Factory automation does not necessarily begin by choosing a robot or sensor. A manufacturer first needs to decide which part of which process it wants to change, how the current operation will be evaluated, and who will review equipment downtime, safety, and data connections. If those points remain unclear, equipment may be installable while its operating conditions remain unresolved.
The Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, Japan (SME Support Japan) describes a “Smart Manufacturing Process Assessment” that analyzes a workplace from the perspectives of both work and information. The service organizes and visualizes issues and considers the potential use of robots, automation equipment, IoT, and digital technology. A checklist published by the Kanto Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry separately covers machining automation, work records, equipment monitoring, and work-procedure standardization.
Based on those official materials, this article independently organizes a sequence that a small manufacturer can use for an internal implementation decision. It does not recommend a particular machine and does not guarantee an outcome. It uses neither unverified company cases nor universal target values. The decision must instead be based on records collected under the manufacturer’s own conditions and reviews performed by the responsible people.
1. Limit the automation scope to one process
Start with the work, not the product
First, list the repetitive work performed at the site. Separate machining, transport, loading, inspection, recording, and equipment monitoring. For each activity, identify its start and end conditions, operator, equipment, and handoffs to the preceding and following processes. Record where waiting, repeated handling, duplicate entry, concentrated decision-making, or variation occurs rather than describing the issue only as “labor intensive.”
Limit the initial candidate to one process. Changing several processes at once can make it difficult to isolate the cause of a stoppage or failure. Explicitly identifying out-of-scope work also helps prevent the scope from expanding during discussions with equipment suppliers.
Record the pre-installation condition
Use the manufacturer’s current condition—not a general external benchmark—as the baseline. Under comparable conditions, record the applicable product, lot, work time, setup, reasons for stoppage, rework, inspection method, and operator-dependent differences when the information is available. Mark an item as “not measured” instead of estimating it.
The Kanto Bureau checklist shows stages such as handwritten records, entry through a device, and automatic recording. This does not mean that every process should immediately be automated. Use the stages to identify what is currently recorded and what information is needed next.
2. Put requirements and accountable people on one sheet
Separate success conditions from stop conditions
For the target process, document the desired state separately from the conditions that will stop a trial. Success conditions may include executing the target work, completing the required quality review, and handing work to the next process. Stop conditions may include unexpected behavior of a safety function, an inability to judge quality, an effect on existing equipment, a communication fault, or failure of the recovery procedure.
For an investment decision, include fixtures, peripheral equipment, construction, training, maintenance, software, and work involving downtime as well as the equipment itself. This article does not prescribe a particular return-on-investment threshold. The calculation period, operating conditions, order outlook, and cost of capital vary by company, so an accountable manager must decide using the company’s own conditions.
Assign responsibilities inside and outside the company
Identify who approves each matter among equipment engineering, production engineering, manufacturing, quality, safety, information systems, purchasing, and management. Also confirm the scope assigned to the equipment manufacturer, system integrator, network provider, and external maintenance company for design, installation, connection, configuration changes, backup, incident response, and parts replacement.
Record the decisions in requirements, drawings, a connection diagram, contacts, change records, and acceptance criteria rather than relying only on verbal explanations. Do not assume that another party owns an unclear item. Mark it “pending confirmation” and assign an owner and due date.
| Review area | Information to record before installation | Main reviewers | Example decision question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target process | Target work and product, adjacent processes, out-of-scope work | Manufacturing and production engineering | Can the automation boundary be explained as one process? |
| Equipment requirements | Workpiece, fixture, installation, power and air, maintenance conditions | Equipment engineering and manufacturer | Were site conditions checked against a specific machine configuration? |
| Quality review | Acceptance characteristic, measurement, record, segregation of abnormal items | Quality and manufacturing | Can trial output be separated from regular output and judged by a person? |
| Machine safety | Hazards, modes, access, stopping, recovery, training | Safety, equipment engineering, and manufacturer | Were the risk assessment and protective measures reviewed? |
| Information connection | Destination, direction, accounts, logs, backup | Information systems, equipment engineering, and maintenance provider | Did accountable people approve only the necessary connections? |
| Implementation decision | Cost items, operating load, stop conditions, unresolved matters | Management and each accountable function | Was the decision made with unresolved matters visible? |
3. Treat safety and information security as design conditions
People must review machine safety for the specific machine
ISO 12100:2010 (Edition 1, published November 2010) covers basic terminology, principles, and a methodology for safety in machinery design, including principles of risk assessment and risk reduction. The ISO page explains procedures for identifying hazards and estimating and evaluating risks during relevant phases of the machine life cycle, followed by hazard elimination or sufficient risk reduction. ISO states that the edition was reviewed and confirmed in 2022 and remains current, while also showing that a revision is under development.
Citing the standard does not itself establish that a candidate machine or cell is safe. Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare guideline, “Guidelines for the Comprehensive Safety Standards of Machinery,” applies both to parties that design or manufacture machinery and to businesses that have workers use it. The manufacturer provides design-side information and protective measures, while the user organization reviews the actual installation, operation, cleaning, setup, and maintenance conditions.
