Line integration is, at the end of the day, a sum of many parts and decisions. If machines run well individually, but fail as a coordinated effort, the whole Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) suffers. A line’s true performance lies in the space between machines: in the rates, buffers, handoffs, and controls. Integration is the connective tissue that determines where lines succeed or disappoint.

In this article, we’ll cover:

• How success differs in an integrated line
• The factors of line balancing, accumulation, and controls integration
• The frameworks for accountability and line performance
• When a multi-vendor framework wins over a single-source one

As mentioned before, line integration is only as great as the sum of its parts. OEE compounds through seemingly minor failures and hold-ups, and that includes cross-machine handoffs. The weakest link sets the pace for the whole line. If all the machines run well, but not perfectly, the combined availability and performance ranks lower than any machine on its own.

To actually understand the OEE of your integrated line, you should evaluate all of the machines and cross-machine stages together. Accounting for machines individually misses the greatest factor in determining line output: the human aspect. Once you understand OEE accurately, you have the ability to honestly improve the effectiveness of your overall line.

Three integration factors that do the heavy lifting in turning individual machines into a coordinated line:

1. Line Balancing

   The aim of line balancing is to match the rates of every machine to each other. No single stage should severely impact upstream or downstream efforts – we want to avoid a queue of backed-up product and idle waiting time. This is accomplished primarily through sizing and buffering each stage to meet the others, and it’s often extra upstream headroom that does the trick.

2. Accumulation and Buffering

   Machines naturally have micro-stops – minor interruptions or hold-ups. However, while these may seem “micro,” they compound and impact the work of all the other machines. This is what buffering aims to avoid. Accumulation conveyors and buffers absorb small interruptions, so the line keeps flowing and machines aren’t dependent on each other.

3. Controls and Interfaces

   Having coordinated controls and interfaces doesn’t seem principally important, until an unexpected mishap happens at the other end of the line. Then you’ll wish you had better machine communication. Safe line-halting, controls, and data-sharing, allow the line to be monitored and diagnosed as a coordinated system. A patched together line without shared communication can function, but the integrated system achieves greater performance.

One question buyers often underestimate is performance accountability. When the integrated line misses the mark, who’s accountable for fixing it? The operating team? The vendor? The owner?

There are generally two frameworks:

1. Single-Source (Turnkey)
   One supplier integrates the machines and owns line performance. This includes the rates, buffers, controls, and commissioning of the whole. There’s one number to meet, and one party to call when the line doesn’t measure up.
2. Multi-Vendor (Best-of-Breed)

   The buyer assembles the best individual machines, often with a system integrator (SI), who ties them together. Each machine is the best for its specific job, but performance accountability is spread across multiple channels. Each vendor is accountable for their own machine, and accountability for cross-machine gaps usually falls on the buyer.


Neither framework always wins, but evaluating the difference in performance and accountability should be done deliberately. It’s better to decide earlier than clean up the mess later.

It’s easy to hear about the coordinated accountability of the single-source framework, and immediately discount a multi-vendor framework, but that’s not always the right call.

Multi-vendor wins when these two factors are at play: 1) a specialized machine from another supplier clearly outperforms the single-source offering, and 2) you have the internal capability (or a strong SI) to balance integration and accountability.

The weighed variables are singular accountability vs. performance capability where it counts. You accept more operational responsibility in exchange for the best machines. If, however, you’re content with line operations from a single vendor’s catalog, and you’re not looking to increase your responsibility, stick with the single-source framework.

A packaging line’s OEE is determined by the effectiveness of its integration. Balancing, buffering, communication, and accountability matter far more than any single machine’s specs. Evaluate your line as a coordinated system and make the integration and accountability decisions upfront. You’ll have a line to succeed rather than a set of gaps to fall through.