ARC STRATEGIES
By Larry O'Brien & Dave Woll
MARCH 2010
The Control System Migration Survival Manual
Executive Overview .................................................................... 3
Migration Driving Forces .............................................................. 4
A Methodical Look at the Many Facets of Migration Execution ............ 8
Vertical versus Phased Migration ................................................... 9
Hot Swap versus Downtime Migration ...........................................12
Primary Migration Alternatives .....................................................13
Migration Offerings of the Leading Suppliers ..................................15
The Cost of Change ...................................................................28
Migration Project Recommendations .............................................30
VISION, EXPERIENCE, ANSWERS FOR INDUSTRY
ARC Strategies • March 2010
From…
To…
Business
System
Enterprise System
Production
Management
ISA S95 Transactions
Manufacturing
Work
Operations Processes
Management
Sensors, Actuators and Logical Devices
ISA S88
Real-Time
Control &
Events
Single Model with Distributed Processing and Shared Services
Any Migration Strategy Should Embrace the Principles of the
Collaborative Process Automation System (CPAS)
When Asked If They Were Currently Involved in a Migration Project, Over
65 Percent of Respondents at the ARC 2010 Orlando Forum Said “Yes”
2 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Executive Overview
Migration could be the biggest single issue facing automation end users
today. ARC estimates the value of the installed base of automation systems
reaching the end of their useful lives at approximately $65 billion. This
represents a big opportunity for both end users and suppliers. The dynamics of the market for control system migration have changed somewhat,
however, from when we performed our last analysis back in 2003. For one
thing, the recession has significantly curbed capital spending in the process
automation end user business. While this market has always been averse to
One thing end users should take into account
when evaluating a supplier for a migration
project is the supplier’s ability to provide a
solution that minimizes downtime and risk,
while providing a tangible business value
capital spending, the situation is even more
constrained now, requiring an even stronger
value proposition and justification for migration projects than in the past.
proposition that will have a real economic
Process automation suppliers have also signif-
impact on the end user’s business.
icantly expanded their migration offerings
compared to seven years ago. This is the case
both for migrating from competitors’ systems and for migrating from a legacy system to a new system from the same supplier. It has also become
apparent that migration is no longer strictly a DCS issue, but has grown to
encompass other types of systems. These include quality control systems
(QCSs) in the pulp & paper industry; SCADA systems for oil & gas, water
& wastewater, and power distribution applications; burner management
systems; and other automation platforms.
Users can take any of a number of different approaches when evaluating
potential migration suppliers. For many end users, migration represents a
significant enough step change to warrant a complete review of all the supplier offerings in the marketplace.
ARC advocates that you be just as
rigorous in your approach for selecting a migration supplier as you would
for control system selection. One thing end users should take into account
is the potential supplier’s ability to provide a solution that minimizes
downtime and risk, while providing a tangible business value proposition
that will have a positive economic impact on your business. No matter
how smooth the implementation may have gone, if you simply end up with
a like-for-like functional replacement, you failed to exploit an excellent opportunity to improve business performance.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 3
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Migration Driving Forces
Before we get into the forces driving demand for control system migration
solutions, we should define what we mean by migration. Suppliers use different terms, including “evolution,” “migration,” and “continuously
current.” In ARC’s view, migration means moving from an earlier generation of system to the current state of the art, which ARC defines as the
Collaborative Process Automation System. Migration involves upgrading a
legacy system to a current system while:
•
Preserving as much intellectual property as possible from the legacy
system
•
Leveraging the full capabilities of the new system
•
Minimizing the impact on operations
•
Minimizing cost
Aging Installed Base and Process Automation System
Lifecycle
DCSs were first introduced in 1975. While the lifecycle of these systems can
be quite long, this varies from component to component. The lifecycle of
DCS hardware components, such as wiring and I/O, can be 30 years or
more. Controllers have a slightly
shorter lifecycle, but also tend to
Wiring
last upwards of 20 years or so.
The workstation and application
I/O & Termination Panels
layer of the system has a much
shorter lifecycle.
Controllers
Most major
suppliers announce major version changes of their HMI and
Displays
operator software every eighteen
Workstations & Consoles
months or so. HMI workstations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Average PAS Component Lifecycle in Years
may not be able to run the latest
OS after only a few years and
must be regularly replaced.
Due to these different lifecycles for various system components, most older
installed systems today represent an amalgam of older I/O and wiring infrastructure, combined with not-quite-so-old controllers and newer
operator workstations, servers, and related applications. The closer you get
4 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
to the I/O and wiring infrastructure, the more difficult it is to articulate a
business value proposition for control system migration. We will get into
this topic in more detail later.
The Changing Workforce
The profile of the workforce in the process industries is changing drastically. The overall level of experience of workers decreases as more and more
employees retire. Much of the knowledge required to run older plants is
vanishing along with it. One owner-operator had to rehire retired workers
because nobody had the knowledge in house to restart a plant after it had
been shut down for maintenance. Similarly, the knowledge required to
maintain legacy process automation systems is also walking out the door.
At the same time, the level of education of workers in process automation is
actually increasing. Many operators at process plants are now engineers.
They will demand access to more information from the process automation
system to make better decisions. The process automation system will also
increasingly capture the knowledge of experienced workers, enabling technologies such as automated procedural management for things like startup,
shutdown, and grade changes. The older generation of systems cannot
support this kind of functionality.
The Changing Business Environment
Today’s business environment has shifted to a real-time environment.
Things happen much faster than in the past. Opportunities can emerge
Total Installed Base of Systems Reaching
the End of their Useful Life: $65 Billion
Total Installed Base of Systems Older
than 20 Years: $53 Billion
quickly and businesses must be extremely
agile to capitalize on these opportunities. Today’s automation systems must be able to
react to increasingly variable costs. Energy
costs, for example, can vary significantly at
Average Impact of Unscheduled
different times of the day. You may be using
Downtime: $20B or almost 5 percent of
your process automation system to manage
production in the process industries
your energy consumption, but if you are using too much energy at the wrong times of
day, your costs will still be higher. Modern process automation systems
can enhance agility, providing the information you need to make intelligent
decisions and manage business risks and opportunities.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 5
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Increased Focus on Sustainability
The term “sustainability” is often used to describe environmental impact.
While reducing environmental impact (which reduces waste and eases
compliance with environmental regulations) is certainly a concern in the
process automation industry, “sustainability” can also refer to the sustainability of your existing automation infrastructure.
Many automation
suppliers have a reputation for supporting their systems for a very long
time, probably longer than they should reasonably be supported when you
compare the automation business to the world of IT. Eventually, however,
availability of spare parts and support for legacy platforms must end. Users must plan for the future and anticipate when their current system is no
longer reasonably sustainable.
Every day we read about how the aging infrastructures of developed industrialized nations show need for replacement. From corrosion in the Alaska
pipeline, to leaking water mains, to failures in the power transmission grid,
the industrialized world and many parts of the developing world rely on an
installed base of assets that need to be replaced. In the first half of 2007, for
example, a third of US oil refineries were shut due to a record number of
breakdowns, power failures, fires, and other incidents.
Process automation end users are a conservative lot, however, and thus often
reluctant to dispose of an asset that has outlived its usefulness. Return on
assets, in fact, is often viewed as more important than metrics such as lifecycle costs. Eventually, however, the infrastructure must be replaced. This
presents end users with a completely new set of challenges as they strive to
justify the investment for migration; embark on the task of selecting a supplier and a system offering; and decide how to execute the installation, startup,
and ongoing support and roadmap for the new system.
When Is the Right Time to Consider Migration?
It’s becoming more and more difficult to justifying capital spending on automation as end users increasingly focus on getting the most out of their
installed assets. Any automation project today requires a compelling business case.
