This approach requires less oversight than a traditional project. Although this tends to be more affordable than a fully custom engineered machine, you are still paying the price of the research and development that went into the product, making this more costly than the in-house build. Lastly, with this option, you are essentially picking a system in the product lineup that best suits your requirements, leaving less room for customization and/or unique component specifications.

In Review

The only question now is, which method is best for your company. The way we look at it, there isn’t necessarily a right and wrong method. For example, building internally may yield the lowest cost, but only when the build process goes exactly to plan, requiring significantly talented internal resources. Otherwise, you may take on unnecessary risk and consume resources, restraining your team’s ability to win new business.

Outsourcing the custom building process allows you to build a machine exactly to spec, albeit at a considerable cost. If the specification is forward-thinking and comprehensive, this may yield the best long-term result and assimilate well with your other equipment. Seeing as how automotive is going through a period of disruptive innovation, the likelihood of your company being stuck with an outdated piece of capital equipment is more likely.

Finally, we looked at the modular or productized test approach. System platforms like ATA’s Ensure™ provide you with well-defined solutions for the future, allowing you to focus on winning business rather than writing a testing specification. The added support will become an extension of your team, completely freeing up your resources, while still having the ability to pick up a phone or drop in to get a status update. Finally, a warranty and performance guarantee make this the option of the least risk.

Select one of the blocks below to learn more on how ATA Ensure™ can help your team win business, free up resources and support your team’s initiatives.