Analysis

Q & A Stephanie Fry, General Manager, Stratmore

Stratmore is proud to be a 100% New Zealand owned and operated, family business, with over 71 years expertise in building and construction products supply. Stratmore manufactures and distributes premium, high-performance products for construction and repair and provides comprehensive consulting for the New Zealand construction industry. Stratmore is also the long standing, exclusive master distributor for the US-based Forta range of synthetic fibres for reinforcement (www.fortacorp.com) and the Canadian-based Kryton range of Waterproofing Solutions (www.kryton.com). How are you finding current business conditions? We are seeing a strong uptick in customer/product demand and have enjoyed increased revenue in the past 12 months – no mean feat in what has been a tough 2 years in the industry sector. We recently secured a national partnership opportunity and have grown our nationwide supply with a long-established customer. We have confidence the sector is bouncing back and we have a solid and positive pipeline in front of us. Is there one thing that would benefit your company at present? There are a few things that could benefit us, including: Tech that makes work easier (not more complex) Clear, real‑world value from AI & Automation Marketing capability that reaches customers, without big budgets And I would say probably the one that stands out right now for us is receiving robust forecasts from key customers. What are your plans for 2026? With increased customer demand for some key products in our range, which have traditionally seen less demand, we have re-focused part of our strategy to ensure we are servicing customer demand in locations which have previously been less engaged. We are also building momentum and shining a spotlight on ‘concrete for roading’ in Aotearoa. We have exclusive rights to the internationally recognised ‘Optipave’ system (https://fortacorp.com/solutions/concrete-solutions/optipave/) which creates cost effective, stronger, longer-lasting roads and pavements (with […]

Power Politics: How high electricity prices are squeezing NZ Manufacturers in an Election Year

By Sean Doherty,Manufacturing Commentator | NZ Industry Trends New Zealand’s electricity market is producing two parallel realities. For the country’s four major generator-retailers, business has never been better. For manufacturers, the same market is steadily destroying the economics of making things in this country. If the balance is not corrected soon, the closures already under way will accelerate – and some of the damage will be permanent. Generators cash in while industry burns out In the six months to December 2025, New Zealand’s four major gentailers – are forecast to deliver a combined operating profit of approximately $1.86 billion, an increase of around 45% on the same period a year earlier. These are not one-off results. In 2023, the same four companies posted combined operating profits of $2.7 billion – roughly $7.4 million in profit every single day. The Electricity Authority’s own energy margin dashboard shows big generators regularly earning weekly gross margins in excess of $70 million, peaking at around $119 million in some high-price weeks. Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy has put the problem plainly: “We hear the same lines every year. Big profits are needed to fund investment. But the investment is always coming, never here in sufficient quantity“. The numbers back him up. Analysis by the NZCTU and 350 Aotearoa found that over the past decade, the four gentailers paid $10.8 billion in dividends to the government and shareholders while investing only $4.5 billion into plant, property and equipment. Transpower data showed that as of late 2025, only around 986 MW of new generation had been committed and financed – far short of the 1,500 GWh of new capacity needed every year until 2031. The system, in other words, is structured to reward generators most when supply is tight and prices are high – […]

Prevention is the strategy for performance in infrastructure delivery

From March issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine Stephanie Pretorius, Managing Principal, Argon & Co Infrastructure projects operate under relentless pressure: tightening margins, rising complexity, public scrutiny, and near-zero tolerance for delay. Yet many delivery environments still default to recovery — catch-up programmes, overtime, task-force escalation — only after performance has already deteriorated. In manufacturing, results improve when the production system is stabilised. Once flow is predictable, investment in capability, automation, and quality at source delivers compounding return. Stability creates ROI. Construction rarely affords itself that discipline. Each project is framed as unique, variability is normalised, and management attention focuses on reacting to disruption rather than designing it out. But the underlying principle does not change. Stability precedes return. In infrastructure delivery, prevention — of defects, rework, design ambiguity, coordination failure, and flow breakdown — is the equivalent of investing in a stable production line. It is a deliberate decision to engineer reliability into planning, commercial strategy, stakeholder alignment, and daily management before work intensifies. The most reliable infrastructure projects take a different path. They do not wait for delay to surface. They design systems that prevent instability from taking hold. Prevention is not a support activity. It is the strategy. Why recovery fails as a performance model Most delays are not caused by a single failure or a lack of effort. They are the predictable outcome of how work is planned, coordinated, and managed across the system. Common causes include: Unreliable handoffs between teams and contractors Late decisions and unresolved constraints Recurring problems across projects not addressed as delivery risk Overloaded schedules with no capacity for variation Poor visibility of emerging performance risks Escalation that happens too late—or not at all By the time these issues show up on a critical path report, the cost has already been incurred. Recovery […]

