Customizable, one-of-a-kind, engineered goods offer the best chance for lucrative innovation in the manufacturing industry. The desire for one-of-a-kind goods and solutions has never been higher, and it's affecting a wide range of industries, from material handling to aerospace and factory floor equipment to elevators.
Because these aren't ordinary SKUs (stock-keeping units), they necessitate additional engineering, which allows for a higher profit margin when handled quickly. Unfortunately, change aversion is ingrained in the production engineering culture. Company executives may take a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach to speed up technological procedures, believing that all they need to do is hire programmers and build a solution from the ground up.
This kind of internally developed indigenous legacy solutions has an unpleasant stigma attached to them. A playground firm and a curtainwall company recently highlighted how happy they were with their in-house solutions and their decision to reject innovative, cost-effective, and simple new engineer-to-order (ETO) manufacturing alternatives.
This ego-driven commitment to DIY solutions leads to an overreliance on (and, in some cases, over the hiring of) key internal employees capable of highly specialized programming when none is required if productized software is already available. If these programmers leave, no one will likely be able to maintain and extend the programs.
The result of in-house technology is a lack of innovation and a high risk for the organization. The high expense of development and maintenance teams (typically a dozen or more people) exacerbates an old, bad business practice.
The cost of developing new manufacturing technology for bespoke items can be less than half the cost of engaging internal people to create and maintain internal DIY technology.
Companies are being hampered by pride, or perhaps hubris, in implementing the solutions that are now available. It costs a lot of money to be stubborn. Instead of spending a few hundred thousand dollars to adopt these tried-and-true ETO solutions, internal teams frequently spend more than a million dollars in payroll, time and lost attention on the most important activity: making things and getting them out the door.
Internal bespoke manufacturing solutions make it difficult to leverage skills and experience due to significant manufacturing, engineering, and software challenges, as well as lengthy development timeframes. Without relying on one or two key employees, product vendors in this field can use the best experience and ensure continuity throughout many years of use.
Change resistance, on the other hand, is still a self-imposed philosophy of constraint (ToC). Only a tiny portion of the universe is familiar with software for a business process or technical procedural automation.
What is the reason for this? Software development was not their strong suit for the most part. They could have been engineering firms, job shops, automotive suppliers, or any of hundreds of other businesses that made stuff. They considerably raised their risk with DIY software, much like executives trying to fix their plumbing.
There are numerous ways to go off the rails when it comes to DIY. Alligators just off the road to success include:
-Poor choice of development technology.
-Poor human decisions.
-Poor software development management.
A natural human propensity to focus optimistically on the advantages of early achievement without considering how long it will take to go from "it's starting to look nice" to "it works perfectly in production" is commonly missed.
This upbeat outlook frequently overlooks the importance of quality assurance testing. In an interview with Alex Knapp, Machiel van der Bijl, the founder of Axini, a model-based software testing company, says that testing takes up 30 to 50 percent of the time it takes to construct a multi-component software application. "I believe [testing] is more difficult than programming," he remarked.
Buying from a market-tested vendor, on the other hand, connects a company to resources with special knowledge — as well as programming that has been molded and polished by a large number of past clients. In a sense, the purchasing company is moving forward in the best of three worlds: it can continue to focus on its strengths and expertise, automate its business and technical processes quickly, and benefit from the agility and experience baked into years of responses to a wide range of customer needs.
Reference : https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/05/20/how-change-resistance-hurts-innovations-in-manufacturing-technology/?sh=2a4e4e2d25ea