autonox Robotics

autonox Robotics, an SME designing consumer goods packaging robots, faced a structural engineering bottleneck: their robots required dedicated proprietary controllers that operated in entirely separate programming environments from the rest of the machine. For OEM machine builders, this meant maintaining parallel development workflows — one for the robot controller, another for the broader PLC-based machine logic. The fragmentation increased engineering hours per machine, complicated commissioning, and raised the barrier for end-user maintenance staff who needed proficiency across multiple systems. In consumer goods packaging, where frequent SKU changeovers demand tight coordination between robot motion and machine state, this disjointed architecture directly limited how quickly machines could be reconfigured and deployed.

autonox Robotics restructured its robot platform around an open mechanics design philosophy and integrated Rockwell Automation's unified robotics control platform, which allows robot kinematics to be programmed and executed directly within the same Studio 5000 environment used for all other machine functions. Rather than relying on a standalone proprietary robot controller, robot motion axes are managed as standard servo axes within the Allen-Bradley control architecture. This eliminated the separate controller hardware and its associated software toolchain entirely. The integration approach meant autonox could define robot kinematics, coordinate motion sequences, and handle I/O within a single project file — streamlining both the machine design phase and on-site commissioning. Rockwell Automation's platform provided the motion instruction set and hardware layer that made this consolidation possible.

The primary outcome was a fully unified programming and control environment across all machine functions, including robot motion — eliminating the dual-environment development model that had previously added engineering complexity. Key outcomes included:

• Reduced integration complexity: machine builders work in a single software environment from design through commissioning
• Faster machine design cycles: open mechanics architecture freed autonox from controller compatibility constraints during mechanical design
• Simplified end-user operation: maintenance staff interact with one control system rather than a separate robot controller interface
• Improved changeover capability: coordinated motion and machine logic in one environment enables more efficient product changeover programming

No specific cycle time or throughput metrics were disclosed.

• Proprietary robot controllers impose a hidden engineering cost — separate programming environments increase both development time and long-term maintenance burden for machine builders and end users.
• Open mechanics robot designs decouple mechanical innovation from controller compatibility, giving OEMs more freedom to optimize kinematics without vendor lock-in.
• Consolidating robot motion into a standard PLC environment pays dividends at commissioning and during operator training, not just at design time.
• For consumer goods packaging specifically, unified control simplifies changeover programming — a recurring operational requirement that proprietary architectures handle poorly.
• SME machine builders evaluating robotics platforms should weigh total engineering lifecycle cost, not just upfront hardware price.