Agentic AI in Action: What I Learned Experimenting with Operational and Builder Agents

Over the last several months, I’ve been deepening my exploration of Agentic AI within Tulip, applying the concepts I laid out in my Agentic Framework and testing them in real operational scenarios. What started as curiosity has quickly become something else entirely: a recognition that we are opening a fundamentally new chapter in how manufacturing systems are built, operated, and scaled.

As I’ve experimented with both operational agents—those that support frontline teams in real time—and builder agents—those that help design, generate, and improve digital solutions—I am realizing how deep and wide the impact is going to be. The more I explore, the more use cases reveal themselves, and the more explosive the potential becomes. Its much more than I initially thought, and I have been thinking in terms of multi-agent systems for manufacturing since the 90's! Agentic AI (multi-agent systems powered by generative AI) are a much bigger step change than I would have imagined to how we think about creating and running manufacturing solutions.

Let's start with a brief recap. Operational agents extend the capability of the production system realizing digital twin capabilities in ways that introduce reasoning, interpretation, and contextual understanding directly into the work being done on the floor. Builder agents open the door to a multithreaded, parallel engineering process that fundamentally changes the speed and depth at which solutions can be created. It feels less like a “copilot” assisting a developer and more like a coordinated team of SMEs designing solutions - Augmented Lean at hyperspeed!

This combination—augmenting frontline execution while accelerating the design and iteration of digital systems—points to a future where humans orchestrate agent ecosystems rather than manually building every piece of a solution themselves. This brings me to the motivation for writing this post that became clear to me in a recent customer conversation about DCS integration in support of a digital solution for pharmaceutical manufacturing of clinical drugs.

Reimagining Composable Integration with DCS and ISA-88 Through Agentic AI

The question I was asked recently wasn’t the classic “How do you integrate an MES with a DCS?”—that problem has been addressed in many different ways in the traditional architectures. The real question was far more interesting: How do you integrate a Composable MES built on a Frontline Operations Platform with a DCS or other ISA-88 based batch system?

In a traditional MES world this integration immediately triggers a familiar debate about how to partition the recipe across systems, define boundaries of responsibility, and reconcile master data, recipe models and equipment hierarchies. And that debate is almost always constrained—if not outright dominated—by the rigidity of monolithic MES platforms. The architecture drives the discussion more than the operational needs do.

But in a composable environment, the constraints that shaped those historical debates simply don’t apply. Let's look at what happens when you apply a composable, agentic model.

1. Composable Apps Remove the Traditional Constraints

In a composable architecture, apps are not bound to a predetermined master data model or recipe structure. This means that there is no need for recipe model partitioning, no need to replicate equipment hierarchies, no predefined S88 recipe model to map into. 

This flexibility removes the most painful barrier in traditional MES ↔ DCS integration: the structural reconciliation of recipes and equipment models. The DCS can continue using its ISA-88 representations. Tulip apps can represent the process in the most intuitive and useful way. And the integration simply becomes the mapping of meaning and intent between the two worlds. You design the representation of the process that makes sense for your operation—not the one dictated by the systems.

Composable solutions also shift the perspective entirely by taking a human-centric, activity-based approach organized around the physical reality of the shop floor. I fully recognize that, in the traditional monolithic MES world, standard models like ISA-88 were considered essential—they provided structure, discipline, and a shared language for process-centric systems. But composability represents a fundamentally new paradigm. 

To democratize operational systems and bring them closer to frontline work, we must prioritize operator-first design rather than forcing every SME to become a master of S88 modeling. ISA-88 remains invaluable for process control, but the surrounding operational systems must be simplified and democratized so they can work hand in hand with the distributed nature of modern manufacturing. Composable platforms do exactly that: they allow process engineers, chemical engineers, and frontline teams to collaborate without being constrained by rigid, expert-only models.

This alone would dramatically simplify integration. But the real breakthrough comes with agents.

2. Builder Agents Enable Multithreaded, Generative Solutioning

Builder agents transform integration work from a linear, manual design activity into a parallel, iterative, and generative process. They don’t just help you “build faster”—they fundamentally change how solutions are conceived and engineered.

I experimented with builder agents that can ingest a full ISA-88 recipe structure and conduct deep introspection on it: understanding the procedural models, identifying phase logic, parsing parameter definitions, and extracting the relationships between equipment, units, and operations. It then suggested mappings, app contexts, and design patterns—not only based on expert interpretation of the ISA-88 standard, but also from what they’ve learned across existing apps, historical integrations, real-world performance of similar solutions and critically expert knowledge of composable design principles. In other words, these agent combines domain expertise with empirical insight, offering design options that reflect both best practices and operational realities.

