“Two digital twins that dont't synch are no good”

Detlef Tenhagen (DT): For us, the digital twin is a model that mutually depicts an asset - i.e. a physical object -, a process or an organisation with its properties in a timely manner. They are based on internationally valid definitions from international standardisation bodies such as ISO or IEC, which work on the foundation of consensus. The IEC 63278 standard for the industrial digital twin is very important to us.

DT: They ensure interoperability between what were previously proprietary solutions and enable the cross-vendor exchange of products, tools and data. This is especially important for the integration of energy and data networks, which are the lifelines of our modern infrastructure. Without these standards, standardised protocols would be impossible, which would hamper efficiency and transparency and could obstruct developments towards sustainability.

Standards are therefore a necessary but not a sufficient prerequisite for interoperability. This particularly applies to the digital twin – because two digital twins that don't synch are useless.

DT: It delivers significant benefits: Firstly, all products are united in real and digital form by the AAS. Secondly, they are readily available in the value chain in a timely manner. Thirdly, seamless communication is enabled. Fourthly – and this is very important – a single source of truth emerges about everything that concerns this product in its life cycle. This prevents duplicate data storage and inconsistent systems.

The concept of the meta model provides a standardised structure for organising data and enables the integration of heterogeneous data sources. It serves as the foundation for reference architectures, which in turn ensure the uniform application of standards.

If we want the Asset Administration Shells to communicate with machines, for example, the protocol layer remains unaffected. In this way it is possible to connect brownfield environments in the same way as it is possible with new systems in the greenfield. This is because the Asset Administration Shell is positioned on top of these protocols as a layer, so to speak, stapling them and enabling what we have wanted for many years for Industry 4.0, which is networking towards so-called cyber-physical systems.

The concept of the digital twin is establishing itself as a future-proof model for product development over the entire life cycle. We see many demands coming up for companies that cannot be realised with proprietary solutions. One example is the recording of a Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) for a product along the entire value chain. The digital twin enables automation that was previously not possible. In this way, we can put an end to waste and measure the impact on natural resources.

DT: Above all, this means future security. We now have a standardised interface – in IT, but also in the areas of operations and logistics – for our asset administration shells. It is operational with sub-models that we define – based on the standards of consortia that the IDTA (Industrial Digital Twin Association) has created as a template. Our IT does not have to discreetly programme any interface software for the application software, for example for a PLM system such as Siemens Teamcenter that is currently undergoing its go-live with us. This trims our costs at the IT level.

DT: We rely on the digital twin throughout the entire life cycle of our connectors. This means that the administration shell is also used in the production process to control the production steps, as well as the entire digital twin by aggregating the individual administration shells. This generates the digital products pass and also determines the PCF for the connector type. The digital twin simplifies the development process for our customers and can be used for reuse or recycling at the end of its useful life, in other words, cradle to cradle.

DT: It is crucial that stakeholders do not singularise their interests. A common understanding is called for in order to avoid incompatible standards. In addition, the development of consensual standards is particularly important as they entail legal relevance and are recognised worldwide. The close cooperation between all relevant stakeholders in the standardisation process is important in order to avoid certain thought patterns and ensure broader acceptance.

DT: Yes they can, the IDTA has developed over 90 templates that support specific applications of the standards and promote the interoperability of systems. Through consortial standards, which are rooted in the legally binding consensual standards, they are creating a foundation for industry to cooperate worldwide.