Unlocking productivity: The National Launch of the 35 by 35 Business Performance Programme

New Zealand’s productivity challenge is well documented — but what if lifting performance across small and medium-sized businesses could be systemised, measured, and accelerated at scale? That is the ambition behind 35 by 35, a national business performance movement designed to help New Zealand businesses lift productivity, capability, and resilience by 35 percent by 2035. Taking Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce’s concept, The Better SMB is amplifying 35 by 35 to a national programme. At its core is a simple idea: high performance should not be left to chance, personality, or luck — it should be measurable, repeatable, and accessible. The national launch by The Better SMB of its flagship performance intelligence tool, PerformIQ, marks a significant step toward turning that ambition into action. From aspiration to evidence-based uplift For too long, business support has relied on fragmented advice, disconnected programmes, and anecdotal outcomes. PerformIQ changes that by introducing a shared measurement system — a practical diagnostic that establishes clear baselines across business performance, leadership maturity, and operational foundations. Businesses can finally answer the question: Where are we actually strong — and where are we exposed? More importantly, they can see how they compare to similar businesses and track improvement over time. This shift from opinion to evidence is what unlocks productivity gains. When leaders have clarity, they can prioritise the right actions, invest with confidence, and move faster. A national programme, grounded in regions The rollout of PerformIQ begins with the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce, followed by the North West Country Business Association, before expanding nationally through chambers and regional business organisations. This partner‑led model ensures the programme strengthens local ecosystems rather than bypassing them. Businesses are guided toward chamber‑approved, local providers first, reinforcing regional capability and keeping investment close to home. At a regional level, anonymised and […]

University programme expands to help manufacturers go digital

New funding will enable a University initiative to help more small manufacturers access affordable digital technology and improve productivity. Key facts The Government has committed up to $475,000 per year for three years from 1 April 2026 to expand the University of Auckland-led Digital Manufacturing Light programme. Digital Manufacturing Light is delivered by researchers from the University’s Laboratory for Industry 4.0 Smart Manufacturing Systems and supports SMEs to adopt practical, low-cost digital technologies. The programme was first piloted in 2022 in partnership with Auckland Council. A University of Auckland initiative that helps manufacturers adopt low-cost digital technologies is set to expand under a new three-year Government funding commitment. From 1 April 2026, funding of up to $475,000 per year will support the expansion of the University-led Digital Manufacturing Light programme, enabling more small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to increase digitalisation in their operations. The programme will continue in Auckland and expand into parts of Waikato, Northland and the Bay of Plenty, reaching around 55 percent of New Zealand’s manufacturing businesses. Digital Manufacturing Light is led by Dr Jan Polzer and Professor Xun Xu from the Faculty of Engineering and Design’s Laboratory for Industry 4.0 Smart Manufacturing Systems (LISMS). It builds on the Digital Manufacturing on a Shoestring framework developed by the team led by Professor Duncan McFarlane from the Institute for Manufacturing at the University of Cambridge. Between 2022 and 2025, LISMS worked in partnership with Auckland Council to test and adapt the Shoestring programme for the New Zealand market, launching a 12-month Digital Manufacturing Light pilot on 1 July 2025 with 12 Auckland companies. The programme development has also involved Advanced Manufacturing Aotearoa and the Employers and Manufacturers Association. The work drew the attention of Small Business and Manufacturing Minister Hon Chris Penk, who visited the Faculty of Engineering […]

