“Tool and die is a response to what manufacturers require. So, if the manufacturers are at a state of technology where they are dependent on outside sources, tooling will always follow,” says A. Ramasubramanian, Chief Technology Officer, Blue Energy Motors.
– Neha Baudkar Ghate
Q: How has the evolution of manufacturing over the last two decades enabled greater customization, and what role do AI, ML, and IoT play in this shift?
It’s not just about AI, ML, and IoT. Modern manufacturing particularly over the last 20 years has steadily evolved toward a concept known as late commit. The idea behind late commit is to introduce flexibility in creating a wide range of product variants. It’s all about enabling what we used to call, and I presume still call, mass customization.
Mass customization essentially means that you’re no longer producing large volumes of standard products. Instead, you’re producing large volumes of products that are customized to individual requirements. And that’s where electronics and later AI, ML, and IoT have truly stepped in to make this possible.
Earlier, when electronics was not as prevalent, we would delay variation until the final stages of manufacturing. Almost everything would be produced in a standard format, and all the customization would be added at the end. That approach worked, but it had its limitations.
Q: How have technologies like AI, ML, and IoT taken this concept of mass customization even further?
With the latest manufacturing technologies especially AI and ML we are seeing a transformation. For instance, we’ve used AI and ML in much targeted ways in telematics. But I have also seen sixth-generation manufacturing in gearboxes where every part is identified through barcodes or RFIDs.
As a result, the flexibility we now have is almost infinite. We are talking about single-piece flow something that was a benchmark even back in the 1990s, thanks to systems like Toyota Production System and the use of Kanbans which is basically is a ‘pull’ system controlled by visual signals (Kanban cards or boards), to manage production flow, eliminate waste, and minimize inventory by producing items only when needed and in the exact quantity required. But customization wasn’t that high back then.
What’s changed is that now, instead of relying on manual identifiers, we use electronic RFIDs. The speed at which you can now process and customize parts is on an entirely different level. Tooling flexibility has also improved dramatically. Today’s manufacturing line doesn’t look anything like what I have seen before it’s highly responsive, customizable, and designed to handle individual part identification at scale.
This kind of mass customization was nearly impossible before because the amount of data required to do it was unmanageable through manual processes. Today, with RFIDs, cameras, and sensors especially sensors used for real-time monitoring, you can not only track the data but do so with extraordinary speed and accuracy.
That’s why producing standard parts in large volumes today seems almost outdated. No one wants a generic product anymore. Everyone expects customization and mass customization powered by IoT is already a big part of modern manufacturing. The Ford-era idea of “you can have any car as long as it’s black” no longer applies. Today, you get exactly what you want.
Q: You mentioned earlier how mass customization is shaping modern manufacturing. Has this also influenced how machines and tooling systems are being designed?
Absolutely. Mass customization has extended even to the machines themselves. The concept of late commit now includes decisions around what kind of tools or accessories to use. Flexibility has become embedded in machine design.
Today, even fixtures and tooling are expected to be infinitely flexible. My simple suggestion is: before you standardize anything, think twice because tomorrow, there may be a better way to do it. What you standardize today could become obsolete very quickly.
This means your equipment and processes must be designed with adaptability in mind especially at the tooling and fixturing levels. For instance, earlier you had an assembly line dedicated to producing one type of truck. Then came the Japanese systems that introduced single-piece flow. Now, that same approach has evolved to accommodate variations even within a single piece flow.
Customers can now choose screen sizes, display types, color variants, telematics configurations, and the level of automation they want essentially anything, depending on how much they’re willing to spend. And manufacturing systems can now support this flexibility. The capability to produce highly customized products has significantly improved.
Q: Given these advancements, how do you see India’s transition toward adopting such modern, flexible manufacturing systems?
This transition is still unfolding. Electronics and automation in manufacturing are still evolving in India. Historically, especially in the 20th century and early 21st century, Indian manufacturers often relied on second-hand or imported refurbished machines.
That was understandable we didn’t have global-scale volumes, and new equipment was expensive. So many companies opted for used machinery, which kept costs down but made customization difficult. As a result, standardization became the norm, because creating variants was complex and uneconomical.