Before a trial, safety staff, equipment staff, the manufacturer, and other responsible parties must review hazards, operating modes, access limits, emergency stopping, energy isolation, recovery, training, and authorization. Do not use this article as a basis for disabling a safety function or making a uniform configuration change to operating equipment. Applicable law, the manufacturer’s instructions, and site procedures take priority.
Assign an information owner before connecting equipment
Before equipment is connected to a network, list the data to be collected, connection destinations, communication directions, remote-maintenance entry points, user accounts, logs, backups, and incident contacts. Equipment engineering or information systems should not decide alone; both operational effects and information risks must be reviewed.
IPA’s “Guidelines for Information Security Measures for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Version 4.0” are intended for SMEs, including sole proprietors and small businesses. They cover guidance for management and procedures and methods for implementation within the organization. This article maps that approach to management involvement, identifying assets and connections, internal rules, backup, and coordination with external providers. The guideline alone is not treated as proof that a particular industrial control system architecture is secure.
4. Compare candidate equipment and external providers
Ask each candidate to answer the same requirements
Give each candidate the same description of the target process, workpiece, quality requirements, process flow, installation environment, existing equipment, connection requirements, maintenance conditions, and stop conditions. Ask the candidate to separate standard functions, additional work, assumptions, exclusions, user preparations, test methods, and deliverables.
Conditions can differ with options and peripheral equipment even when the product name is the same. Do not compare candidates using only an answer that says “supported.” Record the configuration and conditions under which support was confirmed. Do not fill an unconfirmed specification or service scope into the article or an internal document; keep it as a question for the candidate.
Review maintenance and change control before installation
Confirm failure contacts, on-site service, replacement parts, software updates, configuration backups, remote access, and change-history management. If an external maintenance provider can change settings, assign a requester, approver, implementer, and verifier. Even during an urgent response, retain a record of who changed what.
5. Decide whether to proceed through a limited trial
Separate the trial from regular products and systems
Limit the trial by product, time, equipment scope, and user, and distinguish it from normal production where feasible. Decide beforehand how trial output will be handled and how abnormal output will be segregated, stopped, and recovered. If the trial requires a stoppage or configuration change to existing equipment, obtain authorization and confirm the manufacturer’s procedure before work begins.
Do not review speed alone. Confirm that the required work can be repeated, a person can judge quality, the system can stop and recover safely after an abnormal condition, records remain available, and assigned staff can operate it. Avoid a simple comparison when the conditions before implementation and during the trial differ.
Keep scale-up, correction, and cancellation as valid outcomes
After the trial, each accountable function reviews its area and records unresolved matters. Do not expand the target before identifying why a success condition was not met. Choose among a specification correction, an operating change, an additional test, or cancellation, and record the decision-maker and rationale.
A limited implementation is not a ritual that must lead to company-wide deployment. Consider the next scope only after operation has been confirmed for the target process. Deciding not to proceed when the conditions do not fit is also a valid implementation decision.
Conclusion
When a small manufacturer considers automation, it should define the process and baseline before searching for equipment, then establish requirements, responsibilities, safety, information connections, and trial acceptance methods. Official guidance provides common considerations, but it does not guarantee that a particular machine is suitable or that an investment will produce a particular result. Manufacturing, equipment engineering, quality, safety, information systems, management, and external providers must each review their assigned scope before the organization decides whether to proceed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we request equipment quotations first?
Before requesting quotations, define the target process, workpiece, adjacent processes, installation and connection conditions, and out-of-scope work. Give candidates the same requirements and ask them to separate standard scope, additional work, and user preparations.
What should we review during a trial?
Review not only execution of the work but also quality judgment, safe stopping and recovery after an abnormal condition, record retention, and operation by assigned staff. Limit the scope and time and decide how trial output and stop conditions will be handled in advance.
Does referring to ISO 12100:2010 make the equipment safe?
No. A reference to the standard does not prove the safety of specific equipment. Safety staff, equipment staff, the manufacturer, and other responsible parties must review hazards and risk-reduction measures for the machine and its use conditions, following applicable law, instructions, and site procedures.
Can network connections be left entirely to the equipment supplier?
No. Define responsibilities among equipment engineering, information systems, and the external maintenance provider. Review destinations, accounts, remote maintenance, logs, backups, change approvals, and incident contacts.
Sources
- SME Support Japan, “Smart Manufacturing Process Assessment” (Japanese)
- Kanto Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry, “Case Studies on Creating Earning Power toward Digitalization in Small and Medium-sized Manufacturing (Earning Power 2020)” (Japanese PDF)
- ISO 12100:2010 — Safety of machinery — General principles for design — Risk assessment and risk reduction
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, “Revision of the Guidelines for the Comprehensive Safety Standards of Machinery,” July 31, 2007 (Japanese)
- IPA, “Guidelines for Information Security Measures for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Version 4.0” (Japanese)
Verified: September 7, 2026