NZ’s economy to take three decades to double without intervention – OECD Data

New OECD data shows NZ’s economy will take more than 30 years to double in size unless major structural and cultural changes are made to how organisations operate. The modelling shows New Zealand’s real GDP, currently at US$216 billion, is not expected to double until 2055.[1] While the nation’s economy is projected to grow by nearly 48% by 2040, this expansion is largely driven by population growth and increased labour input, rather than meaningful improvements in productivity. New Zealand’s GDP per hour worked, once comparable to Scandinavian countries like Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, is now on average 40% lower than those economies. This long-term underperformance highlights the depth of NZ’s productivity challenge and signals a widening gap not just in economic output, but in living standards, wage potential and long-term competitiveness.[2] Experts say that the rapid adoption of AI will not be enough on its own to reverse this trend and significantly boost productivity. Despite the transformative potential of AI and automation, they say that without a simultaneous shift in how organisations lead, structure and empower their people, the implementation of new technology risks amplifying the structural inefficiencies holding back productivity gains. Craig Steel, a workplace performance expert from Vantaset and author of Transforming New Zealand’s Productivity, says the country has overestimated what technology alone can deliver without first building the leadership capability and workplace culture needed to make those tools effective. “There’s a misguided belief that AI will close the gap for any organisation that applies it. But what we’ve seen is that when organisations adopt technology without modernising their leadership and culture, the gains they were seeking rarely occur “If AI is layered on top of disconnected leadership models and compliance-based systems, it won’t lift people, it will marginalise them,” he says. Steel warns that New Zealand is at […]

The world wants Kiwi manufacturing: Turning acquisitions into advantage

By Sean Doherty,Manufacturing Commentator | NZ Industry Trends Global investment is reshaping the future of Kiwi manufacturers—and the outlook is surprisingly positive. It has been a historic couple of years for New Zealand’s manufacturing and food processing sectors. From Invercargill to Auckland, a remarkable string of large manufacturing companies have been acquired by overseas buyers—or are in the process of changing hands. Fonterra’s consumer brands, Alliance Group, Synlait Milk, MHM Automation, Robotics Plus, Bremworth, Rakon, and a host of others have all attracted international attention. At first glance, headlines about foreign buyers snapping up New Zealand businesses can feel unsettling. The instinct is to ask: are we losing jobs and intellectual property? But when you dig into the details, a more encouraging picture emerges — one of fresh capital, global market access, jobs protected, and innovation accelerated. Here’s what’s really going on, and why there’s reason to be optimistic. The world wants what we’ve built The sheer scale of interest in New Zealand companies tells a story of success, not failure. In the third quarter of 2025 alone, 52 deals were announced, a 41 percent increase on the same period a year earlier. International investors from France, Ireland, the United States, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Australia, and Sri Lanka have all been writing cheques. Why? Because New Zealand companies have built something genuinely valuable. Robotics Plus, a Tauranga-based agricultural robotics company, attracted Yamaha Motor—one of the world’s leading industrial conglomerates—because its autonomous orchard vehicles and AI-powered systems are among the best in the world. Yamaha has now made Robotics Plus part of the foundation of its new global agricultural automation company, Yamaha Agriculture Inc. That’s not a loss. It’s a global validation of Kiwi ingenuity. Similarly, Christchurch’s MHM Automation caught the eye of Fortifi Food Processing Solutions because its post-harvest, […]

