Why Weather Events Reveal the Real Risks in Manufacturing Operations
- Bill Medcalf
- 15 hours ago
- 3 min read
By: Bill Medcalf, VP Digital Transformation & Innovation
Snow isn’t common on the East Coast of North Carolina.
Which is exactly why it matters when it shows up.
With Snowmageddon forecasted this weekend, it’s a reminder that unusual events have a way of exposing how prepared, or unprepared, we really are.
In manufacturing, we talk a lot about uptime, throughput, and efficiency. But moments like this force a more fundamental question:
How do we keep operations running without putting people at risk?
This question isn’t just a weather problem. Rather, it’s a risk and continuity problem.
Risk: What means more, production or people?
Every executive will say “safety comes first.”
However, the real test is whether the organization has actually designed its systems and decisions around that principle.
When weather-related conditions make travel unsafe:
- Are leaders still asking teams to “just come in if they can”?
- Are decisions being made with partial information because no one can see what’s happening?
- Are plant managers stuck relaying status by phone and text?
None of these scenarios stem from a lack of effort. They stem from a failure of design.
Risk isn’t only about catastrophic events. It’s about avoidable exposure, such as asking people to take on personal risk because the system doesn’t support any other option.
Continuity: Can the plant run without the parking lot being full?
Manufacturing continuity does not mean everyone must work from home. However, it does allow the right work to occur remotely when necessary.
That includes:
Leadership visibility into production and downtime
Engineering and OT support without unnecessary travel
Decision-making based on live operational context, not assumptions
Too often, “remote access” is treated as a convenience feature. Or worse, it becomes a security liability to avoid. Although, intentional remote visibility is what separates resilient operations from fragile ones.
When continuity depends on a few people being physically present to explain what’s happening, the operation is vulnerable. Automation alone does not eliminate that risk.
Governance: Is remote access intentional—or improvised?
Here’s where governance quietly enters the conversation.
In many organizations, remote access exists, but it is limited.
It’s undocumented
It’s inconsistent
It relies on tribal knowledge
It expands during emergencies with little oversight
Strong governance does not mean eliminating remote access. It means designing access that aligns with how the business operates.
Executives should not have to choose between operational visibility and cybersecurity. Well-designed OT architectures and manufacturing intelligence systems support both by default.
This capability should exist as part of normal operations, not as a response to a disruption.
Weather events don't create problems. They reveal them.
Snow, hurricanes, pandemics, supply chain disruptions: these events don’t break systems. They expose the assumptions baked into them.
If the only way to understand what’s happening in a plant is to be physically present, that’s not a people issue. It’s an architectural one.
If leaders can’t see operational truth without being onsite, that’s not a leadership gap. It’s a systems gap.
A question for manufacturing leaders:
When the plant must run, and people shouldn’t travel:
How do you manage risk?
How do you ensure continuity?
How intentional is your governance around access and visibility?
Know that the strongest operations aren’t the ones that push through at all costs. They’re the ones designed to adapt safely, responsibly, and deliberately.
Stay safe this winter, and remember:
(1) Operations matter.
(2) Results matter.
But people, and the systems that protect them, matter most.
