Why Industrial Companies Are Facing a Structural Decision
Industrial companies are currently facing a fundamental decision that goes far beyond individual technologies.
The key question is no longer which software to use, but how software is operated, updated, secured, and governed over the long term in industrial environments.
This is a structural decision, and it affects machine builders, component manufacturers, and plant operators alike.
The Wrong Question: “Build or Buy?”
In industrial automation, the discussion is often reduced to a simple question:
Should we build our own software infrastructure, or buy one?
This question misses the point.
The real question is:
Where do we truly differentiate, and what is necessary but interchangeable infrastructure?
Many successful industrial and technology companies share a common pattern:
Their differentiation does not lie in basic technical capabilities.
It lies in what creates long-term customer value and loyalty:
- the product itself,
- system integration,
- user experience,
- and the direct relationship with the customer.
Customer-specific software solutions that deliver concrete value are a key differentiator.
The generic software layer for operation, updates, security, and distribution is not. It is a means to an end, a capability, not a core of differentiation.
The Structural Problem of Industrial Automation
Industrial automation does not suffer from a lack of innovation.
It suffers from fragmentation.
Today, industrial software is created in many places at once:
- in-house developments by machine builders,
- software delivered by component manufacturers,
- specialized applications from third-party vendors.
Each of these solutions makes sense on its own.
Without a shared software operations layer, however, this diversity leads to:
- high integration effort,
- unclear operational responsibilities,
- inconsistent update processes,
- increasing security and compliance risks,
- growing platform sprawl in plants and factories.
Importantly, all parties act rationally.
Yet the system as a whole does not scale.
The Hidden “Infrastructure Tax”
Many industrial companies respond by trying to solve these challenges internally:
- building their own update mechanisms,
- developing proprietary app portals,
- creating custom security and role concepts,
- maintaining their own device management solutions.
At first, this feels controllable.
Over time, however, it creates a significant burden, a hidden infrastructure tax:
- years of development effort,
- continuous maintenance and evolution,
- regulatory requirements such as the Cyber Resilience Act,
- rising operational complexity,
- dependency on scarce internal expertise.
This infrastructure rarely creates differentiation.
It consumes resources without generating additional market value.
The Real Structural Decision
Many industrial companies could, in theory, build their own software platforms.
The critical question is not whether this is possible but whether it is the right use of resources.
Platform infrastructure is expensive, complex, and creates long-term obligations. It ties organizations to continuous operational responsibility without automatically strengthening their market position.
The real structural decision is therefore:
Not everything that is software-based needs to be built in-house.
What matters is who controls operation, lifecycle, and responsibility.
What Industrial Companies Should Not Build Themselves
Some capabilities are essential for every industrial company – but contribute little to differentiation:
- application and software lifecycle management,
- update and rollout mechanisms,
- device onboarding and provisioning,
- baseline security, role management, and audit trails,
- marketplace and software distribution logic.
These areas are complex, mission-critical, and increasingly regulated.
Building them internally means taking on permanent infrastructure responsibility.
What Industrial Companies Must Retain
At the same time, certain responsibilities should never be outsourced:
- brand and market presence,
- the customer relationship,
- system-level responsibility,
- application and portfolio decisions,
- freedom of choice regarding operation and hosting.
The key is not an either-or decision, but a clear separation of responsibilities.
FLECS: The Shared Software Operations Layer
FLECS is built precisely for this separation.
Not as a marketplace that takes over customer relationships. Not as a proprietary ecosystem. Not as a replacement for existing roles.
But as a neutral software operations layer for Software Defined Automation.
FLECS enables:
- standardized packaging and distribution of industrial software,
- secure operation, updates, and lifecycle management,
- deployment across edge devices, PLCs, IPCs, and cloud environments,
- fully branded, white-label platforms,
- clear responsibilities across the entire software lifecycle.
The infrastructure is shared.
Ownership, branding, and customer relationships remain with each company.
Value by Role
For Component Manufacturers
- Structure and maintain software professionally
- Roll out updates and security patches reliably
- Scale software without building a platform
Focus: better software – not infrastructure.
For Machine Builders and OEMs
- Build branded software platforms
- Integrate partner software in a controlled way
- Reduce lifecycle, update, and compliance risks
Focus: system responsibility and customer experience.
For Plant Operators
- Fewer platforms in operation
- Consistent update and security processes
- Clear responsibilities instead of platform chaos
Focus: stable and secure operations.
The Core Takeaway
The conclusion is straightforward:
Sustainable advantage does not come from building infrastructure.
It comes from controlling operation, integration, and responsibility.
In industrial automation, Software Defined Automation only scales when:
- infrastructure is shared,
- responsibilities are clearly defined,
- differentiation happens where it truly matters to customers.
The platform does not capture the value.
The one who takes responsibility does.
