Back to blog

Traditional Manufacturing Principle vs Smart Manufacturing

Last month I had a chat with one of my old colleagues. We used to work together back in manufacturing (feels like a lifetime ago). We ended up talking about the old days, the stuff we used to do, the situations we were thrown into without giving any insights, all the funny bits we missed. Somewhere in the middle of all that discussion, we found ourselves connecting those random memories to what people now call the “traditional principles of manufacturing”, back then, we didn’t even know that these situations even had any names.

Both of us had joined the manufacturing industry as freshers, after our graduation. We were just excited and completely clueless, but curious to figure out about “how plain cotton thread somehow turned into a t-shirt or fabric”. I was not directly working on the machines, but I was always surrounded by them, wandering on the shop floor, listening and feeling those noisy, greasy, always in motion. Now, when I think back, I realise, more than the machines, I was actually surrounded by this culture of repetition, process, some old-school wisdom which nobody really explained to us, but everyone followed.

We had systems (well, kind of a mess, but it worked). Lots of Excel sheets (even though we were implementing SAP R2). We ran around between departments, carried physical files, chased signatures. The planning office talked to everyone. Everything depended on people actually knowing what they were doing. And paper. So much paper. It didn’t feel inefficient at the time. It felt like the way things were supposed to be.

Understanding of Traditional Manufacturing Laws

Now, after more than two decades of working (including a good half-decade spent directly in manufacturing), I’ve started to really understand that what felt completely normal back then… were actually traditional manufacturing laws. We just didn’t call them that.

  • “Task were assigned and completed within schedule” is nothing but time based planning.
  • “Prioritization of high-volume SKUs and processes” is nothing but 80/20 thinking (Pareto Principle).
  • “Driving quality via repetitive trainings and inspections” is nothing but Six Sigma.
  • “Promotion comes mostly with tenure, not always skill” is nothing but Peter principle.

These “principles”, or whatever you call them, were all about stability, not speed. Manufacturing, especially back then, was about keeping things running due to thin margins and high stakes. Change is considered risky, and naturally, tradition came first, and transformation — if it happened at all — came slowly and cautiously.

Fast forward to the current situation, here we are, in the era of Smart Manufacturing, Industry 4.0, even 5.0, where traditional principles are shifting (this is what I feel) too. I don’t think that they are disappearing, but they are in the process of evolving. If you carefully place them side-by-side with the new reality we live in, the picture looks quite different.

Parkinson Principle

  • Old Context – Time-based tasks, overstaffing, idle time.
  • Smart Manufacturing Shift – AI triggers real-time workflows, just-in-time output.
  • New-Age Equivalent – “Automation aligns work to demand, not time.”

Pareto Principle (80/20)

  • Old Context – Static focus on high-yield inputs.
  • Smart Manufacturing Shift – Live data identifies shifting high-impact zones.
  • New-Age Equivalent – “Real-time data reveals the dynamic 20%.”.

Six Sigma

  • Old Context – Manual process control for quality.
  • Smart Manufacturing Shift – IoT + AI monitor & correct defects in real time.
  • New-Age Equivalent – “AI learns, adapts, and self-corrects for zero-defect goals.”.

Peter Principle

  • Old Context – Tenure-based promotions = mismatched roles.
  • Smart Manufacturing Shift – Skill-based roles, AI tasking & feedback loops.
  • New-Age Equivalent – “Smart roles evolve with capability, not hierarchy”.

New Reality vs ERP connection

Based on the comparison above, if we look at how traditional manufacturing laws are shifting in today’s smart manufacturing world, it’s clear that this transformation isn’t just philosophical, it’s also operational, and very much system-driven.

Below, I’m referring specifically to Infor LNCE, (because that’s what I work with), but honestly, I believe the same logic could apply to other modern ERP systems too.

Parkinson’s Law

Shift in Thinking: Real-time triggers.

ERP in Action: Advanced planning engines auto-adjust capacity.

Pareto Principle (80/20)

Shift in Thinking: Predictive insight.

ERP in Action: Dashboards track live KPIs and exception trends.

Six Sigma

Shift in Thinking: Digital quality.

ERP in Action: MES + AI + IoT detect defects and suggest corrective action plan.

Peter Principle

Shift in Thinking: Skills-based execution.

ERP in Action: Role-based workbenches assign tasks by capability, not title.

If you’re leading digital transformation, ERP implementation, or supply chain modernization—we need to understand that manufacturing is no longer just about efficiency, it’s about adaptability, and collaboration.

Is it a time to Rethink Traditional Laws in Manufacturing

The textile factory I knew back in 2003 was structured, hierarchical, and entirely experience-driven. The smart factory of today is dynamic and digital. The transition from old eras to the current one is not only about shifting from manual planning sheets to intelligent ERP implementations. The transformation isn’t just about tools. It’s rethinking about how we work, how we lead, and how we deliver value. As we move into the heart of Industry 4.0 and 5.0, many long-standing manufacturing principles may need to evolve.

Based on all, it might be right to say that:

“In smart manufacturing, the value of production is maximized when all resources (Man, Machines, and Metrics) collaborate in real-time through intelligent tactics (Tune, Tweak, Tailer) that deliver output with minimal friction.”

Final Thought

Manufacturing is evolving, but traditional principles are the basis of it, and they stand out even though no matter what. I don’t think that we can discard them, stating that the new era needs new principles; instead, we need to evolve and adopt them. Whether we’re modernizing an old factory or building a new smart plant from the ground up, there’s gotta be a balance between what tradition offers and what we need right now. It’s time to go beyond efficiency; it’s time to focus on making everything we do smarter and more agile.

💬 What do you think? Are these rules still useful in today’s smart factories? Or do we need to rewrite more of them?

 

Written by Amit Kumar