When firms set out to automate their manufacturing processes, they do so with clear expectations: increased uptime, improved efficiency, and reduced overhead. While automation can deliver on these promises, it is a highly technical undertaking. And when things go wrong, the consequences can be costly. Making the most of a capital expenditure is a critical intention of every manufacturing engineer and project manager.
Often, an excessive or insufficient focus on cost, limited time to implement, or even organizational politics can derail an otherwise well-intended automation development. Engineering design efforts are highly collaborative and can quickly become difficult to manage in the automation setting. Project managers and engineers are typically tasked with delivering automation projects on time, under budget and technically sound. To succeed, a holistic approach to automation should include considerations before, during, and after implementation.
Four common automation mishaps, particularly in the robotics space, include:
Misaligned budget considerations.
Poor technology selection.
Failing to design proper ancillary components.
Ignoring future maintenance costs.
Using an example project of a selective compliance articulated robot arm (SCARA) based pick-and-place deployment, we will examine where and why these pitfalls occur and how engineers can proactively avoid them. Readers will gain insight into the critical considerations for successful automation projects, along with practical strategies to navigate these common hazards.
Budget Considerations: Getting ROI Right from the Start
Our example application involved SCARA robots designed for high-speed carton loading. Initial budgets assumed two robot cells with basic infeed conveyors. But as the team added labeling, inspection and rejection systems mid-project, the scope ballooned. Costs grew by 40 percent, return on investment (ROI) projections fell short, and leadership questioned the investment.
Establishing a clear ROI is essential for defining the project’s size, scope, and direction. However, not every automation project is justified on purely financial grounds. Other common justifications for automation include reducing ergonomic risk, increasing operator safety by removing them from hazardous areas, and improving part quality. Even if the headcount in a particular area is not reduced, these motivations all deliver their own financial benefits.
Taking an all-inclusive view of ROI at the project’s outset provides the financial framework for decision-making. Project managers should have a clear grasp of what business metric the project aims to improve. Is the intent to improve cycle time, labor costs, defect rate, or all three?
As projects progress, scope creep can become an issue. Warning signs typically emerge within the first 8–12 weeks after kickoff. Common red flags include unclear stakeholder requirements, the introduction of new process steps, and frequent design revisions. Change orders requiring rework, installation costs that weren’t initially quoted, and additional safety devices can provide unwelcome surprises in a project’s late stages.
Successful automation projects strike a balance, allocating sufficient resources to ensure quality without expanding the scope beyond what’s reasonable. Regularly revisiting ROI calculations as the project evolves helps prevent surprises and keeps the investment justified.
Technology Selection: Aligning Capability with Application
In a previous project, the SCARA robots from our example had worked exceptionally well for high-speed bottling at a sister plant. However, when the focus plant attempted the same implementation, they failed to account for the more varied product sizes and required reorientation. The SCARAs struggled, leading to bottlenecks and rework. Eventually, they were replaced with twice the number of slower 6-axis robots.
Selecting the right technology is foundational to a successful automation project. Often, teams start with a preferred technology, based on familiarity or past success, and try to retrofit the process around it. This approach frequently leads to forced fits, unnecessary complexity, and suboptimal throughput.
For example, while SCARA robots excel at fast, flat, horizontal movements, they struggle with complex orientations. If your application involves variable product sizes, awkward angles or changing tasks, it might be more cost-effective to use a more flexible platform from the beginning. In some cases, 4- or 6-axis robotics may prove entirely unnecessary, while simpler, more rudimentary motion control platforms could be more appropriate.
Automation teams are better served by first thoroughly analyzing application requirements and then selecting the platform that best supports the desired outcomes, rather than working backward from a favored technology.
The Overlooked Details: Ancillary Components Matter
In our SCARA deployment example mentioned earlier, the robotic system performed flawlessly in simulations. However, in production, parts arrived slightly skewed due to an inconsistency in an upstream vibratory feeder. The robots couldn’t reliably pick them, leading to repeated stoppages.
Even when core elements of an automated work cell are correctly specified — such as robots, rotary tables, or conveyors — small oversights can derail performance. Automation does not happen in isolation; it depends on the integration and reliability of supporting components.
Without a clearly defined and documented manual process as a foundation, details such as poor fixturing, weak control architecture, or clunky human-machine interfaces can become failure points. Operators often blame “the biggest logo on the machine” when a cell goes down, but the root cause frequently lies elsewhere.
To prevent issues like this, project champions should carefully analyze upstream/downstream processes for consistency and compatibility. Simulations should focus not only on robot motion, but also on the full part flow and operator interactions.
Thoroughly developing and documenting the manual process before automation begins, plus rigorously evaluating all touchpoints, helps prevent these common failures.
Spare Parts and Operating Costs: Planning Beyond Launch
In our SCARA example, vacuum gripper pads needed replacement every three weeks due to wear from product texture. Initially overlooked, this led to unplanned downtime and frequent procurement requests. The system stabilized only after formalizing a spare parts bill of materials (BOM) and maintenance cycle. “Robbing Peter to pay Paul” by shifting costs from a capital budget to an operating budget may solve problems in the short term, but it clouds the total cost of an automation implementation.
A commonly underestimated factor in automation success is the long-term cost of spare parts and system maintenance. While fixed overheads such as power consumption and plant air are typically accounted for, recurring costs can easily be overlooked. Creating a comprehensive spare parts BOM along with a clear understanding of consumables (e.g., gripper pads, filters, seals) is essential for accurate life cycle cost estimation. Failing to plan for these needs can cause unexpected downtime or inflated support costs post-deployment.
Similarly, efforts to future-proof a concept can dramatically reduce a system’s operating costs. In today’s increasingly low-volume, high-mix demand environment, choosing highly configurable and flexible components can save costs over time. For example, if the appropriate stroke and grip force can be achieved, choosing an electric two-finger gripper over a similar pneumatic device may give engineers more flexibility should a new SKU become available.
By identifying critical spares and stocking them appropriately, manufacturing personnel can maintain high uptime and minimize disruptions. Incorporating these considerations into the initial budget ensures a smoother transition from commissioning to full production.
Conclusion: Designing for Success
Automation is a powerful tool, but only when designed and implemented with a systems-level mindset. Failures rarely stem from the automation hardware itself but often result from gaps in planning, integration, or life cycle support.
By learning from these common pitfalls and adopting a holistic, proactive approach — covering realistic budgeting, precise technology selection, and comprehensive system integration — manufacturers can significantly improve their automation outcomes. This leads to higher reliability, better ROI and smoother transitions from concept to production.
In complex or high-risk projects, it may also be beneficial to involve qualified third-party automation specialists — particularly for objective technology evaluations, scope validation, or integration reviews. Their independent perspective can help identify these blind spots and mitigate risks early.
This article was written by Chase Wentzky, Robotics Specialist, Motion Automation Intelligence (Birmingham, AL) For more information, visit here .
