Manufacturers increasingly want advanced analytics, enterprise visibility, and AI applications that can extend beyond a single line or facility. But a solution that works well in one plant can become difficult to scale when controls, networks, naming conventions, and data structures have developed differently across locations.

That challenge is becoming more consequential as AI moves further into production environments. Rockwell Automation’s 2026 State of Smart Manufacturing Report found that 34% of operations are augmented by AI or machine learning, with respondents expecting that figure to reach 54% by 2030.

See also: New IFS study reveals gap between AI strategy in the C-suite and actual factory-floor usage

AI creates new urgency, but the underlying need is not new. Manufacturers have long benefited from consistent controls, infrastructure, and operating practices. What is changing is the cost of inconsistency. For many organizations, that means reconsidering the traditional project-by-project model of system integration.

Instead of bringing in an integrator for a defined project or calling a familiar vendor when something breaks, some manufacturers are moving toward ongoing, portfolio-wide support agreements that provide greater continuity in how controls and automation systems are managed across facilities.

The objective is not simply better project execution, but a more consistent foundation for enterprise visibility, future technology investments and AI.

Treat support as an operating strategy

A manufacturer may have worked with the same local integrator for 20 years and still operates primarily through a transactional model in which a project comes up, the integrator completes it, and the engagement may pause until the next need arises. The integrator may know the plant well, but responsibility for maintaining that knowledge, standards, and direction between projects remains informal.

See also: Smart Industry's annual State of Initiative Survey is open!

A strategic support model establishes a more deliberate, ongoing responsibility for maintaining and improving automation systems—not simply responding when a project or problem arises. That relationship can extend beyond an individual plant, giving manufacturers a partner that understands their broader operations and helps maintain consistent controls practices, OT infrastructure and support across facilities.

As system integrators expand their geographic reach and technical capabilities, this portfolio-wide approach is becoming more practical.

That does not mean one strategic partner has to execute every piece of automation work, since plants may still use OEMs, specialty providers, or local integrators when appropriate. The objective is not exclusivity, but rather having a consistent source of knowledge and direction across the automation environment.

One food and beverage manufacturer we work with expanded an initial integration project into 24/7 support for its production-data platform across 17 facilities. The support relationship centers on the manufacturer’s production-data systems across those facilities, providing a common support structure across locations and creating opportunities for additional upgrades.

The same principle can create value at a single site. At another facility operating equipment that is 25 to 30 years old, an emergency-support relationship gradually exposed broader operational risks associated with obsolete controllers, servo drives, and network connectivity.

See also: Beyond technical expertise: Supporting the critical role of system integrators

Rather than continuing to address each failure independently, our team developed a five-year modernization roadmap, with several projects already completed and additional upgrades planned. That is the difference between treating support as a response mechanism and treating it as an operating strategy, shifting the question from “How do we get the machine running again?” to “Why does this keep happening, where are the other risks, and what should we address over the next several years?”

Put institutional knowledge to work

Institutional knowledge is one of the clearest benefits of that continuity. Over repeated engagements, a partner develops an understanding of system dependencies, previous modifications, standards, and recurring problems while also accumulating drawings, program backups, and other information about the environment.

As that knowledge builds, the team understands not only what a system is supposed to do, but also how the surrounding operation depends on it.

For one pharmaceutical manufacturer we support, a communication failure affected temperature probes that supplied critical process information. Restoring the OPC communications solved the immediate problem, but it did not establish that the complete system was functioning correctly.

Because our support team was familiar with the installation, they also knew to validate SCADA trends, database logging, and background services that depended on those connections, providing the context to look beyond the visible symptom rather than simply troubleshooting the immediate failure.

See also: AI forces us to ask: What does ‘smart’ actually mean?

Over time, that same knowledge can shift the relationship from response toward prevention. A recurring fault can reveal a pattern, which creates an opportunity to identify root cause and inform a system change, maintenance decision, or modernization project that reduces the likelihood of the problem returning. As a result, the progression moves from response to understanding, then to prevention and continuous improvement.

Carry standards and lessons learned from plant to plant

The value of continuity grows further when knowledge can move between facilities because a plant should not have to repeat the same four mistakes another plant has already made. This is more than standardization for its own sake. Common approaches to controls, network architecture, and data conventions matter, but so does carrying practical experience from one implementation into the next.

If a design decision created problems at Plant A, Plant B should benefit from that lesson, while an approach that improved execution should become something the organization can build on rather than rediscover independently at every location.

A life sciences manufacturer provides one example. During a technology transfer, which involved moving production of a product from facilities in Ireland to California, our integration team drew on years of experience working with different pieces of manufacturer’s equipment across the company’s California sites.

That history provided an understanding of the nuanced differences between the equipment that would be used for production.

The team was able to apply that knowledge while reviewing and streamlining batch recipes, helping create greater consistency regardless of which piece of equipment ultimately ran the product. Consistency does not mean every plant has to be identical, since facilities will have different equipment, processes, and operating constraints.

See also: Physical AI: Where opportunity really sits—now, today—for manufacturers

The objective is to understand those differences while preserving the standards and lessons that should carry across the organization, improving execution today while also creating a stronger foundation for enterprise visibility, analytics, and AI tomorrow.

Expect more than project delivery

One of the greatest advantages of a long-term integration relationship is the combination of deep knowledge of a manufacturer's operations and experience gained across the broader industry. Over time, a strategic partner develops an understanding of the manufacturer's systems, past investments, operational challenges and long-term goals.

At the same time, working with other manufacturers and industries provides exposure to different technologies, approaches and solutions. This combination of institutional knowledge and outside perspective enables a partner to offer more informed guidance on future investments and opportunities for improvement.

That broader perspective is becoming increasingly valuable as manufacturing technology grows more complex. Plant managers and internal engineering teams cannot be expected to maintain specialized expertise across every controls platform, industrial network, cybersecurity requirement and data system.

As these technologies become more interconnected, manufacturers need partners with the technical depth to address specific challenges and the breadth of expertise to understand how decisions in one area affect the rest of the operation.

A strategic relationship does not mean one integrator must execute every project. Manufacturers may continue using local integrators, specialty providers and OEMs while relying on a strategic partner to communicate standards, review designs and ensure that individual projects support the broader automation strategy. In some cases, that partner serves as an owner's representative, providing continuity and technical oversight while others perform the work.

See also: As technician demand in manufacturing explodes, AI and adjacent industries could help

Cost also deserves a broader view. The lowest initial bid is not necessarily the lowest-cost project when change orders, rework and execution risk are considered. A partner familiar with the manufacturer's systems and standards can reduce some of that uncertainty while carrying lessons learned into future work.

Who carries the strategy forward?

As manufacturing operations become more connected and complex, the question is no longer simply who can execute the next controls upgrade, data initiative or automation project. It is who will maintain the knowledge, standards and technical direction that connect those investments over time.

Manufacturers will always need individual projects completed. But completing those projects successfully does not necessarily mean the organization is building a stronger, more consistent automation environment.

The real opportunity is to make each investment contribute to what comes next—whether that means fewer repeated mistakes, better performance across facilities or the ability to scale new technologies.

For manufacturing leaders, the question is worth asking: Are we managing integration as a series of individual projects, or as an ongoing capability that supports where our operations need to go?