A manufacturer’s quality management responsibility extends beyond internal operations to encompass the entire supply chain, including service providers. This article explores how manufacturers can drive alignment between their quality goals and those of control system integrators, with the ultimate goal of supporting compliance, promoting operational excellence, and enabling long-term success.  

The Expanding Role of Service Providers  

Manufacturers increasingly rely on service providers to augment capabilities and deliver specialized expertise outside their core business. Professional service firms like control system integrators can play a vital role in implementing automation and process control solutions that drive efficiency, improved product quality, and competitiveness.  

While these partnerships are essential, they introduce challenges particularly around quality. Service providers use their own tools, processes, and standards. This can create disconnects between what manufacturers expect and what providers deliver. The issue is often not competence, but misaligned priorities. A manufacturer may emphasize long-term maintainability, regulatory compliance, or documentation, while a provider may focus on speed of delivery, novel technologies and techniques, or cost efficiency. Without deliberate alignment, even well-executed work can fall short of the manufacturer’s quality expectations.  

P - Main body. paragraph of text goes here. Main body. paragraph of text goes here. Main body. paragraph of text goes here.

Challenges in Managing External Quality  

Service providers operate outside the manufacturer’s direct control, introducing several complexities:  

Lack of Standardization  

Not all integrators follow the same quality framework. Without third-party certification, it’s difficult to benchmark performance.  

Limited Visibility  

Manufacturers may not see how quality is managed during design, programming, or commissioning.  

Misaligned Expectations  

Without clear criteria, manufacturers and integrators may define success differently.  

Impact on Compliance  

Poor documentation or validation may jeopardize regulatory compliance, especially in regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals.  

Example Scenario: “Misaligned Expectations”  

A pharmaceutical manufacturer partners with a control system integrator to upgrade its batch control system. The manufacturer’s quality philosophy emphasizes QbD (Quality by Design), which prioritizes documentation, validation, and regulatory compliance. They adhere to GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) regulations and GAMP (Good Automated Manufacturing Practice) guidelines.  

The integrator prioritizes responsiveness and rapid issue resolution as its competitive advantage, which played a major role in the manufacturer’s selection process. When a configuration error is found during commissioning, the integrator quickly corrects it and moves on, adhering to their strategy of response and thereby perceived customer satisfaction.  

However, for the manufacturer, the fix was a quality failure. It wasn’t validated through change control, lacked traceability, and revealed the integrator’s limited GAMP familiarity. While the issue was resolved quickly, it introduced compliance risk and undermined the manufacturer’s expectations for quality and regulatory readiness.  

Strategies for Ensuring Quality Alignment  

To mitigate misaligned quality goals, manufacturers should take a structured approach to selecting and managing service providers:  

Prequalify the Service Provider  

Assess whether the provider has the necessary quality systems, regulatory knowledge, and industry experience. For regulated industries, evaluate their GAMP familiarity, documentation practices, and audit readiness. A formal prequalification process, similar to supplier audits, can uncover gaps early and set the tone for quality alignment. Additionally, look for third-party certifications like CSIA (Control System Integrators Association), which validate quality systems and business practices.  

Define Quality Expectations Upfront  

Set clear, measurable criteria in the scope of work. These should cover documentation, testing, validation, and acceptance.  

Evaluate Quality Culture  

Ask how the provider manages quality. Do they have a documented quality management system? How do they handle audits, corrective actions, and improvement?  

Prioritize Communication and Transparency  

Choose partners who provide updates, share metrics, and are open about risks. Transparency builds trust and enables early corrections.  

Request Case Studies or References  

Ask for examples of past projects where quality was a differentiator. This validates their ability to deliver under real-world conditions.  

Improve Visibility Through Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT)  

An effective way to bridge the visibility gap is for manufacturers to actively participate in Factory Acceptance Testing. FAT provides a structured opportunity to observe how the integrator approaches quality during system development before the solution is deployed on-site.  

FAT allows manufacturers to:  

• Validate that the system meets functional and quality requirements.  
• Review documentation and test protocols.  
• Find compliance gaps early.  
• Ensure alignment with internal standards and regulatory expectations. This hands-on involvement not only improves transparency but also facilitates collaboration and shared accountability for quality outcomes.  

Conclusion  

By prequalifying service providers, defining expectations early, taking part in key quality milestones like Factory Acceptance Testing, and promoting a culture of transparency and collaboration, manufacturers can extend their quality management systems beyond their own walls. Taking these steps protects their compliance posture and promotes operational excellence while building strong, value driven partnerships.