Industry News, Trends and Technology, and Standards Updates

Anticipating and promoting the increased adoption of SEMI’s Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA / aka Interface A) standards, we’ve posted a number of blogs over the past 12 months to address questions that potential stakeholders have repeatedly asked across the value chain. These postings have dealt with everything from the factory applications enabled by EDA to the best practices for OEM implementation of these standards to the development of robust equipment purchasing specifications.

Since the adoption process has now clearly reached critical mass, we must seriously address the question “How are we going to test the equipment and systems that incorporate these standards?” in a way that supports the entire industry. It’s an excellent question, and one that has a multi-part answer.

Given the structure and expected use of the EDA standards, the acceptance testing process for a unit of semiconductor manufacturing equipment will include at least three components, each of which addresses a different aspect of the standards. Note that we’re explaining this from the perspective of the end customer in a semiconductor factory, since this is the most common use case, but most of the same principles apply when testing EDA client infrastructure/application components as well.

• Compliance testing – does the equipment adhere to the specifications described in the SEMI Standards, and were these specifications interpreted correctly? Will it cleanly connect to the EDA client infrastructure without modification or extensive configuration?

• Performance and stability testing – does the equipment meet the end users’ performance and availability specifications in terms of data sampling intervals, overall data volume transmitted, size and number of DCPs (data collection plans) supported, demands on the computing/network resources, up-time, etc.? Will it support the range of application clients expected in a production environment?

• Equipment metadata model conformance testing – does the equipment model delivered with the interface represent the tool structure and content anticipated by the end customer? If the customer has requested that SEMI E164 (EDA Common Metadata) be fully supported, does the metadata model meet these specifications?

Of course, in addition to the requirements dictated by the standards themselves, most advanced semiconductor manufacturers will have a number of factory-specific requirements that must also be supported by the EDA interface. These may include special events and data for particular automation schemes, vectors of process parameters to support fault detection applications or other feature extraction algorithms, synchronization signals for external sensor integration, and the like. To address these requirements efficiently, an EDA test system should be extensible by its users.

You can see how interesting and vital this topic becomes when you consider the range of requirements outlined above. We’ll explore each of these in more detail in the next few postings, so stay tuned!

Exhibiting at SEMICON Taiwan for the second time in as many years, Cimetrix significantly expanded its presence at the show with a booth in the Smart Manufacturing Pavilion. Like last year, we shared an exhibit with one of our Taiwan partner companies, Flagship International.

Since the semiconductor industry is one of the most important economic engines in Taiwan, this year’s Gala Dinner at the Grand Hyatt featured an excellent and supportive speech by the country’s new President, Dr. Ing-Wen Tsai. Taiwan’s tech industries have had a solid year thus far, leading other regions of the world and capturing additional market share.

In recent years, SEMI has increased its emphasis on focused “educational” forums at its SEMICON shows, and set a new high-water mark at SEMICON Taiwan with 20 of these events ranging from Design to Materials to Packaging to Overseas Investmen. Cimetrix was privileged to be named as one of the speakers at the Smart Manufacturing Forum, which included presentations by a variety of thought leaders from UMC, Rockwell Automation, ASE, and others. Alan Weber represented Cimetrix with a presentation entitled “Realizing Smart Manufacturing in Semiconductor Industry with SEMI Standards,” making the case that the industry’s factories already embody many of the characteristics of a Smart Manufacturing environment by virtue of the latest generations of SEMI Standards that support the required connectivity and control capabilities.

As a specific example, the UMC “Big Data to Manufacturing Excellence” presentation by Mr. James Lin described the “Wait Time Waste” analysis application, which is directly enabled by the SEMI E168 (Product Time Measurement) standard and the underlying detailed equipment event data called for in the E164 (EDA Common Metadata) standard.

To support the level of ongoing activity at the show and elsewhere in Taiwan, the Cimetrix contingent also included Derek Lindsey and Kerry Iwamoto, shown here during one of quieter moments in the booth.

Another highlight of the week for Cimetrix was participation in the eMDC (e-Manufacturing & Design Collaboration Symposium), now in its 10th year in Taiwan. Alan Weber made a presentation entitled “The Role of Models in Semiconductor Smart Manufacturing” that echoed a number of the messages shared at the Smart Manufacturing Forum but with heavier emphasis on the manufacturing applications that are enabled.

