Why Britain's manufacturers need to stop treating their buildings as containers for technology and start designing them as part of the production system.
We're asking more of our manufacturing facilities than ever before. We expect them to accommodate technologies that are evolving faster than the buildings can support.
Yet there's a fundamental contradiction in how we approach manufacturing infrastructure.
We invest enormous amounts in developing the technology that drives production, then risk treating the infrastructure supporting it as a secondary consideration.
A manufacturer can spend months researching its next piece of equipment, understanding its capabilities and calculating its return on investment.
But how early does anyone establish whether the building can actually support it?
Not simply whether there's enough room on the factory floor. The building might have the space, but that doesn't mean it has the electrical capacity to power the equipment or the infrastructure needed to support the additional demands of production.
And perhaps most importantly, whether the infrastructure being installed today will still be fit for purpose when the business needs to expand again.
These questions should be answered before the design process even begins, because the answers should shape the design in the first place.
And the urgency is becoming harder to ignore.
According to the Make UK and PwC Executive Survey 2026, 68% of manufacturers are increasing investment in new product development. Yet Make UK's 2026 Makers' Manifesto identifies high energy costs and slow infrastructure delivery among the barriers holding British manufacturing back.
Meanwhile, the UK Government announced reforms in March 2026 to address mounting demand for electricity grid connections, including from industrial sites.
The problem is clear. We're encouraging manufacturers to invest in more advanced technology, while the infrastructure needed to support that investment is already under pressure.
And if we're serious about increasing Britain's manufacturing capabilities, we need to start treating infrastructure as a strategic investment rather than a construction afterthought.
When we talk about advanced manufacturing, the conversation tends to gravitate towards what's happening on the production floor.
Robotics. CNC machinery. Automation. Digital manufacturing. These are all important, but they're only part of the picture.
Infrastructure is the underlying network of systems that allows a manufacturing operation to function. That includes:
It's also how those systems interact with the production equipment and with each other.
The Institution of Civil Engineers' report, A Systems Approach to Infrastructure Delivery, makes an important distinction between delivering physical structures and delivering functioning systems.
It argues that infrastructure can only perform as intended when the building and all the systems supporting its operation are designed to work together.
Although the report focuses on major infrastructure projects, the principle is just as relevant to advanced manufacturing facilities.
A factory isn't successful simply because the building has been completed.
The building has to support what the organisation needs to produce. Only then is it successful.
It's easy to get caught up in what a new manufacturing facility should look like, or how much additional machinery it can accommodate. But that doesn't necessarily mean we've understood what the building needs to support.
And that's where problems can start.
Consider a manufacturer preparing to install several new CNC machines.
The machinery has been selected and production forecasts are prepared. The next step is to work out where the machines will go.
This is where complications start to arise. The machinery might demand more power than the building can currently supply, or require specialist foundations and additional cooling.
Before you know it, what appeared to be a straightforward equipment expansion has turned into a much more complex construction project.
How do you prevent this, you ask?
By addressing the technical requirements before the investment decisions are made, rather than treating them as problems to solve further down the line.
We've seen a similar challenge across the wider construction industry, where design can progress considerably before the practical and commercial implications have been properly tested.
Manufacturing infrastructure should not follow the same pattern.
We've seen how important this is through our work with Isembard. Their new 38,000 sq ft manufacturing headquarters needed more than space for additional machinery. The building also required increased electrical capacity to support CNC equipment, alongside the infrastructure needed for greater automation.
The requirements of the manufacturing operation helped determine what the building needed to deliver.
In its article, Designing the Future of Infrastructure, Dassault Systèmes makes the case for bringing technical considerations into the design process much earlier. And rightly so, because technical decisions rarely exist in isolation.
Change one element and there's likely to be a knock-on effect elsewhere.
Moving a production line could affect service distribution, while additional machinery might place demands on infrastructure that the original design never accounted for.
The building itself is part of the production system and it should be treated that way.
Designing each system independently and hoping everything works together at the end is not a particularly sophisticated approach to an industry built on precision.
