Comparison of Germany and China, the industry 4.0 strategy and approach for China 中德比较以及中国工业4.0策略和手段

If I were asked to describe the keywords - real-time, integration, IoT and IoS of i4.0, it will be: All the entities in the value network of the industrial society, including human, product, organizations can be connected, each entity can provide certain service on request, at the right time, this will be realized through real-time integration.


For now you can see a lot of articles describing the vision of i 4.0, but in this article, I will describe possible strategy and road map for i4.0 in China based on my observation. 


In German i4.0 report, the strategy German will follow is, to make Germany the 1) leading OEM and solution provider; 2) leading market for i 4.0.


Why? I think the reasons lies behind its advantages: 1) leading machinery and automation system OEM, like giant group Siemens and massive SMEs; 2) leading manufacturing software solution providers, in the realm of PLM\ERP\MES, German vendors are taking the lead. 3) the highly advanced automotive industry. It’s obvious the one of the key focus of German i4.0 strategy. For say you can see a lot of quotes and articles from BMW and Bosch. The collaboration and automation level of German automotive industry in both design and manufacturing is very high already, the vertical and horizontal integration mode already exist. What needed is the evolution to real-time T type and networked structure and the introduction of platform and applications fit this structure.


Machinery and automation system OEM, manufacturing software vendors and the leading companies in certain industry verticals, the joint force of these 3 is driving German i4.0 forward.
Of course, these 3 forces themselves are facing competition and must do changes to pursue for new cash cows, for say 1) machinery and automation system OEM use IoT technology to realize predictive maintenance, help improve the performance of its own machine in customer’s manufacturing environment, finally can get better customer satisfaction and more spare parts business. 2) software vendors are facing the matured market, the demanding is dropping, the complexity of the software is ever increasing, the profit of pure service is decreasing, giant vendor is like gulosity, merging small vendors in different areas to build a even bigger platforms. (There’s a very interesting sentences in one of the digital magazine Rolandberger provided, ,So is this the brave new world ahead of us? Not everywhere. Not yet. Because that would require companies to kiss goodbye to the traditional tools of production management’.  As many of these software too be kissed goodbye, how come these vendors don’t be panic? )


Comparing to Germany, in China 1) most of the local machinery and automation system OEMs are still in the learning and development phase, key competences are still weak.  2) the software industry are more developed in E-commerce, games, finical IT, software companies with ability and is willing to further develop in manufacturing software are very rare. Use vertical integration as a example, as the key equipment of most industries are from foreign vendors, local software vendors normally are not able to integrate these machines or it will be very costly. While foreign software vendors can do better cost share based on reference abroad. Also the local machine and automation OEM’s weak positioning, their GUI of the machine control software is not following ISA95, how come it can support the integration to manufacturing systems. 3) We have the most completed industry verticals, which are always big, and in some there’s companies rank top ones in global market.
Similarly, the China i4.0 will need the 3 joint force, but for now, it’s crippled. The software vendors are the most short one but it’s also easy to realize corner overtaking, the machinery and automation system OEM is the middle one but it takes more time to develop, and the 3rd force, some leading companies in certain industry verticals are the most healthy one.
So our strategy shall be: the leading companies in certain industry verticals should take the lead, to define the plan of its own value network need to realize i4.0, and based on this plan, to help develop local machinery and automation system OEM, in the meantime guide the local software vendors to provide software solutions needed.


I give some examples here
1）Consumer electronics: Haier group. As the leader in this vertical, Haier’s mastering over its value chain has reached to the similar level what BBV have done in German automotive industry. The background of Haier logistic makes it much easier for Haier to understand and plant the IoT and IoS concept to its gene.
2）Equipment manufacturing: CSR&CNR, as high speed railway is a national strategy, it’s much easier to realize the value network collaboration with policy guide, just like Chinese defense industry.
3）New energy car: BYD.  The new energy car technology from its beginning, it has the gene of revolution to traditional automotive value chain, even though i4.0 vision itself is still developng, but I think it’s possible to set up high standards and expectation, to take approaches which is different to what Germans done in automotive industry already, to pass the evolution phase to i4.0  quickly and come to revolution phase directly.


