We met in a conference room at an office in Barrington, IL. A place where sometime later a couple guys thought they'd screw me in a business deal. I came out ahead in the end, but the place has mixed memories.

This meeting involved thinking about the future of asset data and systems interoperability. We had a system diagram. The idea was to solve a huge problem for owner/operators of process manufacturing enterprises—flowing engineering data into other software systems for operations, maintenance, and enterprise. The incumbent system was a morass of paper (or pdf documents which was much the same thing).

We did trademark searches and domain name searches and eventually settled on the Open Industrial Interoperability Ecosystem—OIIE.

I plot this history for context for the conference I attended recently—the 2nd ADIF Workshop at Texas A&M University dubbed Driving Asset Data and Systems Interoperability Toward an Open and Neutral Data Ecosystem.

This workshop brought together owner/operators, EPCs, System Integrators, university researchers, standards organizations, and software vendors. Each group conducted a panel discussion of its needs and successes. I was there for a short presentation and to moderate the standards panel.

Professor David Jeong from Texas A&M and the session leader previewed the discussions. One of his colleagues later presented research his team has performed to provide a method for taking P&ID documentation into a standard format usable by other software systems.

The message that came to me from the panel of owner/operators (grossly summarized, as will be all the discussions) included two key words—collaborate and operationalize. They are impatient about solving this data interoperability problem. One panelist quipped, "We know the project is finished when the large van backs into the loading dock and disgorges mountains of paper."

What blows my mind is that I was moved to a position called Data Manager in 1977 to tackle the (much smaller) mountain of paper our product engineering department provided to operations, accounting, and inventory management. I led a digitalization effort in 1978 to tackle the problem. The problem not only remains, but it is immensely more complicated and critical.

The EPCs basically said that their hands were tied by the owner/operators mandating which design and engineering software to use and the inflexibility of the vendors of said design and engineering software. When owner/operators had requested digital documentation, they had responded with pdfs. Hardly interoperable data.

Our standards panel included the leader of DEXPI, whose organization has developed a method of changing P&ID data into an xlsx (Excel) format. That, of course, is a good start.

An organization called CFIHOS (see-foss) presented their take on standards. I'm afraid I got a bit lost in the slides (note: more research needed). What I gathered was that they were attempting one overriding standard—and that that work was years away. Interesting that I listened to Benedict Evans' podcast this morning. He is a long-time tech industry analyst. He remarked in another context, "It seems that where there are 10 standards and someone comes along with a standard to encompass them all, you wind up with 11 standards."

The ISA-95 was presented. This messaging (and more) standard is incorporated with the OIIE, which was presented next. Dr. Markus Stumptner of the University of South Australia presented his research work on proof of concept of the OIIE.

If we can get enough momentum focusing on this area and find some SIs willing to take the OIIE to an owner/operator, perhaps we can finally prove the business case of asset data and systems interoperability.