tSA Transactums, Vol 36. No. [. pp. 21-28.

1997
L 1997 ~SA. Pur~iistEedby EEsev]er Science IAd
Printed in The Netherlands
ELSEVIER 00t9-0578/97 $~7.0{~ + 0.(~

PLC or DCS: selection and trends

Joseph La Fauci
Central Enginee,'ing, Merck & Co.. One Merck Drire. PO Box 190, Whitehouse Sin.. NJ 08889. USA

Abstract

The PLC versus DCS argument has been around f~r quite a while. Some time ago, PLCs took on powerful, robust, third
party, PC-based graphical operator interface packages known as SCADA. This expanded Man Machine lnterface propelled
the PLCs into areas where they could successfully compete with DCSs for simihr control applications. Since then,
automation engineers have struggled with a set of guidelines for using PLCs versus DCSs in batc~ operations and other
applications. There is no clear answer to this issue. There are, however, decision tools, such as Kepner-Tregoe ( K - T ) that
can be applied by engineers as a structured approach to decision analysis and system selection. Involveme~t in other factors,
such as business environment, pressure to reduce project cost, validation or predicting new technology direction, all play a
critical role for engineers in choosing between a PLC or DCS based control system. © 1997 ISA. Published by Elsevier
Science Ltd.

Keywords: PLC; DCS; Programmable logic conuoi~er; Distributed control system

1. Genesis of PLC / DCS
In the beginning, there was the microprocessor.
This small chip, with its integrated functionality, laid
the technological foundation for the birth of PLC and
DCS. The first PLC application was in the automo-
bile industry in 19'70. Necessity to satisfy application
requirements, as requested by General Motors, be-
came the mother of invention for the PLC in discrete
manufacturing. The PLC was first used commer-
cially in machine control applications for metal cut-
ting, hole drilling, material handling, assembly and
testing for GM's Hydramatic Model 400 automatic
transmission [I ].
The PLC replaced hard-wired electromechanical
relays and provided greater flexibility by eliminating
the necessity of reworking hard-wired panels to ac-
commodate piocess and application changes. The
PLC allowed engineers to make faster and easier
production changes that translated into dramatic re-
ductions in both cost and cycle time. PLCs have
dramatically evolved since their inception and have
greater functionality and application. Advances in
operator interface software have provided engineers
with a user friendly environment and a configurable
windGw into all process control applications.
The DCS was introduced in the mid 1970s and
revolutionized the process control industry. The DCS
was the first practical and comprehensive replace-
ment |br large and bulky hard-wired custom control
panels. At that time, DCS control philosophy was
centralized and liability was minimized through dis-
tribution over the entire control system. It offered for
the first time, the ability for all engineering disci-
plines to program a process control computer through
configurable software without necessarily requiring
high level programming skills. DCS provided the
user with larger boundaries on fle×ioility, speed of
control, security, manufacturing consistencies and
reliability than ever before.

