"Automation Olympics"

I love the Olympics. I love the pageantry. I love the world coming together for a positive event. I love watching heroes born and others taken down a notch. I sit mesmerized watching athletes defy gravity, speed barriers, physical limitations, and the human psyche. Summer, winter—it doesn’t matter. I save up my television viewing rights for 102 weeks just so I can monopolize the T.V. every two years during the Olympics (much to my family’s chagrin). It doesn’t matter the event…from the most commercially intriguing to the most obscure…I love the Olympics.

This year it’s been a little tough. Although events are shown “live” US East Coast time, they are delayed on West Coast time so that we can also watch them “live”—not real-time, but “live.” This means many of the medal round events are between 11 p.m. and midnight my time…long past my bed time; however, the dark circles under my eyes and occasionally dosing off during meetings at work is worth not missing events of the XXIX Olympiad!

Which brings to mind ISA’s own “Automation Olympics,” the Honors and Awards Gala—held in conjunction with EXPO every fall. If you open up the event program to the back, where you can peruse a listing of all award recipients since 1948, you come across a rather impressive list of names. Honorary members include Bailey, Behar, Rimbach, Sperry, Beckman, Draper, Packard, Hewlett, Bristol, Sprague, Hart, Fisher, Moore, Fluke, Parker, Bajek, Knight, Williams, and Gates (just to name a few). When you take a look at all 1400 award recipients from over the years, it is a very impressive list indeed. Yet, I wonder if we do enough? Do we honor enough of our colleagues? Do we promote the industry enough by recognizing the technical expertise and technology gains made by our fellow Automation professionals? Not by a long shot.

I recently received a communication from a member who expressed some concern that not enough awards are given out—that multiple recipients should be chosen in many cases. I agree. The problem is we don’t receive enough nominations. I must confess I have had little to do with our H&A program beyond making a few nominations the few times I’ve been able (serving board members are prohibited from submitting nominations). But I have been a huge supporter of the event and the program.

By definition, awards programs are long, can verge on boring, and are usually costly for attendees. But I wouldn’t miss our annual event for anything. I believe in my 20 plus years in ISA I have only missed two or three! The list of recipients is always impressive and it is nice to have an opportunity to rub shoulders with some very impressive personalities in the industry. This year is no exception. Just look at some of this year’s recipients:

http://www.isa.org/filestore/2008%20Honorees.doc

Some awards have gone unclaimed due to a lack of nomination submissions. PLEASE! If you are aware of a contributor to our industry worthy of recognition, make sure the H&A Committee receives a nomination on that person’s behalf. We have a great story to tell…we just need to tell it more often.

And now….back to the Olympics!

The Wireless Wars

I must apologize for not posting something sooner. I took a much needed family vacation and returned to a mountain of work in the office…But, enough with the excuses already!

For those of us that have been around awhile, we remember the BUS wars of a few years back. Any time ISA has volunteers working on a standard addressing a major technology shift, controversy begins. This is currently happening with the ISA100 wireless standard.

I will be the first to admit that I am not an unbiased observer in the wireless wars, like I was during the BUS wars. I am employed by one of the large vendors involved in this arena. But as the President of ISA, I am disturbed by the formation of technology camps and the resulting controversy. Apparently there are times when consensus is all but impossible!

So…How do we resolve that?

The obvious answer is to let the market duke it out and for the users to ultimately decide. This happened with Beta vs. VHS. Why not allow the market to determine the right protocol for wireless? Ah, but the users don’t want to invest in a technology that may be driven out of the market place. They want a standard so they know where to invest their wireless dollars. There is the added pressure that ISA has been criticized for not getting standards to market in a timely fashion. This is not the fault of ISA per se. ISA staff depends on the volunteers to drive the standards activity—especially when the barriers to quick delivery are technical in nature.

So is there a resolution to this dilemma?

I’m not sure there is a quick and easy solution. While the ISA100 Committee and working groups continue to attempt writing a standard that meets with consensus, we (ISA, WINA, and all the vendors involved with the technology) have the opportunity to educate users on the right questions to ask before they invest in wireless instruments and networks.

There is much to be gained from wireless technology in the manufacturing arena. Wireless provides a way to make measurements that were uneconomical in the past or measurements that were all but impossible to make. I encourage users and vendors alike to not only self-educate themselves on wireless technology, but also to provide input to the technical gurus on the Standards committee. They need to hear the perspective of “outsiders” to help develop the best path forward for the standard.

Hopefully consensus will be reached soon, and a resulting standard published. But in the meantime we all get to enjoy watching the controversy develop. For those of us in automation, it ranks right up there with the political debates of an election!