ARC has categorized several scenarios where migration is
required. Like other capital assets, automation assets have a lifecycle. At
the end of that lifecycle, it becomes necessary to plan and execute a system
migration. Any or all of the following situations can mark the end of the
lifecycle:
6 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
1. Reliability Issues: Reliability threatens operational continuity and
threats can emerge in two ways.
•
Basic repair: frequency and criticality of failures. An increase can
indicate the end of the lifecycle.
•
End of Support: Suppliers regularly obsolete or replace products
with functional equivalents, or in the worst case, their businesses
fail. Any of these can trigger end of life planning.
2. Unsupportable Opportunity: The capability of automation assets continuously increases and legacy assets often cannot satisfy new business
opportunities. Many times, these opportunities become evident when
functional requirements expand beyond fundamental manufacturing.
When the existing automation cannot satisfy these new requirements, it
may be time to consider migrating to automation assets that can.
When Does It Make Sense to Migrate?
•
Impending threat of unscheduled
downtime/incident.
•
No longer cost effective to support old
system/system dead-ended or phased
out, no spare parts availability.
•
Old system cannot support new
information technology that provides
economic advantage.
Of course, the case for migration is most urgent when the old system reaches the point
where an impending plant shutdown or incident is a real possibility. The system may be
so old that replacement parts and support are
unavailable or are extremely limited and cost
prohibitive. The old system may not support
many of the available new technologies that
provide real economic advantages, such as
•
New or emerging business opportunity
impossible without new system.
•
Old system is inflexible and cannot react
to rapid shifts in customer demand.
fieldbus, advanced production management
Old system does not support visibility that
could prevent abnormal situations,
equipment breakdown, disruptions in
supply chain, etc.
works.
•
•
Old system cannot be expanded costeffectively to meet capacity requirements.
plant asset management (PAM) applications,
applications, and Ethernet-based control net-
Even worse, the old system can be burdened
with a high volume of custom code and custom point–to-point integration that make long
term support cost prohibitive, as companies
struggle with shrinking labor resources and a lack of qualified personnel.
The veteran who understood all the custom code in place (probably because he/she wrote it), will retire and be replaced by a worker who knows
only open technologies and standards.
Of even greater importance is the opportunity cost associated with supporting an outdated system. This is the cost of a business opportunity missed
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 7
ARC Strategies • March 2010
when your system is not advanced, flexible, or functional enough to take
advantage of a swiftly emerging or fleeting opportunity. Having an old or
outdated system installed can actually result in direct losses. This is especially true if the end user lacks the visibility into plant operations that
enables him or her to prevent abnormal situations and avoid supply chain
disruptions. An inflexible system hinders the ability to react quickly to
shifts in market demand.
A Methodical Look at the Many Facets of
Migration Execution
While ARC has identified five primary approaches for executing a migration project, most projects include some combination of these.
Users
should factor the ability of a particular supplier to accommodate the range
of alternatives required on a particular project and the quality of the supplier’s solution into both supplier selection and the execution plan.
Your Migration Decision Drives Your Automation and
Supplier Selection Strategy
Migration is a critical step in the overall control system lifecycle, one that
requires the need for due diligence and following best practices for process
automation selection. As with the initial acquisition of the legacy system,
the target system will dictate the extent to which process automation can
facilitate OpX and create a competitive advantage in your manufacturing operations for many years. CPAS selection in the context of
$
DEFINE
IMPROVE
JUSTIFY
migration warrants a unique perspective in each step of the
process.
Justification means either eliminating the threat of unscheduled
SELECT
downtime or delivering sufficient measurable economic benefit not
Process Automation
Selection Best Practice
provided by the legacy system. Just reducing total cost of ownership (TCO) will probably not be sufficient.
Definition is just as important in a migration project as in an initial acquisition to define the functionality that supports justification. In the case of
migration, additional steps must be taken to define the migration strategy.
8 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Selection must meet the functional requirements set forth in definition and
address cost-effectiveness issues.
Continuous Improvement will capitalize on the TCO attributes of the selection with an aggregate benefit over the lifecycle of the target system.
Any migration involves some degree of pain for the user. ARC’s goal is to
reduce the amount of pain and advise users on the best migration strategy.
This report focuses on legacy distributed control system (DCS) migration,
and is just one installment in a series of deliverables from ARC that will
address the issue of control system migration.
Vertical versus Phased Migration
When upgrading an outdated system, end users face a difficult choice –
should they replace the system wholesale, or in phases over time? The single total replacement option for migration or upgrade involves replacing
the entire outdated infrastructure all at once, eliminating all existing control
system equipment, and installing new equipment. Phased migration, on
the other hand, involves a gradual migration over a predefined period, using a phased approach. The former can be more costly in terms of initial
cost layout for hardware, software, labor, downtime, and training. It can
also involve the greatest amount of risk, because you cannot go back to the
old system if the new system does not perform as anticipated.
Migration Execution Alternatives
Operational or commercial requirements often force owner-operators to
consider either a rip and replace “vertical” migration, characterized by a
single project event where the legacy system is removed and the target system is installed; or a “phased” migration where different levels of the
legacy system are replaced by levels of the target system in phases over
time.
Vertical migration is straightforward and relatively simple to execute because it takes place in a single event. It will probably include a combination
of primary alternatives, but is usually performed during a planned shutdown, with no need to accommodate intermediate components of the target
system.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 9
ARC Strategies • March 2010
The hardware infrastructure, including wiring and I/O, can become embedded in the plant, making it very difficult and cost prohibitive to do a
wholesale replacement of the system. Users invest thousands of man-hours
developing control code, graphics, and documentation. Some form of intellectual property, whether it is a plant asset management or information
Application cost equals the sum of standard hardware
and software
Batch projects typically have a higher application cost
relative to continuous projects
Control block implementation costs, including design,
test, and documentation, average two loops per hour
with each loop accounting for four block equivalents
Sequence code implementation cost, including design,
test, and documentation, average three lines of code
per hour
management system, is also typically
incorporated. Single total replacement
makes it difficult to preserve this investment.
There are cases, however, where the user may want to consider a single total
replacement approach. Primary factors
driving this approach include availability of a time window during the
The average cost for generating one page of graphics
is US $1,500
regularly scheduled turnaround, the
Some Rules of Thumb Regarding Migration Costs
and the experience of the supplier
type of manufacturing process involved,
and/or the system integrator partner involved in the project. When the
circumstances are right, a single total replacement can be the fastest and
possibly the least costly option because there is less downtime and less redundant labor compared to the aggregate cost of system evolution or
migration in multiple phases. Another potential benefit of single total replacement is that it ensures a single, current generation of system and the
associated reduced total cost of ownership (TCO).
Migration During Scheduled Turnarounds
If you plan to do your migration project during a scheduled turnaround,
the space between shutdowns could turn out to be a serious issue. If you
do a phased migration during scheduled shutdowns, but your plant only
shuts down once every two years, your migration project will probably be
obsolete once it is complete. Unless the migration can be accomplished
with no downtime as a hot cutover (or at a time outside of the scheduled
shutdown), the single total replacement approach could be justified.
Manufacturing Process Dictates Approach
The type of manufacturing process also dictates the migration strategy and,
in some cases, may favor a single total replacement versus phased approach.
For example, many batch process manufacturers have facilities with multiple
production trains and a common preparation area.
10 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
These multiple
ARC Strategies • March 2010
processing lines can also have dedicated finishing areas for each train. In
many cases, the trains are flexible enough so that multiple products can be
made on any train and turnarounds on these kinds of processing lines can be
very infrequent, along the lines of every two years or so.
In these situations, a phased migration approach is normally preferred because risk can be distributed. A phased migration approach in this case
would theoretically start at the common preparation area along with the
first train during the first turnaround, and the subsequent trains during later turnarounds. This includes the assumption that subsequent trains will
With turnarounds occurring every two
years, it would be almost a decade
before the entire migration project
was completed. By then the first
phase of the migration project would
already be well out of date.
be upgraded progressively faster and with less cost
because of experience gained in the previous phases
in the form of reusable processes end engineering.
