Scalable automation starts with architecture

Manufacturers continue to invest in automation, but the challenge today looks very different from a decade ago. The question is no longer whether a factory uses robots, but whether the wider system surrounding those robots can adapt to changing demands without repeated redesign. Here, 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.

Robots are now a familiar feature of modern manufacturing. According to the International Federation of Robotics, 542,000 industrial robots were installed globally in 2024, more than double the number installed ten years earlier. Yet installation figures alone no longer provide the best measure of progress. Increasingly, manufacturers are focused on how effectively robots integrate with production systems and how easily those systems can evolve when product mixes, output volumes or process requirements change.

For many years, the presence of a robot was seen as evidence of modernisation. In reality, the biggest limitations often sit elsewhere. Tooling, screw-feeding systems, robot guidance, control software and maintenance arrangements frequently determine how flexible an automated assembly cell can be over time.

Moving beyond robot adoption
Manufacturing environments have changed significantly. Many automated systems were originally designed for stable production settings where a single product moved through a fixed process at predictable volumes. Engineers could optimise for one outcome and rely on long-term consistency.

While this approach still suits some applications, a growing number of manufacturers operate under very different conditions. Product portfolios have expanded, variant counts continue to rise and production teams are expected to respond rapidly to changing customer requirements.

In these environments, the robot itself is rarely the limiting factor. Much of today's installed automation still reflects assumptions made for earlier production models. Dedicated lines often remain in place for different product variants because that was the most practical solution when the original investment was made.

As a result, some facilities continue running multiple assembly lines for products that share broadly similar processes, even though modern automation architectures could accommodate much of that variation within a single flexible cell.

This creates what might be described as a utilisation gap. Automation should not be assessed solely on whether a robot has been deployed, but on how effectively the surrounding system manages variation, process changes and future requirements. From that perspective, scalability becomes an architectural challenge rather than simply a hardware decision.

The hidden barriers to flexibility
A robot can only scale successfully when the systems around it can be modified without major engineering effort. If tooling changes are difficult, data cannot move efficiently through the cell, control systems are hard to expand or service support is fragmented, even highly capable robots become constrained by the wider process.

Manufacturers are increasingly aware of this issue. Research from Make UK found that 41 per cent of manufacturers identify integration challenges caused by outdated IT infrastructure. The challenge, therefore, is not simply deploying automation but ensuring it functions effectively within production environments that may still be only partially connected.

Pic: Alexander Hale, Product Manager at Desoutter

These issues often become most apparent after installation. A production cell that appears streamlined on day one can quickly become more complex as maintenance, calibration, software updates and technical support requirements emerge. In some cases, manufacturers may find themselves managing relationships with more than a dozen suppliers across a single automated system.

This burden is not always visible during project planning, but it can become highly significant when changes are required. Introducing a new product variant, meeting updated quality standards or implementing additional reporting functions may be technically possible, yet costly and time-consuming if the original system was not designed with future adaptation in mind.

That is where the true cost of rigid automation often emerges. Businesses lose agility, decision-making slows and confidence in future automation projects can decline. When every improvement effectively becomes a new integration exercise, the potential benefits of scaling automation remain difficult to realise.

Building automation that evolves
Fortunately, many of the factors that once limited automation are becoming less restrictive. Integration is generally simpler than it was a decade ago, user interfaces are more intuitive and communication between systems has become increasingly standardised. Pre-configured robot interfaces have also reduced much of the engineering effort that automation projects previously required.

This matters because manufacturers are not only concerned about cost. Many are also cautious about the complexity of implementation and ongoing support. If deployment appears highly specialised and long-term maintenance seems fragmented, investment decisions are often delayed even when the business case is compelling.

A more flexible approach also changes how automation can be introduced. Manufacturers do not necessarily need to move immediately to a fully automated operation. In many situations, a phased strategy is more practical and delivers stronger long-term results.

A production line may initially adopt advanced tooling before adding screw-feeding systems, 3D vision technology or data analytics capabilities as requirements develop. This gradual approach allows manufacturers to learn from real production conditions and expand automation in line with operational needs rather than assumptions made at the outset.

The value of this approach becomes particularly clear when production demands change. Whether introducing a new product variant, scheduling maintenance activities or managing calibration requirements, modular architectures provide greater flexibility without forcing manufacturers to revisit the entire engineering design.

That is ultimately what scalable automation looks like in practice: a production system capable of accommodating increased variation, greater process control and enhanced visibility as requirements evolve.

In sectors including automotive, battery manufacturing and aerospace, this staged approach is making it easier to extend automation capabilities without rebuilding entire production lines. For manufacturers under pressure to improve productivity while maintaining flexibility, that represents a significant shift in thinking.

The key question is no longer whether robots should be used. It is whether the systems that support those robots are adaptable enough to continue delivering value as manufacturing requirements change. Those that focus on building flexible, connected architectures will be best positioned to unlock the full potential of automation in the years ahead.