21
22 PLC or DCS: J. La Fauci
2. Business issues
Since early schooling, engineers have been trained
to approach problem solving using logical and ana-
lytical methodologies. Engineers are good at fully
understanding control system application require-
ments and matching those applications with current
technical solutions. What is seldom considered by
engineers during control system selection is higher
level business issues.
Engineers should be encouraged to understand
better the business objectives of their corporations. If
asked, many engineers would not know the business
goals or mission statement of their corporations and
how corporate business direction may affect control
system selection. Control system selection should
include an understanding of the company's core
business and the business environment that may exist
as a part of, or in support of, the core business. For
instance, the pharmaceutical industry can be broken
up into five basic application groups: bulk chemicals,
finishing, bio-tech, pilot plant and utilities. Each
application group partly requires a unique set of
functional and process control requirements. The
construction requirements for bulk chemical lhcilities
are such that a very high percentage of equipment
installation and piping is field-assembled, and the
number of packaged equipment supplied by an Orig-
inal Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is small. In
contrast, construction requiremeats for pharmaceuti-
cal finishing facilities are quite different with a
heavy dependence on OEM supplied equipment with
imbedded PLC automation. This difference may im-
pact PLC/DCS control philosophy and selection.
Similar differences can be d,.awn between bio-tech
and utilities. Understanding the needs and differ-
ences of these five basic application groups and
applying the optimum control system solution will
place the company in a better position to be more
competitive.
A financial analysis should be one of the first
steps in the control system evaluation process. This
may include early agreement of contractual terms
and conditions as well as a non-disclosure agree-
ment. Other financial considerations may include
requesting a financial report on the control system
manufacturer or system integrator that will be per-
forming the work in order to determine the financial
stability of the company. A company financial report
should summarize items such as; business history,
sales, net worth, current assets, current liabilities, net
income, gross profits, operating expenses and out-
standing lawsuits, if any, just to name a few. Fully
knowing the financial strength of a company before
entering into contractual agreement will help to en-
sure project cost control. Proper technical and com-
mercial planning will help to achieve overall success
and maximize synergy, along with a full understand-
ing and alignment of corporate, divisional and de-
partmental business goals and objectives.
3. Selection analysis
Generally in-process control, the procurement of a
control system is the largest single expenditure au-
tomation engineers are faced with. The control sys-
tem, in most cases, is the brain and nervous system
of a production facility. The purpose of the control
system is to supervise, control, monitor, schedule,
document and record process parameters that are
vital to production. Since automation is critical to
manufacturing, selection of a control system, by
definition, is equally important. Trying to decide
between control systems with similar functionality
can be very subjective, confusing and time consum-
ing. it is lbr this reason that a structured analytical
approach in the decision making process be put in
place~. K - T [2] offers the tool that engineers can
utilizt,: as a guide to structured analysis. K-T has
classified three areas of analysis: Problem Analysis,
Decision Analysis and Potential Problem Analysis.
The chart shown in Fig. 1 details the major steps in
all thi'~eecategories.
First list the objectives for which a decision is
required. Objectives can be broad based but specific
enough to allow focused analysis. Objectives are
then divided into two categories: Musts and Wants.
The Must objectiveg are mandatory requirements
and functions that must be a part of the control
system under consideration. If for any reason the
control system does not fulfill the Must criteria~ it
drops out of the analysis. All other objectives are
classified as Wants. The functions of these two
objectives can be looked at as, "The Must decides
who gets to play in the game, but the Wants decide
 PLC or D(S: J. La Fauci
Pro~
g~mTr~Cagr~
As~ss P . ~
Ma~c~
P m O ~
TaMP m ~ m ~
Fig. I. Problem solving and decision making. Copyright 1996
Kepner-TregoeInc. All fights reserved.Reprintedby permission.
who wins". Understanding and establishing objec-
tives early will provide the road map for a succes~fful
decision analysis.
Once the W a n t objectives have been defined, a
weight is assigned to each with respect to its relative
importance. The most important objective is given a
weight of 10, all other objectives are weighted in
comparison with the first, from 10 down to 1. All
W a n t objectives are evaluated and scored for degree
of compliance, on a scale from 1 to 10. The weighted
W a n t objectives are then multiplied by the score to
result in a weighted score. Selection is awarded to
the control system with the highest total weighted
score. This structured analytical process for control
system selection, is efficient, less subjective and
quantifiable. Engineers can use these tools easily to
quantify and justify both technical and commercial
selection of P L C / D C S control systems.
4. Selection criteria
Choosing criteria for control system selection will
vary and may be largely dependent on cost, applica-
tion requirements, industry segment and the user.
Control system solutions for such pharmaceutical
areas as bulk chemicals, finishing, bio-tech, pilot
23
plant and utilities may all have different criteria.
DCS has traditionally dominated in large bulk chem-
ical batch manufacturing and utilities as compared Lo
the domination of PLCs in stand-alone finishing
applications supplied by OEMs, on packaged equip-
ment for pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. Pi-
lot plant and small utilities may favor PLCs due to
lower cost, and for bio-tech either PLC or DCS can
be used. The following is a listing of typical cEteria
that may be considered in PLC/DCS selection:
* Cost of hardware, software, integration, engineer-
ing, design, installation, star:-up and commission-
ing. validation documentation and execution,
training, spare parts, maintenance, system service
contract and system life cycle
- Reliability, flexibility, maintainability, expend-
ability, modularity, scalebility and ability to vali-
date
o Ease of data base configuration, graphic develop-
ment, interlocks, recipe management and multi-
product batch sequencing
. Integration of high level applications (see Fig. 2)
such as vision systems, AGVs, LIMS, MRPII,
MES, OEM equipment and integration of plant
floor smart field instrumentation
- Control philosophy for centralized verst~,s remote
operator consoles or a combination of both
- Field control strategy for centralized versus re-
mote 1 / 0
- System size, available space, support utilities and
retrofit considerations
Fig. 2. PLC/DCS applications.
24 PLC or DCS: J. I_z~Fauci