This alone already feels like having a team of process engineers and MES architects working in hyperspeed. But the true power emerges when operational agents begin contributing dynamic intelligence into that design loop.

Operational agents provide real-time feedback about process variability, material availability, logistics implications, quality status, or unexpected delays. They can accommodate non-optimal or evolving recipes by dynamically dispatching materials, reallocating resources, or bringing the right expertise into the process at the right time. This dramatically increases operational resilience and reduces risk—because the system adapts rather than stalls when confronted with real-world complexity.

And then there’s compliance...

Specialized builder agents trained on GxP principles can support on-the-fly risk assessments, propose mitigation strategies, and generate validation documentation as part of the design cycle. Operational validation agents can take this further, enabling true continuous validation—monitoring execution conditions, evaluating deviations against risk models, and providing traceable explanations for decisions. Compliance becomes embedded, in fact native, in the system rather than layered on top.

When you step back and think about the implications, the potential is almost infinite. The combination of builder and operational agents elevates agility and compliance to levels we’ve never imagined in traditional MES architectures and design approaches. It enables systems that are not only faster to build, but continuously improving, self-aware, and aligned with both operational needs and regulatory expectations.

This is the beginning of a new era in how manufacturing solutions are designed, executed, and validated. It feels like a generative design process running at hyperspeed. Not a single assistant helping you code tasks faster — but a team of AI experts collaborating to create a complete solution.

And this unlocks something we have never had before in manufacturing software: the ability to rapidly iterate and explore multiple viable integration architectures before committing to one. This is enormously valuable in an ISA-88 context, where recipes, equipment logic, and operational variability rarely align perfectly.

Seeing the Explosion of Use Cases

If you let the builder and operational agents begin to work together, the number of possibilities just explodes - its the first step towards a Multi-Agent System (MAS). These agents don’t simply execute tasks—they learn, reason, and collaborate in ways that constantly reinforce and expand what’s possible. Suddenly, problems that used to take months of engineering effort can be tackled in days—or even hours.

Some of the notable and exciting use cases I’ve come across include:

• Automatically mapping process logic into app structures.
• Rapidly generating compliant workflows for regulated environments.
• Exploring recipe variants and operational scenarios through simulation.
• Using agents to assist in validation and documentation.
• Dynamically interpreting and adapting recipes at runtime.
• Applying cross‑system reasoning to catch inconsistencies early.
• Coordinating multiple agents to design complete production solutions.

Each one opens a new door—where imagination, not technical limitation, becomes the real constraint.

What stands out to me most is the sheer power of these systems and what they make possible. Seeing a builder agent reason through an ISA-88 recipe, or an operational agent adapt to a real-time process disruption, feels less like traditional programming and more like working alongside a tireless, highly capable collaborator. My role has shifted from hands-on integration to guiding and steering intelligent agents—and that shift fundamentally changes how we think about manufacturing systems. The emerging dialogue between human expertise and machine reasoning opens up an entirely new design space, one where adaptability, resilience, and scale are no longer constrained by human bandwidth.

I’m also starting to document and share some of these experiences through AI‑generated videos, another capability I’m learning to use. They’ve turned out to be a surprisingly powerful way to show what agentic systems can do—and to help others visualize these new forms of collaboration on the shop floor. It’s a learning journey in itself, but it feels like the right extension of this exploration: using AI not only to build better systems but to communicate and learn in entirely new ways.

Seeing all of this unfold up close, it’s clear we’re not just evolving automation—we’re watching Holonic concepts come alive, the manifestation of the new digital manufacturing reality.

Crossing the Digital Divide: Human-Centric Manufacturing in a Multi-Agent World

When you step back and look at what emerges from the combination of builder agents and operational agents, it becomes clear that this is not just another productivity boost or architectural evolution. It is a convergence point — one that aligns remarkably well with how manufacturing operations have always been run by humans.

Manufacturing has never been a purely deterministic, rules-based environment. It is adaptive, situational, and deeply human. Engineers design intent. Operators respond to reality. Supervisors balance constraints. Quality professionals manage risk. For decades, our digital systems have struggled to reflect this reality, forcing people to adapt to rigid models and monolithic workflows rather than supporting the way work actually happens.

Multi-agent systems change that equation by enabling digital systems to finally reflect the way manufacturing actually operates—through parallel problem solving, continuous adaptation, and coordinated decision-making across people, processes, and technology.

Builder agents mirror how engineering teams work: exploring options in parallel, iterating designs, learning from past outcomes, and continuously refining solutions. Operational agents mirror how plants operate: responding to variability, adjusting to constraints, coordinating people and materials, and managing risk in real time. Together, they form a digital system that finally behaves the way manufacturing organizations behave — collaborative, contextual, and resilient.

