Live from Automation Fair: How to Make a Case for Packaging Line Modernization
To win support for modernization, CPGs must shift the conversation from replacing aging equipment to delivering measurable value in labor productivity, operational performance, sustainability, and future adaptability.
Jerry Plessing (left) digital solutions architect, and Lance Fountaine, CPG industry consultant (formerly with Cargill), presented Rockwell's vision for selling packaging line modernization up through your orgnaizaiton.
At Rockwell Automation Fair in Chicago this week, three experts—Lachlan Stokes, digital services sales exec - CPG at Kalypso, a Rockwell business; Lance Fountaine, CPG Industry Consultant for Rockwell Automation (and formerly of Cargill); and Jerry Plessing, Digital Solutions Architect —outlined why modernization efforts often struggle to gain traction in CPG environments, and how operations, engineering, and leadership can align around a clearer value case for change.
Rather than seeing modernization as a like-for-like replacement of aging controls or equipment, the panel argued that CPGs must reframe it as a strategic enabler of labor capability, operational efficiency, sustainability gains, and data readiness. That reframing, they suggested, is often the difference between stalled proposals and funded initiatives.
Why modernization gets deferred
According to Stokes, many companies underinvest in modernization because internal priorities tend to favor visible customer-facing projects or cost-containment efforts. As he explained, organizations often defer back-office or infrastructure improvements simply because existing systems still appear to be functioning. Stokes emphasized that this narrow view hides the growing burden of “technical debt,” which he described as the accumulated cost that eventually prevents companies from adapting or innovating. Once that debt becomes large enough, it inhibits change and forces reactive, crisis-driven upgrades.
Fountaine added that leadership culture is often a barrier. In his view, many organizations attribute inaction to the belief that technology won’t fail “because it worked yesterday.” This mindset encourages short-term thinking and reinforces a reactive approach, where issues only receive attention after a breakdown or a hunt for obsolete spare parts. He noted that earlier phases of modernization largely focused on obsolescence management, but the industry can no longer afford to stay in that mode.
Both panelists stressed that modernization must now be tied to broader business objectives: workforce challenges, supply chain volatility, rising complexity from SKU growth, environmental expectations, and declining productivity. Stokes pointed out that companies face not just labor shortages but also skill shortages, with operators and technicians now expected to interpret data, troubleshoot digitally, and work within increasingly integrated environments. Productivity in manufacturing, he added, has stagnated or declined, creating pressure to rethink how operational performance is supported.
Reframing modernization as a strategic enabler
By Fountaine’s reasoning, the shift from reactive or proactive modernization to truly strategic modernization requires CPGs to show how updated automation supports long-term transformation initiatives. He highlighted the push toward autonomy in manufacturing—systems that can sense, interpret, and act with increasing independence. This evolution, he noted, depends heavily on data availability and software, making the modernization of controls and data pathways foundational rather than discretionary.
Fountaine also cautioned against the temptation to chase new technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, without first addressing architecture, supportability, and data quality. As he put it, “data as an asset” is a prerequisite for the advanced capabilities many companies hope to adopt. Legacy architectures that are difficult to support or integrate create both operational risk and strategic bottlenecks.
Plessing expanded on this point by explaining that modernization efforts often fail because they are framed too narrowly as risk-mitigation or cost-avoidance initiatives. In his experience, engineering teams frequently describe projects in technical terms—obsolescence, firmware, networks—without articulating the efficiency gains, labor benefits, or supply chain improvements leadership looks for.
He recalled a moment earlier in his career when a modernization proposal was dismissed as a “fun project” until he explained the revenue and product-loss impacts. That shift in language and focus, he said, changed the outcome immediately.
According to Plessing, the key is balancing three elements—risk, cost, and value. When modernization is pitched with only the first two, it lacks strategic weight; when value is articulated clearly, the case becomes much stronger.
What value looks like in practice
To illustrate the tangible upside of modernization, Plessing walked through several example scenarios commonly encountered in CPG environments.
In one scenario, a simple drive replacement can either be handled as a minimal-cost, limited-function swap or as an opportunity to introduce enhanced diagnostics, Ethernet connectivity, and operator-facing insights. In the enhanced approach, operators gain immediate feedback on issues such as voltage drops, overheating, or phase imbalance, which reduces troubleshooting time and prevents unnecessary maintenance calls. According to Plessing, this also positions the asset to feed analytics or AI models in the future.
He offered a similar comparison for motor control centers (MCCs), noting that modern, intelligent MCCs allow easier installation, significantly better energy visibility, and the ability to manage load profiles more precisely. That additional granularity improves sustainability metrics and reduces peak-demand charges. In his view, these are the kinds of value levers, beyond simple “avoidance of obsolescence,” that leadership teams respond to.
A third example involved new production or packaging lines. When companies choose disparate equipment platforms solely on upfront cost, integration becomes costly and time-consuming. Modernizing toward common architectures or standardized connectivity simplifies line startup, minimizes engineering hours, and supports more consistent data collection across machines.
Across all scenarios, Plessing reinforced the same point: modernization enables workforces, reduces complexity, and strengthens operational decision-making. Those benefits rarely surface when proposals are written solely through an engineering lens.
A simpler framework for moving forward
To help CPG manufacturers build more compelling modernization cases, Stokes offered a three-step approach.
First, companies need a clear understanding of their installed base. Stokes noted that many organizations lack even basic visibility into what equipment, firmware, or system revisions are deployed across their facilities, making it nearly impossible to assess risk or plan effectively.
Second, teams should evaluate modernization opportunities across all three dimensions of the “stool”: risk, cost, and value. According to Stokes, risk includes performance and supportability, not just obsolescence, while value includes efficiency gains, labor enablement, sustainability impacts, and supply chain visibility.
Third, modernization proposals are stronger when engineering, operations, and continuous improvement are aligned from the start. By Stokes’ thinking, involving these groups early ensures that modernization is seen not as a departmental initiative but as an organizational improvement effort.
Fountaine emphasized that modernization is not a one-and-done project. He described it as a continuous journey requiring sustained planning, prioritization, and reassessment. Treating modernization as a program, rather than as isolated capital events, allows companies to build momentum and avoid falling back into reactive cycles.
Clearly articulate strategic value
Across their discussion, the panelists reinforced a central idea: modernization gains traction when its strategic value is clearly articulated. In their view, CPG manufacturers can build stronger cases by linking modernization to workforce capability, data readiness, operational efficiency, sustainability, and long-term transformation objectives—not simply to aging assets.
By reframing modernization around outcomes rather than equipment, operations leaders can better align with the priorities of plant leadership and position their facilities for the next generation of manufacturing challenges.
Looking for engineering services? Our curated list features 100+ companies specializing in civil, process, structural, and electrical engineering. Many also offer construction, design, and architecture services. Download to access company names, markets served, key services, contact information, and more!
