0805: The Yantai Method for Standardized PLC Programming Open to Criticism
One day, I read a highly technical article. The author described their work as being of a high standard, and I am also eager to see my peers develop high-level technical achievements. However, during my reading, I had several questions about some details and intended to discuss them from a purely technical and academic perspective!
However, at the end of the article, the author emphatically declared that their results were the highest standard and that they would not accept any criticism.
This left me feeling quite stifled.
It was quite uncomfortable. It was as if you were both the athlete and the lifelong referee, and of course, you would be the world champion.
You have built a closed circle for yourself, enjoying your own world as the number one. Any external light cannot penetrate, and any dissenting voices from within are completely stifled. If you are not number one, who is?
We have always believed that the development and progress of technology require continuous communication, mutual learning, referencing, and growing together. In the field of PLC programming, the technical methods are not mature and stable to the point of having no room for improvement. On the contrary, in the past few decades, there have been no new technical methods produced; all newcomers can enter the industry after a simple three-month introductory training. Even after three years or even ten years, despite having gone through dozens of projects, their technical level remains at the level mastered during the introductory training. At most, they have encountered more products and brands than when they first started, but there has been no opportunity for theoretical improvement.
The direct and most obvious consequence is that a large number of peers, after working for more than ten years, find themselves trapped in a dead cycle. The so-called work consists of endless overtime, design, business trips, debugging, and overtime, in an infinite loop. Even if they are dissatisfied with their current job, switching companies only means jumping from one cycle to another. Unless there is an opportunity for promotion to management or a career change, but such opportunities are only available to a few, and the pressure will be greater.
The birth of the Yantai Method for standardized PLC programming provides a solution to this dilemma. However, apart from the theoretical framework being completely different from traditional PLC programming theories, the learning curve is quite steep, and there is also a huge amount of foundational work. I have mentioned several times in my articles that, for example, a set of lower-level library templates with the same style must be ported to various PLC platforms, and the HMI screen parts must also be ported to different HMI brands and SCADA platforms. This workload is enormous. We have always advocated against reinventing the wheel. For me, while guiding some companies in standardizing their electrical automation design processes (SOP), it is very tedious and uninteresting to painstakingly build libraries from the ground up for any component brand used in the factory. So if given a choice, it is better to purchase a ready-made set. Just like the programs created using the Yantai Method, the library functions in the S7-1500 PLC and the screen libraries in WINCC are directly adopted from existing libraries, which saves a tremendous amount of work and allows us to focus on making the project design flawless and fully reflect the elegance of the Yantai Method.
Therefore, I have always been exploring and seeking out rising stars in the industrial control industry, providing suggestions for improvement on their various ideas and methods, hoping they can accept these suggestions and move in the right direction. Of course, I have also criticized some theories that have no technical breakthroughs but disrupt the industry under the guise of various standardizations.
Then, there are always some kind-hearted individuals who cannot stand it and criticize the industrial control industry for falling into the traditional Chinese problem of scholars belittling each other. I can’t help but laugh. As a practitioner in the industrial control industry, do you consider yourselves scholars?
There is an old saying: “In literature, there is no first; in martial arts, there is no second.” The meaning of “In literature, there is no first” is that for the same topic, different scholars write articles or poems that are either bold or subtle, each with its own beauty and charm. Therefore, it is impossible to directly compare who is better or worse.
On the other hand, “In martial arts, there is no second” means that in a competition, there can only be one winner, and the loser loses their life in the process, with no chance for a rematch.
In contrast, engineers in the technology industry are closer to martial artists. When a company recruits a technical expert, multiple candidates with the same qualifications will have their technical levels compared, and the best will be selected. There is also the selection of technical solutions. When multiple companies bid for the same project, the one with better technical skills and superior technical solutions has a greater chance of winning the bid. All the unsuccessful bidders are in the same position, having no chance to obtain the contract, all being the same second place.
Another side note is that since science and engineering graduates cannot compare to scholars, does that mean they are equivalent to martial artists? Historically, the generals who led armies into battle were not necessarily science graduates. I think not necessarily. Qin Shi Huang, Han Wu, Tang Zong, Song Zu, Genghis Khan, Zhu Yuanzhang, and Huang Taiji, who arranged troops and strategies, were better at understanding people, managing, and utilizing talent. From a modern perspective, they are all undoubtedly liberal arts graduates.
