Success Story: From manual operation to centralized control—reducing errors and operational times

The Challenge: When an operation relies entirely on the team’s hands

For years, this self-consumption plant operated with a manual dosing system.

The process moved forward, but each batch depended on the operator’s precision, experience, and ability to execute every step correctly.

As the lead team at Ingelam points out:

 “The system worked, but it relied too heavily on human intervention. And when that happens, variability stops being an exception and becomes part of the process.”

This led to:

The plant wasn’t at a standstill.

But it wasn’t ready to grow, either.

The Starting Point: An operation without visibility or structured control

The problem wasn’t just technical.

It was operational.

There was little centralized control, poor traceability, and a high reliance on the individual knowledge of each operator. As Carlos (Automation Engineer at Ingelam) explains:

“When you don’t have a system that centralizes the operation, each person ends up executing the process their own way. And that makes it very difficult to maintain consistency.”

In this context, any improvement depended more on human effort than on the system itself.

The Solution: Automating wasn’t enough; the operation had to be redesigned

At Ingelam, we understood that the goal wasn’t simply to automate the dosing process.

The goal was to transform the way the plant operated.

That is why the solution was designed with a comprehensive approach:

As Diego (Project Engineer) summarizes:

“It wasn’t about changing one part of the process. It was about getting the entire operation to start behaving like a system.”

A Key Shift: From executing tasks to controlling the operation

One of the biggest impacts of the project wasn’t just in the technology, but in the role of the human team.

Before, the staff was focused on executing every step of the process.


Afterwards, they transitioned to supervising, controlling, and making decisions.

As Harold (Ingelam Technical Team) points out:

“When you automate properly, you don’t replace people. You take away their operational burden and give them more control over what is happening.”

This shift allowed them to:

The Results: More production, less time, more control

The impact was clear and measurable:

  • The plant went from producing approximately 200 manual batches to 400 automatic batches daily

  • An operational reduction of nearly 7 hours per shift was achieved

  • Dosing errors were reduced

  • Product consistency improved

  • The operation was centralized

What this project proves

This case reflects something we constantly see on the shop floor:

The problem isn’t always installed capacity.

It’s how the operation is structured.

When a process relies too heavily on manual intervention:

But when automated strategically:

The Ingelam Perspective: Engineering that understands the real operation

This project wasn’t just about implementing technology.

It was about understanding how the plant operated, identifying its limitations, and building a solution that truly generated an impact.

As the Ingelam team mentions in several interviews:

“We don’t just come in to install equipment. We come in to understand how the operation works and improve it.”

That is the approach that allows automation to stop being an expense and become a strategic investment.

Does your plant still rely on manual processes to operate?

If a critical part of your operation today relies too heavily on manual intervention, there are likely opportunities to improve productivity, reduce errors, and gain greater control.