The basic idea is that most of the information required to support generic process monitoring and calculation of productivity KPIs is now mandated by the latest generation of equipment model standards, and this promises to drastically reduce the factory cost of developing and integrating these applications.
 
On a final note, in discussing the use of the SEMI EDA standards for critical production applications with a number of the leading chip makers during the week, it seems that we are now very close to an industry tipping point for the adoption of this technology. This has been a long time in coming, and opens up a realm of exciting new possibilities for consumers of detailed equipment and process data!

Wikipedia graphic putting Industrie 4.0 in historical context (Figure 1)

If the attendance at the most recent SEMICON West and SEMICON Taiwan trade shows are any indication, the terms “Smart Manufacturing”, “Industry 4.0” and “IIoT” (Industrial Internet of Things) have indeed gained recognition and momentum as the rallying cry for the 4^th industrial revolution (see figure 1).

In order to reach an even broader audience, the folks at Extension Media will host a free Webinar next week (September 27, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. EDT) with the provocative title “Is the Semiconductor Industry Ready for Industry 4.0 and the IIoT?”

Cimetrix’ VP of New Product Innovations, Alan Weber, is one of the presenters, and will make the case that the industry IS in fact ready for Industry 4.0 and the IIoT by virtue of the latest generations of SEMI Standards that support the kind of connectivity and control required by components of a Smart Manufacturing environment. He will not only show how the evolution of these standards has kept pace with the industry’s automation requirements for almost three decades, but also describe a number of concrete factory application examples that directly leverage the model-based aspects of the latest standards to achieve “plug-and-play” status across multiple process areas.

Sharing the agenda for the Webinar is Tom Sonderman, the VP and General Manager of Rudolph Technologies’ Software Business Unit. Tom has over 20 years of direct experience in the world-class Advanced Precision Manufacturing organizations of AMD and GLOBALFOUNDRIES before joining Rudolph, so there are few people in the world more qualified than he to talk about our industry’s automation capabilities.

 In a previous blog we mentioned that two new SEMI standards, E172 and E173, demonstrated that the GEM standard was alive and well and even gaining new momentum by evolving to adopt new technology. The earlier blog focused on E172 with its SEDD files that use an XML schema to describe what is in a GEM interface. Today’s blog is about the E173 Specification for XML SECS-II Message Notation: a new way to log and document GEM/SECS messages, again using an XML schema.

A few years ago Cimetrix was involved in a project prototyping Wait Time Waste concepts and implementation alternatives. This work required Cimetrix engineers to review and extract data from many different SECS-II message log files from a variety of sources, and in the process, exposed a serious weakness in the industry. Because there was no standardized notation for logging SECS-II messages, everyone represented them differently, using different nuances and variations in their notation based loosely on SML (SECS Message Language, which is mentioned in the GEM standard). Additionally, SML itself was designed primarily for human readability, and certainly not for consumption by software programs; moreover, you can’t analyze a long message log without software to do the parsing for you. As a consequence, writing software to review the log files and to extract meaningful data from the log files was far more difficult than it should have been – SML and SML-like notations are simply not suitable for today’s needs. But now there is a suitable, industry-standard alternative. 

At Cimetrix we have utilized various notations for logging SECS-II messages for many years. In order for any notation to be useful it must meet certain criteria. First of all, it has to be easy for software to write (serialize). Secondly, it also needs to be easy for software to read (deserialize). And finally, it should be easy for humans to read and understand.

The original technique we used many years ago was based on the scripting language Tcl (pronounced “tickle”), which uses curly braces as structural delimiters. When programming within the Tcl language, this works very well. In other programming languages, however, it is easy to serialize, but not so easy to deserialize. Another technique Cimetrix had used for a few years was based on XML, which is well supported by all modern programming languages and an integral part of most internet activity. It is very easy to serialize and deserialize. And when formatted with carriage returns and indentation, it is quite easy to read for most humans (at least the ones who are software programmers or web page gurus).

Here is a subjective comparison between the notation alternatives using a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is excellent and 1 is very poor or difficult.