 

This is profoundly human-centric, because it aligns digital systems with how manufacturing teams actually operate — dynamically, collaboratively, and contextually.

It also brings into sharp focus a theme I’ve been writing and speaking about since the late1990s. For decades, we have tried to digitize manufacturing by automating tasks, enforcing standard models, and embedding rigid logic into systems. That approach delivered value, but it also created the very constraints that now limit agility, scalability, and innovation.

What we are seeing now is the realization of a different paradigm — one where digital systems augment human reasoning instead of replacing it, where composability replaces monoliths, and where intelligence is distributed across agents rather than centralized in static applications. This is the paradigm shift I’ve been pointing to for years, and it is finally reaching a practical, scalable form.

The convergence of composable platforms, agentic AI, and multi-agent collaboration marks a true inflection point. We are no longer just modernizing legacy systems. We are crossing the digital divide — moving from systems that support transactions to systems that participate in operations.

The potential here is vast! Agility, resilience, productivity, and compliance are no longer trade-offs. They become reinforcing outcomes of a system designed around human workflows, continuously learning agents, and real-world context.

This is not the end state — it’s the beginning. But for the first time, the tools, platforms, and paradigms are aligned. And that alignment is what makes this moment different from other transformative eras that came before. And it will not stop - that is why we call it continuous transformation! 

A Composable Agentic Framework for Frontline Operations

Over the last year, “agentic AI” has shifted from emerging concept to practical conversation. Everyone is now talking about agents, and with today’s tools, building one has become every person’s business. But that raises a much bigger question: what agents should we build, and how do we organize them into something meaningful?

This is a topic that is not new and I have reflected on it through a number of lenses, e.g. Why IIoT is Transformative - its not the technology! and The Genius of the Toyota Production System Explained. This post however offers my first reflections on what a Composable Agentic Framework could look like for operations in general and manufacturing specifically. It’s an attempt to give industry an initial perspective, a concept and maybe some guidance for applying agentic AI to frontline operations in ways that improve both productivity and adaptability. Notice I say "initial", there is clearly much more to this topic that needs to be explored, discussed and debated - in addition the technology is nascent and we can expect much more sophistication and depth as it evolves.

Why Agents? Why Now?

For decades my peers and I, as manufacturing thinkers, have dreamed of holonic systems and fractal factories—production environments that adapt in real time, scale seamlessly, and continuously self-optimize. But until recently, that vision stayed in the realm of theory. The technology just wasn’t ready.

Now it is. Today’s digital platforms, IIoT connectivity, cloud infrastructure, and AI capabilities make it possible to realize this vision in practice. Instead of rigid, monolithic systems, we can now compose operations out of, and with, autonomous, collaborative agents that interact dynamically.

And this matters because composability is built on the idea that continuous, incremental improvements add up to transformation. What’s new is that agentic AI can accelerate these improvements beyond what we can imagine. Large language models and agentic frameworks have already proven their ability to supercharge productivity in domains like software development, research, and customer interaction. The challenge—and opportunity—before us now is to understand and define how to bring that same acceleration into composability and frontline operations.

Agents make this possible. Each agent is discrete, goal-oriented, and autonomous, yet designed to collaborate with other agents. When composed together, they create systems that flex, adapt, and continuously optimize.

In earlier posts, I’ve argued that digital transformation is not about IT and OT learning to coexist, but about creating a new whole where the distinction ceases to matter. That’s the essence of composability. Agents are the next step: a way to make that vision practical, modular, and scalable.

An Agent Framework for Composable Digital Solutions

The starting point is simple: in new digital operations platforms like Tulip, apps already behave like agents.

• They have a clear goal (guide an operator, track a unit, log a machine event).
• They operate autonomously within their context.
• They collaborate with other apps and systems through shared data, triggers, and transitions.

Add AI into the mix, and these apps become agentic apps—supercharged digital teammates. And when multiple apps are composed together, they form a multi-agent system that mirrors the complexity of real operations, in other words they become digital twins in the true sense of the concept.

But in order for this "mirroring" to become a digital twin we need to define some rules and this is where the framework comes in. To move from scattered apps and automations to composable digital solutions, we need a structured way to think about agents.

