Editor's Note:

The following text is part of the SYNAOS Magazine dossier on standardization (in German).

‍

Mr. Scherb, VDA 5050 has now been around for five years. Before we delve into the hard facts, a simple question:

What does the "5050" part actually mean?

Andreas Scherb: It's purely coincidental. The numbers are just sequential identifiers. The VDA assigns numbers to its documents, and "5050" happened to be available. But it's interesting that you bring it up! Recently, someone asked me: Is it because VDA and VDMA jointly own the rights to VDA 5050? No, it's really just a random number.

Andreas Scherb is a technical expert for Automated Guided Vehicles and a speaker at the VDMA Material Handling and Intralogistics Association in Frankfurt am Main. Photo: VDMA

What's the balance sheet after half a decade of VDA 5050?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> The initial discussions between VDA and VDMA began in 2017, and the concrete work started soon after. When you consider the speed with which the interface was developed—from the idea stage to the first drafts and finally version 1.0 in 2019—it's quite remarkable. And by now, we've proven that it's not just a paper tiger; it actually works. This is primarily because it brought together the brightest minds from two sectors—users and manufacturers—and they really made things happen. I'd call that a positive balance.

So, very different perspectives on the topic of controlling heterogeneous fleets collided here, right?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> Absolutely. Manufacturers of mobile robots and software providers like SYNAOS met with users from the automotive industry. In those initial discussions, we had many debates, compromises had to be reached. This is entirely normal and desired when working towards standardization. It's akin to safety standardization.

Is there a specific lesson learned? What would you have done differently back then, knowing what you know today?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> Perhaps, with today's knowledge, we could have engaged more deeply in discussions about other programming languages beforehand. Nowadays, several open-source languages have established themselves in the market, which are future-proof. At the beginning of the project, we were looking for a programming language that would still exist in ten to fifteen years. We certainly didn't anticipate so much progress over the last five years. But MQTT as a coding language and JSON as a serialization format are working very well for everyone. Both are among the most common formats. However, we had to consider limitations and constraints regarding coding languages in some operators' environments. The programmers in the working groups of VDA and VDMA saw the greatest potential in the JSON format with MQTT. The two associations and their members, including SYNAOS, then decided together.

There are VDA 5050 working groups driving the development and optimization of the interface. Are there any other efforts?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> On the public side for everyone, there's the GitHub 5050. Here, anyone worldwide can upload their topics, their questions about the interface. The GitHub is managed by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology at the University of Karlsruhe (KIT), Institute of Material Handling and Logistics. Scientific staff answer the questions or bring more complex topics and questions into the working groups. The KIT was then commissioned by both associations after a tender to act as an extended workbench for us, so to speak. Then there's a core team, into which both associations send company representatives. This team meets every four weeks, usually virtually, moderated by the KIT, discussing, among other things, the questions from GitHub and making suggestions for further development. Often, concrete developments emerge from this process, which are then approved by the VDA and VDMA working groups. And, of course, the questioner receives an answer in the end.

Why is there a core team in addition to the two working groups?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> By having experts from both associations represented, we ensure a balanced discussion. The mixture of perspectives is crucial. It requires this operator's perspective to prevent hiccups in operation later on. And at the same time, it needs the manufacturer's perspective with project expertise.

What specific development initiatives are planned with VDA 5050?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> The system should gradually be opened up to other mobile robots as well. We started with a certain technological state dominated by AGVs. In the short and medium term, we'll address corridor and zone issues, enabling autonomous vehicles to navigate freely within certain parameters. For example, corridors will have virtual guardrails on the right and left, within which a vehicle can move. However, this function will be optional.

Furthermore, mobile robots should be informed that they are allowed to pass a waypoint with a certain tolerance, for example, half a meter. But it's important to us to implement this integration step by step. We want to describe these changes and novelties thoroughly and avoid errors that would otherwise have to be painstakingly corrected later.

Another important issue is backward compatibility. We now have versions 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.0. Users and operators have told us that they value backward compatibility highly. But when version 3.0.0 is eventually available, it's important that previous versions can still be supported. This is an important signal to the market and increases acceptance.

And finally, the integration of peripheral devices will also come into focus. We know that this issue concerns many warehouse operators, and we want to give them the opportunity to actively participate through the Intralogistics-2X working group.

VDA 5050 is still often perceived as a communication interface for the automotive industry.

How do you enhance this image so that the standard is recognized outside of automotive?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> We're doing a lot for that. With our annual AGV Mesh-Up, we create a special testing setting where we repeatedly demonstrate the performance and maturity of VDA 5050. Here, or rather our VDMA member companies, let actions speak. This year, the AGV Mesh-Up will again be part of the TEST CAMP INTRALOGISTICS in Dortmund, visible to a logistics audience from many industries. We see that VDA 5050 is increasingly listed as a requirement in tenders in other industries as well. We now receive inquiries about VDA 5050 from Asia, and some companies are rolling out VDA 5050 to their facilities worldwide. In doing so, they are, in a sense, taking on a multiplier role.

So, the fundamental understanding of VDA 5050 is growing in other industries as well. And far beyond the borders of Europe, too!

AGV Mesh-Up hosted by VDMA. Photo: VDMA

Do you think the industry actually needs a global communication standard for mobile robots? Are Mass Robotics in the USA and Open-RMF in Southeast Asia in direct competition with VDA 5050?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> First off, we should handle the term "standard" with caution. Yes, it's a certain communication model. But many people associate standards more with strict safety regulations and binding specifications. VDA 5050 is a possible communication interface available to manufacturers and users for their projects. We don't see it as competing with other options like Mass Robotics or Open-RMF, also because they have different purposes.

With Mass Robotics and Open-RMF, you can establish a control entity above the Master Control System, essentially a middleware, and then communicate not only with the robot fleet but also with other Master Control Systems and WMS or ERP systems. With VDA 5050, however, heterogeneous vehicle fleets from different manufacturers can be controlled via a central fleet manager. The major advantage is that proprietary robot software doesn't need to be individually controlled. Here lies the biggest difference: Mass Robotics acts as a control entity for the various control systems of different robots running in parallel. With VDA 5050, we deliberately move away from the different Master Controls towards a single, central Master Control.

I don't consider the question of whether the world urgently needs a single Mobile Robot Standard to be relevant. Perhaps in less complex scenarios, such a standard isn't necessary. And yet, things work out. The much more important question that logistics managers should ask themselves is: How do I digitize and automate my intralogistics processes? And then, I think about a solid strategy.

So, does VDA 5050 need to become a global export success?

<span class="cc-text_coral">AS:</span> It was good and right that an open-source component emerged from a concrete need in an important customer industry of intralogistics, which is now available to everyone and continues to be developed. This also applies, for example, to every vehicle with its type of navigation, from following lines stuck on the ground to the high-tech SLAM variant. Above all, we need to have honest discussions with project participants about what they need to make their intralogistics processes efficient. Perhaps a different system works better for them than VDA 5050? We always have to consider the highly individual application on-site and what is really needed for their processes.

Success depends on practicality, and this decision is made in the market. Some robotics manufacturers outside Europe are actively adopting VDA 5050. On the user side, the interface is moving with some companies' overseas locations. So, internationalization is already underway.

Thank you very much for the conversation, Mr. Scherb.