With turnarounds occurring every two years, however, it would be almost a decade before the entire
migration project could be completed, and the first
phase of the migration project would already be well out of date. This
would result in each train having a different generation of automation.
Many of the potential benefits of the migration, such as adoption of standards like ISA 88 and IEC 1131, will only be partially realized. For many
types of facilities, a phased migration utilizing a hot cutover while the plant
is still running is the best and only viable strategy. For example, most corn
processing plants typically have over 10,000 I/O points and run 24x7x365
days a year to remain competitive. Many food manufacturing plants have
limited technical resources and limited available capital, making a single
total replacement unfeasible. Total replacement is also not viable in most
pharmaceutical plants due to the extensive time and high cost required to
validate the new system.
Supplier and Engineering Partner Expertise Determines Success
Choosing between phased or single total replacement migrations also depends upon the user’s supplier and engineering partners. Users should
evaluate the level of experience of the supplier or engineering firm on similar projects. The opportunity to reduce risk is directly proportional to the
applicability of lessons learned, relevance of previous work processes and
documentation, amount of reusable engineering, and level of success on
previous projects with the same or similar clients. Each case is unique, but
given a high level of reusability from past successful projects, the single
project approach can provide the best business proposition.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 11
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Hot Swap versus Downtime Migration
Specific Steps Toward Minimizing and Eliminating
Downtime
Regardless of the method of migration chosen, users must keep the overall
goal of achieving a maximum business value in mind. This means both
minimizing risk and reducing downtime to as close to zero as possible.
This involves significant preparation, planning, and testing. Tasks like database and graphics conversion should be as automated as possible, and the
supplier should offer both tools and services that speed conversion tasks to
the greatest possible extent.
Converting legacy sequence code is more
problematic, and needs to be addressed on an individual supplier basis.
More importantly, end users should not just view the migration as a likefor-like functional replacement. One of the primary goals in implementing
the new system should be to leverage new capabilities. These can include
object technology, global data access, standard fieldbuses, and asset management. These opportunities should be identified and planned for before
system implementation.
Factory acceptance testing (FAT) should be performed before shipment to
ensure that the system and database conversion procedures have been conducted properly. The real key to avoiding downtime, however, is to install
the new control system in parallel with the existing system. With everything tested and in place, the switchover to the new system can be
accomplished in a matter of hours or with no downtime whatsoever.
End Users Experience Success in Real World Applications
Several process industry end users have experienced great success with
shorter turnaround times. A major chemical industry end user migrated two
production units incorporating over 2,000 I/O in a total of three days from
shutdown to installation, loop checkout, and startup. A major pulp & paper
industry end user migrated a system consisting of close to 2,000 I/O in less
than one day. A major refiner recently completed a zero downtime hot cutover to a new fieldbus-based system from a legacy pneumatic system. Of
course, hot cutover may not be possible in all instances. The ability to do a
hot cutover depends on the legacy system being replaced as well as adequate
space. For example, it is easier to do a hot cutover with a very old analog or
12 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
pneumatic system where practically no elements of the old system are being
preserved, or in a batch process with multiple phases and one where one
phase of the system can be started up while the process phase is idle.
Primary Migration Alternatives
Several approaches to migration exist in the marketplace today. These approaches usually vary according to the level of functionality to be provided
in the target automation system. When choosing a migration approach,
there are several possibilities, each with its own particular strengths and
weaknesses. Usually, the first consideration is whether to stay with the incumbent supplier or move to a different supplier. Staying with the current
supplier is, in many cases, the easiest migration to perform, especially if the
incumbent remains a good business partner.
Approaches
Five basic migration approaches and combinations are possible: replacement,
gateways, I/O connect and wiring kits, I/O substitution, and encapsulation.
How much of the system you want to replace will largely dictate the approach. The decision to stay with your existing supplier or migrate to a new
supplier will also influence the approach you ultimately choose.
Migration Strategy
Benefits
Challenges
Replacement
Most comprehensive way to
migrate to a new system
Costly, downtime issues
A quick solution for system
interoperability
Fails to address end of life and
maintenance issues, temporary
solution, can be costly
Gateways
Low risk
I/O Connect & Wiring
Kits
Most impractical solution
Effective solution for migrating to different platform
from different supplier
Increased footprint, time to
install, I/O mapping issues
I/O Substitute
Very cost effective solution
with reduced downtime,
easily reversed if necessary
Offered by small number of
suppliers
Encapsulate
Provides transparency
Could compromise robustness
Requires commitment to support legacy I/O
Benefits and Challenges of Primary Migration Options
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 13
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Replacement: The first and most obvious is the bulldozer style of migration. This eliminates all existing control system equipment and replaces it
with new equipment. This is the most costly in terms of hardware, software, labor, downtime, and training. It also involves the greatest amount
of risk, because you cannot go back to the old system if the new system
does not perform as anticipated.
Gateways: Gateways are a well-established way of linking one control system to another.
From a functional view, gateways can project added
functionality; both from the legacy system to the target system and from the
target system back to the legacy system. From a logical view, gateways
perform protocol translation and throughput normalization.
I/O Connect and Wiring Kits: Many suppliers offer to migrate to a new
system while preserving the user’s existing I/O terminations and field wiring. Cabling solutions, otherwise known as wiring kits, involve mapping
I/O from the existing termination assemblies to the new system through
the new I/O. Suppliers also offer direct I/O bus interfaces that allow users
to keep their legacy I/O while moving to a new control platform. While
this preserves the user’s investment in legacy I/O terminations and infrastructure, installation can take a long time and involves an increased
footprint and possible problems in I/O mapping.
I/O Substitution: An alternate approach is to offer I/O cards that fit the
installed system’s form factor, allowing the user to migrate to a new system
with no changes in wiring, installed cabinetry, or hardware infrastructure.
This can be a very cost-effective option, but not one offered by all suppliers.
Encapsulation: Most suppliers also offer a software component solution
that provides code translation or object wrapping. These solutions can be
based on technologies such as OPC, or more proprietary in nature. This
approach is functionally similar to a gateway. Suppliers with OPC offerings usually add their own proprietary extensions that provide additional
security and/or reliability.
14 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Migration Offerings of the Leading
Suppliers
All major control system suppliers have some sort of migration strategy for
either their own systems or those of their competitors. In the last edition of
this report, only a couple of suppliers had coherent migration offerings for
competitor systems. Today, most suppliers have developed a competitor
migration strategy. Each supplier’s strategy depends on its own legacy migration issues and recent new platform introductions.
Short descriptions of ABB’s, Emerson’s, Honeywell’s, Invensys’, Rockwell
Automation’s, Siemens’, and Yokogawa’s strategies follow. These are only
cursory overviews, since a complete analysis of the supplier’s target system
and comprehensive analysis of each supplier’s migration offering would
take up too much space here.
ABB Process Automation
After ABB acquired Elsag Bailey, the big question was how ABB would
deal with the company’s many different control system platforms. ABB has
always been committed to supporting its installed base of customers. At
the same time, however, ABB also must move its many platforms into the
future under a common umbrella, since the cost of supporting and evolving
these disparate platforms over time would be impossible to bear. Having
so many traditional systems meant that ABB had to first develop an internal migration strategy. ABB’s migration roadmap is firmly rooted in the
IndustrialIT vision of a common architecture, applications, and control
hardware platforms. For this and other reasons, ABB has characterized its
migration offerings as “evolution” offerings.
ABB’s Lifecycle Policy and Core Control Commitment support the company’s core migration capabilities.
