Overview

As part of a cross-functional team developing a new industrial machine that worked in tandem with an existing platform, I contributed to a key usability and integration discussion:

Should the new machine introduce its own HMI workflow optimized for its specific function, or should it mirror the existing machine’s workflow to create a unified operator experience?

Because the machines were physically and operationally linked, we chose to align the new HMI closely with the existing system’s functional workflow — not just visually, but structurally. The goal was to reduce operator retraining, minimize errors, and create a seamless multi-machine experience.

Note: Project details have been generalized to remove sensitive information.

Context

System: Linked industrial automation machines
Stage: New machine development integrated into existing platform
Customers: High-throughput manufacturing environments
Stakeholders: Controls engineering, mechanical engineering, product, field service, operations
My Role: Senior Applications Engineer contributing field and operator workflow perspective

The Strategic Question

We were evaluating two paths:

Option 1: Design a New, Independent HMI Workflow

• Optimize screens and navigation specifically for the new machine

• Tailor interface logic to its unique functionality

• Opportunity to modernize certain UI patterns

• Potential for improved feature clarity

Option 2: Mirror the Existing Machine’s Workflow Standard

• Reuse navigation structure and screen hierarchy

• Maintain similar alarm handling, setup flows, and terminology

• Align operator interaction patterns across both machines

• Build directly on an established interface standard

The decision was between localized optimization and cross-system consistency.

The Tradeoffs We Considered

Independent Workflow - Pros

• Freedom to optimize for the new machine’s mechanics

• Opportunity to improve legacy design elements

• Cleaner implementation from a controls standpoint

• Potential long-term UI modernization

Independent Workflow - Risks

• Operators would need separate training

• Higher likelihood of operational confusion

• Inconsistent alarm handling and setup processes

• Increased cognitive load in multi-machine environments

Mirrored Workflow - Pros

• Reduced training burden

• Lower risk of operator error

• Faster adoption at customer sites

• Consistent alarm, setup, and troubleshooting logic

• Stronger system-level product identity

Mirrored Workflow - Risks

• Constraints from legacy design decisions

• Less flexibility for radical UX improvements

• Potential inefficiencies carried forward

• Engineering effort to adapt new functionality into existing structure

Influence From The Field

From customer site visits and operator interactions, I contributed input around:

• The reality that operators rotate between machines

• The importance of muscle memory in high-speed production

• The cost of retraining in manufacturing environments

• How small UI differences can cause hesitation or mistakes

Because these machines were mechanically linked and often positioned side-by-side, the operator experience was effectively one system — even if the hardware was separate.

There were also unknowns about:

• How quickly customers would scale deployment

• How frequently operators would switch between machines

• What failure scenarios would look like in synchronized operation

Creating divergent workflows risked compounding friction in already complex production environments.

The Decision

We chose to:

• Align the new machine’s HMI workflow with the existing platform standard

• Maintain consistent navigation logic, terminology, and alarm handling

• Extend the current interface model rather than reinvent it

The objective was clear:

• Create one cohesive operator experience.

• Reduce cognitive switching costs.

• Treat the two machines as a unified system.

This ensured that operators trained on one machine could intuitively operate the other.

Outcomes

While specific metrics are confidential, the impact included:

• Faster operator onboarding

• Reduced training time at installation

• Fewer early-stage support calls related to navigation confusion

• Stronger perception of the machines as a cohesive product line

Customers experienced the integration as an expansion of a familiar system, rather than the introduction of an entirely new one.

Key Takeaways

• UI consistency is about workflow, not aesthetics

• In industrial environments, cognitive load directly impacts performance

• When systems are physically linked, the user experience should be unified

• Optimization at the component level can harm the system-level experience

• Standardization in interaction design can be as important as mechanical standardization