At Cimetrix we decided to leverage our experience with XML, SECS/GEM standards and the SEMI Standards organization and related communities to develop a notation that everyone in the industry could benefit from. The result was this new standard: SMN. It is comprised of two parts: an XML schema defined specifically for GEM/SECS messaging; and a specification document describing how to use it (although many details of the specification are embedded as annotations within the XML schema file itself). It looks like this:

The schema is found on the SEMI website: http://dom.semi.org/web/wstandards.nsf/complementaryfiles

SMN brings the representation of SECS messages into the Internet era by defining an open, standard, XML-based notation for these messages. So what can you do with this? Here are some ideas:

• Document individual SECS/GEM messages (the SEMI E172 SEDD file uses SMN for this). You can also document entire message scenarios.

• Log individual SECS/GEM messages or scenarios in XML format. These can include only the messages, or might also include protocol messages (like the HSMS separate message).

• Share message logs with others. If their software supports SMN, they can immediately make use of it. This should increase collaboration in the manufacturing community, particularly between equipment suppliers and their customers.

• Embellish log files with comments and meaningful metadata, like data item names, variable names, collection event names, etc.

• Analyze and extract information from log files offline for projects like Wait Time Waste, where you don’t need to process a live data stream.

• Log messages in a raw binary format to save disk space, yet encapsulated in XML for convenience.

• Many of the numerous XML tools in the software development community can now be used by SECS/GEM software developers. This opens up a world of opportunities.

• Products like our CIMConnect and CIM300 can make use of SMN to make it easier to implement GEM and GEM300 interfaces on the equipment by using the SECSData element from SMN to pass data from the equipment supplier’s software into our product.

It is exciting to see the GEM standard evolve and embrace new technologies like XML to make integrating manufacturing equipment into the factories easier and easier.

For more information about these latest standards, and how you can incorporate them into your interface implementation, please contact us.♦

Interest in SEMI standard E30, known as the GEM standard has grown in recent years. That interest has increased in various manufacturing industries has matured in which factories are seeking to increase automation and carefully monitor equipment activity in order to increase production and product quality. Initially, the GEM standard targeted just the semiconductor industry, but then expanded to include any industry that used manufacturing equipment. In fact, a number of years ago the name of the GEM Standard changed from the “Generic Model for Communication and Control of Semiconductor Equipment” to “Generic Model for Communication and Control of Manufacturing Equipment.” Adoption by other industries is possible because the GEM standard defines generic features to control and monitor any manufacturing equipment. The GEM standard technology is not limited to semiconductor manufacturing. Over time, other industries have taken notice, especially as they try to develop increased control over their equipment.

CIMConnect™ is the best software product on the market for implementing the GEM standard. Of course CIMConnect supports all of the required GEM features as well as additional capabilities. This even includes excellent support of the Spooling feature, which saves messages that are otherwise dropped during a loss of communication. Early implementations of the GEM standard by others gave the GEM standard’s Spooling feature a bad reputation. This reputation is undeserved when Spooling is implemented by a robust product like CIMConnect. In CIMConnect, not only does Spooling work; it works well. It has been proven by customers that CIMConnect’s Spooling implementation does not lose any messages—even while under high-stress conditions. This means that when using CIMConnect, the Spooling feature can be used to effectively preserve critical data from the equipment.

Another feature that makes CIMConnect the best GEM software product is the CIMConnect Control Panel. In the new CIMConnect release, this application was completely rewritten, redesigned in .NET,  giving it a modern look and feel while adding lots of new convenient functionality. With other GEM products, the GEM interface is essentially a black box. With CIMConnect, however, the Control Panel application gives full visibility into the GEM interface. And you can run it at any time during GEM interface development and also during production. This means that you can see what reports and traces are defined, the link between reports and events, the status of all state machines, the state of each alarm, the enable status of every event, the history of occurring collection events, the history of alarm state changes and the current values of all data variables, and status variables and equipment constants. You can also view and capture the SECS-II message logging at any time for scenario diagnostics. Additionally, the CIMConnect Control Panel provides features to simulate the occurrence of collection events, collection event data, alarms, and variable data; thereby making it a built-in simulator included requiring no additional effort. And when you are ready to update your GEM documentation appendix with the list of defined collection events, alarms, status variables, data variables, and equipment constants, use the documentation builder feature.

