19th July 2023
Jaguar Land Rover’s owner, Tata Motors, plans to build a £4bn electric car battery factory in Somerset. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has expressed full support, foreseeing the creation of thousands of skilled jobs across the country.
PP Control & Automation CEO, Tony Hague has reacted to the news as being “Such a strategically important investment for the UK, not only for the direct jobs it will create, but, importantly, in the impact it will have on the downward supply chain required to support it.”
Tony’s positive reaction also carries with it word of warning to the manufacturing community, asking that it is ready for the opportunity when it arrives.
“This is where I believe we are still at a crossroads. It is superb news that we have this huge battery plant coming, that’s the first thing. However, we will be missing a massive ‘GDP’ opportunity if we don’t put plans in place to ensure that it is UK companies who supply the content and technical knowledge required to make the batteries here.
“The good news is that we already have massive strengths in this area, and we have the early signs of a very good supply chain that is leading the world in producing components that go into these batteries.
“Let’s use this opportunity to really invest and upskill in the wider engineering sectors, so we have a fit for purpose and competitive UK-centric supply chain that cannot only support this exciting new investment, but equally take advantage of further opportunities that will certainly present themselves within the electrification sector.
“When it comes to Government incentives to attract this investment decision, I unapologetically congratulate Rishi Sunak and co for what they’ve done. Attracting these global companies means doing battle with many locations all over the world and, indeed, Governments who are only too willing to sweeten the deal – it’s about time we switched on to how the rest of the world operates.
“In property, you tend to need an anchor tenant and then the rest of the retailers follow…this is no different in automotive. With Tata and JLR taking the plunge, hopefully we’ll see more inward investment and maybe even other car makers placing their faith in what the UK can deliver.”
The investment in the electric car battery factory holds immense promise for the UK’s economic growth and technological advancement. However, seizing this opportunity requires careful planning and collaboration to establish a robust and self-sustaining domestic supply chain. With the right approach, the UK can position itself as a leader in the electrification sector and reap significant benefits for its economy and workforce.
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?