- System documentation and ease of validation 1970'S - DIVERGENT FUNCTIONALITY

• System technical support by in-house personnel,

DCS supplier or system integrator
• Compliance with industry batch standards such as
ISA SP-88 and new emerging field communica- F t ~vss I t
tion protocol standards Discret~ Can~ral Proocra e~trol
Applications Applicsuom
Selection criteria may also be non-technical. The
engineer should include the human factor when ap-
propriate. A good example is retrofitting a mostly 1980'S - COMMON FUNCTIQNALITY

pneumatically operated facility with a PLC or DCS

control system in one transition. Such a dramatic
step change may cause a degree of technical shock to
operating personnel and may delay project comple-
Disc-to Control Ptoe.css Control
tion. Additional planning, training and resources may Applications AppfiC.ations
be required to facilitate such a major transition.
An accurate and complete identification of criteria
for a control system under consideration will serve 1990'S - OVERLAPPING FI~,~.ONALITY
,
as a solid basis for the best fit in the selection
process.
PLC ~ DCS
I
Disea~ CQn~a~l P~ Control
Applicalaoas Applieattogs
5. DCS/PLC comparative issues

Comparing the differences between the functions Y E A R 2000- CO .NVERGE .NT. FUNCTIONALITY

of PLC and DCS tbr purposes of selection has

become more difficult for engineers today. There no
longer exists a clear black and white difference in
application and functionality that was so evident in
the 1970s. PLCs over the past two decades have
entered applications that were traditionally in the
DCS domain. This trend continued into the 1980s
and 1990s and has, to some degree, polarized control
engineers to voice strong preferences in favor of
application solutions using PLCs, DCSs or a hybrid
of both in certain applications. The continued en-
croachment of PLCs into the DCS domain has con-
sistently increased from sharing limited common
functionality in the 1980s to major overlapping of
functions in the 1990s. The DCS has also taken
advantage of new technology to improve its perfor-
mance to handle discrete signals. Some DCSs have
incorporated functionality such as relay ladder logic,
function block and structured text programming that
were traditionally found in PLCs. By the year 2000,
expect to see a functional convergence of the two
systems into one unified PLC/DCS control system
Disactc Control Proccss Control
Applications Applicaticas
Fig. 3. P L C / D C S evolution.
for large applications, costing the same as today's
PLC-based control systems (see Fig. 3).
Comparing and choosing between PLC and DCS
based control systems can sometimes be quite diffi-
cult, tedious and somewhat subjective, depending on
the application and :.he user's technical background
as well as work experience. The debate between
which system is a better choice when it comes to
application, cost and performance, will be decided
only by the user in his final selection. The intention
of the following common system issues, is to high-
light differences most often encountered in the selec-
tion process.
 P L C ~r DCS: J. Lu t"am'i
Cost. Initial hardware and software costs, in al-
most all cases, are less fbr PLCs than DCSs. How-
ever, in a large system that requires hea~'y integra-
tion and custom coding, PLC software cost may be
higher and will cancel any cost savings that may
have been realized initially. It is essential for this
reason to define accurately and completely all sys-
tem functions and needs in the form of a user's
requirement document and carefully evaluate com-
pliance of control system proposals accordingly.
Batch sequencing. In large processes that require
production of multiple products a n d / o r batches, in-
cluding recipe management, the DCS outperforms
the PLC. However, in small, dedicated batch produc-
tion with limited recipes, where batch management is
not critical, PLCs are a cost-effective and practical
solution [3]. Compliance with industry, batch stan-
dards, such as |SA SP-88, will also be important in
most batch applications.
Securio,. DCS networks are designed to offer high
availability and full redundancy in all system compo-
nents, with no single point of failure. Tight coupling
between operator interface, controllers and system
software allows greater security and assurance that
all components will work well together. Not all
levels of PLCs can offer the same system-wide
redundancy, and similar DCS features must be de-
signed imo the PLCs by the user.
Reliability. Historically, reliability for both PLCs
and DCSs has a solid track record and is rated equal.
Diagnostics. Certain PLCs and DCSs can be con-
sidered almost equal in diagnostics. However, DCSs
can handle system diagnostics more easily. Both can
go down to reading diagnostics at a point level as
well as health of hiway, 1 / O cards and CPU loading.
Since system reliability is very high for both PLC
and DCS, this may not be a major consideration.
OEM integration. The PLC is predominantly used
as embedded automation by OEMs because of its
ideal application and low hardware cost. Most small
machine operations can not suppom~ an expensive
DCS solution. The choice of using a PLC-based
control system is clear when integrating multiple
OEM pieces of automated equipment. Integrating
multiple OEM PLCs using third party PC-based
SCADA software is a natural choice. A DCS can
also be used as a front-end to interface with OEM
PLCs. Using this type of hybrid D C S / P L C configu-
25