Add AI into the mix, and apps evolve into agentic apps—supercharged digital teammates. Composed together, they form multi-agent systems that can mirror the complexity of real operations—becoming digital twins in the truest sense. But achieving that requires more than simply building agents; it requires structure and guidance. Without it, the risk is a proliferation of scattered apps and agents with no cohesive purpose—at best delivering little value, and at worst creating more complexity, reduced productivity, and even unsafe outcomes. The goal of this suggest framework is to provide the rules and design principles that ensure agents align toward a shared purpose. This reflects the essence of holonic structures: their power comes not just from autonomy, but from working together toward a common goal. That shared purpose is what makes them optimal, and what turns a collection of agents into a true composable digital solution that delivers measurable benefits.

In my earlier blog post “To Data Model or Not to Data Model”, I described the Artefact Model as a key element in composability: a scalable, flexible, interpretable representation of the operational system. The Artefact Model gives us the common context in which agents can interact—products, orders, machines, deviations, and operators all represented digitally and consistently.

A Perspective on Agent Types

Before diving into the types themselves, it’s important to recognize that agents serve two distinct scenarios in manufacturing:

Authoring / Building – Here, agents augment the creation process. They help engineers, developers, and even citizen builders design solutions faster and smarter. Think of them as co-pilots that propose app templates, generate artefact structures, suggest best practices, and automate repetitive setup tasks. These agents accelerate innovation and democratize solution-building.

Operations – Once deployed, agents act within day-to-day execution. They monitor machines, guide operators, coordinate workflows, manage deviations, and connect enterprise systems. These operational agents are the ones “living” in production, continuously working toward defined goals while collaborating with other agents and humans.

The framework presented here is focused specifically on the operations scenario. That being said there are commonalities and some agent types apply to both scenarios, but the context differs: in building, agents amplify human creativity and speed; in operations, agents amplify execution and adaptability. 

Agentic AI in operations enables a powerful ecosystem where "teams of experts" (agents) work together, demonstrating "collective intelligence". Crucially, operational agents, empowered by AI, transform what were once innate objects like machines and materials into active, intelligent members of the dynamic work environment. We are giving them the ability to be agents—autonomous and collaborative participants within the dynamic manufacturing operation network.

With that lets take a look at a shared taxonomy for the different types of agents in a composable agent framework:

Physical Agents: These agents are defined by their direct representation of physical manufacturing objects within the digital twin. They continuously mirror the real-world status, attributes, and behaviors of their tangible counterparts, enabling real-time monitoring, analysis, and control. Here are some examples:

• Product Agent: Represents a specific product or unit throughout its manufacturing journey. Its goal is to track the product's individual status, quality parameters, and genealogy, providing a comprehensive digital record for each item produced.
• Machine Agent: Serves as the digital twin of a specific piece of equipment or machinery on the shop floor. Its purpose is to monitor machine health, performance metrics (e.g., OEE, availability, performance, quality ), and predict potential failures, enabling proactive maintenance and optimized utilization.
• Tote Agent: Represents a tote or device that carries and conveys product or material on the shop floor. This agent's role is to track the movement of the material or products it carrier in the operations and facilitates traceability and location with ease.

Operational Agents: These agents are defined by their focus on tangible operational entities and processes used in manufacturing management. They manage the flow of work, information, and events, ensuring that manufacturing processes adhere to plans and respond effectively to deviations. Here are some examples:

• Order Agent: Represents a specific production or work order. Its goal is to oversee the end-to-end execution of that order, tracking progress against the schedule, managing material consumption, and ensuring all required steps are completed.
• Deviation Agent: Activated when a process or quality deviation occurs. Its purpose is to identify, classify, and manage the deviation, potentially initiating corrective actions, alerts, or escalation workflows to relevant personnel or systems.
• Schedule Agent: Responsible for dynamically managing and optimizing production schedules. This agent works to ensure resources are efficiently allocated and production targets are met, adapting to real-time changes in machine status, material availability, or order priorities.

System Agents: These agents are defined by their role in facilitating integration and intelligent interaction with broader enterprise-level systems and data repositories. They ensure data consistency, enable seamless workflow orchestration across different platforms, and provide access to critical business context. Here are some examples:

• ERP Agent: Manages the flow of information between Tulip and the Enterprise Resource Planning system. Its function includes receiving work orders, reporting production updates, and managing material consumption and inventory levels in the ERP.
• UNS Agent: Represents the integration with a Unified Namespace. This agent enables seamless, real-time data exchange across the entire operational landscape, ensuring that all systems have access to consistent and up-to-date information.
• Data Lake Agent: Responsible for managing the ingestion of operational data from Tulip into a central data lake and enabling access to this data for advanced analytics and further AI model training. It ensures that the rich data captured by Tulip's composable applications is leveraged for broader insights.
• Device Agent: Corresponds to a specific connected device, such as a scale, barcode scanner, or sensor. This agent's role is to facilitate seamless data exchange between the physical device and the Tulip platform, ensuring accurate data collection and enabling device-triggered actions.

