“Production is already underway with the MTP”

If you want to produce modularly today, there is no getting around the Module Type Package (MTP) in the process industry. Nevertheless, many people claim that the rollout of the technology has so far fallen short of expectations. In this interview, Siemens experts Dr. Jürgen Spitzer, Vice President Strategy and Technology & Innovation Process Automation, and Andreas Stutz, Project Manager in the Technology & Innovations for Process Industries division, explain why this is a fallacy, what the future of modularization looks like and what the MTP and Ethernet APL have in common.

Mr Spitzer and Mr Stutz, modularization arrived in standardization a few years ago. VDI/VDE/NAMUR 2658 has been around since 2019 and VDI 2776 is also taking shape. Nevertheless, it seems as if we are still waiting for the “real” breakthrough of modularization, right?

Jürgen Spitzer: Of course, that depends on the definition of “breakthrough”. I'm sure you could look at some users' plants where MTP plays an important role. Admittedly, you would probably have to look for these companies. The fact is that the pilot phase of the technology has been completed and it works.

But there are still individual and relatively small implementations.

Spitzer: Yes, MTP has certainly not yet reached the mainstream. We are still some way from that, even if more and more companies are now tackling MTP projects.

Andreas Stutz: What's more, many implementations are being kept under wraps by the companies involved companies involved, so there is probably also a fairly high number of unreported MTP projects. Nevertheless technology still does not automatically appear in all tenders.

Why do you think that is?

Stutz: Because the implementation of the MTP is also accompanied by a certain amount of change. The Module Type Package also introduces a new structure to process engineering, which takes some time to internalize. Many specialists in the plants also need to be carefully introduced to it by MTP professionals. It is not a smartphone app that is self-explanatory. You have to take people with you.

In your opinion, is that the biggest hurdle to widespread use?

Stutz: It is definitely one of the main challenges, because it takes some expertise to know exactly which of the specifications that are already available really fit together. There are now various versions on the market that don't necessarily make implementing the MTP any easier. However, the currently complicated situation should improve, not least due to the change in the standardization organization to the PROFIBUS User Organization (PNO).

Spitzer: In this context, we also have to ask the users. When are they ready to make changes and implement the MTP? After all, it always takes a very long time for new technologies, especially in the process industry, to become widely used due to the well-known framework conditions. Decades can pass before technologies really become mainstream. Perhaps this simply explains the lack of a breakthrough so far. Conversely, as a manufacturer, we could certainly also ask the question as to whether the level of user suffering is simply not yet high enough because there is not yet widespread demand for MTP. Technologically, the MTP is ready for use and the advantages have been proven beyond doubt. MTP is already being used in production today.

Would you describe the technology as mature?

Spitzer: A simple question to which I unfortunately cannot give a simple answer. The MTP is certainly already in use in some plants today, but it is not yet an off-the-shelf solution with which I can implement all possible use cases.

Stutz: In any case, there is enough evidence of the added value of the technology. We also keep hearing from the industry that a specific function is still missing. In my view, the MTP will therefore never really be finished because a profitable implementation will always require a certain level of expertise. On the other hand, there will always be new optimizations to the MTP itself, which will open up new potential. The question will be at what point the added value of MTP will be so great that users will no longer be able to avoid the technology.

When will that be the case?

Stutz: It's difficult to say, because it doesn't just depend on the MTP itself, there are many variables in the equation - in addition to energy costs and the political situation, there are also material costs, for example. However, it is certainly the case today that the MTP is at least being evaluated, especially in the construction of greenfield plants.

Spitzer: To a certain extent, we are facing a chicken-and-egg problem here. Today, companies rely on many different suppliers so as not to become too dependent on just a few. Perhaps the ecosystem around the MTP is simply still too small because there are too few suppliers. On the other hand, there is the question of how this ecosystem is supposed to grow if demand is still rather low. No matter how you look at it, there is no investment on either side because there is either too little demand or too few suppliers. The result: everyone keeps their feet still and little happens.

Do you also see the MTP as a retrofit solution for existing buildings and could it solve this chicken-and-egg problem?

Spitzer: Of course, the MTP doesn't only play to its strengths in the greenfield. Even if you want to expand an existing site or increase capacity, the MTP can be the solution of choice.

Stutz: Ultimately, it also depends on whether a fully modular approach is being pursued or whether these plants should only be partially modular. We are currently investigating possible migration strategies with the help of such a hybrid scenario with, for example, a backbone that runs on a different process control system. In general, however, older existing systems can already be mapped in an MTP-compliant manner via gateway solutions. Ultimately, the MTP is a file that makes it possible to automate the integration of automated systems. And all other use cases that fall under it are possible in principle.

