A beverage plant decides to upgrade its CIP system. The process starts with vendors presenting their latest technology. Shiny PLC controls. Cloud-connected monitoring. AI-powered cycle optimization.
The selection follows a familiar path: Plant manager and engineer prefer vendor A (more features, higher tech). Finance prefers vendor B (lowest cost). Sales recommends vendor C (has ties to the parent company).
Six months post-installation, the reality: the system works, but operators can't fully use the advanced features. Training took longer than expected. The cloud connectivity sits unused because the facility lacks adequate bandwidth. The lowest-cost option had reliability problems. The vendor C system required customization adding $80K in unexpected costs.
This scenario repeats across food manufacturing because equipment selection prioritizes features and cost over operational fit.
The Selection Framework That Prevents Mistakes
Step 1: Define Requirements (Not Preferences)
Separate must-haves from nice-to-haves.
Must-haves:
- Cycle time: Must achieve under 60 minutes (production schedule requirement)
- Cycle reliability: Must achieve >98% consistency (quality specification)
- Throughput: Must handle changeover every 2 hours (SKU count)
Nice-to-haves:
- Cloud connectivity
- AI optimization
- Mobile monitoring app
Most equipment selection reverses this—prioritizing nice-to-haves while glossing over must-haves.
Step 2: Evaluate Against Current Operations
How does the proposed equipment fit with existing infrastructure?
- Electrical capacity: Is 480V 3-phase available? If upgrade required, add $40K
- Floor space: Does it fit within existing footprint or require facility modifications?
- Water quality: Does system require softened water? If not currently available, add infrastructure cost
- Drainage: What is instantaneous discharge capacity required? Does facility sewer handle it?
- Integration: Can it connect to existing SCADA, MES, or monitoring systems? If not, integration cost adds 10-15%
This step alone prevents 50% of post-installation surprises.
Step 3: Run a 3-Vendor Bake-Off
Get 3 vendors to specify equipment against your documented requirements. Compare:
- First cost (equipment + installation)
- Total Cost of Ownership over 10 years (maintenance, spare parts, energy)
- Cycle time achievability in your facility conditions (not lab conditions)
- Training requirements and timeline
- Reference customers with similar setup (not just large Fortune 500 operations)
The lowest-cost vendor frequently has highest TCO due to maintenance costs.
Step 4: Assign Clear Responsibility
Designate one person (usually a senior technician who operates similar equipment) responsible for verifying vendor claims. This person:
- Witnesses vendor demonstrations
- References calls with existing customers
- Reviews warranty and support terms
- Identifies training gap requirements
Too often, this role gets assigned to someone from outside the operation, unfamiliar with actual facility constraints.
Step 5: Right-Size the Technology
Just because advanced features exist doesn't mean they're necessary. A 24/7 dairy CIP needs reliability more than cloud analytics. A co-packing facility with frequent changeovers needs flexibility more than optimization algorithms.
For food manufacturing companies, equipment selection success comes from methodically evaluating technology fit with operational requirements and infrastructure constraints—not from vendor features or lowest cost.