Staff or Companion Agents. These are a general type of agent that augment the human's ability to find information, research topics, suggest improvements, and perform tasks. They are used in a variety of scenarios and serve as utilities in both the operational environment as well as the engineering or builder environments. Here are some examples:

• Quality Research Agent: Quickly finds documentation, suggests troubleshooting steps to an operator, or summarizes a quality history for a supervisor.
• App Builder Agent: Generates app templates, proposes table structures in the Artefact Model, or scaffolds connectors based on device specs—accelerating citizen developers and engineers.

What unites these agent types in this framework is the three core properties: it has a goal, it operates autonomously within a bounded scope, and it is collaborative—able to exchange data, signals, and intent with other agents and humans.

Crucially, these agent types do more than align with the Artefact Model — they enhance it. By consistent real time representation of artefacts (products, resources, orders, deviations), agents enrich the shared digital twin with actionable state, decisions, and provenance. That enriched Artefact Model becomes the lingua franca that lets agents interoperate reliably, enables composition, and prevents the classic failure mode: a landscape of scattered apps and ad-hoc bots with no unifying purpose.

In short: agents must be designed to work as an integral part of  the Artefact Model so that autonomy and collaboration add up to a cohesive, safe, and value-driving digital twin.

Beyond Incrementalism: The Future of Multi-Agent Collaboration Frameworks

Much of what we know about manufacturing improvements has historically been driven by incrementalism—step-by-step gains in efficiency, quality, or throughput. This mindset is not wrong; in fact, it is the foundation of continuous improvement and the heart of lean thinking. But incrementalism alone can only take us so far. To thrive in today’s volatile and complex operating environments, we need systems that don’t just get gradually better but can adapt dynamically to new conditions.

This is where multi-agent collaboration becomes transformative. Agents, by design, are autonomous but collaborative, and when they interact at scale, they exhibit something greater than the sum of their parts: collective intelligence.

The result is emergence and self-organization: a system-level intelligence and adaptability that was not explicitly programmed into any single agent. Emergent behavior is what allows multi-agent systems to flex and reconfigure in response to disruptions, market changes, or unexpected events. This is not just automation—it’s a new layer of operational intelligence applied directly to the frontline.

But to realize this potential, we must also reconsider the frameworks that structure our digital manufacturing systems. Such a composable, agentic world—where apps act as agents and operations are orchestrated by multi-agent systems—doesn’t fit neatly into traditional manufacturing systems standards and hierarchies definitions (see my earlier post, OK, Let’s Talk ISA-95).

That doesn’t mean throwing standards away, but it does mean rethinking or adapting them to this new reality. If emergence is the key to adaptability, then our models and standards need to evolve to describe systems that are dynamic, distributed, and composable rather than hierarchical and rigid.

In short: incrementalism is still essential, but it is no longer sufficient. Collective intelligence, powered by agents and guided by frameworks like the Artefact Model, is what will enable manufacturing to achieve adaptability at scale—and truly fulfill the promise of digital transformation.

Final Reflections

Building, authoring, creating agents is within everyone’s reach. But without structure and guidance, we risk ending up with a fragmented landscape of apps and bots—scattered efforts that deliver little value, or worse, add complexity, reduce productivity, and even create unsafe outcomes.

My hope is that this initial framework presented here provides that needed guidance. It should help us define what kinds of agents to build, how to compose them into systems, and how to ensure they align with a unifying purpose. It grounds agentic design in Composability and its Artefact Model, ensuring that agents not only adhere to but actively enhance the shared digital twin. This alignment is what keeps autonomy and collaboration from drifting apart and turns them into something greater: collective intelligence with emergent adaptability.

This is why composability and agent frameworks matter. They give us the structure to channel autonomy toward common goals. They offer to guide us on the path to increased productivity with adaptability. And they point to the need for new thinking in our standards and models—beyond the rigid boundaries of monolithic approaches, toward a more dynamic and composable reality.

In the end, the promise of agentic AI in operations is a the newest step in the digital transformation journey: Continuous Transformation - reinvention at scale of manufacturing operations.

And this is just the beginning. There is so much more to explore, define, and refine. I invite you—industry peers, practitioners, and thinkers—to engage in this discussion and debate. Let’s shape together what a composable agentic framework should look like in practice. After all, it takes a village... 

IT/OT Convergence: Still Vague, Still Critical

For years, IT/OT convergence has been a recurring theme in digital transformation conversations. It’s almost become a cliché. Everyone agrees it’s important, but few can define it clearly, and every company seems to have its own “flavor.”

