As the wave of intelligent manufacturing sweeps across the globe, custom automation equipment has become a “standard” for motor manufacturing enterprises in their transformation and upgrade. From stator winding and rotor assembly to full machine testing, highly customized custom automation production lines are replacing traditional manual stations. On the surface, this is a technology-driven efficiency revolution; however, behind the booming trend of custom automation, many motor manufacturing enterprises have unknowingly developed a “custom automation dependency syndrome.”

Why?

This occurs because some enterprises fully entrust the custom automation project to equipment manufacturers, relegating themselves to the roles of “demand proposer” and “final acceptor.” Once the equipment is delivered and doesn’t meet expectations, they blame the manufacturer for “lack of design capability” or “misunderstanding” (though blunt, this reflects a real dilemma).

In reality, the core issue often lies not with the manufacturer but with the enterprise’s misunderstanding of the essence of custom automation and the serious lack of involvement. Let’s break down the “three absences” behind this dependency.

The Three Absences Behind the Dependency

1. Absence of Clear Demand: Stuck at the “want to save labor” stage

Many enterprises only express their custom automation needs in vague terms like “want to save a few people” or “increase efficiency.” Without systematically analyzing their process pain points, cycle bottlenecks, and key quality control points, they hand over the problem of “how to achieve custom automation” entirely to the equipment manufacturers. Essentially, this shifts the responsibility of defining processes, which ultimately leads to a disconnect between the equipment design and actual production.

2. Absence of Continuous Collaboration: Only phase participation, lacking ongoing coordination

During the execution of a custom automation project, if the equipment manufacturer leads the design and development while the enterprise only participates in key milestones such as the solution review, factory acceptance, and on-site debugging, it becomes difficult to provide timely feedback on subtle changes and potential risks in the real production line. More critically, the lack of continuous communication between the process engineers and equipment commissioning engineers creates an information gap, making it hard for the custom automation system to adapt to the dynamic needs of the production line.

3. Absence of Capability: Facing the knowledge “hollowing-out” crisis

Long-term reliance on external design leads enterprises to gradually lose their understanding of the underlying logic of custom automation systems. This not only prevents them from scientifically assessing the feasibility of technical solutions but also hinders them from offering constructive feedback during the debugging and optimization phases, ultimately resulting in a passive situation where “others design, we use, and when problems arise, we cannot solve them.”

Why Is Collaboration So Difficult?

The formation of this “custom automation dependency syndrome” is not accidental.

Misunderstanding of Custom Automation: Many enterprises mistakenly equate custom automation with “purchasing standard equipment,” believing that paying for the equipment means shifting the responsibility. They overlook the core of custom automation projects, which is “co-creation.”

Lack of Internal Coordination: Within the enterprise, departments such as process, production, equipment, and quality often operate in silos without a unified technical interface to integrate demands and coordinate resources, hindering the progress of custom automation projects.

Rushed Delivery: Some enterprises seek quick delivery and are unwilling to invest time in early-stage research and collaborative design, which sets the stage for future debugging and operational issues.

Reconstructing the Collaboration Model: Moving Towards Active Collaboration

To cure the “custom automation dependency syndrome,” enterprises must rebuild their collaboration model with equipment manufacturers:

Enterprises must take responsibility for process definition. By fostering cross-departmental collaboration, enterprises should systematically organize technical requirements, clarify cycle targets, quality standards, space limitations, and maintenance needs, thus laying a solid foundation for custom automation projects.

Participate in the entire process, not just milestone reviews. From concept design and 3D review to prototype testing and on-site debugging, enterprises should be deeply involved in every stage, collaborating closely with the manufacturer to tackle challenges together.

Establish a shared technical language. Encourage enterprise process engineers to work alongside equipment design teams through joint workshops, ensuring that custom automation design fully considers manufacturability, maintainability, and scalability from the concept phase.

The Essence of Custom Automation: Systemic Innovation to Solve Manufacturing Challenges

The essence of custom automation is systemic innovation aimed at solving specific manufacturing challenges. It cannot be achieved through a simple “purchase” but requires deep collaboration between the enterprise and equipment manufacturers. Motor manufacturing enterprises must recognize that they are the “problem definers” and “ultimate value bearers,” while equipment manufacturers are “co-creators of solutions.”

Curing the “custom automation dependency syndrome” is not about rejecting outsourcing but reshaping the collaboration model—moving from passive dependency to active collaboration, and from information silos to knowledge sharing. Only by establishing a true “common language” can each investment in custom automation become a solid step in the enterprise’s journey toward intelligent manufacturing.