Introduction
In the field of process control, discrepancies between words and actions are prevalent. These inconsistencies are often linked to the failure to integrate knowledge with execution. Knowledge and action are two sides of the same coin in problem-solving: knowledge without application is futile, and action without understanding is reckless. However, the issue of incongruence goes beyond mere failure to align knowledge and action. This article delves into various manifestations of this disconnect, examining their causes and proposing ways to address them.
1. The Importance and Oversight of PID Tuning
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) parameter tuning is a fundamental skill in process control. Despite its importance, many engineers treat control loops in isolation, using standard tuning methods without considering systemic thinking to address complex control challenges. This oversight is partly due to a lack of skill and understanding of PID capabilities and partly due to the prioritization of non-technical factors over streamlined problem-solving.
A competent process control engineer must master PID tuning. However, in advanced control projects, it is common to see engineers bypass this critical step. Many engage with technical resources—following public accounts, purchasing books, or joining discussion groups—but fail to apply this knowledge effectively. Without proper PID tuning, achieving optimal project outcomes is nearly impossible, despite owner emphasis on its necessity. Often, such tasks are treated perfunctorily, undermining project success.
2. Misrepresentation in Advanced Control Solutions
Many companies claim to provide advanced control solutions, branding their offerings as intelligent control, artificial intelligence, or expert systems. However, on closer inspection, the core of their work often revolves around PID tuning and control scheme optimization. This tendency to overstate capabilities—a form of misrepresentation—pervades the industry.
For example, the concept of zero manual operation is occasionally marketed as a one-off project goal. In reality, zero manual operation should be a long-term objective achieved through continuous improvement. Claiming to achieve this by simply installing software mirrors past misconceptions about “smart factories” and often leads to unrealistic expectations.
3. The Overextension of Advanced Control
Advanced control was developed to cost-effectively manage complex multivariable optimization. However, it is not a replacement for PID control. In practice, advanced control systems are sometimes misapplied to single-variable scenarios that could be better handled by PID. A striking example is the use of external Advanced Process Control (APC) servers to replicate PID-level second-by-second control, bypassing built-in Distributed Control System (DCS) functionalities.
This misapplication stems from various factors, including insufficient utilization of DCS capabilities and implementation team dynamics. Designing advanced control for its own sake, rather than as a means to an end, is another example of words and actions being misaligned.
4. Alarm Management’s Misguided Focus
Alarm management aims to enhance safety by reducing redundant and erroneous alarms. However, when alarm reduction efforts focus solely on metrics rather than root causes of system disturbances, the results can be counterproductive. Penalizing teams for high alarm counts without addressing process instability leads to superficial fixes, leaving the underlying issues unresolved.
Alarm reduction should stem from process stabilization through effective control. Without reducing process variability, alarm management efforts lose their significance. True alarm management should focus on improving the system’s robustness and automation levels, ensuring safety without overburdening operators.
5. The Pitfalls of Oversimplified Automation Metrics
Metrics like automation rate are intended to drive the adoption of automated control. However, when these metrics become purely evaluative without empowering teams to address challenges, they risk incentivizing superficial compliance. Manipulating metrics, such as inflating the denominator to meet targets, erodes their credibility and effectiveness.
Such issues reflect a broader challenge in organizational management: poorly designed evaluations often fail to achieve their intended outcomes. For automation metrics to drive meaningful change, they must be paired with practical support and resources, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach
Conclusion
The disconnect between words and actions in process control is multifaceted, encompassing technical, organizational, and cultural dimensions. To bridge this gap, the industry must prioritize genuine problem-solving over superficial compliance, integrate systemic thinking into technical processes, and design evaluations that promote meaningful improvement. By aligning knowledge with action and ensuring consistency between intentions and implementations, process control can evolve to meet the demands of increasingly complex industrial environments.