Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theory Versus Practice

  • Chapter
Case Studies in Control

Part of the book series: Advances in Industrial Control ((AIC))

  • 1886 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of the chapter is to present a view of the relationship between control theory and practice resulting from more than three decades of the authors’ work in applied research and industrial applications.

First, a brief historical overview of the theory-practice relationship and reasons for the gap is provided. Then the complexity of control engineering practice, which is believed to be one of the principal reasons for the gap, is discussed. The central part of the chapter discusses the role theory plays in fulfilling the functional and non-functional requirements that represent an essential frame for the design and implementation of every real system. Attention is drawn to the fact that, although important, control theory does not suffice in mapping control system requirements to operable solutions, but needs to be complemented with knowledge across other disciplines. A perception is suggested in which control engineering is viewed, practiced and taught in the (wider) context of systems engineering.

The chapter is intended for readers who feel less experienced with practical applications of control systems and would like to gain better insight into the complexity of the field. Those more experienced and sufficiently intrigued by the gap might benefit from a different, hopefully novel characterisation of the gap phenomenon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The notions of the “theory/practice gap” and “bridging the gap” are very closely related to what is often referred to as “knowledge transfer between academia and industry.” This topic has been the subject of very broad investigations in practically all disciplines of science. This is motivated by the fact that science is expected to contribute a substantial share to the growth of national economies. Efficient models and ways of knowledge production and transfer (see, e.g. [32, 68, 75]) are therefore of paramount importance also in the field of automatic control. However, the treatment of this is beyond the scope of this chapter.

  2. 2.

    Under the term “theory” we understand control principles, methods, algorithms, procedures, etc., which are accepted and verified by the academic community.

  3. 3.

    Under the term “entities” we refer to subjects, objects, and means, and not strictly to the common definition of an entity as a thing with a distinct and independent existence.

  4. 4.

    A phase in the life cycle encompasses one or more activities. The usual, albeit not consistent, way of naming a phase is after the main activity carried out.

  5. 5.

    For example, the phase named “System specification” is also labelled “Preliminary design” and the phase “Design” is often named “Detailed design.”

  6. 6.

    Note that the discussion which follows is not related to the individual functions listed in Table 1.1, but attempts to consider more general problems connected with the design of different kinds of functions.

  7. 7.

    This situation can be compared with the situation when a GPS navigator guides a driver over an apparently illogical route, while the driver already knows the usual way to the destination.

  8. 8.

    It is well known that it is not the unilateral transfer of knowledge from academia to industry that really matters, but the exchange of knowledge between academia and industry (see, e.g. [32]).

  9. 9.

    The definition of systems engineering found on the website of the International Council of Systems Engineering [38] states: “Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realisation of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the development cycle, documenting requirements, then proceeding with design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem: operations, performance, test, manufacturing, cost & schedule, training & support, disposal. Systems Engineering integrates all the disciplines and speciality groups into a team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation. Systems Engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.”

References

  1. Abramovitch DY, Franklin GF (2004) Fifty years in control—the story of the IEEE Control System Society. IEEE Control Syst Mag 24(6):19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allgower F (2007) Modern nonlinear control: Nice academic playground or application relevant? Panel discussion at the 2007 IEEE multi-conference on systems and control, Singapore. Online: http://robotics.nus.edu.sg/msc2007/speech/AllgowerF.pdf

  3. Anderson BDO (2006) Present developments in control theory. Presentation at the international conference on present and future in automatic control (IFAC 50th Anniversary), Heidelberg, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andjelkovic I, Sweetingham K, Campbell SL (2008) Active fault detection in nonlinear systems using auxiliary signals. In: Proceedings of the American control conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 11–13, pp 2142–2147

    Google Scholar 

  5. Åström KJ (2006) Present developments in control applications. Presentation at the international conference on present and future in automatic control (IFAC 50th anniversary), Heidelberg, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bahill AT, Gissing B (1998) Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using systems thinking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part C, Appl Rev 28(4):516–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6):775–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Balchen JG (1999) How have we arrived at the present state of knowledge in process control? Is there a lesson to be learned? J Process Control 9:101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bars R, Colaneri P, Dugard L, Allgover F, Kleimenov A, Scherer C (2008) Trend in theory of control systems design. In: Proceedings of the 17th world congress IFAC, Seoul, Korea, pp 2144–2155

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bennett S (1993) A history of control engineering 1930–1955. Peter Peregrinus, London. On behalf of the institution of electrical engineers

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Bergbreiter S (2005) Moving from practice to theory: automatic control after world war II, HIS 285S: history of science. University of California, Berkeley. Online: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~sbergbre/publications/BergbreiterHIS285S.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bernstein DS (1999) On bridging the theory/practice gap. IEEE Control Syst Mag 19(6):64–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernstein DS (2002) What makes some control problems hard? IEEE Control Syst 22(4):8–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Birdwell JD, Athans M (1977) On the relationship between reliability and linear quadratic optimal control. In: Proc 1977 conference on decision and control theory, pp 129–134

