It is a fair question, and answering it goes straight to the core of what we actually offer at Factry. So while building your own historian is technically possible, it is rarely a sensible route for companies to take. The reasons for this can be divided into two categories: technical and strategic.

The common misconception

A historian is often seen as a combination of well-known components: a time-series database, (sometimes) a relational database, and a dashboarding tool. From that perspective, building a historian appears to be an integration exercise, assembling existing open-source tools into a working stack. What Factry delivers, however, is much more than a repackaged bundle of open-source software.

1. The technological reality

Factry doesn’t just offer a set of databases, but an extensive platform that sets up and organises everything in a way that is reliable and easy to analyse. Some of the tooling we have created includes:

• Collectors that connect to data sources, handle multiple protocols, and communicate in a reliable and secure way
• Data translation and normalisation so all stored data follows a consistent structure
• Tools to structure data so it reflects the reality of a plant or process
• Tight integration between time-series and relational databases, allowing the advantages of both systems to be used without requiring end users to understand their internal workings

None of this is accidental. These capabilities exist because they were deliberately designed to fill the gaps that generic open-source tools do not address on their own. If you choose to build your own historian, you are left with two options:

1. Invest significant time and expertise to develop these capabilities yourself
2. Accept a solution that may be technically functional, but difficult to use, maintain, and evolve

In practice, many internal historian projects stall or fail not because the underlying databases do not work, but because the historian becomes too cumbersome to operate and extract meaningful value from.

Furthermore, building a historian is a not one-off project. If the historian becomes widely adopted within an organisation, which would be the goal, there will be continuous demand for bug fixes, improvements, and new features. This type of system should be treated as a living product that grows and evolves with the needs of the teams, instead of being a one-and-done project.

2. The strategic reality: cost and risk

Beyond technology, there is a strategic question to consider.

Building your own historian places a heavy dependency on a small number of people. The profiles required for this work are typically IT experts, whose available time is already limited. This team has competing priorities. The long-term success of the historian may not be their primary focus.

Building your own platform comes with a significant cost of time and resources, even when it is based on “free” open-source software. Contrast this with working with Factry, where a dedicated team continuously develops, improves, and supports the platform. When issues arise, there is a clear support structure in place. This level of continuity and focus is difficult to replicate internally.

How we see and use open-source software

What is central to Factry, and always will be, is that our clients retain ownership of and access to their data, regardless of whether the underlying technology is open source or otherwise.

Factry deliberately stores data in open-source databases such as InfluxDB and PostgreSQL, and uses open technologies like Grafana because we believe they provide the best foundations available today. However, these technologies are not the core of our product or philosophy. What is central to Factry, and always will be, is that our clients retain ownership of and access to their data, regardless of whether the underlying technology is open source or otherwise. What we provide is a system that works: reliable, usable, and sustainable over time, backed by a dedicated team.

Conclusion

The decision to build your own historian must take into account both practical and strategic considerations. These include effort, risk, usability, and long-term focus. When compared to working with a partner such as Factry, the perceived advantages of building a historian internally tend to disappear quickly.

‍