Adelphi asks: “Does vanity exist in industry?”


Every day each of us choose one product over another because its design is more pleasing to our eye. Consumer products live or die on whether they successfully balance form and function, yet does the same apply to industrial products?


It is fair to say that the design of packaging machinery in particular, is heavily weighted towards function with little consideration given to form. Scan any industry magazine or indeed your own production facility, and you will no doubt see countless machines that all look broadly similar with the occasional extra carbuncle grafted on to the side. Shapes and materials defined simply by the need to cover the workings of the machine. Why is this?


You might say that functionality and Return on Investment (ROI) is everything in an industrial setting and there is no place for aesthetics. However, I might argue that perhaps the customer has never been offered a viable choice.


If you look around the design office of most industrial machinery manufacturers you will see engineers, not designers. Machinery is engineered to meet a technical specification, and a technical specification is often all that we machinery manufacturers receive from our customers. The assumption has always been that if you can meet the specification, and do so at the best price, you will get the business.


This isn’t strictly true though. As a UK based manufacturer, Adelphi compensates for its marginally higher pricing by offering extremely robust machines that appeal in particular to lube oil and agrochemical manufacturers. Of course, ‘robustness’ doesn’t form part of the technical specifications that we


receive, but it appeals to those running machinery in relatively harsh environments. Lesser machines can suffer badly, and as we all know, breakdowns can severely affect those ROI calculations.


So, if an unspecified requirement such as robustness can help to sell a machine, could aesthetics be used to the same end? This is a question I have been wrestling with recently.


Our current range handles containers from 1 litre to 25 litres in size, plus 200 litre drums and IBC’s (intermediate bulk containers). Our inline fillers can have up to 12 heads utilising volumetric or flowmeter systems. We also manufacture equipment to cap or lid your containers, and source further machinery should you require a turnkey line. The majority of our designs originate from over thirty years ago and have undergone various updates and additions over the years. Whilst perfectly functional, we are finding that our creativity is increasingly stifled by the physical constraints of the original design.


The time has come for a complete re- design of our filling range, with the capping range to follow. Having listened to our customers we know exactly what features and functions we need to preserve, and are well aware of those that we need to engineer in if we are to endear ourselves to new markets. We agree that we need to innovate in certain key areas to further set ourselves apart from our competition, but we can’t agree on how the machine should look.


There are those that have been in this industry far longer than me, they roll their eyes when I mention aesthetics. Then there are others who agree with me that anything which helps to catch


the eye and differentiate our machines is a good thing. I am not proposing machines that put form ahead of function, far from it. Function plays an integral role in our development plans, but it just so happens that this will give us an opportunity to consider form, and to create something different to the norm.


In this situation I would usually say “nothing ventured nothing gained”, but there is a part of me that worries.


Will we alienate our existing customers who expect robustness to be represented by a two ton stainless steel Goliath, rather than Goliath’s son, blessed with good looks and a trimmer waistline? Perhaps a modern design will be avoided for fear of making the rest of the production facility appear old and tired? Or will the market simply assume that engineering integrity must have been compromised, or the price increased to accommodate the good looks?


What I hope is that a well thought out and modern looking machine would be regarded as a centrepiece or jewel in the crown by factory owners and managers.


So, what should Adelphi do? We want and need your feedback. Does vanity exist in industry, and assuming functionality and ROI were identical, would the manufacturer of the more visually pleasing machine get your business? On the other hand, would you avoid a good looking machine in the belief that you must be paying more for that design input? Send your views to dansmith@adelphi.uk.com


LINK www.adelphi.uk.com


10


LUBE MAGAZINE No.111 OCTOBER 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49