    Google Scholar 

  15. Blanchard BS, Fabryicky WJ (1990) Systems engineering and analysis. Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blondel V, Gevers M, Lindquist A (1995) Survey on the state of systems and control. Eur J Control 1:5–23

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Brisk ML (1993) Process control: theories and profits. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFAC triennial world congress, Sydney, Australia, vol 7, pp 241–250

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brisk ML (2004) Process control: potential benefits and wasted opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 5th Asian control conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp 10–16

    Google Scholar 

  19. Buss M, Hirsche S, Samad T (2011) Cognitive control. In: Samad T, Annaswamy AM (eds) The impact of control technology. IEEE Control Systems Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Butts K, Varga A (2011) Cross-application perspectives: tools and platforms for control systems. In: Samad T, Annaswamy AM (eds) The impact of control technology. IEEE Control Systems Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chen D, Vallespir B (1999) Theories of design and enterprise modeling. In: Proceedings of the ASI99 conference on life cycle approaches to production systems, Leuven, Belgium, pp 301–311

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chen J, Johansson KH, Olariu S, Paschalidis ICh, Stojmenovic I (2011) Guest editorial special issue on wireless sensor and actuator networks. IEEE Trans Autom Control 56(10):2244–2246

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Chestnut H (1965) Bridging the gap in control—status 1965. IEEE Trans Autom Control 10:125–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Craig I, Aldrich C, Braatz R, Cuzzola F, Domlan E, Engell S, Hahn J, Havlena V, Horch A, Huang B, Khanbaghi M, Konstantellos A, Marquardt W, McAvoy T, Parisini T, Pistikopoulos S, Samad T, Skogestad S, Thornhill N, Yu J (2011) Control in the process industries. In: Samad T, Annaswamy AM (eds) The impact of control technology. IEEE Control Systems Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Craig KC (2010) Mechatronics in design. Online: http://www.controleng.com/index.php?id=483&cHash=081010&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35339

  26. Černetič J, Strmčnik S, Brandt D (2002) Revisiting the social impact of automation. In: Camacho EF, Basanez L, de la Puente JA (eds) Prepr 15th IFAC world congress (volume with plenary papers, survey papers and milestones), Barcelona, Spain, pp 155–166

    Google Scholar 

  27. Engell S (2007) Past, present and future of control theory and applications from a process control point of view. Panel discussion at the 2007 IEEE multi-conference on systems and control, Singapore. Online: http://robotics.nus.edu.sg/msc2007/speech/EngellS.pdf

  28. Frakes WB, Kang K (2005) Software reuse research: status and future. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(7):529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Friedland B (1975) The problem of the gap. In: Proceedings of the 1975 IEEE conference on decision and control including the 14th symposium on adaptive processes, New Jersey, vol 14, pp 268

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Froisy JB (2006) Model predictive control—building a bridge between theory and practice. Comput Chem Eng 30:1426–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gao Z, Rhinehart R (2004) Theory vs practice forum. In: Proceedings of the 2004 American control conference, Boston, MA, pp 1341–1349

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzmann S, Scott P, Trow M (1995) The new production of knowledge. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Goble MW (1998) Control systems safety evaluation & reliability, 2nd edn. ISA—The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, Miami

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hagglund T (2007) Automatic on-line estimation of backlash in control loops. J Process Control 17(6):489–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hamid MKA, Sin G, Gani R (2010) Integration of process design and controller design for chemical processes using model-based methodology. Comput Chem Eng 34(5):683–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Henry MP (2001) Recent developments in self validating SEVA sensors. Sens Rev 21(1):16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Holmberg K, Adgar A, Arnaiz A, Jantunen E, Mascolo J, Mekid S (2010) E-maintenance. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. INCOSE—International Council of Systems Engineering. Online: http://www.incose.org

  39. Isermann R (2009) Some thoughts on automatic control engineering. Proc IMechE Part I 223:131–133

    Google Scholar 

  40. Isermann R (2011) Perspectives of automatic control. Control Eng Pract 19:1399–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Isermann R (2011) Fault-diagnosis applications: model-based condition monitoring: actuators, drives, machinery, plants, sensors, and fault-tolerant systems. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  42. ISO 9241. Online: http://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/acsd/vt09/ISO9241part11.pdf

  43. Joshi SS (1999) The need for a systems perspective in control theory and practice. IEEE Control Syst Mag 19(6):64–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Knežević J (1997) Systems maintainability: analysis, engineering and management. Chap-man & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kroes P, Van de Poel I (2009) Problematizing the notion of social context of technology. In: Christensen SH, Delahousse B, Meganck M (eds) Engineering in context. Authors and Academica, Aarhus