These outline the company’s lifecycle
commitment to its control systems. The company has evolved its migration
strategy considerably over the past several years. The company has stated
that the System Core Control Functions of its portfolio of traditional systems such as MOD, Master, and Infi 90 will remain “Active” until at least
year 2015 (with additional minimum 10 year of support).
At the core of System 800xA is its integration platform. This platform, built
on Aspect Object technology, enables ABB to provide a powerful evolution
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 15
ARC Strategies • March 2010
path for its large installed base of control systems to System 800xA Operations (its HMI). This technology allows physical objects, such as valves and
transmitters, to be represented as software objects within System 800xA.
Any number of “aspects” can be attached, including configuration, graphics, asset management data, documentation, faceplates, and reports. Users
access these aspects via a single right click on the software object. Any integrated data source or system can serve as the source for these aspects, and
the specific source is transparent to the operator. Thus, System 800xA can
access data from any integrated system (such as one of ABB’s traditional
control systems).
By evolving to System 800xA, the traditional system functionality can be
extended to include asset optimization, alarm management, and knowledge
management capabilities. Certified hardware and applications from ABB
and third parties can provide additional value for the installed base. These
include Advant Master, Symphony Harmony/INFI 90, Symphony DCI,
Freelance, Contronic, and Advant MOD 300 control systems, plus the latest
AC800M series controllers.
ABB’s control systems are designed for continuous
evolution. It is ABB’s goal to protect our
customers’ intellectual investment (i.e. application
software) beyond the lifecycles of the underlying
platform products (i.e. hardware and software).
ABB offers evolution paths for the installed
base through its common HMI (System 800xA
Operations), controllers, and I/O subsystems.
Controller level peer-to-peer communication
between traditional and AC800M controllers
ABB will not "Remove from Active Sale" any
product or "family" of products until an equivalent
replacement to those products is available. Once a
product has been removed from active sale, ABB
will continue to support the product for at least 10
years, although exceptions to this may occur if
components or technologies needed are no longer
available to ABB.
Within this support period ABB will announce a
“Last Buy” opportunity at least 12 months prior to
the end of manufacturing (except in cases where
there is a direct form, fit and function
replacement). It is ABB’s intention to provide
support for as long as there are significant
customer needs after the "Manufacturing End"
through field service, repair and by making
replacement spares (new or refurbished modules)
available.
enables incremental evolution and expansion
to System 800xA. In addition to its products,
ABB has an evolution services division that
offers its customers low risk evolution programs to System 800xA including hardware,
software, application upgrades, modernization and implementation.
Down at the controller level, ABB offers what
it calls, “Control Application Portability,” in
which control strategies can be automatically
converted from ABB traditional controllers to
run on AC 800M controllers with the same
look and feel as the traditional system. This
minimizes operator training costs.
INFI 90
function codes are supported, as well MOD
ABB Formal Lifecycle Policy
16 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
300 CCF Loop Control Modules (LCM) and
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Function Class Modules (FCM). While the functionality of the traditional
controller can be preserved, users also have access to the increased functionality of AC 800M controllers, such as IEC 1131-3 languages and other AC
800M libraries. ABB also offers control documentation conversion, which
allows the user to preserve their existing control documentation investment.
The original control logic documents can be converted to the
Function Diagram equivalents, and the original documentation layout is
preserved as much as possible to minimize engineer retraining.
ABB also offers graphics conversion utilities that enable reuse of existing
graphics of traditional ABB systems, such as OCS Connect-based graphics.
As with control strategy conversion, the properties of the traditional system
remain intact while the user is free to take advantage of the enhanced functionality of 800xA.
Emerson Process Management
Emerson Process Management has developed a flexible approach to migrate both its own and competitors’ legacy systems.
This is based on
common technology, which provides a phased approach to the company’s
DeltaV process automation system and PlantWeb vision. Emerson has a
three-tiered approach to delivering migration solutions that starts with its
domain expertise and high-level consulting capabilities. The company has
considerable domain expertise migrating its large installed base of PROVOX and RS3 systems.
Emerson has made significant investments in
building deep domain expertise in competitor systems. The company has
hired several high-level migration consultants, most with 20-30 years experience in Bailey INFI 90, Honeywell TDC 2000 and TDC 3000, Invensys, and
other competitors’ systems. These high-level consultants work closely with
the customers to develop migration strategies based on their requirements.
Once the requirements are determined, the transition or migration products
and services come into play. These include a range of solutions designed to
migrate the user’s system one component level at a time, from the wiring
and I/O to controllers, HMI, and other applications that can be applied in a
flexible fashion and work seamlessly with the legacy system. Emerson personnel and Emerson Local Business Partners (LBPs) then execute the
project. In many cases, the LBJ’s act more like systems integrators or engineering firms and bring a lot of expertise to the table. Emerson augments
this execution capability with long-term system plans, field audits, and a
broad scope of after-sales services and support.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 17
ARC Strategies • March 2010
PlantWeb Migration Options Target Every Major Facet of the Process
Automation System
All this is done with an eye toward maximizing the existing investments of
end users, reducing overall transition costs as much as possible, eliminating
downtime during transition, and leveraging the technology available in the
DeltaV system and PlantWeb architecture. This includes Emerson’s considerable capabilities in plant asset management (PAM), fieldbus, wireless
technology, and advanced control, plus its expertise in batch control.
Emerson has five primary methods to provide users with a flexible migration from the company’s own legacy systems as well as competitor legacy
systems to a DeltaV process automation system. Each method targets a
layer of the system from the field wiring and I/O through the controller
layer, and finally the workstation, data historian, and advanced application
domains. This provides end users a phased approach that can preserve the
still-functional assets.
DeltaV Connect resides at the application workstation layer, and allows end
users to add DeltaV workstations to the existing control networks of competitors’ systems.
Similarly, DeltaV Operate allows users of Emerson
PROVOX and RS3 systems to add DeltaV workstations. These solutions
preserve the end user’s investment in legacy configuration, controllers, I/O,
and wiring.
FlexConnect Solutions provide a method to connect multi-conductor cables
to the existing termination/marshalling panels and auto-marshalling the
signals to DeltaV I/O cards. The existing I/O signals can be controlled and
monitored by the DeltaV system through a pre-engineered marshalling solution. FlexConnect Solutions products are available for a wide range of
18 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
systems, including Emerson’s own PROVOX, RS3, and RMV9000® systems,
as well as systems from ABB, Honeywell, Invensys, Siemens, and Yokogawa.
FlexConnect Solutions can reduce downtime by up to 75 percent
versus rewiring. These products also reduce documentation costs, because
the end user does not have to change loop sheets.
Emerson also offers I/O Bus Interfaces that allow end users to connect directly to legacy I/O subsystems. These are available for several competitor
systems as well as for Emerson PROVOX and RS3 systems. The DeltaV
Serial, Virtual Interface Module, Profibus DP, ASi-bus, or DeviceNet Interfaces connect the DeltaV system to the I/O devices. Using these interfaces,
plant operators can access the legacy control system data via DeltaV operator consoles.
Emerson also offers several options for OPC connectivity. The DeltaV system offers OPC Mirror, which connects OPC servers on multiple control
systems and enables bi-directional data flow from one system to another.
These connections can be between OPC servers of the DeltaV system and
other systems (including PROVOX or third-party servers), between different third-party OPC servers, or between any other necessary OPC server
combinations. Users can connect up to 50 OPC servers through OPC Mirror.
The DeltaV system also offers a separate OPC interface that can
connect to legacy workstations and, with the release of DeltaV v10.3, Emerson offers a redundant OPC solution. Emerson's migration services include
database/controller and graphics conversion or complete redesign of displays/controller configuration. These tool-assisted services help mitigate
the risk of converting to a new control system. Simulation tools expedite
checkout and reduce the learning curve for operator training. Emerson also
offers a comprehensive operator training simulator (OTS) solution.
