How are industrial manufacturers managing product complexity in 2026?

According to Modular Management's 2026 benchmark, more than half of industrial manufacturers describe their situation in broadly positive terms, but most still face significant friction on speed, visibility and cost. 67% are under pressure or actively working to improve their approach to product complexity and configuration.

What is the biggest friction point for engineering teams managing product configuration?

For engineering teams, the primary friction is pressure to move faster than the current product structure can support. Engineering teams frame complexity as a structural and architectural challenge, while executives feel it commercially and management leads experience it as coordination overhead.

Where do industrial manufacturers make the most progress on configuration management?

Governance is where teams make the most meaningful progress. Teams that put configuration governance in place first are also the ones reporting commercial gains: faster quoting, fewer variants and better commercial flexibility.

Why do engineering and commercial teams struggle to align on product complexity?

Engineering and commercial teams are often describing the same problem in completely different language without realizing it. Engineering frames it structurally, executives commercially, and management as coordination overhead. The gap is about language and structure, not intent.

Product Complexity & Configuration Industry Benchmark 2026

Where Industrial Manufacturers Stand Today

Engineering, executive and program management leaders from 20+ organizations across industrial manufacturing share where they stand, what friction looks like day to day, and what is actually moving the needle on modularity, configuration and product structure.

20 +

organizations represented

findings on maturity,
friction and progress

67 %

under pressure or
actively working on it

Three Findings to Read First

1. Speed is the Felt Consequence

Engineering teams frame it as a structural and architectural challenge. Executives feel it commercially. Program Management leads experience it as coordination overhead. Each description is accurate. They are all looking at the same underlying problem from a different position.

2. Agreement on What is Broken, Not on What is Working

Speed, visibility, and cost come up in almost every conversation. When it comes to what is genuinely improving, the picture gets less clear fast. Leaders are aligned on the friction. They are not aligned on what is working well enough to repeat.

3. Engineering and Commercial Teams are Not Describing the Same Problem

They use different words for it. They measure different things. They escalate to different people. So the same problem gets solved halfway, by two teams that never compared notes. It is rarely intentional. It is just how the work grew.