FEATURE Robotics
SCALABLE AUTOMATION IN PRACTICE
Alexander Hale, product manager at industrial tools manufacturer Desoutter, explains why scalable automation depends less on the robot itself and more on the architecture that supports it
M
anufacturers continue to invest in automation, but the challenge now looks different compared to a decade ago. The issue is no
longer simply whether a factory uses robots, but whether the wider system around those robots can absorb change without repeated redesign. Robots are a familiar part of modern manufacturing. The International Federation of Robotics reports that globally, “542,000 industrial robots were installed in 2024 – more than double the number ten years ago”. But installation alone is no longer the most useful measure of progress. On many shop floors, the more important question is how well those robots fit into the wider production system and how easily that system can adapt when demand, product mix or process requirements change.
The real constraint For years, the presence of a robot was treated as evidence that a factory had modernised. In practice, the real constraint often sits elsewhere, in the tooling, screw feeding, robot guidance, control layer and service model that determine how easily an automated assembly cell can adapt over time. The production environment has changed. Many automated systems were designed for a world in which a line handled one product, one process and a fairly stable volume profile. Engineers could optimise around a fixed outcome and deliver consistency over time. This logic still has its place, but fewer manufacturers now operate in those conditions.
12 July/August 2026 | Automation
Product mixes are broader, variant counts are higher and production teams are under pressure to respond faster without rebuilding the line each time requirements move. In that environment, the robot is rarely the weakest point in the system. A significant amount of installed automation still reflects the assumptions of an earlier production model. Lines remain dedicated to separate variants because that was the most practical decision when the investment was first made. In some facilities, manufacturers still run multiple assembly lines for different versions of what is essentially the same application, even though a more flexible architecture could now manage that variation within a single cell.
The utilisation gap This is the utilisation gap. Automation should not be judged by whether a robot has been installed, but by how easily the surrounding system can take on variation, process changes and new demands over time. In that sense, scalable automation is ultimately an architectural question rather than a hardware one. A robot can only scale when the
surrounding system can be reconfigured without major engineering effort. If tooling changes are difficult, data does not flow cleanly across the cell, control systems are hard to extend or support is fragmented across too many suppliers, even a technically capable robot becomes part of a process that is efficient only within narrow limits. Manufacturers recognise this problem
themselves. Make UK found that 41 per cent of manufacturers point to integration difficulties caused by outdated IT infrastructure. The challenge is therefore making automation work across a production environment that may still be only partly connected and harder to evolve than the robot itself.
Changes over time
These constraints tend to become most visible after installation. A cell that looks coherent on day one can become much harder to manage once servicing, calibration, maintenance and software support begin to pull in different directions. In some automated environments, that means dealing with well over a dozen vendors across the wider system. The burden does not always show up in the original business case, though it becomes very visible once change is needed. A new variant, a new quality requirement or a new reporting layer may all be feasible in theory, yet expensive and slow in practice because the original architecture was not designed to evolve. That is often where the real cost of rigidity appears. Manufacturers lose speed in decision-making, confidence in expansion and, in some cases, the appetite to automate further. When every improvement feels like a fresh integration project, scale remains possible on paper while difficult on the shop floor. Luckily, some of those barriers have started to ease. Integration is simpler than it was a decade ago, interfaces are more intuitive and communication across systems is more
automationmagazine.co.uk
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
