Your customer’s audit now asks how fast you recover.
Answer with evidence.

AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIERS USE CASE #1

Representative profile.

A tier-1 supplier with four plants in two countries, supplying three OEM groups just-in-time, holding a TISAX label it renewed under the previous catalog.

What breaks today.

The assessment questions changed, even if the plant did not. VDA ISA 6.0, mandatory for assessments ordered from April 2024, added availability as a protection goal and strengthened requirements around backup and recovery, IT service continuity, and crisis management. TISAX now includes High availability and Very high availability assessment objectives, with the latter assessed at AL3 through comprehensive verification of documents, processes, and local conditions.

For suppliers, this can become a customer requirement rather than guidance. Daimler Truck, for example, requires TISAX AL3 across all eight AL3 objectives, including Very high availability, for direct-procurement production-material suppliers — with non-compliance potentially affecting future sourcing decisions.

One thing we will not tell you,

because it is not true: TISAX is not an OT security standard. The ENX handbook does not define production networks as a distinct scope object. What is true, and sufficient: the catalog now assesses availability of information, processes and systems including backup and recovery, at least one major OEM contractually demands the highest availability label, and an AL3 assessor observes how your processes actually execute on site.

What changes with Octoplant.

Backup and recovery stop being a procedure someone describes and become a system someone can watch run.

Octoplant turns backup and recovery from a procedure someone describes into an operational process that can be demonstrated. Scheduled backup jobs across supported automation systems create documented histories, while versioning and change records provide evidence of how configurations evolve over time.

Recovery readiness becomes something teams can test and demonstrate rather than simply document. The evidence is generated through everyday operation instead of assembled specifically for the assessment.

What it’s worth.

Octoplant turns backup and recovery from a procedure someone describes into an operational process that can be demonstrated. Scheduled backup jobs across supported automation systems create documented histories, while versioning and change records provide evidence of how configurations evolve over time.

Recovery readiness becomes something teams can test and demonstrate rather than simply document. The evidence is generated through everyday operation instead of assembled specifically for the assessment.

AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIER USE CASE #3

Representative profile.

A Tier 1 automotive supplier operates just-in-time production for multiple OEM customers. Its plants run heterogeneous automation environments across PLCs, HMIs, robots, drives, and other critical systems. Production continuity is not only an internal KPI: a prolonged outage can quickly affect customer schedules and downstream assembly operations.

What breaks today.

When a cyber incident, hardware failure, or unwanted configuration change disrupts production, the technical problem is only the beginning. Teams first have to establish what happened. Which systems were affected? Did configurations change? Which version was running before the incident? Is there a trusted backup? Can the affected equipment be returned to the required operational state — and how long will that take?

In a just-in-time supply chain, those questions quickly become customer questions. The industry has already seen how disruption at a supplier can propagate into OEM production. In 2022, a cyberattack on Kojima Industries forced Toyota to temporarily halt production at all 14 of its Japanese plants, affecting approximately 13,000 vehicles of daily output.

What changes with Octoplant.

Octoplant gives recovery teams a trusted operational starting point. Automated backups, historical versions, and configuration records help teams understand what was running before the incident and whether the operational state changed. Instead of reconstructing configurations from engineering laptops, local folders, or individual knowledge, authorized teams can work from centrally maintained historical data and identify the appropriate recovery state. Version history and configuration comparison also provide context for the investigation: what changed, when it changed, and how the current state differs from previous versions.

The objective is not to replace cybersecurity detection or incident-response tools. It is to make sure that once an incident has been contained, production teams have the configuration history and recovery data needed to bring affected automation back under control.

Recovery readiness becomes part of the supplier’s customer promise.

What it’s worth.

A supplier’s downtime does not stay inside the supplier’s four walls. In a just-in-time production network, extended disruption can affect customer schedules, contractual relationships, future sourcing decisions, and ultimately the OEM’s production line.

The business case is therefore larger than the supplier’s own lost production. Faster access to trusted historical states reduces uncertainty during recovery, shortens the path from investigation to restoration, and gives the customer evidence that continuity is engineered rather than assumed.

Reduce recovery time. Reduce uncertainty. Protect the customer relationship.