That vagueness is both a challenge and an opportunity. IT/OT convergence is not just about technology stacks, data pipelines, or network architectures. It is about organizations, people, and how digital capabilities become part of the fabric of operations. And in the context of continuous transformation, this conversation remains more relevant than ever.

Why IT/OT Convergence Matters in Continuous Transformation

Digital transformation is not a one-time project—it’s a continuous process of adapting, learning, and embedding new technologies into how we operate. In that context, IT/OT convergence is essential.

Why? Because transformation cannot happen in silos. The systems that plan and account (IT) and the systems that control and execute (OT) must work together seamlessly. If they remain separate—organizationally, technologically, or culturally—you end up with fragmentation that slows down transformation instead of enabling it.

Can We Define It? And Why Does That Help?

One of the reasons IT/OT convergence feels vague is because it is often reduced to a technical exercise—connecting networks, integrating databases, or sharing dashboards. But that misses the bigger picture. To make it actionable, we need a broader and more ambitious definition.

At its core, IT/OT convergence is about making IT and OT inseparable. Not aligned, not just integrated, but merged into one digital foundation for the business.

That means:

• Integration of technology across the entire operation—from planning and engineering, to execution on the shop floor, and even to customer-facing processes. IT and OT must form a continuous digital thread that spans the lifecycle of design, production, quality, logistics, and service.
  
  

• Merging organizational roles and responsibilities—so that IT and OT aren’t two camps negotiating interfaces, but one team co-owning outcomes. The boundaries blur until it becomes irrelevant whether a capability was once “IT” or “OT.”
  
  

• Embedding digital practices into operations—so technology isn’t an external tool to be “applied” to operations, but a core element of how the organization works, improves, and creates value.

One of the most dangerous misconceptions in digital transformation is treating technology as an external layer—something added on top of operations. This is what has been going on for decades, born out of necessity of dealing with super complex monolithic systems. It is a model that creates friction, and this friction is detrimental to progress - it will suffocate any digital adoption initiative.   

Defining convergence in this way is helpful because it reframes the conversation: it’s not about how to connect two separate worlds, but how to design an organization where there is only one world. That shift in mindset is what makes IT/OT convergence transformative.

For digital technology to be impactful, it must be embedded into the way work is done at all levels: from the operator on the line, to the planner in the back office, to the leadership team setting strategy. IT/OT convergence makes this embedding possible.

When data, insights, and digital tools flow seamlessly across operations, technology doesn’t feel like an “extra.” It becomes integral to how people work, decide, and improve.

The Composability Pillar of Agile Operations

Finally, IT/OT convergence is inseparable from the principle of composability. To be agile, organizations need technologies that can be composed, reconfigured, and adapted as needs change.

That means convergence cannot be separated—neither organizationally nor by use. If IT and OT are treated as distinct silos, agility suffers. But when convergence is embraced, composable technologies support operational excellence: flexible enough to adapt, strong enough to sustain, and aligned enough to deliver value across the enterprise.

How Do We Know When It’s Complete? And Does That Matter?

Here’s the truth: IT/OT convergence is never “complete.” Like continuous transformation itself, it’s an ongoing journey. Technologies evolve, organizational structures shift, and new business challenges arise.

The goal is not to check a box that says, converged. The goal is to continually deepen the integration between IT and OT so that technology becomes invisible—it simply is the way you run operations.

So whether or not it’s ever “done” is less important than whether it’s continuously evolving to support value creation.

Moving Beyond the Buzzword

So, is IT/OT convergence vague? Absolutely. But it’s vague not because the idea lacks merit—it’s vague because it was born out of conflict.

IT and OT have so far been separate domains, each with its own responsibilities, budgets, and power structures. IT managed enterprise systems, data security, and corporate standards. OT managed the machines, processes, and operational continuity. Bringing the two together is not just a technical exercise—it’s a challenge to established authority.

That’s why IT/OT convergence often feels like a “hot potato.” Nobody wants to own it fully because it requires organizations to do things that are uncomfortable:

• Merging organizations that were once distinct.

• Relinquishing power as decision-making becomes more distributed.

• Diminishing rigid responsibilities as democratized technologies empower more people to contribute to digital solutions.

At its heart, convergence means releasing control—accepting that digital technologies are no longer the sole domain of one function, but a shared capability that belongs to everyone.

And that’s hard. It’s hard for people who have built careers around defending their territory. It’s hard for organizations that have optimized themselves around silos. It’s hard because it requires a cultural transformation just as much as a technological one.

