faced by operators and manufacturers be overcome? One solution is emerging in the form of end-to-end value creation networks: SAP, for example, offers a value creation network for assets, i.e. for the assets on the store floor, in the form of the 'SAP Asset Intelligence Network'. The network links all business partners and their business processes and systems. Cooperation with Hilscher and Pepperl+Fuchs also makes it possible to connect the SAP Asset Intelligence Network with the automation level. This means that no complex, selective integrations are required.

In this case, networking between the store floor level and the SAP Asset Intelligence Network is handled by the 'Hilscher netIOT Edge Gateway'. Information can be transmitted bidirectionally between the sensor level and the virtual representation in the network via this gateway. The interconnected bus participants are automatically 'scanned' and their corresponding virtual twins are generated or kept up to date. In addition, each device can be controlled from the network during operation and supplied with configuration or other data.

New paradigm in manufacturing

Business and automation levels are increasingly converging. The SAP Asset Intelligence Network acts as a data hub. But even though both levels share a common network, they still have different requirements. Real-time data from the store floor must be further consolidated at the sensor and edge gateway level in order to be usable for today's business processes.

The role of the CPS

Cyber-physical systems (CPS) will change the classic automation pyramid in the future. CPS-based automation is emerging, supported by intelligent components and devices at sensor level. What exactly is a cyber-physical system? It is a machine or system that links its aggregated store floor data to the assigned business processes within a service-oriented architecture using domain-specific semantics.

Within such an IP-capable, networked architecture, the sensor system as an Industry 4.0 component can serve both synchronous and asynchronous services via a physical interface. Support for asynchronous services - such as diagnostics and parameterization - is in turn an essential prerequisite for integrating a plant into the SAP Asset Intelligence Network.

End-to-end networking

Value creation begins with the design process at the plant manufacturer. A production plant is usually developed and operated using engineering and configuration tools.