28th November 2017
A leading West Midlands manufacturer has secured one of industry’s major titles after beating off competition from some of the sector’s largest businesses.
PP Control & Automation, which employs 200 people at its state-of-the-art facility in Cheslyn Hay, picked up the ‘Customer Focus’ Award at the recent TMMX Awards held by The Manufacturer and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
The company was praised by a high-profile judging panel for its ability to deliver strategic subcontract solutions to many of the largest and most successful machinery manufacturers across the globe, saving them time, money and increasing capacity in the process.
It was also singled out for its new ‘Technical Seminar’ programme that has seen it team up with a number of suppliers to offer interactive workshops on smart machines, cyber security and exporting to UL standards.
“We have worked really hard on creating a more detailed approach to customer engagement to find ways where we can create innovative high-added value solutions that provide them with genuine business benefits,” explained Tony Hague, Managing Director at PP Control & Automation.
“It is an approach that is already reaping dividends, with £2m of new sales added over the last twelve months. Securing the TMMX Award illustrates how far we have come as a company and all of the hard work our staff have put in over the last twelve months.”
PP Control & Automation collected the trophy in front of 800 people as part of The Manufacturer’s annual conference in Liverpool.
The company was one of twelve winners on the evening, which included some of the largest manufacturers in the UK, such as McLaren, Leyland Trucks and Jaguar Land Rover.
Celebrating 50 years in 2017, the title marks a major year of expansion for the business that has also seen it invest £1m into a 1000 sq metre extension, featuring additional production space and a dedicated logistics and materials department.
“We have to find new ways to support our customers in ever changing markets, with new competition and technology moving at an incredible pace. The recent investment has given us the platform to target new contracts across the world and in fast growing markets, including communications, food processing, machine tools and the medical sector,” added Tony.
“Our growth plan is to turnover £40m by 2020. Ambitious yes, but one we can achieve if we keep our ‘customer focus’.”
Follow @ppcanda on twitter and connect with Tony Hague on LinkedIn
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?
