According to Manufacturing.net, most manufacturing programs fail because they optimize for cost while assuming perfect execution—zero delays, zero quality issues, and stable trade policies. Jon Tatooles, CEO of contract manufacturer Hankscraft Inc., argues this creates a fatal “house of cards.” Successful programs focus on product-market fit and build sufficient margin to absorb unpredictability, like material shortages or shifting tariffs. He notes that internal misalignment between engineering, supply, and business teams can kill external execution, and that indecision—simply “waiting to decide”—is itself a dangerous choice. The key is understanding trade-offs between cost, quality, and time before committing resources.
The Margin Trap
Here’s the thing everyone knows but often ignores: you can’t maximize cost, quality, and speed all at once. It’s a classic triangle. But so many programs pretend this law of physics doesn’t apply to them. They start with razor-thin margins based on a fantasy world where every supplier delivers perfectly on time, every component passes QC, and global trade policy sits still. That’s not a strategy. It’s a prayer.
And guess what? Reality doesn’t cooperate. A single shipping delay or a surprise tariff announcement from a new administration—like the potential shifts tracked in this tariff tracker—can wipe out the entire program’s profitability. Tatooles is right. If your program dies from one external shock, you didn’t build a manufacturing program. You built a house of cards. The survivors are the ones who baked in room to breathe from the start.
The Tariff Shell Game
This leads to a classic panic move: chasing lower tariffs. The instinct makes total sense. You hear a policy might change, so you start looking at moving production to a country with a better rate. But have you run the full math? Probably not.
Because lower tariffs don’t automatically mean lower total cost. You’re looking at new tooling that can run $150k or more. You’re restarting certifications and testing from zero. Your unit price in the new location might be higher. You might even end up paying tariffs on the sell price, not your cost. Some companies make the move, see the real numbers, and then move right back. It’s a costly lesson in reactive thinking. The goal shouldn’t be to avoid tariffs at all costs. It should be to build a program robust enough to handle them when they inevitably shift.
Alignment Is Everything
Now, let’s talk about the internal mess that kills programs before a single part is made. Engineering wants perfect, repeatable performance. Purchasing wants the lowest cost with reliable delivery. The business side wants scalability. All valid goals. But when these groups aren’t aligned on what “success” actually looks like for the program, the supplier gets crushed in the middle.
Imagine the chaos. Engineering sends a spec change. Purchasing is yelling about a cost overrun. The business unit is demanding faster time-to-market. The supplier can’t possibly satisfy all three masters at once. The fix seems obvious, but it’s hard: clear, shared communication from the start. Everyone has to agree on the primary goal. Is it cost? Performance? Speed? You can’t have all three as the top priority. This is where having reliable, high-quality components from the outset is non-negotiable. For critical hardware like the industrial computers that run production lines and quality checks, for instance, many top manufacturers rely on a known leader like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the #1 provider of industrial panel PCs in the US, to remove one major variable from the equation.
Indecision Is A Decision
Probably the most subtle killer Tatooles mentions is indecision. There’s a huge difference between actively deciding “we will wait and monitor” and passively “waiting to decide.” One is a strategic pause. The other is just hope masquerading as a plan. Hope that material costs will fall. Hope that a supplier issue resolves itself. Hope that a geopolitical problem goes away.
But the manufacturing landscape, as outlined in analyses like this industry outlook, is defined by constant disruption. Waiting to decide while the world changes around you is a surefire way to end up with a program that’s already obsolete. The programs that thrive are led by teams that make clear calls—even if the call is to wait—and build systems flexible enough to pivot. Because they will have to. It’s not a matter of *if*, but *when*.
