Some plant managers approach custom, bespoke automation with a commodity mindset, focusing primarily on securing the lowest price. This transactional approach frequently leads to underperforming equipment that fails to hold tolerances or meet production requirements. When you buy custom engineering purely on the lowest bid, you pay the difference later through project delays, expensive floor modifications, and lost production capacity.
To protect your capital investment, you must move beyond simple purchasing transactions and adopt an engineering-first, math-based approach. This level of engineering planning minimizes troubleshooting and eliminates the need for repeated adjustments on the factory floor. Plant expansions are simply too complex for piecemeal equipment sourcing. You need a high-level, comprehensive vision before you spend any capital. Here are five risks to avoid.
As manufacturing operations expand, equipment is often added incrementally to address individual production needs as they arise. Over time, this piecemeal approach can create inefficient process and material flows, requiring operators to manually move, stage, or handle parts without adding value to the product. These non-value-added activities increase labor and operating costs and run counter to lean manufacturing principles.
Expansion without an overall manufacturing and facility plan can also lead to inefficient use of valuable floor space. Equipment and work cells placed to meet immediate needs may later restrict material flow, complicate future automation, or consume space needed for larger, more critical production systems. Taking a broader, system-level approach to expansion helps manufacturers optimize workflow, reduce unnecessary handling, and preserve flexibility for future growth.
To start, establish a top-level plant layout before you purchase any machinery. Map the intended flow of raw material, work in process, finished products, operators, and equipment across the facility. The objective is to establish an efficient overall flow before individual cells begin determining the layout.
Some manufacturers assume they can easily add supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), and manufacturing execution system (MES) integration after building the machinery. This assumption leads to blind spots, with integrators designing machines that lack the correct sensors, feedback loops, and communication protocols required to export the data needed. Without this critical visibility, plants lose valuable opportunities to make data-driven decisions and drive continuous improvement.
You must make your data architecture a core machine specification from the first day of design. Define precisely which metrics you need to track. These should include:
Planning for connectivity up front ensures that your machinery includes the necessary physical sensors and feedback loops to collect and utilize the data you need.
Some automation integrators become so focused on machine functionality that they overlook serviceability and long-term maintenance. This design oversight can turn routine maintenance or simple component replacement into extended downtime and make recovery from equipment failures difficult and time-consuming.
Consider a real-world electronics test fixture designed for continuous hot-air burn-in testing of server blade cards. The original design positioned large server cards directly above continuously operating cooling fans but did not adequately consider how those fans would eventually be replaced. When a single fan failed, gaining access to and replacing it could result in nearly a full day of lost production. A subsequent redesign maintained the required system functionality while improving service access, allowing technicians to replace a failed fan in a matter of minutes.
Some pneumatic actuators can also present a common serviceability trap. Linear actuators with integrated pneumatics may appear to be a compact and convenient solution, but in some applications, a failure requires removal of the entire actuator assembly. Doing so can disturb the machine setup and require hours of recalibration to restore stops, stroke lengths, pressures, and flow settings.
Where the application allows, an experienced integrator may instead use a fixed linear rail and carriage with permanent mechanical stops and a separately mounted pneumatic actuator. If the actuator fails, a technician can remove and replace it without disturbing the established mechanical setup. What could have required hours of maintenance and recalibration becomes a straightforward component replacement with minimal downtime.
To protect your uptime, demand modular mechanical designs and smart programming from your automation integration partner. Insist on intuitive control panel interfaces that feature robust self-recovery logic and clear fault-tree diagnostics. Operators should be able to instantly identify and troubleshoot errors from the screen, removing the need for slow, frustrating guesswork.
Machine safety should never be treated as an afterthought or a compliance checkbox. A qualified automation integrator should incorporate safety into the system from the beginning, identifying potential hazards, evaluating risk, and designing appropriate safeguards in accordance with applicable machine safety standards and requirements.
A formal, documented risk assessment is an essential part of this process. The integrator should lead the assessment using established methodologies, and work collaboratively with the manufacturer’s engineering, operations, maintenance, and safety personnel. This collaboration combines the integrator’s machine-safety expertise with the manufacturer’s knowledge of its processes, personnel, and plant-specific requirements.
Manufacturers also have an important role in this process. They should actively participate in the risk assessment, ensure that operational and maintenance practices are accurately represented, review the proposed safeguards, and understand the residual risks associated with operating and maintaining the equipment. Safety is most effective when the manufacturer and integrator approach it as a shared responsibility rather than assuming it belongs exclusively to either party.
