Automation as a competitive factor

Could you briefly tell us about raaco, your products and markets?

raaco is a family-owned business, founded in 1956, and this year celebrates 70 years as a manufacturer of small parts storage solutions. Production is currently based in Nykøbing Falster, where we develop and manufacture systems primarily made of plastic, but also of metal.

We sell primarily B2B and supply both tradespeople and large industrial companies. Our customer base spans virtually all sectors, including construction, industry, IT, electronics, automotive, defence and medical-related applications. What they all have in common are high demands for reliability, quality and scalability.

Production takes place exclusively in Denmark with around 100 employees.

Strategically, we have always differentiated ourselves on quality rather than price. The products are developed for professional use and repeated handling – even in environments with specific requirements for materials and durability.

What was your focus when you joined raaco?

I have been with raaco for just under a year and a half and joined in connection with a change in management. My responsibilities cover both production and logistics, and an early focus was on ensuring a more robust, efficient and future-proof production process through automation.

In collaboration with the Danish Technological Institute, we drew up an automation roadmap focusing on where known and accessible technology can realistically create value – both technically and economically. Our roadmap now serves as an active decision-making tool for prioritising and managing investments.

How do your automation roadmap and Fast Track to Automation fit together?

When we took part in Fast Track to Automation, a specific automation project was already underway. The programme was therefore used to structure and professionalise an ongoing project, rather than starting from scratch.

What has the Half Double approach delivered for you in practice?

A key element has been the consistent focus on early and ongoing value creation. Traditionally, impact is often only assessed once the project or facility is fully operational.

Instead, we work with clear milestones that enable us to continuously document both technical progress and the business impact. Even before the final go-live, we have been able to demonstrate that the technologies are fully mastered and that the project is creating real value.

This has been crucial in our dialogue with owners and the board, where transparency and documentation are central to investment decisions.

Another important element has been the way the change has been embedded within the organisation. By working with short feedback loops and visible milestones, we have brought both specialists and operations closer to the project, which has increased ownership and reduced resistance within the organisation.

Has this changed the way you work with and manage projects?

Yes, significantly. The focus has shifted from the distance to the end goal to concrete progress achieved and documented impact.

This applies both to board discussions and within the organisation. Project work has become more structured, the milestones are clearer, and there is more breathing space between the phases, which enhances the quality of the decisions taken along the way.

At the same time, we have found that risks become apparent earlier in the process, making it possible to adjust the scope and priorities before they become costly or start to disrupt day-to-day operations.

Did you have any reservations before you started?

I had an initial concern that the methodology might be too administrative for an operations-focused organisation.

That concern was quickly dispelled. The methodology is pragmatic and practical, but requires competent support during the start-up phase so that the principles are put into practice. Without that support, we would hardly have achieved the same effect.

Who would you recommend Fast Track to Automation to – and why?

The programme creates particular value for two groups: project managers and sponsors.

Project managers, because the method demands structure, prioritisation and a deeper grasp of the project’s actual complexity. Projects are broken down thoroughly, which reduces risks later on.

At the same time, sponsors gain a significantly better basis for decision-making. When projects are reviewed in this way, complexity, dependencies and risks become apparent at an early stage. This strengthens the interaction between management and the project organisation and makes it possible to make more informed decisions on an ongoing basis.

Can this way of working be scaled up to other projects and areas?

Yes, that is one of its clear strengths. We already see the approach as a common management and project language that can be applied across automation, capacity expansions and other strategic initiatives. This makes it easier to prioritise, manage and communicate complex processes across the organisation – both operationally and at management level.