Developments

By Alex Mosher, Senior Vice-President of Global Enablement at Armis The business needs of Operational Technology (OT) environments are rapidly evolving where systems are increasingly connected to both enterprise networks and externally to the internet, exposing them to new and emerging cyber threats. This means that security becomes strategically important for OT, IT, and business stakeholders in the manufacturing sector. According to a study conducted by Forrester Consulting, 66% of manufacturers have experienced a security incident related to IoT devices over the past two years. Believe it or not, OT devices in industrial and manufacturing environments often have no built-in security, nor can you install a security agent on them. They were designed this way by manufacturers operating on the now invalid assumption that these devices would not be installed on a network that conveys any type of threat. The same devices are now exposed to many types of cyber threats leaving the manufacturing sector vulnerable. The fact that OT devices cannot accommodate security agents robs security managers of visibility to what the device is, what risks it harbors, and whether it is behaving outside the norm. Not only are OT devices increasingly vulnerable to attack, but they typically are not able to accommodate a security agent that could monitor and protect the device from attack. This design choice allows the device manufacturer to maximise economy and power efficiency, which in the past (and arguably still) have been seen as more important than security. Alex Mosher, Senior Vice-President, Global Enablement at Armis, talks to NZ Manufacturer about the strategies involved in managing IT/ IoT/ OT device security in the manufacturing, advanced manufacturing, and smart manufacturing space. Andrew, thank you so much for your time.  What are the challenges manufacturing companies face when managing OT devices? With automation and smart devices […]

By Roger Landman, Head of Product Management at SYSPRO The fabricated metals industry inherently runs on very slim margins due to factors like fluctuating material costs, direct and indirect labour and overhead expenses. Global raw material costs are often dictated by the London Metal Exchange (LME), the largest exchange for options and futures contracts for base metals, which includes steel, aluminium, zinc, lead, copper and nickel. Besides the volatility of external global factors, the industry is also expected to meet specific, made-to-order, customer demands. With all these factors at play, it comes as no surprise that the industry is so heavily reliant on specific raw materials suppliers, manufacturing processes, labour and outbound logistics requirements. With ongoing supply chain disruptions, competitive advantage is being lost. According to the recent SYSPRO survey entitled ‘Realigning the links of the disconnected supply chain’,  82 percent of fabricated metal businesses have experienced supply chain and material handling disruptions, further eroding diminishing margins and ultimately customer service. Despite these challenges, only 12 percent of businesses have systems that support in servicing external customers. To build resiliency, metal fabricators should consider the right technology solutions to improve operational efficiencies, enhance external collaboration and meet unique customer demands. Maintaining a consistent supply of raw materials For decades, China has been a leading supplier of raw materials to the fabricated metals industry, partly due to its competitive pricing to match low industry margins. Russia has also been a top producer of materials such as aluminium, steel and nickel. But raw materials don’t just stop at metals. Gasses like Oxygen and Argon are essential in the welding of carbon steel and some high alloy steels. With ongoing challenges like global lockdowns, sanctions and other unavoidable disasters, distribution of these materials has also been severely delayed.  Last year, several countries experienced […]

Unplanned downtime is a manufacturer’s worst nightmare. The nightmare worsens if goods on the idle production line are perishable food and beverages, as too much of a delay can lead to product losses. Manufacturing lines are complex systems made of thousands of parts, each doing their own important job. If one part fails, this has a cascading effect up and down the production line, to the extent that production may come to a complete halt. When this occurs, there are two options: perform a repair on the broken part, or replace or upgrade the entire system. While system upgrades have their own merits, they are expensive and entail large windows of undesirable, costly downtime while old systems are removed and new ones are installed and commissioned. The alternative approach is to replace the broken part, which sounds simple and should be much quicker than replacing the entire system. However, if the offending part turns out to be obsolete — that is, no longer manufactured by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) — then a quick task suddenly becomes more difficult. This is because quality obsolete parts are notoriously difficult to source so, if manufacturers are not prepared in advance, they may find themselves having to shut down production for much longer than initially anticipated. Furthermore, if corners are cut to find cheaper replacements, or if parts are bought simply because they were the easiest to find, manufacturers are liable to incur repeated downtime as lower-quality parts are likely to fail again, and quickly. As industrial systems typically have long lifespans, they are especially susceptible to broken parts, and are more likely to contain obsolete parts. That is why it’s important to have a comprehensive obsolescence plan in place. Obsolescence audit An effective obsolescence plan should involve a full systems audit, to […]