But here’s the truth: without this convergence transformation halts. You cannot achieve continuous transformation if half the organization is innovating in isolation while the other half is protecting legacy boundaries. The result is friction, fragmentation, and failure to capture the value that digital technologies promise.

This is why IT/OT convergence—however uncomfortable, however vague—remains critical. It is the cultural and organizational foundation on which digital transformation rests.

In the end, convergence is not about IT and OT learning to work better together. It’s about creating a new whole where the distinction ceases to matter. That is the mindset shift. And until organizations embrace it, “transformation” will remain more slogan than reality.

About Accountants and Production Managers: ERP vs. MES

This is a rewrite of a whitepaper that I published in 2004 based on a long and frustrating MES selection process where the "can I use my ERP as MES" misunderstanding went rampant. I find that the discussion is still very relevant today and the topic gets even more confusing with some of the emerging digital technologies in this space. So this is an attempt to bring more clarity...

About ERP and MES

With today’s increasingly accelerating manufacturing technology innovation, digital transformation is critical for staying competitive. Among the key systems that have traditionally driven manufacturing operations are Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. The myriad of opinions and discussion on these concept in the context of digital transformation and therefore understanding the differences between these two systems is crucial. In addition, as digital technologies continue to advance, the lines between MES and ERP are increasingly blurring, especially with the advent of No-Code democratization and Frontline Operations Platforms. I have found that and effective ways to conceptualize this is through the analogy of a production manager and a company accountant.

The Accountant: ERP’s Role in Manufacturing

In the last decade ERP systems have seen massive proliferation into many businesses, including manufacturing businesses. These businesses have invested heavily in ERP systems and today struggle to realize payback from these investments. In the case of manufacturing businesses, realizing ROI is logically focused on the production floor, an area in which ERPs are traditionally considered weak.

As the ERP market becomes increasingly saturated, vendors are looking for ways to increase revenue and expand their footprint. ERP vendors have turned their attention to shop floor management and manufacturing execution systems (MES). By adding MES functionality, they can increase license revenue. 

Consider the role of an accountant in a manufacturing company. The accountant manages financial records, oversees budgets, handles payroll, and ensures that all financial transactions comply with regulations. Their work involves high-level data analysis, financial forecasting, and strategic decision-making that influences the entire organization. This is akin to the role of an ERP system.

At their core, ERP systems are advanced accounting information management systems, they are enterprise-wide management tools designed to integrate various functions across a business. In manufacturing, ERP systems handle tasks such as procurement, inventory management, finance, human resources, and supply chain operations. They provide planning tools like Material Requirements Planning (MRP) and Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP II), which help companies predict future resource needs based on historical data and forecasts.

However, despite their comprehensive nature, ERP systems are not designed to manage the real-time, dynamic environment of the production floor. They excel at providing a broad, strategic view but lack the granular control needed to manage the intricacies of manufacturing processes. Just as an accountant isn’t equipped to manage the day-to-day operations on the production floor, an ERP system isn’t designed to handle the real-time demands of production management.

The Production Manager: MES’s Role on the Shop Floor

MESs have evolved to address the inherently complex production management functions. An MES is a specialized system focused on the shop floor, where it manages real-time production activities. It coordinates equipment, workers, materials, and processes to ensure that production is carried out according to plan. Unlike ERP systems, MES operates in real-time, responding instantly to changes and ensuring that production goals are met. It tracks production data minute by minute, making it possible to identify and correct issues as they arise.

Imagine the role of a production manager. This person is in the thick of things, ensuring that production runs smoothly and efficiently. They manage workers, monitor machines, and make real-time decisions to keep everything on track. The production manager is intimately familiar with the production process, knows when to adjust schedules, and reacts quickly to any disruptions. This role exemplifies what an MES does in a manufacturing environment.

While ERP provides a high-level overview of production schedules and resources, MES is concerned with execution ensuring that production is executed as planned. MES is deeply integrated with the physical aspects of manufacturing, enabling it to manage the nuances of the production process that ERP systems cannot.

Differences Between MES and ERP

Aspect	ERP  (Enterprise Resource Planning)	MES  (Manufacturing Execution System)
Scope and Focus	Covers a wide range of business functions across the entire enterprise. Designed for strategic planning and resource management across departments.	Specifically focused on the production floor, with deeper engagement in executing production processes, equipment monitoring, and labor management.
Data and Time Frame	Deals with high-level, aggregated data, often historical or forecast-based and financially biased. Works on a broader timeframe for long-term planning and decision-making.	Operates in real-time, handling detailed, granular data from the shop floor, responding immediately to production needs.
Integration and Flexibility	Integrates various business functions but often lacks the flexibility needed for real-time adjustments on the production floor.	Highly flexible and adaptable to the dynamic environment of manufacturing. Integrates with machinery, sensors, and other shop floor systems.
Decision-Making	Supports strategic, long-term decision-making at the corporate level, focusing on overall financial business performance and resource allocation.	Highly flexible and adaptable to the dynamic environment of manufacturing. Integrates with machinery, sensors, and other shop floor systems.