CIMConnect has also already adopted use of new SEMI standard E173 Specification for XML SECS-II Message Notation (SMN). CIMConnect allows software applications to use SMN notation both when providing variable values to CIMConnect, as well as when getting variable values from CIMConnect. This means that you can pass data around in XML, retaining the data type and data structure information; bringing the convenience of XML into the SECS/GEM technology. You can log the GEM communication messages using SMN format making log messages much more useful, and they are able to be easily deserialized by any software applications that has XML libraries.

For additional detailed information about CIMConnect or to request a product demonstration, please contact us.♦

As the SEMI GEM standard celebrates its 25^th birthday, you may have thought its evolution had just about run its course — but you’d be wrong. Last year, the Information and Control Committee of SEMI Standards passed two new standards that enhance the usability of the entire SECS/GEM suite of standards for equipment suppliers and semiconductor manufacturers alike: E172 SEDD and E173 SMN.

Let us talk about the first of these, the E172 Specification for the SECS Equipment Data Dictionary (SEDD) and postpone E173 Specification for XML SECS-II Message Notation (SMN) discussion for another blog. SEDD standardizes the approach for documenting an equipment’s GEM interface in a way that is both human- and computer-readable. All factories in every industry that use GEM require their equipment suppliers to provide GEM interface documentation in some electronic form for each type of equipment. This is because the GEM interface on every equipment type is unique, supporting unique features and publishing a unique set of data. Of course, the GEM standard itself requires documentation and what has to be in the documentation but does not specify how this is to be accomplished. Until now there has been no common approach or format. This has always left the equipment suppliers to come up with their own format. At best this might be in a multiple-tabbed Excel spreadsheet or a PDF file; and at worst a text document that might or might not have been accurate or even complete. And every equipment supplier completes the documentation in a different structure and style so that no two GEM documents look the same. In summary, everyone is trying to complete this GEM and factory requirement by providing documentation, but in the end what factories are receiving has to be consumed and digested differently based on the equipment supplier, and sometimes even based on the specific equipment type from the same equipment supplier. It is a lot of work for the factory just to understand exactly what is in each GEM interface.

SEDD was created to solve this problem by defining a standard XML schema for documenting a GEM interface. Equipment suppliers create an XML file that complies with the SEDD XML schema to document the GEM interface and then deliver this XML file (called an SEDD file) to the factory.

Why XML? Because XML is the perfect technology for organizing data into a uniform structure that is well supported by modern programming languages. This means that equipment suppliers can use a software program to generate the SEDD file. It also means that factories can write software to read and view the SEDD file. Moreover, they can create intelligent host applications that automatically configure themselves and adapt to a specific GEM interface.

So what’s in an SEDD file? Below is a visual representation of the SEDD file schema, identifying the major elements of the SEDD file.

So essentially the SEDD file includes a list of the data available for collection by a host, some general information about the equipment (in the header), and the format of the data variables, status variables and equipment constants. As an example of what details are included, here are the details for collection events.

As an example, for a collection event, the SEDD file includes a list of all collection events available, and the ID, name, description, related SEMI standard, and the list of related data variables and other variables for that collection event. This is everything you need to use a collection event.

So far this is a summary of what is available today in a SEDD file. Cimetrix is leading the GEM300 task to extend the SEDD file to include additional information. This work is in SEMI ballot 5872 that proposes to extend the SEDD file to also include:

• A list of supported SECS-II messages and the acceptable format for each message (using E172 SMN)

• A list of support remote commands and available parameters for each remote command

• A list compliance tables for supported SEMI standards

• The list of predefined event reports

This is all work that was postponed from the original SEDD standard development. Hopefully ballot 5872 will pass and make SEDD files even more useful. With this additional information an SEDD file would empower GEM host software to configure itself to fully communicate with a GEM interface and make all of the features in the GEM interface available.

This is one example of how GEM technology just keeps getting better. It is not surprising that GEM is getting used in more and more industries.

For more information about this latest standard, and how you can incorporate it into your interface implementation, please contact us.♦

When my daughter turned one year old, she got a very soft blanket as a birthday present. She loved that blanket and would take it everywhere with her. She couldn’t/wouldn’t go to sleep at night without it. When she got old enough to talk, she called it her special blanket or “spesh.” Needless to say, after many years of toting that blanket around, it started to wear out – in fact, it started getting downright nasty. She adamantly refused to part with it even though it was just a rag with little redeeming value.