I think there’s 2 major action plans:
1)Check the enterprise information systems and automation level in the value network, remodel the IT system, to realize real-time
2)Define the universal product and service semantics, build a open platform for the enterprises, also the customers a unified communication service(Remember what i wrote in the beginning of the article, ‘each entity can provide certain service on request, at the right time’, this semantics, you can imagine, it might be like the supply and demand information on open platform like Alibaba now, but the semantics will be not like before, which is only for human reading and understanding, more importantly, it can be understood by the certain software applications.)


These 2 plans, while put into action, should not be guided by current software vendors, as themselves couldn’t jump out of the silos of its own products and even from German’s perspective, which is somehow mild, during the evolution to i4.0, the integration of legacy software applications is just a low cost and low risk but not perfect approach to realize the real-time integration of information.Cause at the end of evolution journey lies revolution!


I want to make an prediction as the closing of this article:
In the future, many good small software application will emerge, they’re the majority in the IT landscape of manufacturing software in i4.0 era.
Small software application, big open platform, with standard open interfaces, using dynamic process flow to combine different service can be provided by different software applications on demand, is the future trend. There’ will be no more software systems with very complex structure and massive function modules provided by giant software vendors. Cause even not mentioning the 2 action plans I described before, just take the need for natural user interface, it’s already killing for product managers in the giant software vendors. The massive function modules and complex internal business logic makes natural user interface a mission impossible!
It’s the brave new world, be prepared to kiss goodbye to legacy systems!




如果让我用一句话来描述工业4.0的几个关键字，实时化、整合、IoT和IoS ，则会是：工业社会的价值网络中所有实体包括人、产品、组织都是可以互联的，每个实体都可以为价值网络提供一些按需、适时的服务，这通过实时化的整合来实现。
目前大家可以看到很多关于工业4.0的展望的文章，在本篇文章中，我将以自身的观察理解来探讨一下工业4.0在中国的一些可能的策略和路线。


德国工业4.0报告里指出的两条腿战略，要使德国成为工业4.0的技术1）领先的OEM与解决方案提供者2）领先的市场。
究其原因，德国的优势在于：1）诸多的在国际竞争中处于领先地位机器和自动化设备的OEM，如巨无霸西门子，以及众多的私营中小企业；2）领先的制造业软件解决方案供应商，PLM\ERP\MES等领域的领先厂商里，德国企业占据了半壁江山；3）其领先的汽车工业。很明显德国工业4.0战略推进时，这是一个关键突破点。目前大家可以看到的很多关于工业4.0的引言和文章。很多会来自宝马和博世。德国汽车产业的协作，设计与生产制造的自动化水平极高，垂直整合和水平整合的模式早就存在，所需要的是向更加实时化的T型并网络化的结构演进并引入更符合这种结构的平台和应用软件。


机器和自动化设备OEM，制造业软件商，特定制造产业内的领袖企业，三足鼎立，这三方的合力，推动着德国工业4.0战略。当然，这三方也是面临着各种竞争压力，穷则思变，寻求新的业务增长点，比如1）机器和自动化OEM通过IoT技术，实现Predictive Maintenance, 可以让自身的设备在制造业客户的生产环境中更好地运转，达成更好的客户满意度以及更多的耗材业务；2）软件商则是由于制造业软件市场的逐步饱和，软件系统的日趋复杂，纯软件服务的利润越来越低，同时大的软件厂商如饕餮般不断吞并在不同领域的其他小软件厂商进而试图整合成更大的平台(RolandBerger公司出的一份工业4.0的电子刊中有一句很有趣的话：So is this the brave new world ahead of us? Not everywhere. Not yet. Because that would require companies to kiss goodbye to the traditional tools of production management.  现有的软件厂商中很多将会被产业所kiss goodbye，怎能不慌？) 3）大多数制造企业面临的复杂多变、分散且客制化程度越来越高的产品需求，对企业以往追求规模经济大量生产的方式造成很大冲击，内部流程掌控和外部协作难度越来越大.