Emerson’s new concept of I/O on demand also has a lot of potential for end
user considering migration, since it provides users with the option to avoid
a functional replacement of their existing I/O. This is particularly true for
the company’s new Electronic Marshalling technology.
Honeywell Process Solutions
Honeywell has the largest installed base of any single system platform in
the industry with its TDC 2000 and TDC 3000 control systems. The company makes a point of providing backwards compatibility for even its oldest
legacy systems. Honeywell extended the Hiway Care program for TDC
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 19
ARC Strategies • March 2010
2000 systems, with users having the option of support until 2018 if they wish. No
end-of-life date has yet been set for any
TDC 3000 components. Meanwhile, Honeywell
has
made
significant
developments in its migration solutions,
both from its own legacy systems and
from competitors’ systems.
Experion PKS components are fully backward compatible with TPS systems. Users
can add Experion PKS components to existing TPS systems with a minimum
configuration required.
Honeywell also
offers the TPS Station PKS, which proHoneywell Now Has Wiring Kits for
Many Competitor Systems
vides a replacement for GUS station
functionality. TDC 2000 users can replace
basic TDC 2000 Controllers and Multifunction Controllers with Experion
PKS C300 controllers. Honeywell also offers replacement of Hiway controller hardware for TDC 2000 as well as TDC2000 database translation
services. Hardware assemblies are available to allow users to remove the
TDC2000 Basic Controller and Multifunction Controller and replaced with
a PKS C300 controller and I/O, while preserving the wiring to the field devices.
Aside from its own systems, Honeywell has developed competitive migration solutions for many competitors’ legacy systems, including ABB,
Emerson, Invensys, Siemens, and Yokogawa. Honeywell offers phased migration approaches for these systems, from the HMI level, to wiring kits
that can be relatively easy to connect to legacy system I/O. Honeywell migration wiring kits go directly from the existing terminal units to Experion
PKS I/O Terminal Assemblies. Honeywell has also developed graphics
and control strategy conversion tools for many of these competitor systems.
Honeywell’s approach to migration projects first involves an in depth study
to determine the starting point, goals, and possible options under the company’s Lifecycle Management (LCM) program. This program establishes a
committed automation roadmap, leading to either refresh or a complete
migration during the term of the contract. LCM offers users flexibility in
how they manage their plant assets and predictability in how choices are
financed. Users choose when to modernize, in which components of their
20 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
solution want to invest, how they fund the transition, and how much longer
they want to maintain their current capabilities. Ultimately, this approach
extends equipment life, while providing a cost-effective path forward to the
latest technology and functionality.
The company has done a number of large, complex, multi-site migration
projects that involve multiple system types as part of the LCM program.
Honeywell currently has over 60 LCM programs implemented globally.
The LCM approach consists of a cost/benefit analysis study with the end
product a migration plan. The ensuing phased migration plan also takes
into account technology refresh requirements, maintenance, and support
services.
Invensys Operations Management
By far, Invensys’ largest installed base of distributed control systems is its
Foxboro I/A Series system. Introduced in the late ‘80s, the I/A Series system has consistently evolved to incorporate new technologies.
Today,
Invensys looks to its ArchestrA technology to integrate the Foxboro I/A
system, Triconex, SCADA, SimSci-Esscor, Avantis, Eurotherm, Wonderware, and other automation technologies together as an Enterprise Control
System – called InFusion. This allows customers to integrate and extend
current capabilities and investments to become a real-time enterprise. By
enabling real-time access to critical information across the
business, Invensys believes users are able to make better decisions related to safety, controls, assets, and productivity to
maximize their overall profitability.
Invensys was one of the first suppliers to offer a comprehensive migration path from a competitor’s control system using
purpose-built hardware.
Foxboro originally developed its
“plug in” migration solution to provide a migration path from
the company’s SPECTRUM and SPEC-200 systems to the I/A
Series system. Invensys leveraged the same principles applied in its SPECTRUM/SPEC-200 migration plan and
applied it to competitor systems from ABB (Bailey Net 90 and
INFI 90, Taylor Mod 300), Emerson (PROVOX and WDPF),
Siemens (Moore APACS) and Honeywell (TDC 2000 and
Invensys Migration Solution
Plugs into Legacy Racks
3000). Migrating users from their competitors’ installed base
is a now major initiative for Invensys, and the company plans
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 21
ARC Strategies • March 2010
to make migration a key to its market share growth strategy over the next
several years.
Invensys’ migration strategy involves replacing competitors’ I/O cards
with I/A Series I/O modules formatted to fit into existing racks. This offers
a non-destructive, easily reversible solution with little or no downtime and
no modification of the existing field wiring and termination assemblies. To
date, Invensys has completed over 500 migration projects encompassing
approximately 500,000 control loops.
The plug-in solution involves a few basic steps. The first step is to evaluate
the “as is” installation, including the viability of the existing cabinets, field
wiring, I/O terminations, and power suppliers. The next step is to convert
the existing displays and database. Automated software tools reduce the
required effort and associated costs. Once the new I/A Series workstations
and controllers have been installed, the process is shut down, the old I/O
cards are removed and replaced with I/A Series I/O modules in the same
form factor. Just before the process is restarted, Invensys’ migration specialists perform a cursory loop checkout to ensure signals are being read,
and the process is restarted one module at a time. (Full loop checkout is
performed offline prior to installation during the factory acceptance test.)
Invensys replacement plug-in I/O cards meet or exceed the specifications
of the legacy cards they replace. They line up exactly with I/O points and
offer automatic boot up on installation. These replacement cards also offer
a fully redundant I/O bus with no single point of failure. Invensys has further enhanced its migration offering by providing HART capability– most
recently in its Honeywell, Mod 300, and Provox solutions. This enables users to take advantage of the HART communications to remotely diagnose
field instruments and avoid unnecessary maintenance and outages.
A unique aspect of Invensys’ migration method is that it is non-destructive,
allowing the original I/O and system infrastructure to be replaced if there
is a problem. This also means that it can cost much less and be completed
in much less time than a big bang migration approach. All new system
hardware can also be installed within the existing system cabinets.
To reduce risk, Invensys recommends doing full system FAT. The company also offers a full suite of services along with its migration solution and
automated conversion tools. The company performs all migration database
conversion and testing off-line at its Migration Center of Excellence, using
22 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
engineers who are experts in database conversion, systems testing, installation, and startup.
Invensys’ recent partnership with PAS has helped reduce much of the engineering effort typically required for migration projects. PAS’ Integrity
product is a back-documentation tool that provides the true vitals of the
running legacy system. This allows Invensys engineers to validate and accurately convert the legacy control logic and graphics for optimal
translation and collaborate with customers to improve upon these as
needed.
Invensys’ use of Integrity helps minimize the cost, risk, and
process impact on both the hardware and engineering aspects of migrating
platforms.
Rockwell Automation
In 2008, Rockwell Automation announced the new umbrella name for the
company’s process automation portfolio – PlantPAx. This covers all the
systems and solutions investments the company has made in process automation. The company has laid out plans for continued expansion of the
PlantPAx process automation system based on a combination of the two
core Rockwell Automation PlantPAx technologies, Logix and FactoryTalk,
and those leveraged from co-investments with partners such as Endress+Hauser and acquired companies such as ICS Triplex and Pavilion
Technologies.
Rockwell Automation has developed a well-formed migration strategy that
provides the safest and most scalable solutions for migrating aging distributed control systems (DCS) to the PlantPAx Process Automation System.
Offering a phased approach that allows flexibility and saves valuable production time, Rockwell Automation works with customers to provide
migration alternatives that fit their budget and schedule requirements.
Targeted industries and applications include water & wastewater, gas
transportation, boiler management, pulp & paper, and specialty chemical.
