Safety ‘awards’ by exida

None of the many press releases issued by seemingly reputable automation and instrumentation suppliers that relate to awards made by readers of various magazines will ever be found on this website. Nor will the others, issued regularly for various “achievements”, usually awarded by market research companies. These are all tainted with commercial negotiations and bias, and occasionally actually linked to cash transactions.

But where does exida rank in this spectrum of organizations that announce awards for technical excellence? Why would a safety consultancy want to make an award at all? Surely it might make potential clients believe that they would only ever recommend one safety system? This is very difficult to understand. But Emerson, not exida, is now telling us that exida has singled out their system for an award.

The text of the Emerson release says (in italics):

“Emerson’s DeltaV safety instrumented system (SIS) has been granted the 2013 Safety Award by exida, the global leader in functional safety and cybersecurity certification for the process industries. exida recognized the DeltaV safety instrumented system with its safety award for the logic solvers category, citing the system’s Electronic Marshalling and CHARMs technologies. 

“exida recognises the importance of excellence in functional safety,” said William Goble, exida principal partner. “Through extensive analysis of the nominated products, we believe DeltaV SIS with Electronic Marshalling has the ability to play a key role in the continuous journey of making the world a safer place.”

Founded in 1999 and with offices around the world, exida is a key player in testing and assessing automation safety products. The agency is a leading certification body and serves on the international committees that write safety standards.

Goble noted that exida is in a unique position to review safety products from many different manufacturers. The safety award gives the agency an opportunity to recognize products that stand out in meeting functional safety standards. 

“The DeltaV SIS architecture is what I would call a hybrid,” said Goble. “It combines the best attributes of many different architectures into one. Also, its flexible design gives users all the different I/O types they need, and allows them to pick levels of redundancy and safety so they can make trade-offs between costs and the essential parameters of availability and safety.” 

Goble said cyber security is a big consideration – noting it was not even a topic of discussion in safety systems just a few years ago. “It’s something a lot of people are now having trouble retrofitting,” Goble said. “The DeltaV SIS with Electronic Marshalling and CHARMs technology was built with security as an important part of the design.” 

“It’s gratifying to receive this recognition from the experts,” said Emerson process systems and solutions president Jim Nyquist, who accepted the award. “It affirms that we accomplished our goal of reducing complexity while meeting or exceeding the stringent functional requirements of systems safety.”

Two thoughts come to mind, reading the text and seeing the Emerson explanation of what the exida business consultancy does in terms of functional safety. First, if the award is in the logic solver category, how does this relate to the Electronic Marshalling and CHARMS – surely this just routes the inputs and outputs of the wiring to the logic solver. Secondly, where Mr Goble discusses cyber-security, we can accept that cyber security is a big consideration in discussions about safety systems currently: but has exida now developed sufficiently to be a testing and expertise centre in cyber security aspects as well?  Undoubtedly cyber-security is mentioned on their own website introduction. His later statement about DeltaV SIS being built with security as an important part of the design, one assumes is talking about cyber-security, since a safety system by definition has security as a major feature: so how is this relevant to the logic solver award to DeltaV SIS?

I look forward to anyone contributing views in relation to this sort of “award”.

Nick Denbow

Advertisements

One Response

  1. Nick, I’d disagree with you about the Control Readers’ Choice Awards and the Process Automation Hall of Fame awards. The Readers’ Choice Awards are a truly unaided brand preference survey– we don’t influence it at all. The Process Automation Hall of Fame is elected by their peers. I don’t get a vote, and I am not eligible. About other awards, further this deponent sayeth not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: