Which three options are issues caused by traditional Industrial Automation and Control Systems architecture? (Choose three.)

Question

Options

• Adiminishing talent pool of related technical expertise
• Bdifficulty in procuring IACS devices
• Climitations of legacy protocols
• Dlimits on the number of industrial devices in a cell/area zone
• Edifficulty in delivering device performance data to monitors

• A
  71% (12)
• D
  18% (3)
• E
  12% (2)

Explanation

Traditional IACS architectures were built on proprietary, vendor-specific technologies that create compounding problems over time. A is correct because as veteran engineers retire, the niche expertise required to maintain these closed, legacy systems becomes increasingly scarce. B is correct because proprietary IACS hardware often relies on single-vendor sourcing - when components are discontinued or become end-of-life, replacements are difficult or impossible to find. C is correct because legacy industrial protocols (like older Modbus or PROFIBUS variants) were designed for isolated environments, lacking the bandwidth, security, and interoperability needed for modern converged networks.

D is wrong because traditional IACS architecture does not impose a fixed cap on the number of devices within a cell/area zone - device density is a design and network capacity concern, not an inherent architectural defect. E is wrong because delivering performance data to monitoring systems (SCADA, HMI) is precisely what traditional IACS was built to do within its own domain - it's not a recognized pain point of the architecture.

Memory tip: Think of the "ABC Problem" - traditional IACS ages badly in three ways: the Aging workforce, Buying parts (procurement), and Crippled protocols. If an answer describes something IACS was designed to handle (like D and E), it's a distractor.

No community discussion yet for this question.