Engineers, in ancient warfare, were at most the engineers who built fortifications and designed weapons. If your equipment is well-designed, you will have a chance to help the army achieve victory. If the design fails, you will certainly lose.
In the field of science and technology, the methods used and the results designed can certainly be compared in terms of quality, and these methods can be objectively placed under the same magnifying glass for comparison. If you truly love this technology, you will not reject evaluations from other peers pointing out shortcomings. On the contrary, if you have the opportunity to hear different voices that help you discover your deficiencies and improve your skill level, you should feel delighted. A conscientious person should express gratitude to the other party.
Therefore, the Yantai Method has always welcomed criticism. The articles written, the books published, the case programs created, and the theories and viewpoints summarized are all very welcome for readers or students to sincerely point out their inadequacies, and we also welcome better solutions.
Moreover, the annual Yantai Method seminar is a venue for face-to-face exchanges and collisions. If I had even a slight attitude of not accepting criticism, then a face-to-face communication meeting would quickly turn into a chaotic brawl.
To take it a step further, if the sample programs that students purchased at a high price from me do not have sufficient nutritional value, they will inevitably face resistance and disdain. It is entirely possible that they could be posted on online platforms for the public to collectively evaluate.
Therefore, open communication is the only viable answer.
At the Yantai Method seminar, in addition to inviting all students, we have also gradually invited some industry guests. For example, last year, Principal Guo from Tian Tian Zhi Pei attended, and this year, the head of the industrial control class from Zibo Chuang Kong Education participated. For them, there will not be Yantai Method courses included in their training content for a long time, and our students are unlikely to engage in entry-level training work. Therefore, there can be no direct intersection between them. However, because they are in the same industry, understanding and communication are the greatest value of their attendance at the meeting. They learn about the current state of technological development in the industry, and we learn about the internal rules of the training industry that we could not have known before.
For example, during casual conversations outside of this year’s meeting, the head of the industrial control class shared his insights, stating that there is very little direct mentorship between old and new students in vocational training. Those old students learn skills but may not wholeheartedly recommend their friends and colleagues to learn the same. Learning may not necessarily benefit them, while the potential pitfalls are evident and could explode at any time, harming themselves.
I agreed with this. The logic for students of the Yantai Method is actually the same.
Finally, let me tell a story.
My earlier point about generals being equivalent to liberal arts graduates is not rigorous and has flaws. Not all founding leaders are liberal arts graduates. There is a counterexample: Napoleon, who crossed Europe, I do not know much about his liberal arts background, but I know he was a top mathematician. I have heard stories about him solving mathematical problems. This is because, in his era, artillery was just being introduced into warfare, and firing artillery required very advanced mathematical calculations. Many mathematicians from the French Academy were recruited into the artillery units. Napoleon was one of the best among them, with unparalleled artillery skills.
Well, this is actually not the story I wanted to tell.
What I wanted to tell is that I once shared the story of Napoleon being a genius mathematician in a WeChat group, where there was an active member, who could be considered the group bully, boasting about his high school math skills. After I shared this story, he mocked me: “Let me tell you a joke: Napoleon is a mathematician.” Later, we exchanged jokes and ended up in a conflict.
Later, I decided to take it a step further and presented him and all the group members with a math problem that I often give to people from all walks of life. Few can answer it. How few? To date, I can count them on one hand. After he failed to answer the question, he resorted to the old excuse: “Just because you can solve a math problem doesn’t mean you’re impressive.” Hehe, being able to solve it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re impressive, but not being able to solve it definitely means you’re not impressive. Because there are some people whose names alone tell me they can definitely solve it, and I don’t even need to verify.
The math problem was: Calculate sin(0.1°) mentally. Note, it is mental calculation, and the process and method must be provided.
In the industrial control industry, a colleague known online as Liao Shiye immediately blurted out the answer after I posed the question. I was immediately amazed, realizing I had encountered a genius. However, as we continued to chat, I found out he works on crane anti-sway systems, and he needs to use these trigonometric calculations daily, so the numerical answer was memorized in his mind.
So, this cannot be counted.
But if you need to solve the anti-sway problem, you can definitely seek him out.