12th September 2025
Blog 7/12
For many machine builders and OEMs, keeping manufacturing and assembly in-house feels like the safest route. But beneath the surface of familiarity lies a growing burden – one that quietly limits capacity, slows innovation, and drains critical resources.
In this new campaign series, The Hidden Cost of In-House, we uncover the operational pain points that often go unspoken but have a lasting impact on business performance. From skills shortages and missed delivery windows to bottlenecks in engineering and rising quality issues, each article reveals a hidden cost and shows how strategic outsourcing can eliminate it.
This 12-part quickfire blog series challenges conventional thinking. It invites OEM leaders to step back and re-evaluate what “in-house” is really costing them – not just in terms of money, but in missed opportunity, agility, and growth.
Because outsourcing has nothing to do with losing control. It’s about regaining focus. It’s about building smarter, scaling faster, and staying competitive, no matter what challenge is chucked in for good measure.
Machine builders are under constant pressure to innovate. Customers want smarter, faster, more integrated systems – machines that combine mechanical precision with advanced controls, connectivity, and flexibility. But as products evolve, production demands do too. And for many OEMs, internal capability simply can’t keep up with the complexity of what they’re now expected to build.
Where once a machine might have relied on straightforward electro-mechanical assembly, today it could include complex wiring, multi-discipline integration, software, and diagnostic systems. These aren’t small upgrades; they’re structural shifts in what it means to deliver a finished product. And yet, in many facilities, the production environment hasn’t changed at the same pace.
This disconnect creates friction. Engineering teams are designing solutions that stretch the limits of what the shop floor can handle. Skilled labour is forced to troubleshoot unfamiliar systems on the fly. Quality control becomes more difficult, testing becomes more time-consuming, and throughput slows as each build demands more touchpoints and more technical oversight. The process doesn’t just take longer, it becomes more error prone.
In this environment, the risk is both operational and strategic. OEMs may find themselves turning down new opportunities or simplifying designs just to stay within the limits of what they can realistically produce in-house. And that’s a dangerous place to be, especially when competitors are pushing forward with more ambitious offerings.
Outsourcing is often associated with overflow or cost control, but when it comes to product complexity, it plays a very different role. The right manufacturing partner brings not just additional resource, but specialised capability. Clean build areas and ESD facilities, skilled engineering teams, automated wiring harness manufacture and test systems, and rigorous processes designed specifically for high-complexity production.
This external capability can be aligned closely with internal design intent, maintaining full traceability and engineering ownership whilst removing the production burden. It allows OEMs to innovate freely, knowing the production path can scale with the complexity of the product. And it gives customers confidence that even the most sophisticated solution will be delivered on time, to spec, and with embedded quality.
Complexity is not the enemy. It’s the reality of modern machine building, and for many, it’s a competitive edge. But only if production capability keeps pace. If your internal teams are struggling to translate advanced designs into repeatable, reliable output, it’s time to ask whether the problem is the product or the process trying to deliver it.
If you enjoyed this quickfire blog, there’s 11 more in the Hidden Cost of In-House series, and compiled into a downloadable illustrated e-book.
Download the e-book using the button below or add it to your resource basket and browse more informative guides and collected stories in the Resource Centre.
For many machine builders and OEMs, keeping manufacturing and assembly in-house feels like the safest route. But beneath the surface of familiarity lies a growing burden… All stories from the Hidden Cost of In-House series compiled with illustrations.
Add to basket
In your basket
Hidden Cost of In-House 12/12: In machine building, success depends on where you direct your time, energy, and expertise. Yet for many OEMs, the focus has shifted away from where it creates the most value.
Hidden Cost of In-House 11/12: For many machine builders and OEMs, keeping production in-house feels like the most cost-effective way to operate. But when you dig deeper, the numbers often tell a different story.
Hidden Cost of In-House 10/12: For many machine builders and OEMs, innovation starts strong. But then comes the challenge: moving from concept to production.
Hidden Cost of In-House 9/12: In modern machine building, supply chains have become increasingly fragmented. And for many OEMs, managing these relationships has turned into an operational burden.
Hidden Cost of In-House 8/12: For many machine builders and OEMs, the opportunities have never been greater. Yet whilst the possibilities grow, many manufacturers are constrained by what’s happening much closer to home.
Hidden Cost of In-House 7/12: Machine builders are under constant pressure to innovate. Customers want smarter, faster, more integrated systems. But as products evolve, production demands do too.
Hidden Cost of In-House 6/12: For many machine builders and OEMs, a growing order book should be a cause for celebration. But too often, it brings the opposite feeling – pressure, panic, and the looming risk of letting customers down.
Hidden Cost of In-House 5/12: Every machine builder knows that quality is a reputation-maker or breaker. But as production complexity grows and internal pressures rise, many OEMs find themselves slipping into a reactive mode. Quality control becomes damage control.
Hidden Cost of In-House 4/12: Technical skill is the lifeblood of any machine builder. But across the sector, that capability is under threat.
Hidden Cost of In-House 3/12: For many OEMs, firefighting has become business as usual. But it’s also a major reason why forward planning never quite gets off the ground.
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?