Rockwell Automation can now do migration projects for legacy ABB, Emerson, Invensys-Foxboro, Fisher Provox, Bailey, Honeywell, and Siemens
systems.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 23
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Op Station 1
Op Station 2
OPC Server/EWS
Redundant Servers
Ethernet
OIS Op Station 1
OIS Op Station 2
EWS
Remove Legacy Op Station (retain CIU)
CIU
CIU
Tools Required
CIU
• OPC90 – OPC Server SW
• Bailey Faceplate Library
Add New OPC and HMI Server
Add New Operator Station
• Console dbase Conversion Tool
Plant Loop or Infi Loop
Continue removing Legacy Op Stations
and adding New Operator Stations
PCU 1
PCU 2
TU
TU
Phase I of a Bailey INFI 90 to PlantPAx Migration Offered by Rockwell
Automation
The company offers a full suite of services related to control system migration, from project administration and hardware engineering and design
through system engineering, controller and HMI programming, testing and
quality and material procurement. Audit services are available to determine best approach and migration scope.
A complete report can be
delivered in a format that can become the customer’s RFQ. The company’s
DCS conversion team bases many of their solutions on Rockwell Automation standard designs or includes standard features that do not require
sophisticated software development from scratch. This approach minimizes the conversion investment.
Rockwell Automation offers DCS migration starting at the HMI console
layer. The new FactoryTalk View SE HMI/Data Server is connected to the
new supervisory network using an HDL to communicate to an OPC Server.
During the migration period, the user’s existing consoles can access ControlLogix information. ProcessLinx also allows peer-to-peer controller
communications between an old MFC/MFP and the new ControlLogix
programmable automation controller (PAC). Rockwell Automation also
offers graphics conversion services for several legacy systems.
For legacy controller and I/O replacement, Rockwell Automation begins by
installing an EtherNet/IP network. Using the network as a starting point,
users can then begin to replace legacy controller functions with Rockwell
Automation PlantPAx multidiscipline PACs. The company also offers control strategy conversion services for competitor as well as Rockwell
24 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Automation legacy systems. With Bailey systems, for example, Rockwell
Automation offers specific database conversion from the Bailey console database to FactoryTalk View SE tags. Tags and Functions are migrated to the
new controller, and new controller capabilities and technologies are applied. For I/O-level conversion strategies, Rockwell Automation allows
customers to use existing field wiring and termination units connected via
cable to 1756 I/O.
Siemens Industry Automation
Siemens has made significant strides growing its process business worldwide over the past few years, both organically and through acquisitions.
While Siemens traditionally had a strong installed base of systems in
Europe, the company has made expanding its installed base in North
America a top strategic priority. With North America’s large installed base
of third-party systems, competitive migration offers a huge opportunity for
Siemens in North America, one the company cannot ignore. Through the
acquisition of Moore Products Company, Siemens has a significant installed
base of APACS+ and Quadlog systems that must be preserved and evolved.
It is no surprise that Siemens has made migration a top strategic initiative.
As part of Siemens’ strategic focus on migration, the company developed
multiple migration centers that provide technology, consulting, support,
and educational resources for end users considering a migration project.
The primary R&D center for migration is located in the company’s Spring
House, Pennsylvania location, which has particular expertise migrating the
company’s installed base of both Moore APACS+ systems and Texas Instruments 505 systems, the product of the Siemens TI acquisition in the
early 1990s.
Siemens also has other migration centers. For example, in Cologne, Germany it has a migration center for Contronic systems from ABB/Hartmann
& Braun. For Siemens TELEPERM M and competitors’ systems, the company has a migration center in Karlsruhe, Germany.
While Siemens’
migration centers exist to create standard migration products and services,
the most important things they do is help end users develop a real business
case for migration and provide the training and education services necessary to realize the vision of the migration project.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 25
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Siemens has dedicated project engineering teams comprised of experts with
an accomplished record delivering successful migration projects. These
teams are chartered with conducting front-end engineering and design
(FEED) studies and providing consulting services to customers to help
them determine the breadth and scope of their migration project. As part of
the Solution Partner Program, Siemens also developed strong relationships
with local third-party systems integrators (SIs). Siemens selected, trained,
and certified this SIs specifically for migration projects, particularly in the
North American market. Finally, the center for migration R&D in Spring
House is responsible for testing and developing all migration products.
This is consistent with Siemens’ overall approach to the PAS market.
Level I (HMI)
HMI Connectivity
Siemens provides options for modernization that span
from a simple component replacement to a total solution. The company complements these services with a
HMI Conversion
series of standard products and applications that are
Enhanced Batch Management
all tested and compatible with Siemens’ Totally Inte-
Level II (Control)
grated Automation (TIA) framework. By limiting the
Engineering Library
Application Conversion
need for custom engineering, these standard products
significantly drive down engineering cost, which can
account for as much as 75 percent of a typical project.
Control Network Gateways
Because Siemens’ migration technologies and tools are
Level III (Field)
standard Siemens/TIA products, they also evolve in
I/O Gateways
lock step with the evolution of the SIMATIC PCS 7
I/O Replacement
system and continuously upgraded.
I/O Interfaces
Based on direct feedback from end users and their un-
Field Termination Assemblies
derstanding of the market, DCS architectures, and the
Siemens 10-Layer, Three-Level
Definition of Migration Options
evolution of technology, Siemens has established 10
possible approaches to migration. Siemens and many
of its users deem the I/O replacement option unac-
ceptable because older backplanes support limited run hardware. Ten approaches address each major layer of the control system architecture. These
ten layers include HMI Connectivity, HMI Conversion, Enhanced Batch
Management, Engineering Library Conversion, Application Conversion,
Control Network Gateways, I/O Gateways, I/O Replacement, I/O Interfaces, and Field Termination Assemblies (FTA).
Siemens groups these ten layers into three primary areas that address the
three typical areas of a migration project. Level I deals with the HMI and
supervisory layer and includes HMI Connectivity, HMI Conversion, En-
26 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
hanced Batch Management, or other supervisory applications. Level II includes
creating
and
converting
engineering
libraries,
Application
Conversion, and Control Network Gateways. Level III includes I/O Gateways, I/O Replacement, I/O Interfaces, and Field Termination Assemblies.
The stepwise approach allows combining some or all of the 10 options and
implementing them at the users’ own pace.
Siemens’ approach is to apply its migration technology equally across its
own systems as well those from its competitors. The company originally
developed its migration technology to address the migration from its
APACS+, TELEPERM M, TI505, and Open PMC systems to SIMATIC PCS 7
and TIA. TELEPERM M is furthest along in terms of migration, with about
80 percent of all installed TELEPERM M HMI systems migrated to SIMATIC PCS 7.
Siemens uses the same technologies, tools, and services to address migration projects for its own and competitor systems. These include ABB Infi
90, Freelance, and Contronic P systems, Emerson Provox systems, Honeywell TDC 3000 and 2000 systems, and Rockwell Automation PLCs, with
more systems to be added in the future.
Yokogawa
Yokogawa has one of the longest continuous process control systems in the
industry with its CENTUM line. With an installed base stretching back to
the mid ‘70s, Yokogawa have a legitimate claim to be one of the first true
DCSs on the market. Over the years, the company offered various versions
of CENTUM. It introduced its current CENTUM VP version last year with
an automatic migration from CS3000, and a clear migration from the much
older CENTUM systems such as CENTUM V, CENTUM XL, and Micro XL.
While Yokogawa’s migration strategy has focused primarily on evolving its
own CENTUM customers, the company recently developed a more comprehensive system migration strategy that addresses competitors’ systems.
