OT/IT Convergence Advisory

The problem this solves

OT and IT teams usually optimize for different things — uptime and safety on one side, security and standardization on the other — and a convergence initiative that ignores that tension tends to stall in committee. Vendors pitching a platform rarely present the trade-offs of the platforms they don’t sell.

This engagement is structured to give plant and IT leadership a shared, defensible view of the options — including the ones that don’t require buying anything new.

What the engagement covers

• Current-state assessment — mapping existing OT integrations, security posture, and IT governance constraints against where convergence is actually creating cost or risk today.
• Architecture options, scored openly — on-premises vs. cloud-hybrid tradeoffs, with named platform comparisons and the reasoning behind each score, not just a recommendation.
• Phased roadmap — a sequenced implementation plan that respects plant shutdown windows and change-management realities, rather than a big-bang cutover.
• Standards alignment — where relevant, mapping to ISA-95 and sector-specific companion specifications (for example, the Weihenstephan Standards for beverage filling and packaging lines) so the architecture holds up to audit.
• Governance model — a working definition of who owns what across the OT/IT boundary once the new architecture is live, so the convergence doesn’t quietly regress six months later.

Who this is for

Manufacturing and utilities organizations where OT and IT are structurally separate today, and leadership wants an independent advisor in the room — one who isn’t also trying to sell the platform being evaluated.