ration wilt require additional software programming.
OEM proprietary and warranty issues wilt surface if
the user chooses to tie OEM PLC a n d / o r field
devices directly to the DCS. with the intention of
sequencing OEM equipment in the DCS as one
unified control system. In eifl~er case be aware thai a
significant amount of OEM coordination will too:
certainly be required to achieve plant-wide imegra-
tion.
Data base. DCSs provide tightly coupled hard-
ware and software. They also offer a single, unified,
system-wide global data base and superior peer to
peer communication. Seamless system data manage-
ment provides easy data exchange and access to
operating and system parameters. System expansions
and modifications can be easily made. PLCs by
virtue of their configuration require a third party,
PC-based software package to provide the user with
a working operator interface. This introduces multi-
ple data bases in order to provide SCADA function-
ality similar to a DCS. System modifications may
require making changes to both PLC and SCADA
software. Change control and management of multi-
ple data bases are less desirable for the user.
Service support. DCS offers a single-source, sys-
tem-wide support through available service contracts
with dedicated field service personnel. They can
provide a consistent 7-day. 24-hour service with
response times as low as 4 hours, in contrast. PLC
and SCADA manufacturers generally do not provide
total system service, especially when a facility uses
different PLC and SCADA manufacturers. The user
must support the system himself or find a qualified
system integrator to provide similar consistent ser-
vice and support.
Training. Combined PLC and SCADA training,
in most cases, is less both in cost and time than for
its DCS counterpart. Overall. training does not ap-
pear to be a heavily weighted factor in the selection
of the PLC or DCS based control system since the
difference in cost and time is small relative to the
cost of the control system.
Technically soeaking. PLCs can do everything
that DCSs can do. what the user must decide is
"'how well" and "'how easy" and "'how cost-effec-
tive" can each system competitively meet the con-
trol system requirements as stated in the original user
requirement document.
26 PLC or DCS: J. Ixl Fauci
6. Cost savings and avoidance
Competition, in almost all industries, is no longer
local, but global. All of corporate America has felt
tremendous pressure to cut operating costs and
downsize. Corporate mergers and company buy-outs
are common in many industries. Engineers are being
asked to do more with less time and resources. Cost
reduction is not a nicety but a necessity for corporate
survival. There are many areas where engineering
can contribute in cost reductions. Improving old
ideas as well as implementing paradigm shifts can all
help to control costs. The following is a list of areas
where cost savings and avoidance may apply.
Standards and guidelines. Utilize existing indus-
try and corporate design standards whenever possi-
ble. This simple idea is sometimes overlooked, and
often increases development cost because of unnec-
essary re-engineering. Development of and adher-
ence to specific control system guidelines for PLCs
and DCSs can help keep design cost down and
provide a higher level of design consistency through-
out a company.
Software. In most cases, system software costs far
outweigh hardware costs for large systems. This can
provide a strong incentive to design software code in
a modular and common fashion, giving the user
opportunity to reuse a percentage of common soft-
ware on future projects. The percentage of savings
will be higher when previously developed code is
reused in the same or similar applications. This kind
of thinking can also be extended to reap additional
savings in other areas, such as system engineering,
design, documentation and validation.
Partnering. Alliances and partnering with key
suppliers can yield dramatic cost savings and offer
many commercial and engineering benefits. Orders
for equipment can be released on a sole source basis
in accordance with pre-arranged pricing agreements,
thereby saving engineers and purchasing agents
lengthy bid development and review time. The time
thus saved by the engineering staff can be simply
claimed or redirected and used in providing input to
current and future vendor pr~lt~ct development. Part-
nership makes it possible to work with manufactur-
ers in providing increased control system functional-
ity that may be industry specific. Leveraging through
partnership can help direct the manufacturer in pro-
viding technology that will help meet your overall
corporate business objectives.
Validawm. Unnecessary validation costs can be
avoided by using ~ system life cycle methodology
approach up front in the project. Validation must be
incorporated in the design at the very beginning and
not included later as an after-thought. Ensure that a
Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) is in place at the start
of detailed design. A properly developed QAP and
its supporting documentation will help to reduce
cost, increase profits, increase quality and ensure
regulatory compliance. It is often more expensive,
because of production down-time, to perform retro-
spective system validation than it is to do it correctly
from the beginning. Engineering cost and time for
making both current and future system changes are
often less on a fully validated control system because
