News & Insights

A plant manager pitches a robotics project, secures budget approval, and watches the installation go smoothly. Six months later, that same robot is operating below capacity, the maintenance team is fielding calls they weren’t trained to handle, and leadership is asking why the ROI numbers from the proposal haven’t materialized yet. The robot itself isn’t the problem. What’s missing is the engineering work that should have accompanied it.

This scenario plays out across food and beverage plants more often than anyone likes to admit. A robot sized for one shift can’t keep pace once a second shift is added. A system built for a dry, temperature-controlled environment corrodes within a year on a washdown line. A robotic cell that runs perfectly on its own struggles once it has to communicate with the conveyors and equipment already in place around it. Each of these traces back to a decision made or skipped at the design stage, long before anyone signed off on the purchase order.

Labor shortages aren’t going away. In many markets, the labor simply isn’t available at the scale manufacturers need. And most plant managers already know that hiring back to pre-pandemic staffing levels isn’t realistic. Robotics get pitched as the fix, and often it is the right call. But there’s a real choice buried in that decision: invest in the engineering from the start or spend the next year and a good chunk of the capital budget fixing what should have been caught during design.

Why the labor gap keeps pushing plants toward automation

Production targets haven’t decreased, even with fewer people available to hit them. That challenge is pushing more plants to look at automation as something they need now. The interest in robotics isn’t new. What’s changed is how much pressure plants are under to get it right the first time, because there’s less room to absorb a failed or underperforming project.

The mistake some plants make is treating robotics like any other equipment purchase, when it actually functions more like a system integration project. A conveyor either works or it doesn’t. A robotic cell must communicate with upstream and downstream equipment, adapt to changing product mixes, meet food-grade and regulatory standards, and withstand whatever environmental conditions the plant throws at it.

Buying the robot is the easy part. Making it perform inside a real production environment, day after day, is where projects succeed or stall.

Traditional equipment-purchasing approaches fall short here because they treat the robot as the finish line rather than the starting point. A plant that specs a robot based solely on payload and reach, without considering how it fits into the broader system, sets itself up for a retrofit before the warranty even expires. Getting ahead of that means understanding in detail what the plant floor will actually ask of the machine.

Engineering for the realities of the plant floor

That starts with the physical environment, and food and beverage plants tend to be unforgiving in this regard. Some lines run through refrigerated rooms just above freezing, while a few steps away, ovens push ambient temperatures well past 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Equipment that performs perfectly in one zone can fail in the other. Control cabinets mounted too close to a heat source are a common casualty, shortening the life of an entire system in ways that don’t show up for months.

Temperature is only part of the environmental picture. Robots operating near cleaning chemicals and high-pressure water require the right seals, coatings, and food-grade materials, or they won’t withstand daily washdown. Regulatory pressure runs alongside these physical demands. A system that reduces human contact with the product also reduces contamination risk and supports compliance, but only if it’s specified with those standards in mind from day one rather than retrofitted later to pass an audit.

Once the environment is accounted for, the math around production must hold up too. A robot must be sized not just for average output but for peak demand, and it needs to handle the full range of product sizes, weights, and packaging formats the line runs.

Payload and reach numbers on a spec sheet only tell part of the story, since the distribution of that weight across the end-of-arm tooling affects cycle time and how long the system holds up under continuous use. None of this is a reason to avoid automation. However, it is a reason to slow down at the design stage long enough to get it right, which almost always costs less than fixing it after installation.

Closing the gaps with turnkey delivery

Even a well-designed robotics, AI, or automation project can unravel during handoffs. Engineering teams, equipment vendors, and construction contractors often work in sequence rather than together, and each handoff is a chance for something to be lost. A change made during installation doesn’t always reach the original design team, and a procurement decision made to save costs can undermine a plant’s safety or compliance requirements.

A turnkey engineering, procurement, and construction approach solves this by putting a single team in charge of the entire project, from initial design through commissioning. A chemical plant used this approach to automate an entire packaging line, covering fill lines, depalletizing, container handling, labeling, case packing, palletizing, and stretch wrapping, all under a single project team. Because one group managed both engineering and procurement, the equipment purchased matched the plant’s needs, and safety reviews were integrated into the process rather than added at the end. The result was a shorter timeline and no downtime typically seen between mechanical installation and controls programming.

This kind of coordination also helps in changeover-heavy operations, where flexibility matters as much as speed. A coffee producer facing frequent flavor changes added an automated cleaning and pipeline system that let the line transition between products without retraining crews each time. That kind of solution only works when the people designing the automation also consider how the plant will operate long after installation.

Making the case that leadership will fund

None of this engineering work happens without a budget, and getting a robotics project approved often hinges on how well the ROI case is built, not just on whether the technology makes sense. Leadership wants to see specific numbers, not general promises about efficiency.

That case gets stronger when it accounts for more than raw output. Throughput gains matter, but so do reductions in defects and rework from more consistent automated processes, as well as the downtime avoided when a system doesn’t depend on a specific person to show up for a shift.

Safety belongs in the calculation, too, since removing repetitive lifting or exposure to hazardous materials reduces injury-related costs that don’t always show up in a standard production model but matter a great deal to plant leadership. The plants that get funding approved fastest are usually the ones that come in with this full picture already assembled, rather than trying to make the case on the fly.

What automation means for people already on the plant floor

Bringing in robotics inevitably raises a harder question: what happens to the people doing the work today? The honest answer is that automation changes the shape of the workforce more than it eliminates it, but that shift isn’t automatic, and it isn’t free. It takes deliberate investment in training, and everyone may not move into a new role at the same pace or in the same way.

Plants that make the investment may see new positions open. Someone has to keep the robots running, which creates real demand for maintenance technicians who understand mechanical, electrical, and control systems. As product lines change, someone will need to reprogram and reconfigure the equipment to match, which is steady work for programmers and integration specialists.

Vision and inspection cells generate far more data than a human inspector could review alone, creating room for quality and process analysts. Their job is to interpret the data and spot trends rather than just flag defects one at a time. Material flow often changes as well, since robots can move products through a facility differently than people did, creating a need for coordinators to manage staging and replenishment.

These roles often pay better and require more training than the jobs they replace, and for the operators willing to make that move, it can mean steadier, more specialized work. But that outcome depends on plants treating the transition as something to plan for, with real training and a clear path, rather than assuming it happens on its own.

How Salas O’Brien can help

Robotics can close a real labor gap, but only when the engineering behind it matches the demands of your plant floor. We bring the kind of cross-disciplinary experience that catches environmental, regulatory, and integration issues before they become costly retrofits, and our turnkey approach means one team remains accountable from design through commissioning.

We also help build the ROI case that gets projects funded, so you’re not just installing a robot but building a system engineered to perform under real conditions. If your team is weighing a robotics project, reach out to our automation and controls to discuss your project with one of our experts. Contact us at [email protected].

For media inquiries on this article, reach out to [email protected].