7th December 2018
Here at PP Control & Automation, we combine our extensive engineering and production capabilities in order to design an outsourcing solution that delivers the desired result. This latest video concentrates on our Cabling & Interconnectivity Capability – One of 6 core capabilities which make up our total Control & Automation solution.
The video series, which currently includes Electrical Control Systems, Electronics Integration & “Box Builds” and Pneumatics & Hydraulics will continue its release schedule in the new year, including an insight into capabilities such as, Vacuum chambers and gas management systems and Mechanical assembly.
With over £1million invested in the latest state-of-the-art technology for cable harness manufacture, machine builders are benefiting from a fully automated solution. A solution that provides the very highest levels of production quality and an assurance of performance reliability, minimising the risks of damaging machine downtime caused by inferior manual production techniques.
It is well documented that the single largest contributing factor to machine failure is down to the connectivity in the associated control and automation wiring. One intermittent connection failure, down to one poor crimp/connector, in the most complex piece of automated machinery, can result in costly downtime and the costs of lost production.
By automating both the production and test of single and multi-core cables, PP Control & Automation can minimise such risks for both its customers and the end users.
PP Control & Automation apply design for manufacture (DFM) and value engineering principles to develop innovative connectivity solutions for its customers – PP will optimise speed of machine connectivity, implement standardisation and avoid unnecessary costs by identifying these common problems through early engagement at the design stage.
Furthermore, PP Control & Automation can manage the complete design and manufacture of a customer’s drag chain requirements, including the integration of hydraulics and pneumatics. Protecting and supporting moving cables is an important requirement in today’s automated machinery and will dramatically improve the life of the enclosed cabling and once again, maximise machine performance, uptime and service intervals.
Please complete the form below and our team will be in touch.
Ian Knight, Chief Information Officer at PP Control & Automation (PP C&A) challenges the prevailing, often vague narrative around AI adoption and reframes the conversation around a more practical starting point: operational constraints.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant concept for manufacturers. It is already being explored across quotation, production planning, engineering, quality, supply chain and customer service functions. Yet, for many organisations, the gap between experimentation and meaningful operational impact remains difficult to close.
A leading aquaculture specialist – that is changing the way fish are vaccinated safely – has signed a major manufacturing deal.
On paper, defined discipline-specific suppliers can look organised. However, every additional supplier introduces another handoff, and every handoff creates another point where time, quality, communication and accountability can be lost.
Very rarely does growth not surface because an OEM lacks ambition. Shortcomings arise because operating models built to support such ambition don’t evolve quickly enough.
Recent weeks have brought two important industry moments into sharp focus, concluding that demand for AI and automation is rising, but investment, skills, and long-term thinking must follow.
For decades, one question has sat at the heart of operational strategy for machine builders and OEMs: make or buy? It’s a familiar debate and it isn’t the wrong question by any means, but perhaps it is an incomplete one.
In most machine building businesses, change is still treated as an exception. A late-stage drawing revision, component substitution, or wiring tweak discovered during build. Each one is handled, resolved, and signed off. And then everyone moves on. But what if that’s the wrong way to think about it? What if change isn’t the disruption to the system but the system itself?
