Beth Ragdale, software business manager at automation specialist Beckhoff UK, argues that interoperability in automotive manufacturing is not just about compliance with standards, but about how open and flexible control architectures truly are.
Standards such as ISA-101 and ISA-112 have an important role, particularly in bringing consistency to how information is presented and acted upon. In automotive, ISA-95 is often used as the reference model for integrating systems across the automation pyramid. ISA itself describes ISA-95 as “an international set of standards aimed at integrating logistics systems with manufacturing control systems.”
However, because it defines the interface content more than the implementation approach, it can still leave manufacturers relying on multiple middleware layers to make everything work together consistently.
In many factories, the most immediate benefit of standardisation is human-centred. Clearer interfaces, better alarm management and consistent behaviours can reduce confusion and help teams respond faster when something goes wrong. Yet while standards are useful, they are not enough to provide interoperability without also having the right architecture in place.
The limits of standards
Automotive plants are layered environments, built and modified over time. Legacy equipment stays in service because it still delivers value. New machines arrive from different suppliers, often with different assumptions about communication, data access and software tooling. Edge devices are added to provide extended features such as remote support, condition monitoring and predictive maintenance, for example. Data is increasingly pushed upwards into analytics platforms and enterprise systems. Each change adds another interface to manage.
This is why interoperability often fails in practice even when it appears straightforward on paper. It is not only a question of whether systems can communicate, but how easily the overall architecture can absorb change without becoming fragile.
Interoperability is an architectural question
A more useful way to approach interoperability is to treat it as an architectural challenge, not just a compliance exercise. The core question is whether a factory’s control and communication foundations make it easier to integrate new requirements over time.
Many interoperability discussions focus on the interface layer. Which protocol connects machine A to system B? How will data be extracted? What gateways are needed? These questions matter, but they can also mask the deeper issue.
If the control platform is tightly coupled or designed around a closed ecosystem, integration tends to become a series of bespoke projects. Each project may solve a problem locally, but the overall complexity grows.
Open, software-centric architectures take a different approach. They aim to separate concerns and make integration more systematic. Control, communication, visualisation and data handling become software-driven capabilities that can evolve independently. Standards still have a role, but they sit within a more flexible framework rather than acting as the only mechanism for compatibility.
This difference becomes more important as factories grow more connected. Global Market Insights estimates the automotive digital factory automation market was valued at USD 26.5 billion in 2024 and expects it to reach USD 70.8 billion by 2034, representing a 10.5 per cent CAGR.
Why automotive makes the challenge visible
Interoperability pressures exist across manufacturing, but automotive makes them particularly visible. Production lines often involve a high mix of equipment types, frequent changeovers, and a constant drive for throughput, quality and traceability. Programmes change and variants multiply, while new powertrain technologies introduce new processes and test requirements. Few plants have the option to stop and redesign everything from scratch.
That reality makes incremental modernisation the norm. Systems must be able to incorporate legacy protocols alongside modern ones. Data must be collected from different machines without creating a maze of separate gateways. Diagnostics need to be consistent enough that teams can identify issues quickly, even in mixed-vendor environments.
Lessons from other sectors
Other industries offer useful parallels. In the process industries, integrated control packages can simplify early deployment, but they often centralise integration decisions and can limit flexibility later. Modular concepts have also driven standards that describe equipment in terms of services, parameters and behaviour, rather than just fixed interfaces.
The details differ from automotive, but the direction is similar. Interoperability improves when systems can be integrated in a structured way that supports change. Building automation is another example. It is a world of diverse devices and protocols, where strict standardisation is difficult to achieve in practice. Here, interoperability often depends on aggregation, gateways and platforms that can handle variety without creating a brittle architecture.
These examples support a broader point. As manufacturing systems become more modular and more software-driven, interoperability increasingly depends on flexibility rather than uniformity.
Looking beyond today’s HMIs
Many existing standards assume traditional HMI models built around fixed screens, menus and navigation. Although these remain important, they may not fully reflect how teams will want to interrogate systems as data volumes grow and analytical tools become more common.
There is demand for more adaptive interfaces, especially with the introduction of AI. Operators may want to request specific trends over a time-period, ask for context around a fault, or generate a view tailored to a particular scenario rather than relying only on predefined screens. Supporting this kind of interaction requires more than consistent screen layouts. It requires control platforms that expose data and functionality in a structured, software-driven way. In other words, future interoperability is likely to be as much about how information is made available as it is about how machines are connected.
Standards as a foundation, not a finish line
While standards are essential, they are not a substitute for thoughtful system architecture. True interoperability emerges from design decisions made at the control level, long before interfaces are standardised or data is aggregated. Just as consumers eventually expect their smart devices to integrate effortlessly, automotive manufacturers and machine builders increasingly need systems that communicate, adapt and evolve together across multiple vendors, protocols and generations of equipment. Standards are part of that journey, but the real momentum comes from architectures that can embrace change rather than resist it.
Learn more https://www.beckhoff.co.uk/
Click here for more automotive stories: https://designsolutionsmag.co.uk/category/automotive-industry/