Blurring the Lines: How Digital Technologies Are Redefining MES and ERP

As digital transformation continues to reshape manufacturing, the era of traditional monolithic MES may be coming to an end. New technologies and platforms are presenting a different way to solve the shop floor management coordination challenge. Based on the foundations of MES these new solution incorporate advanced digital technologies such as No-Code, IIoT (Industrial Internet of Things), machine learning, AI-driven analytics, Generative AI and enhanced user interfaces. They offer a more holistic view of manufacturing operations, providing real-time insights that empower workers on the shop floor to make data-driven decisions.

Unlike traditional monolithic MES, which focused solely on production execution, the new breed of technologies leading with the Frontline Operations Platforms encompass a broader range of activities, including quality control, maintenance, lab operations, inventory management, and workforce training. This transformation is a direct response to the growing need for systems that not only manage production but also integrate seamlessly with other digital tools and platforms to enhance overall operational efficiency. It also aligns with the broader digital paradigm, where the goal is not just to automate existing processes but to create a more connected, intelligent, and responsive manufacturing environment. The integration capabilities of Frontline Operations Platforms enable a seamless flow of information between the shop floor and the enterprise level, blurring the traditional lines between MES and ERP.

Several key trends are driving this convergence:

1. IIoT and Real-Time Data Integration:

The proliferation of IIoT devices on the shop floor allows for the real-time collection and analysis of data. This data can be fed into both MES and ERP systems, enabling more informed decision-making across all levels of the organization. For instance, real-time production data captured by IIoT sensors can be used by the ERP system to adjust supply chain logistics or by the MES to optimize production schedules on the fly.

2. Advanced Analytics and AI:

Machine learning and AI are increasingly being used to analyze the vast amounts of data generated by manufacturing processes. These technologies enable predictive maintenance, demand forecasting, and process optimization, functions that traditionally belonged to either MES or ERP. The use of advanced analytics allows these systems to overlap, as both can now contribute to strategic and operational decision-making.

3. Human Centric Platforms:

The new no-code platforms take a human centric approach that break down the traditional process centric solution. They allow to build solution that can be used across manufacturing modalities and also allow to combine MES and ERP functionalities blurring the lines between the two. The new solutions provide a democratized platform for managing all operational process. Workers on the shop floor, managers, and executives can all access the same platform, though with different levels of detail and control, depending on their role.

4. Cloud Computing and Edge Computing:

The shift towards cloud-based solutions and edge computing is enabling greater integration and scalability of MES and ERP systems. Cloud computing allows for centralized data management, making it easier to integrate MES and ERP data. Edge computing, on the other hand, brings computational power closer to the production site, enabling real-time data processing and decision-making that benefits both MES and ERP functions.

5. Interoperability and Open Standards:

Increasingly, manufacturers are adopting interoperable systems that can communicate with each other through open standards. This trend is making it easier to integrate MES and ERP systems, allowing for a more seamless exchange of data and better collaboration between different departments.

The Future: A Converged System for Manufacturing Excellence

The convergence of MES and ERP functionalities into more integrated platforms represents the future of manufacturing. As these systems continue to evolve, they will offer manufacturers the ability to manage both high-level strategic planning and detailed operational execution through a single, cohesive platform. This convergence will enable a more agile and responsive manufacturing process, better equipped to meet the demands of the modern market. The systems are working together more closely than ever, driven by advancements in digital technology that empower manufacturers to achieve new levels of efficiency, flexibility, and innovation.

In Summary...

In the rapidly changing landscape of manufacturing, understanding the distinct yet increasingly interconnected roles of ERP and MES systems is crucial. As digital technologies continue to advance, these systems are evolving and converging, offering manufacturers a powerful toolset for driving operational excellence. The transformation of MES into Frontline Operations Platforms exemplifies this convergence, blurring the lines between strategic planning and operational execution. By embracing these integrated platforms, manufacturers can unlock new opportunities for efficiency, agility, and competitiveness, setting the stage for a new era of manufacturing excellence in the digital age.

Yet, it is naive and risky to assume that one of these systems can be extended to effectively do the other’s job. Similarly, one would not assign an accountant to be a production manager, or vice versa. Each might be an expert in his own field, yet it takes a completely different set of skills, expertise and knowledge to effectively tackle each task.