Is Virtual Control Right for Your Production Operations?

Learn about virtual control and the key indicators that signal whether your manufacturing facility is truly prepared for control system virtualization.

David Greenfield, editor in chief

April 29, 2026

6 min read

Key Highlights

Virtual controllers (software-based PLCs) and hypervisors are gaining traction beyond lab environments, but production-floor adoption still depends on having the right internal IT/OT expertise and a solid network infrastructure in place.
Brownfield facilities should prioritize upgrading legacy control and network hardware before virtualizing, and any virtualized system should remain local to the plant rather than cloud-based to minimize communication delays.
Scalable, repeatable processes like tank farms or packaging lines represent the strongest candidates for virtualization, while highly time-critical operations and complex multi-axis motion control systems are best left on physical hardware for now.

Virtual controller technologies have been around for quite a while, but the technology around it has really been accelerating in the past few years. More importantly, manufacturers have become more accepting of the virtual controller concept with the rise of digital twin technologies, multicore computing and app use in general to connect to factory floor technologies.

To better understand where virtual controller technology stands today — from hypervisors to full control virtualization and what that can mean for manufacturers — we connected with Jayesh Jariwala (JJ), senior project engineer with system integrator Applied Control Engineering for a recent episode of the Automation World Gets Your Questions Answered podcast.

Following are a few highlights from the discussion.

AW: Let’s start with an explanation of what virtual controllers and hypervisors are and how they relate to each other, since these are two terms our audience hears a lot about when it comes to virtualizing any aspect of an automation system.

JJ: Starting with like hypervisors, the general concept is that they can be a bare metal system with a thin operating system that can host virtual machines or virtual appliances, including controllers. Another way to do it is with a standard Windows operating system with software running on it that allows for controller virtualization.

Basically, a hypervisor is software that runs on a machine with enough RAM and hard drive space to allow it to run a virtual system.

There are edge devices which allow you to put virtualization closer to the equipment, which can reduce latency. But still, the concern would be that you need to have a very resilient network.

Jayesh Jariwala, senior project engineer with system integrator Applied Control Engineering.

A virtual controller is a software version of a PLC, and they've been proven to be useful in lab environments, development environments and quality environments. Their acceptance for use on the production floor is still new and growing.

AW: Are there any indicators that signal a manufacturing operation is ready to use virtual control systems and, likewise, are there any red flags that suggest an operation should stick with physical controller hardware?

JJ: One thing that should lead a manufacturer to look at virtual controllers is if they have scalable, repeatable processes. For example, if you have a tank farm with multiple tanks that are very similar or a packaging line, these are great opportunities for considering virtualization.

A big thing I look at when working with our clients is to assess their level of internal support for virtualization in terms of the people and expertise to handle a virtualized system. So, whether those resources are internal IT or OT experts or partners like systems integrators, that's an important consideration.

Another potential red flag is if your production operations use complex systems or highly time-critical operations. These kinds of applications might not be the best for a virtualized system.

As for red flags, one clear issue would be a lack of access to needed expertise on the topic. And if you haven’t worked with the technology much, you might not be ready to use it in prime-time production, so it would be better to first experiment with virtual control at the lab scale.

Another potential red flag is if your production operations use complex systems or highly time-critical operations. These kinds of applications might not be the best for a virtualized system.

Finally, before embarking on any tests with virtual control, examine your network infrastructure as it relates to virtualization technology because it definitely adds a layer of complexity to your networks.

AW: For brownfield manufacturing facilities with legacy control systems, is there a decision framework that you recommend for determining whether to virtualize during a modernization project versus maintaining the existing physical controller?

JJ: The process should start with an honest look at the people and technology infrastructure you have in place today. In a brownfield plant with a lot of legacy hardware, the first step is to make sure that you're not worrying about whether your existing hardware is going to break. Then look at your networks — the core switches and Ethernet or fiber runs that are 5, 10 or 15 years old. Older legacy control and network technologies might not be ready for immediately virtualization.

Spend some time addressing these kinds of critical updates to the control and networking hardware aspects.

Once those updates are in place, assess your internal resources. There might be IT folks in the corporation who understand virtualization because they've done it for file servers, e-mail and other front office applications.

A big thing I look at when working with our clients is to assess their level of internal support for virtualization, in terms of the people and expertise to handle a virtualized system.

And if you have that kind of expertise in house, keep in mind that IT expertise different than OT system expertise. So be sure to consider that capabilities of your OT staff to support any virtualization efforts.

If you’re looking to outside help with this, make sure to have a 24/7 support agreement in place.

The last item to consider are the most critical aspects of your production process. For example, does your process involve multi-axis robots and or is it a simpler discrete manufacturing process? In any modernization project for a complex production process, it’s the same general recommendation I made earlier —start with getting your core systems upgraded before thinking about virtualizing them. With a simpler process, it’s more feasible to phase virtualization in and bite off more when you’re ready.

AW: Getting a bit more granular about the automated systems that these virtual controllers would connect to, are there any latency or deterministic constraints that would make certain manufacturing processes unsuitable for virtualization?

JJ: There are concerns in environments such as I was describing with robots or multi-axis control. When you have a lot of deterministic concerns you have to make sure that command and control happens as expected. The concern here has to do with moving the point of decision-making off the floor and up a layer in your network with virtualization where the decisions are made on servers often in the data center. In these cases, the virtualization has to jump through multiple switches which could add latency in the communications.

With that said, there are now edge devices which allow you to put virtualization closer to the equipment which can reduce that latency. But still, the concern would be that you need to have a very resilient network. In any case, I’d say it’s best to have your virtualized system be local to the plant and the process it controls rather than being cloud-based to produce dedicated runs.

More software-based automation insights from Automation World:

About the Author

David Greenfield, editor in chief

Editor in Chief

David Greenfield joined Automation World in June 2011. Bringing a wealth of industry knowledge and media experience to his position, David’s contributions can be found in AW’s print and online editions and custom projects. Earlier in his career, David was Editorial Director of Design News at UBM Electronics, and prior to joining UBM, he was Editorial Director of Control Engineering at Reed Business Information, where he also worked on Manufacturing Business Technology as Publisher.