Lifecycle thinking in industrial communication design

Digitalisation, sustainability targets and increasing machine complexity are reshaping industrial automation. Systems are expected to deliver higher productivity, deeper data transparency and improved energy efficiency – often simultaneously. At the same time, the pace of change in software platforms, IT strategies and corporate roadmaps continues to accelerate.

Industrial machines, however, operate on a very different timeline. A well-designed production system may run for 15, 20 or even 25 years. Over that lifespan, it will likely see multiple software revisions, PLC upgrades, networking changes and perhaps even ownership transitions.

For design engineers, machine builders and end-users this means that industrial communication is no longer simply about moving I/O reliably from field device to controller. It is a strategic decision that shapes how a machine integrates, adapts and delivers value throughout its lifecycle.

Integration, not isolation

Few production environments today are entirely brand new. Most combine legacy fieldbus systems, Ethernet-based real-time control, edge devices and cloud connectivity within the same facility. New machines must therefore integrate into existing ecosystems rather than isolate themselves with proprietary or overly narrow architectures.

Machine builders today must accommodate installed PLC standards, plant-wide data acquisition strategies and growing demands for remote diagnostics. Cybersecurity compliance and the ability to add future modules or process steps are also increasingly common requirements. Meeting these criteria demands more than selecting the fastest or most advanced protocol. It requires lifecycle thinking.

Designing for lifecycle flexibility

When specifying communication architectures, it is tempting to optimise for immediate needs – performance, cost or simplicity at commissioning – but lifecycle optimisation requires a broader perspective.

While a short-term focus might prioritise lowest upfront component costs, lowest complexity, or single-protocol design, a lifecycle approach considers total cost of ownership, multi-protocol readiness, modularity and scalability, plus the separation of control and information layers. A machine designed for lifecycle flexibility adapts. One designed narrowly for day-one performance often requires workarounds, gateways and costly redesign.

So, what key principles support lifecycle flexibility?

- Use of open protocols

Broad industry adoption reduces dependency on individual vendors and ensures long-term availability of tools, expertise and support. Real-time Ethernet protocols such as Profinet, EtherNet/IP and EtherCAT have established global ecosystems. At the same time, technologies such as OPC UA and MQTT enable structured data exchange beyond the control layer.

Openness does not mean sacrificing performance. It means aligning with standards that are likely to remain supported and developed over time.

- Separation of control and information

Deterministic communication remains essential for motion- and time-critical control. However, information exchange for diagnostics, condition monitoring and analytics has different requirements. Layered architectures can accommodate both. A typical example might comprise real-time Ethernet for control, OPC UA for semantic, structured interoperability, MQTT for scalable, event-driven data transport and IO-Link for intelligent sensor and actuator integration.

This layered approach is equally important for energy optimisation. Improving compressed air efficiency, identifying leakage, or analysing actuator cycle behaviour requires access to structured operational data rather than simple on/off signals. When control and information layers are clearly separated, energy-relevant data can be collected and analysed without affecting deterministic control performance. Over time, this enables continuous improvement initiatives that reduce operating cost and environmental impact across the machine’s lifecycle.

Separating control and information within the communications architecture prevents future information requirements from compromising control stability, and vice versa.

- Modularity as a design principle

Modular communication architectures allow systems to evolve without wholesale redesign. Rather than hardwiring every I/O point directly into a monolithic control concept, modular systems distribute intelligence appropriately across field, control and information layers. This enables incremental expansion, simplified fault isolation and easier PLC or controller migration.

Modular communication also reduces commissioning risk by localising faults, limiting configuration complexity and enabling staged validation rather than relying on a single, system-wide integration event. By allowing machine sections to be tested, commissioned and expanded independently, it supports parallel working, simplifies troubleshooting and minimises disruption when late design changes occur.

Reducing operational risk

The true value of a communication architecture often becomes apparent during operation rather than commissioning. Service teams inherit the communication decisions made at the design stage, and the quality of those decisions directly influences downtime, troubleshooting efficiency and long-term operating cost. Accessible diagnostics, structured device data and remote connectivity can dramatically simplify fault finding and reduce mean time to repair.

Firmware updates, condition monitoring strategies and predictive maintenance also depend on accessible, standardised communication. Without this foundation, enhancements that should extend machine life can instead become complex retrofit projects requiring gateways, custom interfaces or system revalidation. By contrast, intelligent devices integrated via technologies such as IO-Link, or connected through structured information models such as OPC UA, can present parameterisation data and diagnostics transparently, reducing integration effort and improving lifecycle visibility.

However, lifecycle flexibility should not be confused with over-specification. Future-proofing is sometimes interpreted as adding maximum capability “just in case”, which can introduce unnecessary complexity, higher costs and additional commissioning risk. True future-proofing is less about predicting every possible technological development and more about designing architectures that can adapt when requirements change.

In practice, this means favouring modular fieldbus nodes over fixed monolithic designs, supporting more than one host protocol where appropriate, and selecting platforms that allow centralised, decentralised or hybrid concepts within the same ecosystem. Avoiding proprietary interfaces that restrict future integration is equally important. A balanced, modular approach provides the headroom for system evolution without burdening the initial design with avoidable complexity.

Platform thinking, not point solutions

Lifecycle thinking ultimately requires a coherent platform architecture, not a collection of individual component solutions. Festo has developed its automation portfolio around platform principles that support long-term adaptability. Architectures such as the CPX platform and the AP automation system enable centralised, decentralised or hybrid control concepts within the same ecosystem. Modular I/O, valve terminals and connectivity solutions are designed to work seamlessly together while supporting widely adopted host protocols including Profinet, EtherNet/IP, EtherCAT and Modbus TCP, with compatibility for OPC UA and MQTT at higher levels currently, but because of the modularity, new protocols can be added without changing all the modules.

This approach enables machine builders to standardise on common field-level components while retaining the flexibility to work with different PLC environments, whether driven by customer specification or export requirements. Machines can be expanded or reconfigured without redesigning the entire communication architecture, as modular platforms allow additional I/O, valve terminals or functional units to be integrated seamlessly. At the same time, deterministic real-time control can operate alongside structured data transparency for diagnostics, condition monitoring and higher-level integration.

By aligning hardware, connectivity and software within a coherent ecosystem, compatibility issues between multiple suppliers are significantly reduced, simplifying both commissioning and long-term support. Rather than delivering isolated point solutions, a platform approach reduces integration risk and simplifies long-term system evolution.

Communication – a long-term commitment

Industrial communication design now influences far more than signal transmission. It affects scalability, serviceability, cybersecurity readiness, energy optimisation and data integration for years to come. Machines that endure are those designed with openness, modularity and interoperability at their core. They integrate into existing infrastructures, adapt to new requirements and continue delivering value as digital strategies evolve around them.

Understanding the strengths and roles of today’s widely used industrial communication technologies is therefore essential. From real-time Ethernet systems to information-layer protocols, each has a place within a well-considered lifecycle architecture. In a fast-changing digital landscape, lifecycle thinking ensures that machines remain adaptable, serviceable and relevant, long after today’s software trends have passed.

For a broader overview of the communication technologies shaping industrial automation today, and how they fit within modern machine architectures, see Festo’s guide to the top industrial automation communication protocols at below website.

Nick Hartwell is electric automation business driver at Festo 

www.festo.com/top10-industrial-automation-protocols