The risk assessment should identify reasonably foreseeable hazards throughout the machine’s lifecycle, including operation, setup, maintenance, troubleshooting, and recovery. It should then document how those risks will be reduced through machine design, guarding, safety controls, procedures, or other appropriate measures.
When selecting an automation partner, manufacturers should look beyond whether an integrator can simply make the equipment function. The right integrator should be able to demonstrate a disciplined approach to machine safety, perform and document a thorough risk assessment, and engineer the system to appropriately mitigate the risks identified.
One of the greatest risks in custom automation is designing equipment around a process or performance requirement that has not been adequately defined. An integrator can build a machine that performs exactly as specified, yet still deliver a system that fails to meet the manufacturer’s actual production needs if the underlying requirements were incomplete, inaccurate, or based on an unproven process.
Before competitively sourcing automation, manufacturers should understand and document the critical process parameters that determine success. For an adhesive application, for example, requirements might include dispense volume, bead geometry, placement tolerance, material characteristics, cure requirements, and acceptable variation. Machine performance requirements should similarly establish measurable expectations for cycle time, throughput, quality, repeatability, uptime, changeover, and other critical metrics.
Production requirements must also be clearly understood. A system expected to produce 40 million parts per year may require a fundamentally different automation strategy than one producing 40,000. Product mix, operating schedules, required availability, future volume expectations, and other production demands can significantly influence the appropriate machine architecture.
If the manufacturing process itself has not yet been developed or proven, process development should occur before the production machine requirements are defined. Manufacturers can perform this work internally or engage an engineering partner to develop and validate the process and establish the critical parameters and acceptance criteria. This ensures that integrators are designing and quoting equipment around a proven process rather than making assumptions about how that process should work.
Clearly defined requirements also make competitive bidding more effective. When critical parameters are left undefined, each integrator must make its own assumptions, potentially resulting in very different concepts, scopes, performance expectations, and prices. Defining the process and required performance first helps ensure the machine is designed around the right objectives, and that competing proposals are solving the same problem.
Sourcing custom automation solely on price is a costly illusion. The apparent savings vanish quickly when you encounter project delays, expensive floor modifications, and lost production. True success in plant expansion relies on establishing a collaborative engineering partnership with an experienced automation system integrator. Choose a partner with the depth of knowledge to challenge your assumptions, optimize your layout, and engineer reliability, serviceability, and safety into your system from the very beginning.
Are you planning a plant expansion or upgrading your production capabilities? Contact our engineering team today to review your layout and design a robust, high-performing automation strategy. Let us help you map your material flow, secure your data integration, and deliver a mathematically engineered solution that keeps your production lines running smoothly.
Frequently Asked Questions
A: Bespoke automation is a highly specialized engineering service, and buying based strictly on the lowest bid often results in underperforming equipment that fails to meet quality, throughput, or safety requirements. You also risk project delays and unexpected expenses from retrofitting unserviceable designs.
A: Sourcing equipment in isolated silos without a master facility layout leads to inefficient process flow. It forces operators to touch and move materials multiple times, creating non-value-added handling that runs counter to lean manufacturing principles. It can also leave you with unoptimized floor space where large, critical machinery eventually cannot fit.
A: If you don’t plan for data collection up front, your integrator will build machinery that lacks the necessary sensors, feedback loops, and communication protocols. This leaves you unable to track operational and quality metrics, hindering your ability to make data-driven decisions and drive continuous improvement.
A: A risk assessment is a formal, documented process that identifies machine hazards and ensures compliance with safety standards. Integrators are responsible for producing and presenting a formal risk assessment on the machines they build. Responsibility for operator safety ultimately lies with the operating plant, though, so end-users should take a vested interest in the risk assessment and proposed safety solutions of all systems within their facility.
A: An engineering approach uses math and detailed planning to design and verify solutions before manufacturing, resulting in minimal troubleshooting on your factory floor. A tinkering or “blacksmithy” approach relies on trial and error on your production floor, which often leads to massive timeline overruns, ballooning budgets, and underperforming equipment.
Understanding why unique manufacturing challenges require engineered solutions—not just specialized equipment.
When manufacturers begin searching for custom automation, they are rarely looking for custom equipment. They are searching for a solution to a manufacturing problem that standard equipment can no longer solve.
Food manufacturers have discovered that PLC integration is critical for optimizing packaging and remaining competitive. The primary industry need for this integration often stems from the desire to upgrade legacy equipment or fix inefficient logic that limits production capacity.
Mention “manufacturing automation” and most people picture an assembly line or a manufacturing cell, the places where parts are joined and products take shape. But automation doesn’t end there.
Learn the hidden costs, common misconceptions and how to determine if automation is right for your manufacturing operation.