of the documentation traceability that proper valida-
tion provides.
Standardization. Maximize the installed base for
all field instrumentation and control systems by se-
lecting one or two manufacturers as standard suppli-
ers. Strongly discourage procurement and installation
of seldom used or uncommon control devices and
systems, including embedded automation in pack-
aged systems provided by OEMs. Leverage off this
increased purchasing power to provide cost savings
in such areas as buying agreements, engineering,
training, start-up and reduction in spare parts inven-
tory.
7. Validation
Unlike other industries, pharmaceutical manufac-
turing must comply with regulatory requirements as
stated by the Food and Drug Administration in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 210 &
211. The CFR Parts 210 & 211 regulations contain
the minimum current good manufacturing practice
for methods to he used by pharmaceutical manufac-
turing facilities. Regulatory compliance ensures that
drugs meet the requirements of safety, identity,
strength, quality and purity. Validation is a method-
ology that helps prove that drugs possess necessary
characteristics in accordance with manufacturer spec-
ifications and meet regulatory requirements.
 PLC or DCS: J. La Fauci
Validation is defined as "Establishing docu-
mented evidence which provides a high degree of
assurance that a specific process will consistently
produce a product meeting its predetermined specifi-
cation and quality attributes". It is important for
engineers to adhere to this definition when perform-
ing engineering design, testing and operation, so that
regulatory requirements are met. Validation simply
makes good engineering and business sense and
yields both short and long-term benefits. Any device
or syatem can be validated using the following ten
preeepts of validation [4].
7.1. The wn precepts o f validation
I Define all functions of the system
|I Define the total system and each module
Ill Define the functions of each module
IV Qualify each module
V Link the modules together
VI Test and challenge the linked modules
VII Establish reproducibility
VI|i Establish and implement change control
IX Document everything
X Don't break any of the above precepts
Plan out your validation activities as you would
your engineering design. Both engineering and vali-
dation must be parallel activities. The requirements
of validation should be incorporated in engineering
design. Review, approve and ensure that all major
validation activities are i~ place at the appropriate
time, within and beyond project execution. The sys-
tem validation documentation should include, but not
be limited to, such deliverables as QAP, Require-
ments ,~;pecification, Design Specification, Change
Control, and Qualifications including Installation.
Operational, Performance and system maintenance.
8. Current and future trends
The demand and current trend for open systems
and information continue to grow. Users are tired of
restrictions imposed on them with priority protocols,
hardware and software. Manufacturers hear the call
to develop low cost products based on commercially
available technologies. The need for more open com-
munication between systems, at all levels, has been
27
user-driven and is a prerequisite for protecting exist-
ing capital investments and reducing project costs.
Expect to see a continued increase in merging and
overlapping of PLC and DCS applications. Large
PLC/DCS systems will functionally evolve into one
unified, control system with lower hardware and
software costs. Applications using inexpensive PC-
based systems will increase sharply with new Object
Linking and Embedding (OLE) technology. Users in
the near future will easily be able to integrate hard-
ware and software using newly proposed standard,
such as OLE for Process Control that provides a
software back plane for different software applica-
tions.
New, emerging field protocol standards for digital
communications, such as Fieldbus and Profibus, will
lay the foundation for additional reduction in project
costs and provide faster, more accurate communica-
tions. This will complement the future trend to shift
more system intelligence from control system con-
trollers down to the field devices, such as smart
transmitters and intelligent valves. This trend will
off-load some of the PLC/DCS processing capacity
for more criticM applications. In summary, the inno-
vative use and immediate utilization of current
PLC/DCS technology is key in maintaining a com-
petitive edge in a global economy.
9. Nomenclature
AGV Automatic guided vehicle
CPU Central processing unit
DCS Distributed control system
GM General motors
i/o Input/output
ISA instrument Society of America
K-T Kepner-Tregoe
LIMS Laboratory information management sys-
tem
MES Manufacturing execution system
MRPII Material requirements planning (two)
OEM Original equipment manufacturer
OLE Object linking and embedding
PC Personal computer
PLC Programmable logic controller
QAP Quality assurance plan
SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition
28 PLC or DCS: J. l~ Fauci

References
[1] Strothmatt, J., More than a century of measuring and control-
ling industrial processes, intech, June 1995.
[2] Kepner, C. and Tregoe, B., The New Rational Manager, 1981.
[3] Larson, K., DCS vs PLC: the battle for batch, Control.
February 1993.
[4] Chapman, K.G., A history of validation in the United States
Part I and II. Pharmaceutical Technology. October 1991 and
November 1991.