A couple of years ago, Microsoft made the following announcement: “After 12 years, support for Windows XP ended April 8, 2014. There will be no more security updates or technical support for the Windows XP operating system. It is very important that customers and partners migrate to a modern operating system.”

In the immortal words of Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy from Star Trek, “It’s dead Jim!”

Many arguments have been proffered on both sides as to why users should stay with or move away from XP. Windows XP was first introduced in 2001. That makes the operating system 15 years old — an eternity in computer years. The main argument I see for upgrading from XP is that it is impossible to keep up with advances to the .NET framework and remain on the old operating system. By staying with XP, you are missing out on new features and technologies. These features include taking advantage of better hardware integration for improved system performance and being able to use 64-bit applications and memory space.

Since Microsoft no longer supports XP and no longer provides security updates for the OS, staying with XP is a security risk. Any security holes that have been discovered since Microsoft withdrew support have been ruthlessly targeted.

To come full circle, my daughter finally did give up the little rag that she had left of the blanket. I don’t remember what ultimately made her give it up. She is now 18 and a few months ago, we came across that small piece of her special little blanket that we had stored away. The rag brought back good memories, but we were both glad it had been retired. Isn’t it time to do the same with XP?♦

An issue that inevitably crops up in long-running, complex software systems is memory use. In the worst cases it manifests as a crash after several hours or days of running when the software has consumed all available memory.

Another inevitability is that these out-of-memory crashes are found very late in the development cycle, just prior to a delivery date. Or, worse, they are found after delivery. Given the fact that the crashes take hours or days to occur because the testing cycles are very long, they cause a lot of stress for the development team and frequently delay delivery.

The rest of this blog contains a proposed process to find these issues sooner in the development process and some tools to help the developer investigate memory use.

Early and continuous testing of the software system is the key to avoiding delivery of memory leaks. As soon as possible a dedicated system should be set up for endurance testing. The software should be built in debug mode, but it is not necessary to run it in a debugger. Preferably, for equipment control software, this would use a simulator for the hardware. This should be done as soon as there is enough of the software developed to be able to perform any significant functionality in a repetitive manner. This test can evolve as more of the software is developed with functionality being added to the test as it becomes available. For semiconductor equipment control software, a logical test would be to perform wafer cycling as this would exercise a good majority of the software. 

This endurance test should be kept running during development, right up to delivery. The computer running the endurance test should be configured to collect Windows crash dumps for the software application(s) and have Windows Performance Monitor configured to monitor Private Bytes for the application(s), https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff560134(v=vs.85).aspx. The test should be checked daily to see how the Private Bytes memory use has changed.  If the application has crashed, then the crash dump .DMP file can be collected and analyzed. Visual Studio can be used to open the .DMP file for analysis on the developer’s computer. 

The endurance test should be maintained and updated as the software is updated. However, since run time is important for this test, consider only updating it on a weekly basis unless the update is to fix an issue that caused the test to crash.

If the endurance test shows that the Private Bytes for the application increases steadily with no signs of levelling off, then the application probably has a memory leak.

For C++ programs, Microsoft’s UMDH memory dump utility is very useful for tracking down what allocations are occurring in the application, https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff560206(v=vs.85).aspx. The concept is to take two or more memory snapshots and analyze the differences to see what new objects have been created. Remember to have the software built in debug mode so full debug information is available in the memory dumps.

For .NET programs, newer versions of Visual Studio have built in memory profiling, https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264934.aspx.

There are third party memory analyzers on the market that some have found to be useful. Most of these will report numerous false positives that the developer will have to wade through to get to the real leaks. Most third party memory analyzers for .NET seem to frequently report false positives for COM objects. 

The tools just provide the developer a location to review the code for leaks. It still requires diligence and expertise on the part of the developer to analyze the information and find the cause of the leak. Seldom do the tools create a treasure map with "X" marking the spot of the leak.

Having an endurance test running allows the developer to understand the memory profile of the software and watch how the profile changes as the software changes. Early detection is critical given the length of the testing cycle.♦

Almost everyone I know that has built a house has given me a list of things they would “do differently next time,” but a lot of those same people would also say that they would never build again. So does that mean everything they learned through the process is lost? Is it possible to get it right the first time? Maybe not, but there are a lot of things you can do to learn from the experience of others. For example, you can buy house plans that have been used before and are designed to leverage standard components. Rather than designing and building everything from scratch, you can use pre-built sub systems like fabricated floor joists and manufactured roof trusses. Using proven components saves a lot of time and worry about whether or not they will work properly and as expected. This allows you to focus on the customizations that will make the home meet your unique needs.

