IIoT · Automation · PLC & SCADA · Software
We connect existing PLCs, sensors and machines to real-time monitoring, automation and software — engineered by one team from the sensor terminal block to the number on your phone. No rip-and-replace.
Schematic · simulated values
The problem
Every machine on your floor already produces data. The PLC knows the cycle count. The drive knows the current draw. The controller knows the temperature deviation. Almost all of it is overwritten on the next scan and never reaches anyone who could act on it.
None of this is a data problem. The data exists. It is a connectivity problem, and it is solvable without changing a single machine on your floor.
Forty minutes lost on the night shift. The stop is known. The cause is a guess made three days later by someone who was not there.
Written on a sheet, typed into a spreadsheet the next morning, reconciled at month end. Every number in the business is at least a shift old.
You know what the plant costs to run. You do not know which machine, which shift or which product is responsible for it.
The four-minute stoppages nobody records. On most lines they add up to more lost time than the breakdowns everyone talks about.
Brownfield first
Almost every plant we look at runs equipment from three or four decades and five or six vendors. That is normal, and it is workable. We connect to what exists — in read-only mode wherever possible — and add instrumentation only where a machine genuinely exposes nothing.
Already works with
Reading a PLC over Modbus TCP, OPC UA or Ethernet/IP is non-intrusive. We poll registers and tags that already exist. Where a value is only held internally and must be exposed, we identify it during the survey and tell you before quoting.
A current transformer around the motor feed gives you run, stop and load. A proximity sensor on the output gives you a count. A thermocouple gives you condition. No modification to the machine, installable in a maintenance window.
Installation is planned around your shutdowns. Nothing goes onto a running line without an agreed method statement, and every migration has a defined way back.
The first engagement is deliberately small — a few machines, a few weeks, real data. Prove it, then scale it. That sequencing is better for you and it is better for us.
Interactive demo
This is the kind of system we build, running in your browser. Stop a machine, change the line setpoint, watch a fault develop and see it reach the event log. Every value is simulated — it is a demonstration of the interface and the logic, not a real plant.
3 of 4 machines running. Overall equipment effectiveness 68.9 percent. No active faults.
Injection 01
IM-1200
Press 02
HP-400
CNC 03
VMC-850
Packing 04
PK-2
In a real deployment these values come from your PLCs and retrofitted sensors, the OEE calculation states its own assumptions, and every stop prompts the operator for a reason code. The interface is the easy part — getting trustworthy data into it is the engineering.
The path
Ten stages. Every industrial data system is some version of this path — the engineering is in the choices made at each step, and in the boundary at stage four.
Every machine exposes something. A controller with readable tags, a drive with a Modbus port, or — at minimum — a motor drawing current and an output you can count.
Read more about this stageScroll to advance · stage 1 of 10
What we build
Grouped by where they sit on the path. Most engagements start in one column and expand into the next — which is why they are delivered by the same people rather than handed between vendors.
Make the machine act on it
Understand why it happened
Not sure which applies? Most plants start with machine monitoring on one line.
Industries
Reading a PLC is the same everywhere. Knowing what a CIP cycle should look like, why a loom stops, or what an OEM audit will ask for is not — and that is where projects succeed or waste a year.
Discrete manufacturing plants usually have the widest machine mix of any sector — presses, CNCs, welders, assembly stations and packing lines from a dozen makers and four decades. That mix is exactly why visibility is hard, and exactly why a retrofit approach matters more here than anywhere else.
Manufacturing in detailTypical problems
What we build for it
How we work
Every phase produces something you own and can act on. If stage two says the project is not worth doing, we tell you at stage two.
1–2 conversations
We start with the business problem, not the technology. What can you not answer today, what does it cost you, and what would you do differently if you could see it. If the honest answer is that a monitoring system would not change any decision, we will say so.
1–3 days on site
A physical survey of the plant. Every machine in scope: make, model, controller, available protocols, spare I/O, panel condition, existing meters. Plus the network, the shop-floor environment and the shutdown windows we will have to work in.
1–2 weeks
The technical architecture: what is read from where, over which protocol, at what rate, through which gateway, into what data model, presented how. Written down and reviewed with your team before anything is built, because a disagreement on paper costs nothing.
2–8 weeks per phase
Build. PLC and HMI code, gateway configuration, edge logic, backend services, dashboards and applications — developed against simulated or offline equipment wherever possible so your production line is not the test rig.
1–2 weeks
Connect the parts and prove they talk: machine to gateway, gateway to platform, platform to your ERP or MES. Tested with real failure — target system down, malformed data, duplicates, network partition — because all of those will happen eventually.
Your shutdown window
Physical installation and commissioning, planned around your production schedule. Loop checks, dry runs, staged cut-over, and — for anything that changes machine behaviour — the previous configuration kept intact and restorable.
First 4–6 weeks
We watch the system in production with you. The first month always surfaces something: an assumption about the process that was wrong, a reason code list that needs changing, a threshold that is too sensitive. Fixing that is part of the project, not a change request.
Ongoing, if you want it
The system is now producing evidence. Where it points to a further change — a bottleneck to address, an asset to instrument, a process to automate — we scope the next phase from measurement rather than from assumption. Or you take it from here; the documentation is written so you can.
