The AVEVA PI System Ecosystem: Roles, When to Engage, and How to Evaluate Partners

Why this matters

Most PI programmes fail not because the PI software is inadequate but because responsibilities are unclear, work is fragmented across too many parties, or the partner model doesn’t match site realities (24/7 operations, change control, cyber constraints, legacy comms, tight maintenance windows).

This guide explains who does what in the AVEVA PI System ecosystem, when external help is justified, how to assess integrators and consultants, and which engagement models work in practice. It is aimed at PI administrators, PI engineers and OT/IT architects who need predictable outcomes. Links to PIAdmin pillar content let you connect “who to use” with “what good looks like”.

The PI ecosystem — at a glance

The PI System sits between multiple technical domains and teams:

• Data sources: PLC/DCS/SCADA historians, analysers, vibration/power meters, labs, MES, cloud platforms
• Connectivity: interfaces/adapters, OPC, MQTT, firewalls/DMZ, certificates, time sync
• Core PI services: Data Archive, AF, Notifications, Vision, integrations
• Consumers: operations dashboards, engineering analysis, reporting, data science, compliance
• Enterprise foundations: identity, patching, backup, monitoring, virtualisation, network segmentation

The partner you choose often determines whether those boundaries are handled cleanly or left as gaps.

If you need a refresher on scalable deployment: Designing a Scalable and Resilient PI System Architecture

Who the players are

These labels are used loosely but tend to map to different outcomes and risk profiles.

PI System integrators — delivery-focused Typical responsibilities:

• Requirements capture and solution design
• Build and configuration (servers, AF design, interfaces/adapters, Vision)
• Testing (connectivity, performance, failover, security hardening)
• Cutover and hypercare
• Documentation and handover (runbooks, diagrams, standards)

Best when you need a defined scope delivered to a schedule and when multiple disciplines must be coordinated (OT comms + Windows + PI + dashboards). Weaknesses: handling ambiguous requirements, complex internal politics, or governance-heavy programmes where the primary problem is data ownership, not tooling.

Related: How Data Gets Into the PI System: Interfaces, Adapters, and MQTT

PI consultants — advisory and specialist capability Typical engagements:

• Architecture and roadmap guidance
• Health checks and performance reviews
• AF modelling standards and information architecture
• Security posture review and remediation plans
• Mentoring and capability uplift
• Independent assurance (design review, FAT witness)

Best when you already have implementers but need design authority, independent review, or specialist troubleshooting. Don’t expect consultants to carry out full builds without a delivery wrapper and project management.

Related: Keeping PI Fast, Stable, and Predictable at Scale

Vendors — product, support and roadmaps Includes AVEVA (PI software and official support) and third-party vendors offering connectors, analytics, reporting, CMMS integration, or OT security tooling.

Use vendors for product fixes, official escalation, licensing, compatibility statements and vendor documentation. They are not a substitute for implementing site-specific integration patterns, governance, and operational models.

Related: Securing the AVEVA PI System in Modern Enterprise Environments

When external help is justified

Not every PI task warrants outside support. Common scenarios where external help is usually more cost-effective:

1. Crossing boundaries (OT ↔ IT ↔ cyber)
   Examples: moving ingestion through a DMZ, introducing certificate-based trust or TLS, or changing enterprise identity. Treat these as design activities with explicit operational ownership (monitoring, renewal, patching, incident response). Security changes are rarely “set and forget”. See: Security, Identity & Compliance

2. Scaling beyond a single site
   Signals: multiple Data Archives or collectives, central AF strategy and templates, thousands of tags added or re-mapped, enterprise consumers requiring near-real-time availability. Architecture and performance tuning become design disciplines. Start here: Architecture & Design and Performance, Scaling & Reliability

3. Migration or modernisation with tight downtime
   Examples: OS plus PI upgrades, physical-to-virtual migration, domain renames, reworking interface nodes. Use a partner when the risk of error exceeds the partner cost. Insist on a cutover runbook and rollback plan.

4. Building an AF model intended to survive years of change
   AF quick wins can become long-term debt. If you need consistent asset models, templates, rollouts and governance, engage a consultant or an integrator with strong AF capability.

5. Formalising operations (runbooks, monitoring, on-call)
   Bring in help to establish backups, patch cadence, service ownership and monitoring to reduce operational risk. See: Running the PI System Day-to-Day: A PI Admin’s Playbook

How to evaluate PI partners

Selecting a partner is about fit and how they will leave you, not logos.

