When a part breaks in a car, you only really have two choices: find a like-for-like replacement or buy a new car. Fortunately, in a factory there’s freedom to be more creative; it’s a systems integrator job to be the artist in the process. The control system in a factory is what a motor is to a car, and when something is amiss, the systems integrator will analyse, design, fit and test, to make sure the system is better than ever and raring to go. However, there’s a topic that we’re finding crops up time and again. 

The debate between upgrade vs. repair is by no means a new one, but it has become prevalent as most industries look to squeeze margins. Sectors such as pharmaceuticals manufacturing have long had to carefully manage obsolescence due to their delicate nature. Other sectors with critical systems and infrastructure often demand a combination of legacy systems and the latest technologies. Just think of aerospace and defence, for example. 

In most cases it’s a matter of planning and forward thinking, while implementing a healthy mix of upgrade and obsolescence management. The question you really need to be asking yourself is ‘what’s the best thing for the system overall?’  

Everyone is different

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to afford a complete upgrade. On the flip side of the coin, not everyone has the choice of relying on spares. No matter what the client chooses, the role of a systems integrator is to complete the job to the highest standard using the tools available to us. 

Boulting Technology was recently called to a factory manufacturing glass bottles to update the control system for its production process. A kiln was automatically fed broken glass every five hours to keep it alive and to keep the production line moving. If the conveyor feeding glass into the kiln stopped and the oven cooled, the kiln would no longer be in a working condition. It was imperative for us to work around the issue.

If we return to the car metaphor, we had to remove the old engine and replace it with a new one, but keep the wheels turning at all times. We achieved this by implementing the new control system in phases and ensuring that a motor was running the conveyor at all times. A complete upgrade was not plausible due to the nature of continuous production – sometimes the choice is taken out of the hands of the client altogether. 

Regardless of whether a client is implementing an upgrade or using spare parts to maintain production, organisation and planning are crucial. 

When relying on spares to keep production up and running, there are several questions that arise from a systems integrator’s perspective. Firstly, does it contain obsolete components? If so, you have to accept there will only be a finite number of replacements out there, which means sooner or later you’re going to have to upgrade. 

The big risk when it comes to managing obsolescence is reliability. If a system is brought to a halt because an obsolete component has broken down and needs replacing, how long have you got before the same thing happens again? Maybe there are bigger faults in the systems causing the part to fail? This would make replacing a false economy. 

You may think that in most scenarios an easy decision is to replace the entire system. However, it might not be that straightforward. If this is a critical application then an upgrade would be advisable, but if it’s not and replacement parts are cheap and plentiful, the company might be happy to carry on as it is. 

The analysis that most businesses use is called overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). This is a series of metrics developed to establish how effectively a manufacturing process is operating.

The correct answer for whether upgrading is better than like-for-like replacing varies from job to job and in most cases the two solutions need to be used in parallel. The more planning, surveying, risk analysis done by a company, the easier it is to cope with a problem when it inevitably occurs. 

However, upgrading every time a more efficient system is identified would mean bankruptcy, based on the innovations in automation at the moment, whereas solely relying on legacy systems risks large failures and prolonged periods of downtime. The goal is harmony between the two.