How automation technologies can slow you down

In the modern age, the phrase ‘bite off more than one can chew’ is rising to the surface. With the hustle culture mindset boosting productivity with technologies introducing new ways of working, businesses are pressured to adopt and adapt. With widespread focus on ambitious growth, food and beverage businesses tend to make purchasing decisions prematurely – driven by trends rather than needs.

Australian specialist F&B construction company Total Construction goes against the grain. Servicing the building sector for more than 30 years, the company has developed an understanding of food and beverage businesses inside out. According to the company’s group general manager, food and beverage group Rob Blythman, Total takes a different approach.

“Being a holistic contractor, we’re not interested in just selling construction works,” he said. “Clients can have a sense of comfort that they’re talking to a partner who’s a little agnostic.”

Part of this agnostic and objective approach is challenge. Blythman gave an example involving automation and robotic technologies. As automation and robotics accelerate across food and beverage manufacturing, many businesses are discovering that the real challenge is not the technology itself, but the environment it must operate in. For builders working closely with manufacturers, this gap between equipment ambition and building reality has become evident.

According to Blythman, many manufacturers approach automation with a narrow operational lens. The focus is often on output, labour savings and return on investment, while the broader implications for the building itself are left until late in the process.

In practice, this can create costly delays once equipment is ordered and delivery dates are locked in. For example, high value robotic and automated systems often come with substantial power requirements, yet manufacturers frequently assume their existing infrastructure will be sufficient.

“A business could order a $10 million piece of robotic equipment that requires power requirements that have not been considered in planning,” said Blythman.

Committing to equipment that requires a power load far exceeding what the site was originally designed to handle is already too late. Addressing this later can involve transformer upgrades, network approvals and long lead times that stall commissioning plans.

Total’s general manager, food and beverage group Tony Tate, raised another problem around structural capacity.
“One of the biggest issues is that the client buys a piece of equipment only to find out that it does not fit within the space,” he said.

Automation equipment is often heavier and larger than legacy machinery, placing additional loads on floors, slabs and roof structures. Tate noted that roof voids are frequently overlooked, particularly when new services such as refrigeration evaporators are added.

Roofs are typically designed to carry only the building envelope, not additional suspended loads, making strengthening and certification essential before installation can proceed. If a roof is designed to take only 500 kg per square metre, incorporating additional support will be required to install a refrigeration evaporator that weighs two tonnes.
“You will need additional strength, you will need structure, and you will need to certify it,” said Tate.

While costs and structural capacity are factors to consider, Blythman and Tate emphasised the importance of a commonly overlooked issue – egress paths. National construction codes require clear and compliant escape paths to ensure staff can exit safely in the event of a fire.

When long automated lines or large robotic systems are installed, they can unintentionally block or extend escape routes beyond allowable distances. This often triggers redesigns, fire engineering reviews and approval delays that could have been avoided with early planning.

Manufacturers often assume that minor changes do not need to be disclosed or reassessed. However, what may seem like a simple retrofit can quickly become a building-wide compliance exercise.

“In the past, businesses could do it and get away with it, but now, it’s getting more difficult with private certifiers,” said Tate.

“Companies need to look at introducing new equipment holistically, not just uncrate the equipment and plug it in,” Blythman added.

Blythman said the challenge is that food and beverage companies are not construction companies. While established businesses may have a dedicated construction or project management team, this is not always the case. A site transformation or equipment introduction does not occur regularly, removing the need for full time construction expertise.

For example, a medium-sized manufacturer may operate in a shoehorned facility where equipment and processes have been added over time.

“With everything squeezed in, everything is bulging from all aspects, from dimensions through to the services,” said Blythman.

How can manufacturers navigate these problems?

When considering introducing new technology, Blythman and Tate advised manufacturers to devise a plan immediately. Whether reaching out to a building consultant or creating checklists, businesses must ensure everything is covered. This early input allows potential issues to be identified before purchase orders are placed, helping businesses understand whether timelines and budgets are realistic.

Total Construction’s approach is built around early engagement. While large consulting firms may offer similar assessments at high cost, many builders are willing to provide early guidance, provided they have the specialist knowledge to understand food and beverage operations.

Specialist knowledge allows an operational perspective rather than a sole focus on construction. Tate highlighted how Total questions assumptions around process flows, cleaning regimes and service demands.

“Total understands the operations and we respectfully challenge them, offering alternatives and a wider perspective,” he said.

This approach can lead to solutions that reduce cost or complexity without compromising performance.

For businesses that have already installed equipment and are facing difficulties, it is not too late to seek assistance. Depending on time and cost constraints, projects may proceed under different approval pathways, each with implications for compliance and scope.

If a company is not bound by time constraints, it can apply through the standard Development Application (DA) process. However, this can take up to six months before approval is granted. Total can also provide an internal Complying Development Certificate (CDC) – a fast-track approval for straightforward projects – although areas must conform to current codes through upgrades where required.

Although companies can work through these challenges, the operational advantage the equipment was meant to bring may not be realised for months due to neglected issues. For manufacturers considering automation technologies for the first time, Total’s advice is consistent – be early. This means assembling the right team early and involving building specialists from the outset.

Blythman encourages early planning to prevent setbacks through partnership driven approaches. This mindset extends to how Total interacts with subcontractors and suppliers, helping food manufacturers navigate construction pressures they are unfamiliar with.

“We’re all in it together,” he said. “We will help the client as best we can, but we won’t try to shortcut it.”

As automation reshapes food and beverage manufacturing, success will depend not only on the technology selected, but on how well it is integrated into the physical and regulatory requirements of the site. Planning is not an optional extra. It is the foundation on which every successful automation project is built.

Source: Food & Beverage Industry News

https://www.foodmag.com.au/how-automation-technologies-can-slow-you-down/