EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGY


Open systems propose a radically different paradigm - one of distributed expertise and collaborative development. Here, the value proposition centers on transparency and adaptability. Rather than relying on a single vendor’s roadmap, users participate in an ecosystem where improvements come from diverse sources and where no single point of failure can strand an entire operation.


The reality of industrial longevity One of the most persistent myths in our industry is that proprietary systems guarantee longevity. The reality is more nuanced. While major vendors do maintain impressive backward compatibility (Siemens’ S7-300 PLCs enjoyed about 30 years of production), this continuity comes at significant cost and often forces users into expensive upgrade paths disguised as “migrations”.


Open systems approach longevity differently. By building on standardised hardware interfaces and maintaining software portability, they decouple the lifespan of control logic from physical hardware. We’ve seen numerous examples where open control systems have been migrated across three or even four hardware generations without requiring complete re-engineering.


The customisation conundrum Industrial operations are snowflakes – no two are exactly alike. This reality creates constant tension between the desire for standardised solutions and the need for custom adaptations.


Proprietary systems typically address this through expensive professional services engagements. Need to integrate an unusual sensor or implement a novel control algorithm? That’ll be €20,000 and a six- month wait for the vendor’s engineering team. The results are often brittle implementations that can’t be modified by plant personnel.


Open systems flip this model on its head. With access to source code and system internals, plant engineers can make adjustments in-house, refining the system as the needs evolve.


The security paradox


Security discussions in industrial automation often devolve into simplistic binaries: open equals vulnerable, proprietary equals secure. This false dichotomy ignores the complex reality of modern industrial cybersecurity. Proprietary systems suffer from what we might call the “fortress mentality” – the belief


is manageable but the benefits are tangible. Data collection and visualisation often make excellent starting points.


that security through obscurity provides adequate protection. The problem is that modern attackers don’t need to understand your system to disrupt it. Recent incidents have shown that even the most closed systems are vulnerable to supply chain attacks and protocol exploits.


Open systems embrace transparency as a security feature rather than a weakness. When the Log4j vulnerability emerged, open- source communities had patches available within hours. Many proprietary systems, by contrast, took weeks or months to respond because their embedded components weren’t visible even to the vendors themselves.


The human factor


Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the open versus proprietary debate is its human dimension. Industrial automation isn’t just about technology; it’s about the people who must work with that technology every day. Proprietary systems create knowledge silos. Operators and technicians become dependent on vendor-specific training, and this institutional knowledge walks out the door when employees leave. We’ve seen facilities where a single retiree held decades of arcane knowledge about some proprietary system’s quirks - knowledge that proved impossible to fully document or transfer.


Open systems, by their nature, encourage knowledge sharing and continuous learning. Because the underlying principles are transparent and often built on widely understood standards, the learning curve for new employees is significantly reduced.


Navigating the transition For organisations considering a move toward more open architectures, the path forward requires careful navigation. Complete forklift upgrades are rarely practical or advisable. Instead, we typically recommend a phased approach: Start with edge applications where the risk


Develop internal competency through targeted pilot projects. These should be significant enough to be meaningful but contained enough to limit exposure. Establish partnerships with organisations that can provide commercial support for open technologies. The ideal partners will offer both technical expertise and long-term maintenance commitments. Gradually shift the balance as comfort and capability grow. Many successful implementations end up with hybrid architectures that leverage the strengths of both approaches.


The road ahead


As we look to the future of industrial automation, one thing seems clear: the era of one-size-fits-all solutions is ending. The increasing complexity of industrial operations, combined with the accelerating pace of technological change, demands systems that can evolve and adapt. Open technologies won’t replace proprietary systems entirely – there will always be applications where the turnkey nature of vendor solutions makes sense. But the balance is shifting.


Organisations that learn to harness the power of open systems while mitigating their risks will gain significant competitive advantages in flexibility, innovation, and long-term operational resilience. At Sfera Labs, we’ve recognised the transformative potential of open technologies in the industrial sector. By developing solutions that harness the flexibility of platforms like Raspberry Pi and Arduino, we aim to bridge the gap between open-source innovation and the reliability demanded by industrial applications. Our products are designed with a focus on long-term availability and are backed by professional support services, ensuring that businesses can confidently adopt open technologies without compromising on stability or assistance.


In the final analysis, this isn’t really about open versus proprietary. It’s about control versus convenience, about short-term certainty versus long-term adaptability. The factories of the future won’t be built on any single ideology, but on pragmatic architectures that recognise the value in both approaches while avoiding the pitfalls of either extreme.


MAY 2025 | ELECTRONICS FOR ENGINEERS


21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42