Take our work with Essex X-Ray. Their new 59,000 sq ft headquarters needed to accommodate specialist X-ray testing environments alongside the wider manufacturing operation.
The building had to be designed around the technical requirements of those processes, rather than expecting the processes to work around the building.
Everything might look tickety-boo on paper, but that doesn't necessarily mean the facility is ready.
And if the building can't support the operation it's being designed for, what exactly have we achieved?
A decision about electrical infrastructure might sound like something for an engineer.
And the engineering solution absolutely requires specialist expertise.
However, decisions about the capacity a business needs and how much disruption it can realistically afford involve much broader commercial considerations.
These decisions go beyond the building itself, affecting the cost of the project and how well the business can operate and adapt to future demands.
The people around the table should include not just those designing and delivering the project, but the people who will actually be running the operations and driving the business forward.
The UK Planning Inspectorate's advice on good design for nationally significant infrastructure projects emphasises the importance of establishing design principles early and demonstrating how a project responds to its intended outcomes.
That guidance applies specifically to major infrastructure projects, rather than ordinary factory fit-outs. Nevertheless, the underlying lesson is relevant.
Good design needs a clearly defined purpose.
For manufacturers, that means being able to explain what the facility must achieve operationally before deciding what it should look like.
Different teams within the business will naturally have different priorities. But just like the building and its infrastructure, they all need to work together to shape the same brief.
Because if each department is working towards a different definition of success, the building design will eventually expose those differences.
Our work with Atlas Copco Group is a good example. Their 55,000 sq ft headquarters had to support five different business divisions, with manufacturing and workshop operations forming part of the wider facility.
Understanding how the business needed to operate was essential to developing the building design. The completed project increased workshop capacity by 40%.
It's a reminder that the requirements of the wider business need to inform the design, not just the requirements of individual departments.
Almost every major facility project now promises to be future-proof. It's an appealing ambition, but remarkably easy to say without explaining what it actually means.
Future-proofing isn't simply providing more floorspace than the business currently needs. Nor does it mean installing oversized infrastructure everywhere, just in case. That can become expensive very quickly.
The more intelligent approach is to understand how the business might evolve and make sure the building can adapt alongside it.
Imagine a manufacturer expecting to increase its production capacity over the next five years.
It might not make commercial sense to install every future machine or electrical connection immediately. But planning the infrastructure around potential expansion could save considerable disruption later, particularly if it means avoiding major alterations to a recently completed facility.
And this is where short-term cost savings can become a problem.
Construction budgets are under pressure, and manufacturers have every reason to challenge expenditure. But there's an important difference between removing unnecessary costs and removing the capacity a business may later depend on.
Reducing the scope of an electrical upgrade might make the initial project more affordable. But if that decision means paying for another major intervention two years later, have you really saved anything?
Future-proofing isn't about paying for tomorrow's factory today. It's about making decisions now that won't make tomorrow's factory unnecessarily expensive.
Advanced manufacturing is becoming increasingly connected, with greater automation placing new demands on the buildings and infrastructure that support it.
Yet buildings are long-life assets.
The machinery operating inside them may change several times before the structure reaches the end of its useful life.
That creates a fundamental design challenge.
How do we create facilities capable of supporting technologies and production requirements that may be very different from those in use today?
We won't answer that question by treating infrastructure as something to squeeze into a completed layout.
Nor by focusing entirely on what the business needs on opening day.
We need a shift in thinking.
One that starts with understanding the operational requirements and ensuring the building is designed to work alongside the manufacturing processes it supports.
Because the next generation of advanced manufacturing won't be defined solely by what happens on the production line. It will also be defined by whether the infrastructure supporting it can keep up and adapt.
Is your manufacturing facility ready for what's next?
Whether you're expanding production or introducing new technology, your building needs to be capable of supporting your ambitions.
At Habit Action, we help advanced manufacturers understand their facility requirements and develop workplaces designed around the way their businesses operate.
Talk to our team about your manufacturing facility.