Cyber security no longer an IT problem

From February issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine It’s a reputation risk manufacturers can’t ignore With corporate cyber breaches in the spotlight increasingly, NZ Manufacturer magazine advisor and Impact PR director Mark Devlin looks at how firms can protect their brand in the event of an incident. For years, cyber security sat comfortably in the IT bucket. It was treated as a technical risk to be managed through software, consultants and compliance exercises, largely removed from day-to-day operational and commercial decision-making. That separation might once have worked. It no longer does. For New Zealand manufacturers, cyber security has become a frontline business risk, one that increasingly plays out in public. When incidents occur, the damage is rarely limited to systems or data. It shows up in halted production, delayed orders, disrupted supply chains and, critically, lost trust. The reputational consequences often outlast the technical ones. That reality has been reinforced by the way cyber incidents are now covered in the media. Stories that once appeared in specialist technology columns are increasingly leading business news. Journalists are less interested in the mechanics of a breach and far more focused on impact: what stopped, who was affected and how leadership responded. In that environment, cyber security is no longer just about prevention. It is about preparedness, judgement and communication under pressure. Why cyber incidents hit manufacturers harder than most Manufacturers are particularly exposed. They operate at the intersection of physical production and digital infrastructure, where disruption in one area quickly cascades into others. Production lines, logistics platforms, inventory systems, payroll and supplier portals are deeply interconnected. A cyber incident does not just inconvenience office staff. It can shut down machinery, breach contracts and place long-standing customer relationships under strain. Unlike many service businesses, manufacturers cannot simply work around the problem while systems are restored. […]

From data to decisions: getting more value from sustainability measurement

From February issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine The way manufacturers measure sustainability is changing rapidly. New tools, improved data and AI-enabled platforms mean businesses can now measure far more than they could a few years ago. Carbon, circularity, risk and supply chains — the list keeps growing. For manufacturers, this often shows up as long lists of metrics across plants, products and suppliers. Energy and fuel use on the factory floor, raw materials, packaging, transport and supplier emissions are all in scope. Without clear priorities, teams can spend months collecting data without clarity on what to act on first. Measuring everything is rarely practical, and it is not the goal. What matters is measuring the right things, at the right level of detail, to support decisions that reduce risk and create value. As Jeff Vickers, Technical Director at sustainability firm thinkstep-anz, puts it plainly: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” He also cautions that “we need to focus our efforts on measuring what matters most so that we don’t get lost in the detail.” Why focused measurement leads to better outcomes More data does not automatically mean better decisions. The real value comes from measuring what matters and using it well. A focused approach to measurement helps organisations: Keep priorities clear: A small set of meaningful metrics makes it easier to see what matters most and act with confidence. Put effort where it counts: Time and budget are spent on data that actually changes decisions, rather than information that sits unused. Protect credibility: Reported numbers are understood, can be explained and are clearly linked to actions being taken. Meet expectations: Measurement focuses on the issues regulators and investors care about most, reducing the risk of blind spots. This approach avoids the risks of over-measurement while strengthening insight, trust, and performance. […]

Election Year Excuses? Why Manufacturers Can’t Afford Them

From February issue, NZ Manufacturer magazine David Altena is Head of Growth & Partnerships at SmartSpace.ai & C0-Founder & Host of The Better SMB Podcast. david@altena.solutions We are entering a familiar three yearly cycle of hesitation. As we flip into another election year, a subtle but pervasive “hush” descends over factories from Penrose to Invercargill. Business cases for new CNC machinery get shuffled to the bottom of the pile. Recruitment for that much needed engineer is “put on hold until we know who is running the Beehive.” Election years tempt businesses to pause, waiting for policy clarity. But in manufacturing, hesitation is costly. Whoever wins, the fundamentals won’t change. Capability, capital confidence and innovation still matter. Waiting is the real risk. We have been waiting for the miracle decisions every three years for decades. It is no surprise that the MBIE and Foreign Affairs Long Term Insights Briefing released in December 2025 still describes New Zealand as being stuck in a low-productivity rut. Another report to feed the lack of progress on this subject over the last 40-years. “Wait and see” is not a strategy, it’s slow-motion surrender. (Ab0ve)Rob Bull is Director of The New Zealand Lean Academy. rob@nzla.nz Myth Busting: The “Pause Button” Election-year uncertainty is the ultimate security blanket. It’s the perfect, explainable excuse for inaction, but let’s look at the reality of the productivity gap. New Zealand has struggled with a tail of underperformance compared to our OECD peers[1] and according to The Economist, New Zealand’s economic performance is now ranked 33rd (of 37) in 2024[2] (we were as high as 3rd in the 1950’s!). That gap doesn’t take a holiday because there are billboards on the side of the road and policy ideas thrown about like a lolly scramble. The truth is sitting there right […]

«‹ 4 5 6 7 ›»

News Ticker

Analysis