When it comes to configuring complex systems, Tacton’s system configuration tools, like Tacton Studion (tcx) and ProMo, have gained a reputation for flexibility and adaptability. Yet, as these tools evolve, so do the demands from industries that need them to handle highly customized and complex configurations.
But is system configuration, as it currently stands, always the best solution for these needs? Let’s take a deeper dive and question whether system configuration tools are delivering on the promise of streamlined and adaptable solutions or if they sometimes miss the mark.
The basic concept of system configuration is incredibly appealing. In theory, it allows companies to create a network of nodes, each representing an individual component—such as machinery on a production line, control panels in a building system, or even devices in a tech network. By linking these nodes and defining their relationships, engineers can model the entire system and adjust each element to ensure seamless operation.
However, when faced with real-world complexity, the appeal can diminish quickly. As companies try to manage not just isolated systems but networks where each node depends on others in dynamic ways, they start encountering limitations. This often leads to the question: How well does system configuration truly handle the high demands of complex networks?
In principle, system configuration should enable users to automate certain processes, such as ensuring that the output of one machine matches the input of the next. But in practice, setting up this type of automation can quickly turn into a complex coding project. As soon as conditional rules or dynamic updates are introduced, additional custom scripting is often required.
For example, a manufacturing line where machines must adjust their speeds dynamically to avoid bottlenecks is far from a straightforward configuration task. While system configuration tools technically allow for this, the coding involved can be extensive, and maintenance becomes a long-term concern.
This prompts the question: Are we building adaptable systems, or are we just adding complexity?
Another pitfall of system configuration is the risk of over-engineering. Not every setup requires the intricate mapping of nodes and interdependencies, especially in environments where configurations are relatively static. Yet, the “promise” of system configuration often leads companies to adopt it as a one-size-fits-all solution—even when simpler approaches would be just as effective and more sustainable.
For instance, in systems where connections are predictable (e.g., a simple conveyor system where each component naturally follows a set sequence), a custom-built model or even a basic parameter-passing setup could achieve the same goals with fewer resources. Relying on system configuration for these types of setups can lead to unnecessary overhead, not only during setup but also in ongoing maintenance.
One of the recurring issues we see at cpq.se is that system configuration often carries an implicit promise of automation and ease that may not match reality.
In theory, the concept suggests that users can simply “drag and drop” nodes, set dependencies, and let the system do the rest. But in reality, achieving this level of automation is rarely that simple.
Take a common use case like a networked control system for a building. Each room might require its own control panel, sensors, and other devices, all of which need to be configured to communicate seamlessly. In smaller setups, this works as expected. But as soon as the number of rooms, sensors, and control panels grows, configuring each element and ensuring consistent communication requires significant manual effort—often to the point where it outweighs the benefits of automation.
To be fair, system configuration does have clear advantages in certain scenarios. It can handle complex networks effectively when they involve a high degree of interdependency and customization. Take, for example, an industrial system where several different machines need to interact, but only occasionally or in ways that don’t require constant adjustments. Here, system configuration can provide the structure and flexibility needed to manage these relationships without overwhelming the user with unnecessary details.
But in cases where configurations need constant adjustments or high-level automation, system configuration may start to struggle. This is where some companies might be better served by a hybrid approach—using system configuration for static or predictable elements and custom-coded solutions for areas that require dynamic adjustments or real-time data aggregation.
One key question that keeps arising is whether the industry is truly ready to rely on system configuration for every aspect of complex networks. The demands from companies and the complexity of their systems are only increasing, and while tools like Tacton Studio and ProMo are evolving, they still have limitations. As the need for customization and scalability grows, we must also consider the hidden costs — like the long-term maintenance of custom scripts and the potential learning curve for engineers who may not be familiar with the intricacies of these tools.
Perhaps the real answer lies in a balanced approach. Instead of relying exclusively on system configuration, companies could benefit from combining it with simpler parameter-passing solutions or straightforward custom-coded models. This way, they avoid over-engineering while still gaining the flexibility needed for complex scenarios.
The benefits of system configuration are undeniable, but it’s crucial to recognize its limitations. When companies set realistic expectations and use system configuration selectively—reserving it for those cases where its unique features add genuine value—they stand to gain a more streamlined, efficient, and cost-effective solution.
System configuration is a powerful tool, but it’s not a panacea. For companies considering whether to adopt it, the best approach may be to evaluate the actual complexity of their configuration needs first. Where the system requires constant adjustments, or where simplicity will suffice, it may be worth considering alternative solutions.
By recognizing where system configuration excels—and where it might add unnecessary complexity—companies can make more informed decisions about whether it’s the right fit for them.
If you’re evaluating whether system configuration or an alternative approach is best suited for your needs, connect with us at cpq.se for an expert assessment.