PTQ Q2 2026 Issue

Open process automation: software- driven control is gaining momentum

Process manufacturers are increasingly recognising the benefits of shifting to fully open and software-based control systems to deliver full interoperability

Vien Nguyen Yokogawa

P rocess industries in general, and the energy segment in particular, are understandably conservative by nature, but technological progress is always being made, slowly and methodically. Such is the case with the Open Process Automation Forum (OPAF), a forum under The Open Group, now about 10 years old. This group has been working to break down some of the last proprietary walls of industrial control, creating mechanisms for interop- erable and vendor-agnostic process automation systems. This follows precedents over recent decades, previ- ously set by the adoption of PC-based systems, Microsoft Windows, Linux OS, and Ethernet-based networking, dis- placing more specialised and proprietary computer hard- ware and software. Today, control systems are vastly more open than they were 30 or even 20 years ago; however, real-time control functions have remained difficult to break out, often representing the last holdouts of proprietary thinking. After roughly a decade of progress in the OPAF initiative, it is a good time to update the situation and see how far it has progressed, beginning with a historical overview to put this progress into context. Challenge from end users Much of the thinking initially driving The Open Group was outlined in presentations by ExxonMobil at ARC Industry Forum meetings in 2015 and 2016. In his 2016 presentation, Don Bartusiak, PhD, then Chief Engineer, Process Control for ExxonMobil Research and Engineering, explained that the company was anticipating having to replace or upgrade many process control systems across its fleet of refineries and chemical plants. He asked: “How can we take cost out of the projects that

we need to do, to deliver process control systems, particu- larly in our greenfield facilities?” He extended that thought by also asking how practical it is to handle multiple projects, each with a finite time window. Bartusiak called for a new approach, because “It’s too difficult, it’s too expensive, for us to upgrade or replace control systems. What can we do to solve that problem? We’re not getting enough value from the control system”. His argument is that the main problem lies in the extent of real-time control functionality built into dedicated hardware. He suggested that these capabilities should be virtualised using software on generic platforms with a high degree of interoperability so that control software would not need to be rewritten due to a platform change. ExxonMobil’s call was for a standards-based, open, secure, and interoperable control system, but without any compromises on opera- tional safety or reliability. This was no small task. Since then, the work of OPAF has been to address this challenge by creating a technical and commercial ecosys- tem. Making such a concept possible requires a catalogue of standards and technical documentation covering a range of critical topics, including: • Technical architecture. • Security aspects. • Profiles. • Connectivity framework. • System management. • Configuration portability. • Physical platform. • Application portability. Creating practical standards The Open Group created OPAF with a specific mission: to

2016

2018

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2026

Interoperability

Interoperability Conguration portability

Conguration portability

Physical platform, Application portability, System orchestration

Forum formation

Version 1.0 Preliminary

Version 1.0 Final

Version 2.0 Preliminary

Version 2.1 Preliminary

Version 2.1 Final

2nd Edition

2nd Edition Version 2.2

Figure 1 The Open Process Automation Standard (O-PAS) has moved through a series of versions over a short period of time

PTQ Q2 2026