Now, as demand scales up and volumes increase, the transition is happening. Manufacturers are starting to invest in new equipment that enables customization. The cost dynamics have shifted making products on old machines is no longer economical or practical. Designs have evolved, product sizes and weights have reduced, and handling these modern components with outdated machinery just doesn’t work anymore.
So yes, we’re in a phase where customized manufacturing is becoming more viable, and the industry is steadily moving away from legacy systems toward smarter, more flexible infrastructure.
Q: India has made impressive strides in electronics and automotive manufacturing in recent years. But how would you assess the true extent of localization and innovation in these sectors?
If you look at many of the electronics sectors we have entered, much of what we are doing is still assembly-based and largely dependent on imported components. The core reason is simple: the parts we are talking about are mass produced globally in the millions every month. That makes it cost-ineffective to manufacture them from scratch here in India.
Our incentive schemes have certainly helped localize operations, but they have largely localized assembly, not complete manufacturing. Still, that’s a significant achievement. For a country that once did very little in this space, becoming the second-largest phone manufacturer and third-largest in automotive production is remarkable progress.
Now, when it comes to newer product categories like electric vehicles, we have made substantial improvements too. But volume continues to be a major challenge. Take automotive for example we have a strong presence in trucks, but with a wide variety of models. If we really want to scale up, we will have to reduce this variety. Because without sufficient volume, no one is going to invest heavily in production, especially in new categories like EVs.
The scale needed is in the range of a million units. But if we’re producing only 100,000 or 125,000 and feel satisfied with that, what we’ll really end up with is just assembly still dependent on imports. The other constraint is technology itself. It’s moving so fast that investors hesitate to back today’s tech in an emerging market they worry it’ll be obsolete tomorrow.
So until both these challenges like volume and technological stability settle down, we will continue facing hurdles in building deep, localized manufacturing capabilities.
Q: What are the deeper challenges India faces in becoming a true innovator rather than a technology importer, and what might change that?
India is extremely good at parametric work we are excellent at manufacturing to specification. But we aren’t known for innovation. I can show any Indian engineer a product, and they’ll recreate it perfectly. But inventing that product in the first place? That’s a bigger challenge.
This isn’t about the capability of engineers it’s about the need for scientists. We need more scientific innovation, not just engineering execution. Let me give an example from engines, which is an area I know well. During the transition to Euro 3 and Euro 4 standards, most of the technology was already mature. We simply transferred it here, paid a technology fee, and adapted it. That was more practical than developing it ourselves.
In Europe, though, they started with a single-cylinder engine to prove combustion concepts before moving to multi-cylinder systems. That process took years and required billions in R&D. In India, that innovation came to us second-hand ready-made.
So the gap really comes down to this: invention vs. adaptation. And this gap exists because we’ve historically lacked two things sufficient volume and sustained R&D investment. For a long time, our approach has been to discover what exists rather than invent what doesn’t.
Until we’re on par with the rest of the world in terms of both market size and technological capability, this will continue. But once we catch up once there’s no more room to import mature technologies we will have no choice but to invent ourselves.
In some strategic sectors, like rocket science, we are already doing that. But in most areas, where mature technology exists abroad, companies still prefer to license or partner rather than invest in domestic R&D. These are commercial decisions after all.
Still, I believe that in the next 15 years, we will reach a point where India is not just manufacturing what the rest of the world makes but also innovating at that level. In some areas, we’re getting there. In most, we still have a long way to go.
Q: How do you see the role of the tool and die industry evolving in relation to manufacturing needs and technological advancement in India?
A: Tool and die is a response to what manufacturers require. So, if the manufacturers are at a state of technology where they are dependent on outside sources, tooling will always follow. I do not believe we will be at the cutting edge. I have seen absolutely state-of-the-art gearbox plants, but not in India. And I don’t think we’ll see that here in the next 10 years.
That’s because the demand for such advanced systems doesn’t exist yet. As I said, OEMs and products are following a certain path, whether it’s an aeroplane or anything else, we are essentially following. And if the OEMs are followers, then the tool and die industry will naturally follow them. It’s unlikely they will drive innovation when their customers don’t need it. They are customer-based too. That’s my view.
COMMENTS