Yokogawa’s consultative “value-added migration process” is a multiphase
approach. It consists of a feasibility study that analyzes the gap between
targeted and actual results, identifies bottlenecks, proposes practical countermeasures, and estimates the resulting improvement in profit, after which
the system migration project is implemented. Yokogawa specialists are involved in all phases of this process.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 27
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Yokogawa’s Migration Engineering Workflow
Yokogawa has experience in more than 150 third-party system migration
projects. Yokogawa can serve as the main contractor, providing a turnkey
legacy system migration solution. Yokogawa can effectively handle both
hot and cold cutovers. Software engineering information (e.g., tag numbers, units, ranges, comments, control schemes, alarm settings, tuning
parameters, etc.) can be downloaded from an existing DCS system. The
downloaded information can be then fed to the CENTUM VP using a conversion tool, saving considerable time and ensuring a reliable result.
Yokogawa has developed the necessary migration solutions to enable many
legacy controllers and process interface units to be replaced with CENTUM
VP I/O and controllers, utilizing special marshalling panels and adapter
cables that connect to the existing terminal panels of the legacy system.
The Cost of Change
To get a perspective on the costs associated with different migration strategies, consider the relative costs in a typical system.
We’ve based the
following on a survey of ARC users. On a typical installed project:
28 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
•
The application cost equals the sum of standard hardware and software. It is typically more on a batch project and somewhat less on a
continuous project. For estimation purposes, the cost to implement
control blocks averages two loops per hour with each loop accounting
for four block equivalents. This includes design, test, and documentation. The cost to implement sequence code is three lines of code per
hour. This also includes design, test, and documentation. The average
cost for generating one page of graphics is $1,800.
•
Installation cost, not including installing field wiring and field devices,
equals the sum of the standard products and the application. This does
not include workstations, servers, and so on.
•
In a tag-based system, there is an additional cost associated with relinking modules and graphics. If the target system utilizes object management and late binding technology, linking is automatic and thus not
an issue. Object-based systems also have a number of other advantages
that are outside the scope of this report.
•
Don’t forget the automation bus. If the legacy system is token or proprietary and the target system is Ethernet-based (as most are), there will
be added expense.
•
There are no guidelines for field wiring and field device commissioning, but this represents significant cost. Anything that can be done to
minimize it will be money well spent.
Standard hardware and software are only about 25 percent of a typical
project. The application accounts for at least 25 percent or more. If the application is continuous, you will be primarily interested in the supplier’s
ability to translate the legacy control block set into the target system’s block
set. If this capability is missing, users are given a guideline to calculate the
impact.
If the application is a batch application, you will be primarily interested the
supplier’s ability to translate the legacy system’s sequence logic to the target system’s sequence logic. This will probably be less of an issue because
sequence logic is usually based on a standard language such as BASIC or
Pascal. If this capability is missing, users are given a guideline to calculate
the impact.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 29
ARC Strategies • March 2010
28%
32%
System Cost
Install and Rewire
System Engineering
Instrument Engineering
21%
19%
The Greatest Opportunities for Reducing Installed System Cost with a
Migration Project Lie in the Engineering Domain, Which Accounts for
Close to 70 Percent of Total Project Cost
By far, the largest costs are in installation, fieldwork, and field wiring.
When defining your migration strategy and subsequent selection strategies,
you should give precedence to choices that minimally impact these areas. It
may be a lost opportunity if you do not use a migration project to consider
the benefits of standard networks and buses. All suppliers offer standard
buses. Evaluate how your requirements can be addressed. Remember, the
majority of the benefits you will receive are lifecycle benefits.
Migration Project Recommendations
Once your decision criteria is in place, the rationale for evaluating the supplier approaches should be to look at anticipated performance and
reliability. Standard products are best, and this is what many migration
products have become. They are designed for purpose, tested, and warranted, and can be expected to have the right performance and reliability
characteristics. You should be cautious of migration solutions not built
with a standard product approach in mind.
The same holds true for the tools used by suppliers to automate procedures
such as graphics conversion and control strategy conversion. Many suppliers treat these as standard products within their own organizations.
Several suppliers are just developing these tools, which, in some cases, have
not yet reached a level of functional reliability or even full functionality.
Migration solutions that depend on third-party components to satisfy intermediate needs, but are not tested and warranted as standard products,
would not be expected to have the characteristics of standard products.
30 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
100
1
0&2
80
3
3
2
Phased Migration
%$ 60
1
1 Step Replacement
0
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Completion Times (Years)
STEP
%
COST
Comments
STEP
%
COST
Comments
0
40
Replace Workstations
and some TI Controllers
0&2
80
Replace Legacy System
and some TI Controllers
1
15
Replace remaining PLCs
1
15
Replace remaining PLCs
2
40
Replace Controllers and
integrate Standard Work
Stations
Done
Incl.
3
5
3
5
Replace Legacy I/O
Done
Replace Legacy PLC I/O
Phased Migration, Versus One Step Vertical Migration
Another important consideration when taking the phased approach is the
need to support common services, the glue that holds a system together,
through all migration phases. Common system services refer to system
health, common time, and so on. At different times throughout the migration, components will be removed and replaced. To maintain the integrity
of the system, these components need to embrace common system services
natively.
For phased replacement, or when integrating foreign equipment, I/O and
hardware selection should be based on the breadth and depth of a particular project requirements and the supplier’s ability to address these. For
code conversion, proven tools rank high in the list of selection criteria. The
ability to convert program code such as sequence logic is next in rank, followed by block code and graphics and the ability to reconfigure legacy
structures into S88 standard structures.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 31
ARC Strategies • March 2010
System Capability
Networking and Connectivity
For networking and connectivity, gateways should be kept to a minimum
and proprietary protocols should give way to standard and de facto standard protocols in the target or new system. This should be Ethernet-based
at the workstation level and RS485-based at the auxiliary system level.
Mission-critical communications, such as Foundation Fieldbus, should be
differentiated from discretionary communications, such as OPC. Based on
the previously statements, it’s obviously critical to be able to support all of
the standard buses. When evaluating the relative availability of a particular
network, system-wide fault tolerance with married lockstep processors
should be ranked somewhat higher than simple redundancy.
Standard Control Programming Languages
In the past, each supplier had its own way of programming its control devices. This was cumbersome and made common organization impossible.
In recent years, the IEC released the IEC 1131-3 standard, which has standardized the programming languages.
This keeps the implementation
consistent, but still enables existing code to be migrated.
Most suppliers
have an 1131 implementation, but several have not implemented all the
languages, so end users should ensure their needs are met.
Documentation
All control systems have the ability to self-document. The issue now and
into the future, is that any site has a variety of automation, with many different systems from different suppliers.
Therefore, the documentation
facility should include all systems. Several suppliers have integrated their
systems into InTools from Intergraph. This tool can accommodate all the
automation and it or an equivalent product should be part of the criteria.
Configuration Management
All system suppliers provide configuration management for their own systems. However, as with documentation, every site has a variety of systems.
Therefore, configuration management is also a site-wide issue and should
be a part of the criteria.
32 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Cash Flow Analysis
You might not expect to see cash flow analysis as a topic in a discussion on
migration issues. However, when deciding between a vertical (one-step)
migration or a phased approach, there can be a significant difference in net
present value.
This is primarily because the vertical approach is front
loaded relative to costs, and the phased approach is more back loaded. If
the migration is being done because the legacy system cannot deliver the
value the target system is capable of, then the situation is reversed. In this
situation, you would get the value earlier and longer rather than later. The
earlier figure of a hypothetical migration case illustrates the difference.
Risk Assessment
Any final migration decision needs to include risk assessments of the alternatives before users can make their final decision.
How Closely Does the Particular PAS Map to Your New
Requirements?
Only you can decide if a supplier’s system will satisfy your needs. Start by
creating an inventory of critical application functionality not provided by
the proposed supplier and ask the supplier to explain how these applications will work with the new system.
While you don’t have to make
integrating these applications part of your initial scope of work, you do
need to know what it will cost you in the future in terms of time, money,
and degree of difficulty.
