Rubix says confidence among European manufacturers has risen despite continuing supply-chain disruption, with its Uptime Index increasing four points to 79 over the past three months. The improvement reflects companies becoming better equipped to absorb disruption rather than a material easing of the conditions creating it.
The latest reading continues an upward trend in an index designed to assess manufacturing confidence around uptime, investment, maintenance readiness and supply resilience. Rubix’s previous June edition reached 75, itself five points higher than the preceding survey, meaning the score has continued to improve while manufacturers remain exposed to volatile lead times, energy costs and geopolitical uncertainty.
The September research places supply-chain resilience at the centre of that change. Manufacturers are increasingly deciding that the lowest purchase price is not necessarily the lowest operating cost if a component arrives late enough to interrupt production. Some are accepting higher prices in exchange for shorter lead times and greater certainty, particularly where a critical part has few substitutes or where downtime would quickly outweigh the premium paid for supply.
Rubix cites one manufacturer paying 20% more to source machined parts closer to home in return for delivery times that are 50% faster. Others reported paying premiums of as much as 80% where urgently required components were needed to protect or restore production.
Those figures do not represent normal price increases across the market. They illustrate how the commercial calculation changes once the cost of a part is compared with the value of the production it protects.
David Cullern, Group VP Key Accounts at Rubix, said: “The rise in confidence we’ve seen this quarter seems to be a direct result of manufacturers becoming better equipped to deal with supply chain pressures – rather than those pressures easing.”
Manufacturers are responding in several ways. Some are consolidating supplier bases to improve visibility and purchasing leverage, while others are deliberately holding more inventory around components that would create disproportionate disruption if they became unavailable. Bringing supply closer to the plant is another option, trading part of the cost advantage associated with long international routes for shorter lead times and fewer logistics variables.
Rubix’s accompanying white paper describes a four-stage supply-chain reaction in which limited component availability moves into operational disruption, delayed customer commitments and eventual reputational damage. The sequence highlights why a low-value part can create a high-value problem.
A bearing, machined component, sensor or drive may account for a small fraction of the value of the equipment in which it is installed, but its absence can still stop an entire production process. Rubix cites examples of products sourced through long supply chains taking twice as long to arrive as manufacturers had previously experienced.
At one company, a four-week delay involving critical parts placed a project worth almost £750,000 at risk. The exposure came not from the purchase value of the delayed components, but from their position within a larger delivery programme.
The problem closely matches the maintenance constraints identified elsewhere in UK industry. Recent Fluke research found that manufacturers can carry substantial spare-parts inventories and still face delays because the specific component required is unavailable. Both datasets point towards more selective inventory planning rather than simply increasing stock across every category.
Rubix also identifies a widening resilience gap between larger manufacturers and smaller businesses. Larger companies are generally better placed to carry additional stock, qualify several suppliers and absorb emergency premiums when a critical requirement arises.
Smaller manufacturers have less room to make the same trade-offs. Additional inventory consumes working capital and storage space, while maintaining multiple approved suppliers can increase engineering, quality and administrative work. Nearshoring may reduce transport risk but can also increase direct purchasing cost.
The ability to invest in resilience therefore becomes part of the competitive difference between manufacturers. Larger organisations can spread the cost across a wider production base, while smaller operations may face the same supply risks without the same capacity to pay for additional protection.
The white paper sets out five areas for manufacturers to consider: bringing supply closer, consolidating supplier bases where appropriate, holding stock around the components that matter most, improving visibility across assets and inventory, and using predictive maintenance to identify likely failures before they become urgent purchasing events.
The last of those measures connects maintenance directly with procurement. A component shortage is easier to manage if the requirement is identified weeks before failure rather than after a line has stopped. Condition monitoring and better asset histories can extend the purchasing window, allowing normal freight and approved suppliers to be used instead of emergency sourcing.
Predictive maintenance cannot create components that are unavailable, but it can change when the need for them becomes visible. That additional time can be worth more than a small reduction in unit purchase price.
The Uptime Index is produced with Parker Hannifin, SKF and Loctite and is intended as a periodic measure of European manufacturing preparedness rather than a conventional output index. Its rise to 79 should therefore not be read as evidence that industrial supply conditions have returned to normal.
The improvement instead reflects manufacturers becoming more accustomed to operating around disruption, often by spending more to reduce its consequences. Additional stock, local sourcing, duplicated suppliers and emergency premiums all carry a cost that eventually has to be absorbed through margins, productivity or customer pricing.
The latest index therefore records stronger resilience, but not cheaper resilience. Manufacturers may be better prepared to keep production running than they were three months ago; the more difficult question is how long companies, particularly smaller ones, can continue paying for that protection if supply instability remains a permanent operating condition.
