Troubleshooting Automation ROI: Identifying Upstream Process Inefficiencies
Many manufacturers invest in automation expecting significant returns, only to find the ROI falling short. Often, the issue isn’t with the automation itself but with upstream processes that haven’t been optimized. This article explores how upstream inefficiencies can hinder automation ROI and offers strategies for improvement.
Sometimes it’s easy for companies to get tunnel vision when looking for ways to improve production and operational performance. The focus often lands on a single step in the process—evaluated in isolation—when determining where to make capital investments.
But here’s the truth: a high-performing production line is more than just the sum of its individual parts. Every process is interconnected. For one step to operate efficiently, it often depends on the performance of the steps before and after it. Ignoring those interdependencies can lead to missed opportunities—or worse, expensive solutions that underdeliver.
Let me give you a real-world example.
MWES was recently asked to review a project for a specialty bakery that had just secured a major contract. This new business would increase production volume on a group of SKUs by 60%. Naturally, the customer turned their attention to the most labor-intensive area—manual decorating—where they had up to 14 people working each shift.
On the surface, it looked like a clear case for automation. A well-designed system could cut 10 or more FTEs per shift, offering significant labor savings. Easy decision, right?
There was a catch: the bakery couldn’t ensure consistent placement of products on their baking sheets. That inconsistency meant two options—either accept variable decorating quality or invest in a more complex solution that used a vision system and servo-controlled axes to dynamically adjust for product placement.
And because this bakery’s product was positioned as an affordable luxury, quality was non-negotiable. The look mattered just as much as the taste.
The advanced decorating system could meet those quality standards—but it also tripled the cost of the solution. It required sophisticated vision, added motion control, and higher-level training for their maintenance team. Suddenly, the ROI didn’t pencil out the way they had hoped.
Rather than walk away, we took a step back and looked upstream.
We asked: What’s happening earlier in the process that’s causing the placement inconsistency—and can we fix it?
Upstream, the bakery was depanning single-serve products by hand, then transferring them from specialty pans to baking sheets before freezing. This step involved 3–4 people handling depanning, rack unloading, and pan management.
Automating this stage wasn’t simple. It involved multiple devices and still only saved about 2 FTEs per shift. The estimated ROI was more than three years—underwhelming on its own.
But once we factored in how this upstream improvement would enable a simpler, more affordable decorating automation solution, the math changed.
By integrating both steps—depanning and decorating—we not only reduced labor and improved consistency but eliminated the need for high-end vision compensation. The result: a combined automation package that delivered better performance and a stronger ROI than either system would have alone.
The takeaway: when you evaluate automation opportunities, don’t just isolate the bottlenecks. Look at how upstream and downstream processes impact each other. Your integration partner should help you see the bigger picture and uncover ways to improve the entire system—not just one piece of it.
At MWES, we don’t push a specific product or tech stack. We listen to your goals—whether they’re focused on labor savings, consistency, or throughput—and we help you find the smartest path to improvement. Standard solution or custom system, our job is to build automation that works for your operation.
Let’s look a the full picture—together.