Implementing an equipment control application is a lot like building a house. You can design and build a complete control system from the bottom up—building all the components necessary to handle communication with the hardware, display information to the operators, manage user access, log relevant event and data information—but it doesn’t add value to the core competency of your equipment. The best option is to leverage proven design that has been built through multiple prior applications and leverages those lessons learned along the way.

Cimetrix's CIMControlFramework provides all the standard components necessary to build an equipment control application. With working samples for both atmospheric and vacuum equipment, it can easily be customized and extended as needed to meet specific control needs.

There is an old saying that goes, “If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?”

If you would like to learn more about CIMControlFramework and how it can help you on your next project, give us a call or feel free to contact us here.♦

Since the concept was first articulated in 2011 by a German government-supported program promoting deeper integration of manufacturing software and hardware across the production value chain, the term “Industry 4.0” has gained recognition and momentum as the rallying cry for the 4^th industrial revolution (see left Image by Christoph Roser at AllAboutLean.com). Wikipedia  summarizes it like this: “Industry 4.0 facilitates the vision and execution of a ‘Smart Factory.’ Within the modular structured Smart Factories of Industry 4.0, cyber-physical systems monitor physical processes, create a virtual copy of the physical world, and make decentralized decisions. Over the Internet of Things, cyber-physical systems communicate and cooperate with each other and with humans in real-time…” 

This definition may lead you to ask “What aspects of Industry 4.0 are truly revolutionary, and what technologies and tools are available today that would enable me to start building “Smart[er] Factories?” In this blog, I offer some potential answers to these questions that put the vision of Industry 4.0 within reach for automation practitioners familiar with the latest generation of SEMI Standards.  

Semiconductor manufacturers have been collecting and using data from the equipment in their factories for decades. Throughout this period, device sizes and process windows have shrunk continuously according to Moore’s Law, and the SEMI Standards have evolved by necessity to support the insatiable demand for data exhibited by the process analysis and control applications that keep a modern fab running profitably (see left). The newest of these standards, the Equipment Data Acquisition suite (EDA, also known as “Interface A”), provides the power and flexibility to support a wide range of critical manufacturing applications and human users with ever-changing requirements; moreover, these standards can be deployed in a variety of system architectures without disturbing the “command and control” capabilities of existing factory systems.

“What does all this have to do with Industry 4.0?” To understand this, let’s look at the foundation of a “Smart Factory,” the collection of the many thousands of devices that might need to communicate over the so-called “Internet of Things.” 

We already see evidence that the availability of low-cost, low-power, networkable computing hardware will likely result in an explosion of “smart sensors” and other intelligent devices on the factory floor. However, as social scientists have observed over the millennia, groups of smart individuals don’t necessarily exhibit smart behavior in the aggregate, so what additional attributes must these devices possess to be good citizens of a collaborative, Industry 4.0 environment? How will these devices communicate effectively with one another? And what oversight will be required to ensure this communication achieves the ultimate manufacturing objectives?

As a starting point, I propose that each device, or manufacturing “thing,” at a minimum should be discoverable, autonomous, model-based, self-aware, communicative, and well-behaved. Depending on the role the device must play, it might also be self-monitoring, capable of defending itself (secure), and a consumer of data from other devices/systems as well as a provider. So defined, these devices would need a minimum of external monitoring and supervision (read “management overhead”) to perform their basic functions, but would rely on higher-level systems to provide specific objectives, instructions, and constraints (read “configuration, recipes, and limits”) for their operation in a given context and timeframe.

I realize that’s a lot to absorb at once, but now imagine that each of these devices could implement a subset of the services called for in the EDA standards, especially those defined in E120/E125/E164 (equipment modeling and standard metadata modeling), E132 (session management), and E134 (data collection management). Consider the collaboration among independent devices and systems this would enable…and ask yourself, how much closer to the vision of Industry 4.0 can you possibly get?

I hope the ideas above were useful…or at least thought-provoking. We’ll be developing this theme further in the coming months, but I wanted to use this blog as a conversation starter. We’d love to hear your feedback, so give us a call, or feel free to reach out to us.♦