Start with your definition of done Document before you solicit bids:

• In-scope PI components (Data Archive, AF, Vision, Notifications, connectors)
• Data sources and protocols (including legacy comms)
• Non-functional requirements: availability, latency, retention, RPO/RTO
• Security requirements: identity model, network zones, patching rules
• Handover expectations: documentation, training, admin access model
• Operational ownership after go-live

What to ask — competence checks Ask partners to explain, in plain language, how they will handle:

Architecture and resilience

• Show a reference architecture similar to ours and explain trade-offs.
• Identify expected bottlenecks and validation methods.
• Explain HA/DR approach and test coverage. Read more: Architecture & Design

Data ingestion and edge realities

• Which interfaces/adapters suit our sources and why?
• How is time sync, buffering and store-and-forward handled?
• What are your tag naming and point configuration standards?

Read more: Data Ingestion & Integration

Performance engineering

• How do you size Data Archive/AF and validate under load?
• Which common anti‑patterns have you remediated?
• How do you measure success (KPIs) after go‑live?

Reference: Performance, Scaling & Reliability

Security and operations

• How will you align with our identity model and least privilege?
• What logs/telemetry do you expect and who will monitor them?
• Who owns certificates and renewal?

Reference: Security, Identity & Compliance and Operations & Administration

Evaluate delivery method, not just PI knowledge Look for:

• A defined delivery lifecycle (design → build → test → cutover → hypercare)
• Change control discipline appropriate to production plants
• Evidence of documentation quality (request redacted examples)
• Realistic test plans including negative tests and rollback steps
• A named technical lead you can contact

Insist on operational handover Handover should include:

• As-built diagrams and configuration baselines
• Support boundary matrix (who owns what)
• Runbooks for restarts, failover, backups and patching
• Monitoring and alert thresholds agreed with your team

If you are building internal capability, align outputs with career development: Careers in the AVEVA PI System World

Engagement models and when to use them

Choose the model that matches uncertainty, risk and organisational maturity.

Fixed scope / fixed price — best when requirements are stable Use when requirements and acceptance criteria are clear and dependencies understood. Split work: discovery/design followed by fixed-price build.

Time & materials — best for discovery and complex remediation Use for untangling legacy estates, performance remediation or emergent requirements. Tie T&M to measurable weekly deliverables to control cost.

Retainer / managed service — best for steady-state support Use when your internal team is small and you need predictable maintenance and incident cover. Ensure you retain admin access and documentation; set realistic SLAs.

Embedded specialist — best for capability transfer Use to uplift your team or provide design authority during a programme. Define explicit knowledge-transfer goals (pairing, training, reviews).

Red flags — spot these early

• “We’ll sort the architecture later”: lack of a clear target architecture risks lab-only designs.
• Overpromising timelines without discovery: ignores firewall rules, server provisioning, credentials and shutdown windows.
• Weak AF governance: proposals that treat AF as an afterthought. Ask about templates, naming conventions, change review and long-term ownership.
• No clear stance on security boundaries: if security is deferred to “IT”, expect integration problems.
• Black‑box delivery with minimal handover: if you can’t operate it without them, you don’t own it.
• Tool-first thinking: partners should start with use cases and operational outcomes, not products and dashboards.

Using the PIAdmin directory effectively

Treat a directory as a shortlist builder. When comparing partners, prepare:

• One‑page scope summary
• Constraints (zones/DMZ, site access, maintenance windows, identity)
• Expected deliverables (design docs, runbooks, test evidence)
• Support model after go‑live

Ask for:

• A named lead engineer’s CV and experience (not only company statements)
• A redacted sample deliverable pack
• Their approach to documentation, handover and operational ownership

When to involve a specialist

If you need an integrator for defined implementation work or a consultant for architecture, remediation or assurance, speak to specialists experienced in production environments. Browse PI System integrators and consultants: https://piadmin.com/directory or find specialist integrators: https://piadmin.com/directory?category=integrators

If hiring, review role expectations in: Careers, Jobs & Skills

Practical partner selection workflow

Step 1 — Baseline your state

• Architecture and pain points (availability, performance, data gaps)
• Ingestion landscape (interfaces, nodes, protocols)
• Operational model (who patches, who monitors, who is on-call)

Step 2 — Match engagement to uncertainty

• High uncertainty: discovery on T&M, then fixed-price build
• Medium: milestone-based T&M with defined outputs
• Low: fixed scope with strong acceptance criteria

Step 3 — Select for operational outcomes Score candidates on ability to operate within your OT/IT constraints, documentation and handover quality, testing discipline, security boundary awareness and capability transfer.

Step 4 — Lock down interfaces (human and technical) Define approvers, access windows, escalation paths for cutover and a production definition of “done”.

These influence whether you need an integrator (delivery-heavy) or a consultant (standards, governance, assurance).