Projects
This company is new. Rather than borrow credibility we have not earned, we publish the work that exists: demonstration rigs we have actually built, and reference architectures we would propose — both labelled as such, so you can judge the engineering rather than the marketing.
Nothing on this website is a fabricated client, testimonial, certification, award or result. When real customer projects exist, they will be published separately, with the customer’s written permission, and the distinction from these demonstrations will stay visible.
Three PLC brands and one machine with no controller at all, read through one gateway and normalised into a single tag model — the situation almost every Indian plant is actually in.
The design we would propose for the most common request we get: 'the PLC knows, but nobody upstream can see it.' Published in full so it can be judged technically.
The half of machine monitoring that is usually done badly: capturing why a machine stopped, in under five seconds, in a way operators will actually keep doing.
High-frequency vibration data processed on the gateway so that only features travel upstream — the difference between a practical system and an unaffordable one.
Why us
There is a boundary in every industrial project where the automation ends and the software begins. It is where projects fail, and it is where two vendors point at each other.
Automation companies
Know the panel, the protocol and the plant. Deliver control systems that work. Then hand you a closed box that reports nothing, because software was never the discipline.
Stops at the panel
Software companies
Build good applications and clean dashboards. Have never opened a control panel, do not know what Profinet is, and cannot tell you why reading that tag is a bad idea on a running line.
Never reaches the machine
The same team that writes the PLC logic designs the tag model, builds the API and ships the mobile app. There is no handoff, so there is no interface to blame. That is not a slogan — it is the specific reason we can quote a project from sensor to dashboard and be accountable for all of it.
We publish architectures, protocols and constraints rather than adjectives. If you are technical, judge us on the depth of the service pages.
Source code, schema, credentials, documentation, on infrastructure you control. Built with mainstream technology so anyone competent could take it over.
Where something is outside our competence — functional safety certification, for instance — we say so before contracting, not during commissioning.
We would rather prove one line than sell a transformation programme. Every proposal is phased so each stage is independently useful.
Technology
Not a badge wall. These are the protocols, controllers and platforms we read, write, program and integrate — chosen per site according to what is installed, not according to what we prefer.
Including how the OT/IT boundary is segmented and who holds the credentials.
Commercials
We do not publish a price list for industrial projects, because a number without a scope is worthless to you and dishonest from us. What we will do is tell you exactly what drives the cost, so you can size it yourself before you talk to anyone.
A monitoring pilot on one line is a small, defined project with a fixed price. A multi-plant programme is not, and we would scope it in phases rather than quote it as one number.
The single biggest factor. Design effort is largely fixed; per-machine cost falls sharply with count.
A modern PLC with OPC UA is a configuration task. A 1990s machine with no controller needs instrumentation, wiring and a panel.
One protocol across the plant is straightforward. Six vendors across four decades is real integration work.
If the shop floor has no network, that is a separate piece of work — and it is often the largest surprise in a first project.
A dashboard is one thing. OEE with reason codes, ERP integration and a mobile app is another.
Reading data is non-intrusive. Changing what a machine does involves control design, testing, commissioning and risk.
Local deployment avoids recurring cost and satisfies data policies. Cloud is easier to scale across sites.
Business-hours response and 24/7 coverage are different commitments with different costs.
Questions
Including the one about why you should trust a company that started this year.
No — small and mid-size plants are the majority of the work, and they often get more from it because there is less existing instrumentation and more that is currently invisible. A first project on one line is deliberately small in scope and cost. The approach does not require a transformation budget to begin.
Almost never. We read from the controllers you already have, in read-only mode, without changing the control program. Where a machine has no controller at all, we add external instrumentation — a current transformer, a counting sensor — which does not modify the machine. Replacement only comes up when a controller is obsolete and unsupportable, and even then it is a migration rather than a line rebuild.
A monitoring pilot covering a handful of machines is typically a few weeks from site survey to live dashboard, depending on site access, network readiness and how much instrumentation must be added. Automation projects take longer because they involve design, testing and commissioning windows. We give a phase-by-phase timeline with the proposal rather than a single date.
Not necessarily. The whole system can run on-premises with dashboards served on your own network. Cloud is an option, not a requirement. Where cloud is used, only the gateway needs outbound connectivity, normally on a separate, segmented network — the control network is never exposed.
You do. Systems are built on infrastructure you control, and you receive the source code, database schema, credentials and documentation. We use mainstream technologies specifically so another competent team could take the work over. We would rather you stay because the work is good than because leaving is hard.
That is a fair question and we will not answer it with invented credentials. What we offer instead is verifiable: read the service pages and judge whether they demonstrate real engineering understanding, look at the architectures and demonstration builds we publish, and start with a small, bounded first project where the risk to you is limited and the work either proves itself or does not. Every claim on this site is one you can test.
Yes, and it is common. We are frequently engaged for the data and software layer above a control system somebody else built and maintains. We do not need ownership of the whole stack to be useful, and we will not create a situation where your existing vendor cannot support their own system.
The makes and models of the machines involved, whether they have controllers and which ones, roughly how many machines and lines, what you want to be able to see or control, and what network exists on the floor. That is usually enough for a realistic range. For anything substantial we would visit before quoting a fixed price.