相较于德国，中国 1）本土的机器和自动化OEM大多还在学习和发展，实力还是有所欠缺； 2）国内的软件业更多是倾斜在电子商务、游戏、金融等热点行业，有核心能力且下沉做制造业软件的公司少见。拿垂直整合来说，大多数产业核心设备往往都是来自国外，国内的软件厂商就算有心，也无力做相应的整合或者代价太高，而国外的软件厂商，通过以往国外的案例，可以较好地将整合的成本分摊。本土机器和自动化OEM的弱势，其设备操作软件都大多未去考虑遵循ISA95标准，遑论与制造系统的整合。 3）目前拥有更完整的工业体系，且每个产业的规模都很大。某些产业里也已经浮现出了世界领先的企业。


我认为可以采取的实际行动有两个方向：
1）梳理价值网络内的企业信息系统和自动化能力现状，对信息系统进行重新建模，实现实时化。
2） 规划出价值网络内通用的产品和服务语义，搭建开放的产业价值网络平台来给各企业乃至最终客户提供统一的交互服务。（回顾开篇时候我提到的，“每个实体都可以为价值网络提供按需、适时的服务”，这种描述语义，您可以想象一下，可能会类似现在阿里巴巴等B2B平台上的供求信息，但是这个信息的组织方式，不会像是以往仅供人阅读理解，更重要的是，价值网络中运行的的特定软件都可以读懂这些信息。）


同样地，中国的i4.0，也需要机器和自动化设备OEM，软件商和领袖企业共同去推进。
但是，中国的这只鼎目前是瘸腿的状态，制造业软件商最短板但却最容易实现弯道超车，机器和自动化设备OEM次之但培育起来却最花时间，特定行业的领袖企业则是这三条腿中最健康的。
那么，我们采取的策略则只能是，以特定行业的领袖企业为主导，制定出自身行业所涉及价值网络实现工业4.0所需要的规划，并以此规划，培育本土的机器和自动化设备OEM，同时引导软件厂商配合提供相应的软件支持。


举几个我认为应作为突破口的产业与公司，
1）消费电子：海尔集团。消费电子的龙头，在自身细分行业里，海尔对价值链的掌控已达到类似德国几大车厂在汽车工业的地位，兼之海尔物流的背景也使得海尔比其他企业更能够深刻理解IoT和IoS理念并导入至企业的血脉中去。 
2）装备制造：南北车集团CSR&CNR，作为国家意志的中国高铁战略，更容易以政策导向建立价值链内企业的协同整合。
3）新能源汽车：比亚迪，变革性的新能源汽车技术，本身就自带对传统汽车产业价值链的颠覆，虽说工业4.0愿景本身还在逐步成熟发展，但是我们未尝不可以设立高标准和期望，采取与德国汽车产业的过去发展不同的方式，更快速地通过向工业4.0的演进阶段，直接进入变革期。


这两个方向工作，完全不需要被现有的制造业软件厂商牵着走，软件厂商一时间还不可能自身所提供的软件应用藩篱中跳出来。即便按德国人较温和的发展路线来看，在工业4.0演进的过程中，整合已有的各种软件应用只是目前要达成实时化信息整合的一个低成本低风险却非最优的手段，更重要的是即将浮现的新的软件应用。因为在演进的终点，必将是变革！


最后，就软件厂商做个预言：
未来，会涌现出很多优秀的小软件，它们将会是工业4.0时代制造业软件蓝图中的主体。
轻应用，开放的大平台，标准开放的的应用接口，以灵活的流程组合价值网络平台上多个可按需调用的各种应用软件提供的服务，是未来制造业软件架构的趋势。以后应该不会再出现更多的巨无霸软件厂商来提供什么功能都包含了的模块数量巨多的软件了，姑且不论前面所述的两个方向的工作带来的颠覆，单就自然用户界面这一项，就够软件巨无霸的产品经理焦头烂额的了，已有的庞大系统模块构成和复杂的内部业务逻辑让实现自然用户界面都已经是无可能的事。
美丽新世界，做好准备，与旧系统说拜拜吧！