MACHINERY
WHEN DIGITAL MATURITY RESHAPES THE NEXT PHASE OF UK MANUFACTURING
By Phil Hadfield, UK managing director at Rockwell Automation
UK manufacturers have reached a point where digital capability is no longer the question. The next phase of transformation is defined by how effectively that capability is embedded into operations, where performance, resilience and scale become the real measures of success.
T
here is a point in every industrial shift where progress becomes less visible but far more consequential. UK manufacturing is moving into that phase now. The technologies that once defined digital transformation are no longer emerging or experimental, they are increasingly embedded, expected and, in many cases, essential to day-to-day operations. This transition is unfolding alongside a renewed national focus on industrial growth. The UK’s advanced manufacturing sector, supporting more than 760,000 jobs and contributing £82 billion in annual GVA, is being positioned as a central pillar of long-term economic strategy. Government plans to nearly double business investment in advanced manufacturing to £39 billion by 2035, supported by £4.3 billion in public funding, signal not just confidence in the sector, but an expectation that it will operate at a higher level of productivity, resilience and global competitiveness. Rockwell Automation’s 11th annual State of Smart Manufacturing Report findings reflect this broader shift. Digital transformation is firmly established as a strategic priority, with sustained levels of investment and widespread adoption across artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and simulation technologies. What is changing is not the pace of adoption, but the nature of the challenge that follows it.
For much of the past decade, the focus has been on proving what is possible. Today, the emphasis is shifting toward ensuring that what has been deployed can operate reliably within live production environments. Progress is no longer defined by introducing new technologies into the environment, but by managing the complexity that those technologies create once they are embedded into day-to-day operations. In the context of increased
16 Summer 2026 UKManufacturing
national investment and industrial ambition, that shift becomes even more critical, as scaling capability across sectors such as automotive, aerospace, advanced materials and agri-tech demand consistency, not experimentation.
WHERE COMPLEXITY BECOMES CAPABILITY As digital systems become more deeply integrated into manufacturing environments, the number of interactions between them increases significantly. Each connection between platforms, assets and data sources introduces new dependencies, and with them, new considerations around performance, resilience and control. This is not a sign of friction or failure. It is a natural consequence of maturity, and one that requires a different kind of operational discipline. Artificial intelligence illustrates this shift clearly. Adoption remains strong, and generative AI has moved rapidly into mainstream deployment. What has changed is how organisations are choosing to
apply it. The focus is moving toward areas where impact can be demonstrated in operational terms and sustained over time, particularly in functions that sit close to the core of production. Cybersecurity has emerged as the leading application for AI in UK manufacturing, reflecting a broader recognition that secure operations are inseparable from efficient ones. As production environments become more connected, cybersecurity is no longer simply about protection. It is about enabling systems to operate with confidence, ensuring that connectivity can scale without introducing unacceptable levels of risk. This evolution is reshaping how industrial architectures are designed. Security is no longer a layer applied to an existing system. It is becoming an integral part of how systems are structured, influencing how data flows, how systems interact and how decisions are made. In this context, cybersecurity becomes a foundation for operational continuity rather than a response to external threats.
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