Spitzer: The bottom line is that the inhibition threshold for using the MTP is relatively low. The introduction of this technology is not about throwing entire systems overboard and then starting from scratch. Existing systems can be upgraded.

Are such upgrade scenarios for existing plants perhaps the key to the breakthrough of the MTP?

Stutz: Of course, upgrading brownfield systems can be a lever for bringing the MTP onto the market more broadly. There are also projects in which new versions of the control system have been migrated in order to be able to implement MTP imports or add new capabilities at a later date.

Nevertheless, the question remains as to what the future of modularization will look like. How do you see the coming years?

Spitzer: Getting the PNO on board as a new host organization was certainly an important step. Because even if it is perhaps not yet working entirely smoothly, it brings with it international structures that can give the whole topic a real boost. In addition, and the PNO will certainly also be able to provide support here, we must continue to raise awareness and inform users about the advantages and disadvantages.

Stutz: However, it will also be just as important not to view MTP as an exclusive technology for the process industry. After all, the core of the technology also arouses interest in other sectors.

Which ones, for example?

Spitzer: In addition to fine chemicals and pharmaceutical production, where the MTP was originally developed, modularization is also in demand in the shipbuilding and water/wastewater sectors in particular. In Dr. Jürgen Spitzer's opinion, the MTP is technologically advanced enough to be used in practice. Andreas Stutz is researching migration concepts for the MTP at the Siemens site in Karlsruhe.

Stutz: Not forgetting modular hydrogen production, where we are now actually involved as an associated partner of the eModule research project in the H2GIGA hydrogen project network. There are also initial pilot projects in logistics and even the manufacturing industry. Put simply, the MTP can play a role wherever something needs to be integrated.

Spitzer: Which is why we should still be careful, after all, every industry places new demands on the technology. That's why we shouldn't try to invent a one-size-fits-all solution. An MTP that can do everything in the end but is highly complex and expensive won't help anyone.

Ethernet APL should also help the process industry in particular. What impact will Ethernet-APL really have on the process industry?

Spitzer: For me, Ethernet-APL is a key component in driving forward the digitalization of the process industry. The decisive factor here is the simplicity of the technology, as it is based on existing wiring. Unlike other fieldbuses, which have never been able to achieve market penetration, with Ethernet-APL we have now created a technology that is truly practical and does not overwhelm users.

Is it the last chance for the process industry to achieve digitalization in the field, as NAMUR Chairman Dr Felix Hanisch put it at the last NAMUR Annual General Meeting?

Spitzer: To be honest, that's a bit too pathetic for me. Ethernet-APL is certainly a great opportunity, but not the last option for the digitalization of the process industry. Of course, Ethernet-APL forms the basis for important developments in the future. But nothing more and nothing less. We must not exaggerate the potential of the technology now.

But it will have a significant impact when it enters the field.

Spitzer: We don't need to think so black and white here. We are on the right track and Ethernet-APL will arrive in the field. The technology has been carefully developed and standardized over the last few years so that users don't get a proprietary protocol, but a solid basis on which they can build. We are actually a step further here than with MTP because we have a concrete technological basis and rules for when a device is technology-compliant and when it is not.

So Ethernet-APL will penetrate the process industry quite quickly?

Spitzer: Here too, as with MTP, it's a question of how much users will suffer. How much do they have to invest in order to switch from 4...20mA to this new technology? That can vary depending on the business case. Ethernet APL can certainly be used to transmit a lot more data, but it must then also be possible to use it via cloud-based AI services, for example. Here, we cannot look at the individual piece of the APL puzzle in isolation, but must carefully consider the entire context. It should not be forgotten that Ethernet APL also has completely different security requirements than a 4...20mA signal, for example, under the European Cyber Resilience Act. Only if APL devices are also 100% EU-CRA compliant does their use make sense.

Will security therefore become the decisive hurdle for Ethernet APL?

Spitzer: The industry will certainly be faced with new requirements, but the insufficient range of APL devices on offer is also a stumbling block at the moment. However, a lot will happen here in the coming months and years. At the end of the day, however, every user must decide for themselves and their business cases what advantages Ethernet APL can bring them. Nobody will jump on the bandwagon just because the technology is hip. In the end, as with MTP, hard-hitting business objectives will be the deciding factor.