17th February 2025
In association with Manufacturing Management, PP Control & Automation’s Tony Hague and Richard Spears discuss their blueprint for better collaboration, which has helped accelerate growth, champion the mission to keep manufacturing of green, clean and climate technologies onshore, and help promote engineering to the next generation of talent.
PP Control & Automation (PP C&A) has championed collaboration since joining the Manufacturing Assembly Network (MAN) in 2006, addressing UK manufacturing’s challenges after major closures like MG Rover. MAN fostered industry confidence, and 18 years later, continues to support manufacturing, including inspiring future engineers through the Design & Make Challenge.
During the pandemic, PP C&A launched #UKMfgUnite, uniting 300+ manufacturers to tackle supply chain disruptions and promote reshoring. Today, the focus has shifted to clean and green technologies through initiatives like PP Plus, a network of 20+ organisations helping green-tech start-ups scale efficiently. The PPXJ Agritech partnership supports agricultural innovators by bridging academic expertise with engineering solutions.
The latest venture, CESPA (Clean Energy Systems Partner Alliance), unites six industry leaders to drive efficiency and environmental stewardship in clean energy systems. PP C&A continues building a blueprint for better collaboration – an imperative for the UK manufacturing community if it is to capture the window of opportunity in developing clean, green, and climate technologies onshore, to help innovators bridge the valley of death, and build its own strategic independence for economic benefit.
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?
