Under-warranty Non-standard Automation Equipment Relocation: Underlying Reasons Manufacturers Refuse Participation

Honzer Industrial Risk & Consulting

✅ Third-Party Technical Risk Control for Non-Standard Automation Equipment

✅ QA/QC & Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) for Global Manufacturing Projects

🔗 LinkedIn：www.linkedin.com/in/hongguang-chen-2385303aa

🌐 Official Website：https://nexlytop.com

📩 Email：ruppertmaryjanenp113@gmail.com

Meta Description

When non-standard automation equipment is out of warranty and needs relocation, why do most original manufacturers refuse to coordinate resources? Based on industry facts, this article explains the real reasons and provides practical relocation solutions for factories.

Many factories face a common dilemma: when their out-of-warranty non-standard automation equipment needs disassembly, relocation, repositioning and commissioning, they want to invite the original equipment manufacturer to coordinate the work. However, most suppliers will decline and avoid taking on the job.

It is not that manufacturers lack technical capability or refuse to provide after-sales service. In the automation industry, everyone clearly understands that equipment relocation seems simple—just disassemble, move and reinstall. In fact, it comes with hidden troubles, high safety risks, slim profit margins and a high chance of being blamed unfairly. It is simply a thankless task.

1. Mismatched Cost and Benefit — Not Worthwhile for Manufacturers

Non-standard automation equipment is fully customized with no unified disassembly standard or standardized relocation procedure.

Manufacturers face a pricing dilemma. A high quotation makes customers turn to external industrial lifting and relocation companies. A low quotation cannot cover travel expenses, on-site labor, hoisting fees and repeated commissioning costs for engineers.

Furthermore, core businesses of automation equipment manufacturers focus on R&D, assembling new machines and securing new orders. Senior engineers and technical staff already have tight schedules. Reassigning key personnel to fragmented relocation work delays new project delivery. The implicit opportunity loss far exceeds the service fee from relocation.

In addition, out-of-warranty equipment relocation is almost always a one-time demand. It rarely drives follow-up orders for new equipment or modification projects, leaving no long-term commercial value. Hence manufacturers are unwilling to allocate resources.

2. Extremely High Liability Risks — Prone to Disputes and Blame

2.1 Unclear Division of Equipment Failure Liability

After disassembly, transportation and re-installation, non-standard equipment commonly suffers frame slight deformation, positioning benchmark deviation, circuit wear, air leakage and servo origin loss.

The equipment has been in operation for years with natural aging and wear. Once malfunctions occur after relocation, customers tend to assume the damage is caused by the manufacturer’s disassembly and installation, demanding free repair and complimentary commissioning.

It is impossible to clearly distinguish failures caused by natural aging versus relocation operations. Once the original manufacturer gets involved, it is often forced to provide unlimited after-sales support free of charge.

2.2 Joint Safety Liability for On-site Construction

Relocation of large non-standard equipment involves heavy frame dismantling, high-altitude hoisting, power-off wiring and on-site positioning.

In case of equipment collision damage or on-site work injuries during construction, the original manufacturer will bear joint liability once it participates in coordination, leading to complicated responsibility disputes.

2.3 Poor On-site Factory Conditions Lead to Extra Rework Costs

Most old factories have narrow passageways, uneven ground foundations, limited power-outage construction windows and inadequate on-site coordination staff.

Non-standard equipment requires extremely high precision in installation levelness, coaxiality and positioning benchmarks. Rework, rectification and repeated calibration caused by poor on-site conditions are usually borne by the manufacturer, resulting in a lose-lose situation.

3. Missing Technical Documentation for Old Equipment — Relocation & Commissioning Far Harder Than New Installation

For many aged out-of-warranty non-standard devices, original drawings, circuit and pneumatic schematics, process parameters and program backups are incomplete or even lost.

On-site technicians have to reorganize circuits, verify hardware parameters and figure out control logic from scratch, consuming massive time and effort.

Moreover, non-standard equipment relocation is never a simple dismantle-and-install job. It requires leveling, precision alignment, origin reset, overall joint debugging and mass production process verification. Commissioning takes far more working hours than disassembly and assembly.

Every non-standard machine has exclusive structures, tooling and control logic, with no universal operating process. Standardized batch operation is impossible, making working hours and costs completely uncontrollable.

4. Liability Division After Warranty Expiry — Manufacturers Draw Clear Service Boundaries

Within the warranty period, manufacturers are obligated to provide supporting after-sales service, fault handling and on-site cooperation. Once the warranty expires, industry practice only accepts individual paid maintenance, and rarely takes on systematic overall projects such as equipment relocation.

There is also a realistic factor: many customers believe that since the equipment is made by the original manufacturer, relocation should be assisted as a favor. They are reluctant to pay reasonable service fees and even expect free maintenance and full machine commissioning. Such expectation gaps make manufacturers refuse participation directly to avoid subsequent disputes from the start.

5. Practical Suggestion for Factories: No Need to Force Full Service from Original Manufacturer

The mature and reliable industry practice does not require one-stop full service from the original supplier:

Entrust professional industrial equipment lifting and relocation companies to handle overall disassembly, transportation and factory entry positioning;

Separately arrange original factory engineers to conduct precision leveling, benchmark alignment, origin recovery and mass production commissioning.

• Separating physical handling from professional technical commissioning ensures clear responsibilities, transparent costs and fewer disputes. It is currently the most reliable option for factory equipment relocation.

Conclusion

In short, the reluctance of manufacturers to participate in out-of-warranty non-standard automation equipment relocation is not a matter of poor service attitude. It results from low profit, high risks, ambiguous liability division, consumption of core manpower and no follow-up commercial value.

Factories do not have to rely entirely on the original manufacturer for full relocation services. Adopting the model of professional relocation company + original factory engineer technical commissioning saves cost and effort, while avoiding liability disputes effectively.