    Google Scholar 

  46. Levine WS (2000) Control system applications. CRC Press/Taylor&Francis Group, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Levine WS (2010) The control handbook: control system applications, 2nd edn. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  48. Livingston WL (1988) A process of elimination. Control Eng 35(4):154–160

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Ljung L (2008) Perspectives on system identification. In: Proceedings of the 17th world congress IFAC, Seoul, Korea, pp 7172–7184

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lupton T (1986) Human factors: man, machine and new technology. IFS (Publications), Springer Bedford, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  51. Malan R, Bredemeyer D (2001) Defining non-functional requirements, bredemeyer consulting. White paper 8/3/01. Online: http://www.bredemeyer.com/pdf_files/NonFunctReq.PDF

  52. Martin JN (1997) Systems engineering guidebook: a process for developing systems and products. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  53. Martin T, Kivinen J, Rijnsdorp JE, Rodd MG, Rouse WB (1991) Appropriate automation—integrating technical human, organizational, economic and cultural factors. Automatica 27:901–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Morel G, Petin JF, Johnson TL (2009) Reliability, maintenability, and safety. In: Nof SY (ed) Springer handbook of automation. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nof SY (2009) Springer handbook of automation. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Peng Y, Vrancic D, Hanus R (1996) Anti-windup, bumpless and conditioned transfer techniques for PID controllers. IEEE Control Syst Mag 16(4):48–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Philippe C, Annaswamy A, Balas G, Bals J, Garg S, Knoll A, Krishnakumar K, Maroni M, Osterhuber R, Yeh YC (2011) Aerospace control. In: Samad T, Annaswamy AM (eds) The impact of control technology. IEEE Control Systems Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ridgely DB, McFarland MB (1999) Tailoring theory to practice in tactical missile control. IEEE Control Syst 19(6):49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rosenman MA, Gero JS (1994) The what, the how and the why in design. Appl Artif Intell 8:199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sage AP, Rouse WB (2009) Handbook of systems engineering and management, 2nd edn. John Willey and Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sánchez Peña RS, Casín JQ, Cayuela VP (2007) Identification and control: the gap between theory and practice. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Sanz R, Zalewski J (2003) Pattern-based control systems engineering. Control Syst Mag 23(3):43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sawyer P (1993) Computer-controlled batch processing. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, Warwickshire, UK

    Google Scholar 

  64. Schaefer JJ (1996) ISA-S88.01-1995 impact on design and implementation of batch control systems. ISA Trans 35:351–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Shinskey G (1986) Reflections on CPC-III. In: Morari M, McAvoy TJ (eds) Chemical process control—CPCIII. A Cache Publication/Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  66. Skogestad S, Postlethwaite I (2005) Multivariable feedback control. John Willey and Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  67. Stewart G, Samad T (2011) Cross-application perspectives: application and market requirements. In: Samad T, Annaswamy AM (eds) The impact of control technology. IEEE Control Systems Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  68. Strmčnik S (2002) A virtual organisation for exchange of knowledge and transfer of technology. Int J Technol Transf Commer 1:313–326

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ting T (1999) Bridging the gap between the theory and practice of control: aerospace perspective. IEEE Control Syst Mag 19(6):45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Van der Linden FJ, Schmid K, Rommes E (2007) Software product lines in action. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  71. VDI/VDE 3694 (2008) System requirement/specification for planning and design of automation systems. VDI/VDE- Richtlinien, Issue German/English. VDI/VDE-Gesellschaft Mess-und Automatisierungstechnik (GMA), Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  72. Weber P, Boussaid BO, Khelassi A, Theilliol D, Aubrun C (2012) Reconfigurable control design with integration of a reference governor and reliability indicators. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 22(1):139–148

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  73. Wobbe W (1992) What are anthropocentric production systems? Why are they a strategic issue for Europe? Final report, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  74. Zang Z, Bitmead RR, Gevers M (1991) H2 iterative model refinement and control robustness enhancement. In: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE conference on decision and control, Brighton, UK, pp 279–284

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ziman J (1994) Prometheus bound: science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency through grant P2-0001. The authors would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Rihard Karba and Dr. Rudolf Kulhavý for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Systems and Control, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Stanko Strmčnik, Ðani Juričić, Janko Petrovčič & Vladimir Jovan

Authors
  1. Stanko Strmčnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ðani Juričić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janko Petrovčič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vladimir Jovan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Systems and Control, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia

    Stanko Strmčnik

  2. Department of Systems and Control, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia

    Đani Juričić

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Strmčnik, S., Juričić, Ð., Petrovčič, J., Jovan, V. (2013). Theory Versus Practice. In: Strmčnik, S., Juričić, Đ. (eds) Case Studies in Control. Advances in Industrial Control. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5176-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5176-0_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5175-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5176-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation