When Operational Technology's "Safe" Infrastructure Choice Isn't Safe Anymore

For years, virtualization in operational technology (OT) environments was a largely settled conversation. A small number of proven platforms became the default choice because they were stable, well supported, and broadly compatible with industrial hardware and software. For OT leaders, that consistency mattered more than innovation. Virtualization was not an area where teams wanted to experiment. It was infrastructure, and infrastructure was expected to be boring, predictable, and reliable. 

When Long-Standing Assumptions Start to Break

That assumption is now being challenged. Changes in ownership models, licensing structures, and vendor strategies have forced many organizations to ask an uncomfortable question: what happens when the tried-and-true option is no longer the obvious answer? Virtualization provides a useful case study, but the underlying issue is broader. OT leaders are increasingly being asked to make platform decisions in environments where historical defaults can no longer be taken for granted. 

The instinctive reaction in moments like this is often binary. Either cling tightly to the incumbent solution because it is familiar, or rush toward alternatives in search of cost relief or perceived independence. Both reactions carry risk. OT environments have unique constraints that do not tolerate impulsive decisions well. Long hardware lifecycles, limited maintenance windows, deterministic performance requirements, and the direct relationship between infrastructure stability and plant uptime all raise the stakes. 

Start by Defining What Cannot Change 

When a legacy solution is questioned, the first step is not to ask which replacement is “best.” The more important question is which operational requirements are non-negotiable. In OT, stability and supportability almost always outweigh feature velocity. The ability to run offline, patch deliberately, and support aging hardware often matters more than access to the newest capabilities. Any alternative must be evaluated against these realities, not against enterprise IT ideals or marketing claims. 

A second consideration is ecosystem compatibility. Mature platforms earned their position in OT largely because of the breadth of hardware and software they supported. When evaluating newer or less established options, compatibility gaps quickly surface. Hardware certifications, vendor support statements, and integration with automation software become critical. The effort required to validate, test, and support those integrations is often underestimated, and the cost shows up later as unplanned engineering work or operational risk. 

Support Models Shift the Operational Burden

Support models and internal skillsets also deserve careful attention. Lower-cost or more flexible platforms can be compelling, but they frequently shift responsibility onto the organization. Success depends on access to strong vendor support or internal teams with the right expertise. In OT, where staffing is already stretched, this trade-off must be explicit. Saving on licensing while increasing operational complexity rarely delivers the outcome leaders expect. 

Perhaps the hardest adjustment is letting go of the one-size-fits-all mindset. For years, standardization around a single virtualization platform simplified design and support. As the landscape evolves, it becomes more realistic to think in terms of fit-for-purpose decisions. Smaller sites, isolated systems, or cost-sensitive deployments may justify different choices than large, highly standardized facilities. This does not mean abandoning standards, but it does mean allowing flexibility where risk and impact are well understood. 

The Lesson Extends Beyond Virtualization

OT leaders will face this scenario again, whether in control platforms, networking, or data infrastructure. The right response is not panic or paralysis, but disciplined evaluation grounded in operational reality. When the default option changes, the goal is not to find a perfect replacement. It is to make intentional trade-offs that protect uptime, safety, and long-term supportability. 

As more long-standing assumptions in OT are challenged, the real question becomes this: when a familiar solution is no longer a given, how confident are you that your decision-making framework, not your vendor list, is what is carrying the risk? 

Author Introduction: Jon-Eric Deutsch, Senior OT Analyst II