Recent component shortages have acted as a stress test for industrial automation. They exposed vulnerabilities, forced difficult decisions, and accelerated conversations that had been postponed for years. But beyond the immediate disruption, they also offered something valuable: clear lessons about how industrial systems should be designed moving forward.
Resilience, today, is no longer about reacting faster; it is about designing systems that can absorb change without breaking.
As explored in our article The Path of Industrial Automation, the evolution of industrial systems follows a clear trajectory, from isolated machines to interconnected, service-oriented architectures.
Recent shortages did not interrupt this path, but they accelerated a key realization: each stage of automation maturity requires a different level of architectural resilience.
From efficiency-driven design to uncertainty-aware architecture
For a long time, industrial automation design prioritized efficiency: optimized bills of materials, tightly specified hardware configurations, and minimal redundancy. This approach made sense in a predictable supply chain environment.
Recent shortages challenged that assumption.
As highlighted in our analysis of memory shortages in industrial automation, the challenge was not limited to component availability. It also stemmed from the rigidity of systems tied to very specific configurations, which required a complete re-evaluation of the architecture whenever components were changed.
Resilience by design starts with accepting a new reality: uncertainty is not an exception anymore, it is a condition.
This shift aligns with a broader industry perspective. According to McKinsey, industrial leaders are increasingly moving away from optimization-focused designs toward architectures built for adaptability and long-term resilience, especially in response to supply chain volatility and technology transitions.
What does resilience really mean in industrial automation
In an industrial context, resilience does not mean over-engineering or stockpiling components. It means building systems that can evolve without forcing disruptive redesigns.
This includes:
-
architectures that tolerate component variation,
-
software that adapts to different hardware profiles,
-
clear separation between control, interface, and data responsibilities,
-
and lifecycle strategies that assume change rather than resist it.
The key shift is conceptual: resilience is no longer something added after deployment — it is built into the system from the design stage.
The role of modularity and decoupling
One of the clearest lessons from recent disruptions is the value of modularity.
When systems are tightly coupled, hardware, software, interfaces, and lifecycle locked together, even small changes propagate across the entire machine. When responsibilities are decoupled, adaptation becomes manageable.
This principle applies well beyond memory availability. It affects:
- cybersecurity updates,
- regulatory compliance,
- long-term maintenance,
- and service-based business models.
Here, resilience becomes an enabler, not a constraint.
Resilience and cybersecurity are now inseparable
Recent shortages also highlighted an often-overlooked connection: resilience and cybersecurity evolve together.
When hardware changes, security assumptions must be reassessed. Secure boot, patch management, identity handling, and update mechanisms must remain consistent even as components evolve. Systems that lack architectural flexibility struggle to maintain security over time.
This is why resilience by design increasingly overlaps with security by design.
A strategic shift for OEMsand manufacturers
For OEMs, resilience is becoming a competitive differentiator.
Customers are no longer asking only about performance or features. They are asking:
- How long will this system be supported?
- How will it evolve over time?
- What happens when components change?
- How do updates and security scale across fleets?
Resilience by design offers credible answers to these questions, without relying on promises or emergency work arounds.
Final thought
The recent shortages did not introduce a new issue—they highlighted a pre-existing one.
Industrial automation is entering a phase where design decisions must account for change, not assume stability. Resilience by design is the response to that shift: an approach that prioritizes adaptability, long-term viability, and architectural clarity.
If the last few years have taught industry anything, it is this: systems designed to evolve will outlast those designed to remain fixed.
In this sense, resilience by design is not a standalone concept. It is a necessary capability that emerges naturally along the Path of Industrial Automation, as systems evolve from static assets into adaptable, long-lifecycle architectures.