Consider How to Preserve Intellectual Assets and
Accrued Knowledge
While system hardware and software will become obsolete and dysfunctional over time, much of the intellectual property (control configurations,
information management and historical data, advanced process control and
optimization, and so on) embedded in the system represents a viable and
valuable corporate asset that should be preserved, if possible. When planning a migration to a new control platform, it’s worth investigating if and
how these intellectual assets can be transferred to the new system.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 33
ARC Strategies • March 2010
How Will You Transition My Hardware?
At the hardware level, chances are that the considerable amount of wiring
used to connect legacy system I/O to field devices is still operational and
could continue to function for years to come. Users can save a considerable
amount of money by retaining this existing field wiring when migrating to
a new system. While the exist-
33.7%
New Plant
Expansion
Modernization
50.2%
ing field wiring won’t support
the digital fieldbus communications that would be part of a
modern PAS in a greenfield
16.1%
The Majority of Annual DCS Sales Are for
Existing Plant Modernization Projects
installation, moving to fieldbus is not usually practical in
brownfield
installations.
However, for system migrations, users should consider taking advantage of
the bidirectional communications capabilities of existing HART field devices to be able to access device status and diagnostics remotely from the new
system, since it’s likely that the existing field wiring can support these
communications.
But retaining the existing field wiring can also increase risk. Users should
ask their prospective migration supplier how they plan to mitigate the risk
while balancing the cost. As previously stated, it is always possible to use the
big bang technique to totally remove the old hardware (including field wiring) and start with new equipment. However, unless a major shutdown is
planned in the near future, this could be time consuming, considering all the
connection points that have to be made and verified during the changeover.
If the supplier’s approach is to preserve the field wiring, users need to ask,
“Just how do you do this?” Ultimately, the existing control system will be
dismantled. The manner in which this is performed can mitigate risk. For
example, if users only have from Friday night to Monday morning to perform the switchover, they want to be sure that, if something goes wrong, they
can reestablish their old control system for Monday’s start of production.
What About My Graphic Displays?
If you add up all the time users have put into engineering and refining their
current graphic displays, it becomes obvious that this represents valuable
knowledge. However, it’s likely that the graphical display capabilities in
the new system can open up a new world of possibilities beyond what was
34 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
possible on the old system. Simply duplicating the old graphics in the new
system may increase the comfort level at a startup on Monday, but users
should also consider if and how the new system will enable them to convert
the existing graphic to take advantage of the new system’s modern architecture. If this conversion process requires too much time and effort, if may
make more sense to develop displays on the new platform from scratch.
Can the New PAS Accommodate Advanced Applications?
Most control systems, even those in the “$65 billion of outdated systems”
class, have some sort of advanced applications attached to the fundamental
control function. Some of these functions are in the form of additional layers of control and some are in the form of history gathering software. End
users must first assess how important these applications are to the operation of their process units. Determine which ones need to immediately link
to the new control platform and which ones can wait. Users should ask the
proposed migration supplier how the integration will be performed, now
and in the future.
How Can You Eliminate Custom Integration?
Since gateways and custom integration make it difficult and more costly to
implement and support advanced strategies, users should investigate how
their prospective migration supplier integrates to or embeds third-party systems and applications and verify that the applications embedded in the new
system actually represent an improvement over those in the existing system.
What Training Does Your Supplier Suggest?
Whichever PAS users choose, they will invariably require some training.
Users need to determine what formal training is available from the supplier
for maintenance staffs, control engineers, and application specialists. Also,
consider how open the system is when it comes to training. Today’s PASs
have a lot of embedded commercial-off-the-shelf IT. Users should ask their
migration supplier to what extent they can take advantage of third-party
training resources.
What Is Your Path Forward – 10 Years and Beyond?
The supplier’s plans for maintaining the competitive qualities of their systems over time may become important to users in the future.
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 35
ARC Strategies • March 2010
What Suppliers Must Do to Ease
Migration for Users
For example, what is the supplier’s strategy for the
longevity of the new control system? The support
•
New system should offer compelling
value proposition and path to OpX
policy after withdrawal from sale should be less of
•
Minimize wiring
the past, since modern systems largely separate
•
Preserve hardware investment
applications from hardware.
•
Preserve graphics and assist with or
perform graphics conversion
their prospective migration supplier for a road-
•
Preserve control strategies and assist
with or perform control strategy
conversion
these plans may not actually happen come to pass,
an issue with modern systems than with those of
Users should ask
map that extends 10 years out. While some of
they should clearly indicated how the supplier
•
Minimize/eliminate interruption
intends to preserve the users’ investments, not just
•
Minimize training costs for new system
in hardware, but also in the functions users implement today, and over the next 10 years.
Can You Provide References?
Process automation system suppliers clearly understand the importance of
their installed base. All the major PAS suppliers focus on retaining their installed base by making sure that they have a path forward from their legacy
system to their latest process control technologies. Some have a bigger challenge than others in this respect due to multiple system offerings, largely a
result of industry consolidation.
Ultimately, all suppliers want to get to an
automation platform that is both scalable and “future proof.”
However, the point at which existing users begin to consider migrating to a
new platform also represents a point of vulnerability for suppliers. Even if
the user is generally satisfied with their existing system supplier, it is likely
that they will at least explore migration options from competing suppliers.
From the user’s perspective, when considering migrating an existing control
system to a different supplier’s platform, it’s important to look under the
covers. Users should ask the new prospective supplier for specific references
from other users who have performed similar migrations and diligently follow up on these by discussing the implementations with those references. Be
sure to ask what they liked and what they didn’t like, and learn about potential pitfalls that could be avoided with their own implementation.
And, for that matter, it certainly couldn’t hurt to ask for references from
other users, even when considering migrating from one system to another
within the same supplier’s lineup.
36 • Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com
ARC Strategies • March 2010
Analysts: Larry O'Brien, Dave Woll
Editor: Paul Miller
Distribution: MAS-P and MAS-H Clients
Acronym Reference: For a complete list of industry acronyms, refer to our
web page at www.arcweb.com/Research/IndustryTerms/
OPC
OLE for Process Control
System
OpX
Operational Excellence
DCS
Distributed Control System
OTS Operator Training Simulator
FAT
Factory Acceptance Testing
PAC
CPAS Collaborative Process Automation
Programmable Automation
Controller
FEED Front-End Engineering & Design
HMI
Human Machine Interface
PAM Plant Asset Management
IEC
International Electrotechnical
PAS
Process Automation System
Commission
PLC
Programmable Logic Controller
IT
Information Technology
QCS
Quality Control System
LCM
Lifecycle Management or Loop
RFQ
Request for Quotation
Control Module
SI
System Integrator
Object Linking & Embedding
TCO
Total Cost of Ownership
OLE
Founded in 1986, ARC Advisory Group is the leading research and advisory
firm for industry. Our coverage of technology from business systems to product and asset lifecycle management, supply chain management, operations
management, and automation systems makes us the go-to firm for business
and IT executives around the world. For the complex business issues facing
organizations today, our analysts have the industry knowledge and first-hand
experience to help our clients find the best answers.
ARC Strategies is published monthly by ARC. All information in this report is
proprietary to and copyrighted by ARC. No part of it may be reproduced without prior permission from ARC.
You can take advantage of ARC's extensive ongoing research plus experience
of our staff members through our Advisory Services. ARC’s Advisory Services
are specifically designed for executives responsible for developing strategies
and directions for their organizations. For membership information, please
call, fax, or write to:
ARC Advisory Group, Three Allied Drive, Dedham, MA 02026 USA
Tel: 781-471-1000, Fax: 781-471-1100, Email: info@arcweb.com
Visit our web pages at www.arcweb.com
Copyright © ARC Advisory Group • ARCweb.com • 37
3 ALLIED DRIVE
DEDHAM, MA 02026
USA
781-471-1000
USA | GERMANY | JAPAN | INDIA | CHINA | BRAZIL | ARGENTINA