MAR-APR 2019

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 7 of 59

8 INTECH MARCH/APRIL 2019 WWW.ISA.ORG Survey insights First of all, I really enjoyed and appreci- ated the article "The pay raise engineers have been waiting for," based on the results from the 2018 salary review [Sep - tember/ October 2018 InTech, in tech/20181001]. This information is very interesting and the type of content that will interest all of the readers who are in - volved in automation, instrumentation, and control. It is well done, and I applaud the effort to put out the survey and to analyze the input. I would like to bring up one point with respect to both the survey and the "recipe" on page 15. This includes some ingredients that will help professionals to maximize their salaries and expand their income. You include some excellent points—most of which I included in my career path and salary adjustments. However, there is one major area that is not explicitly included that can have a major impact on a person's role with the company and the future income. It may not even be included on the survey, and if it is not, it should be added. That fac- tor is "professional credentialing," such as obtaining a legal license to practice engineering (PE), qualifying for a profes- sional certificate as a Certified Automa- tion Professional (CAP), becoming a Cer- tified Control Systems Technician (CCST), or some other professional certification (CSFE, safety, etc.). These are all achievements following some professional education or degree that add to the status and reputation of the individual, while making him or her more employable. The individuals find that these credentials not only increase their salaries, but also open new doors of opportunity for advancement in the com- pany leadership roles. I speak from expe- rience. My company gave an automatic salary increase for obtaining a PE license, which opened up new salary grades, and was required for a person to become a de partment manager. In fact, ISA is a major supporter of the legal license to practice engineering and of - fers many certifications in our professional field of practice. This is a prime activity for the professional development department of ISA and a key to many of the educational efforts of the society. ISA also offers many books, manuals, standards, training classes, and seminars as preparation for these cre - dentials to expand the professional devel- opment of people in this profession. Please consider including "credential- ing" in future salary surveys and using the data in the analysis—I think you will find a difference in the salary of a licensed en- gineer as compared to someone with the same experience level, but not licensed. Gerald Wilbanks, PE ISA Fellow Author's response Thanks so much for the kind words. We actually did include professional licensing in the survey, but opted not to include it in the article, which now I see was a mistake. It will be included in future articles. Looking at the raw data, you are ab- solutely correct. Of the roughly 1,600 respondents that answered the licensed professional engineer question, 23.8 percent said they were licensed and re- ported a $22,000 increase over those who were not. For the ISA certifications question, 30.1 percent of respondents answered that they had been certified. Their salaries av- eraged $2,460 more annually than those who were not. Thank you so much for sharing these insights and experiences; they are incred - ibly helpful and very, very much appreci- ated. These points will definitely be imple- mented in articles going forward. Cory Fogg Alarm management While the ["OPC: Interoperability standard for industrial automation"] article [Novem- ber/December 2018 InTech, intech/20181204] is generally excellent, I kept hoping, while reading it, that the ma- jor challenge in trying to achieve informa- tion integration and OT standardization in the many industrial situations (e.g., many pharmaceutical plants) involving a plant's use of numerous diverse packaged au- tomation systems from different vendors might be included as an example. As Mr. Burke may be aware, the national standard (ANSI/ISA 18.2), originally published in 2009, and the similar international stan - dard (IEC 62682) address alarm management in the process industries. The issues involved in achieving effective alarm management in the process industries, which include infor - mation integration and OT standardization, are so significant for plants using distributed packaged automation systems (e.g., different PLCs from different vendors controlling differ - ent plant operations) that ISA commissioned a committee to develop a formal technical re - port addressing this topic. The ISA18.2 WG7 worked for about five years on this issue, publishing their results (ISA-TR18.2.7) over a year ago. Their TR is titled "Alarm Manage - ment when Utilizing Packaged Systems." Anyway, alarm management is one of several topics that has received significant attention in recent years regarding some of OPC's objectives. I was hoping some of this effort might be mentioned in the article. Joe Alford your letters | Readers Respond September/October 2018 Global megatrends Machine safety Predictive maintenance Industry 4.0 Flow spotlight ntech A P U B L I C AT I O N O F T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I E T Y O F A U T O M AT I O N 28 INTECH NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 WWW.ISA.ORG Interoperability standard for industrial automation In today's complex economy, information is the key to business success and profitability By Thomas J. Burke T he OPC Foundation is working with consor- tia and standard development organizations to achieve the goals of superior production with digitalization. The year 2018 has been an interesting, record-breaking year, with end us - ers, system integrators, and suppliers focused on maximizing their engineering investments and increasing productivity. End users are capitalizing on the data and information explosion. Consortia and standard development organizations (SDOs) are helping suppliers to exceed expectations. Integration opportunity Information integration requires standards organizations to work together for interoper- ability with synergistic opportunities to ad- dress convergence and to prevent overlapping complex information model architectures. The standards organizations have been working in - dependently, and now it is time for them work to together to harmonize their data models with other standard organizations. The criteria for success for an SDO should be measured by the level of open interoperability provided. When OPC UA was first conceived, it focused on developing a strategy for platform indepen- dence and a solution that allowed the operation- al technology (OT) and information technology (IT) worlds to communicate, have seamless in - teroperability, and be able to agree on syntacti- cal and semantic data exchange formats. The OPC Foundation started developing a service-oriented architecture, recognizing the opportunity to separate the services from the data. It consciously developed a rich, complex information model that allowed the OPC data to be modeled from the OPC classic specifications. OPC Foundation The mission of the OPC Foundation is to manage a global organization in which users, vendors, and consortia collaborate to create standards for mul- tivendor, multiplatform, secure, and reliable infor- mation integration interoperability in industrial automation and beyond. To support this mission, the OPC Foundation creates and maintains speci- fications, ensures compliance with OPC specifica- tions via certification testing, and collaborates with standards organizations. OPC technologies were created to allow informa- tion to be easily and securely exchanged between diverse platforms from multiple vendors and to allow seamless integration of those platforms with- out costly, time-consuming software development. OPC

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of InTech - MAR-APR 2019