Across Georgia, manufacturers are investing in robotics, 3D printing and artificial intelligence to increase output, improve quality and keep operations competitive. As these technologies move from specialist projects into day-to-day production, the software behind them is becoming just as critical as the machinery itself.
An October 2026 report described Georgia’s economy as exceeding $700 billion and highlighted growing demand for workers skilled in automation and robotics. The reopening of Georgia Tech’s newly renovated Advanced Manufacturing Pilot Facility in April 2026 provides another sign of that momentum, combining advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and industry collaboration. As investment accelerates, manufacturers also need to consider how they would protect production if a critical software supplier became unavailable.
The software behind the machinery
On a factory floor, the most visible investments are usually the machines: robotic arms, automated production lines and additive manufacturing equipment. The less visible dependency is often software.
A robotic system may depend on proprietary control software and configuration files. A 3D-printing operation might rely on specialist applications to prepare designs, set production parameters and monitor quality. An AI-enabled inspection platform may need models, data pipelines and cloud services to deliver its results.
These tools can create significant operational advantages, but they can also leave manufacturers dependent on suppliers for updates, maintenance, technical knowledge and, in some cases, continued access to the service. That dependency may feel manageable while support is available. If support ends unexpectedly, it can quickly become a production and recovery problem.
Supplier failure does not always mean the machines stop
Consider a manufacturer whose production equipment runs on an application developed by a specialist vendor. If the developer goes out of business, the system may continue operating at first. The difficulty comes when a software fault needs fixing or a hardware change requires an update. Without the source code and build documentation, another developer may struggle to take over.
For cloud-hosted applications, recovery also depends on access to the service environment. A customer using a vendor-hosted production-planning or quality-management platform may have limited control over the databases, infrastructure and deployment process needed to restore it elsewhere.
The risk is not limited to insolvency. A product may be discontinued, support for a particular version may be withdrawn, or an acquisition may change the supplier’s support arrangements. Where these changes affect a critical system, the manufacturer needs to know whether it can keep the critical function running or move to an alternative.
Five checks before the next technology commitment
A new purchase or contract renewal gives procurement and operations teams an opportunity to examine five parts of a recovery plan.
- Which production activities rely on continued vendor support? Focus on the processes most exposed if support ends, rather than using license costs alone to judge which applications matter most.
- How would we restore system availability if the supplier failed, entered insolvency, discontinued the solution or breached the contract? Recovery requires the right technical materials. Source code may be essential, but recovery can also depend on build instructions, technical documentation, configuration files and third-party dependencies. For software as a service (SaaS), recovery may require database backups, cloud configurations and deployment scripts. AI-based systems may also rely on model files and other specialist components.
- Does our agreement allow another provider to step in? The customer or an alternative provider needs contractual permission to use the recovery materials following an agreed event; possession of the files is not enough.
- How will we test the recovery process, and at what intervals? As part of a software escrow and continuity plan, testing helps establish whether the provided materials support recovery and exposes missing instructions and dependencies before an operational emergency.
- Who would actually restore and operate the system? Having access to software and technical materials is only part of the recovery process. Manufacturers should establish whether their internal teams have the necessary expertise or whether a specialist provider would be needed. They should also understand how long recovery could take and what infrastructure would be required.
For manufacturers looking more closely at the risks associated with AI, robotics and third-party software, The Escrow Company’s article, AI and Robotics in Manufacturing: Managing Software Dependency Risk, explores why software continuity needs to be considered alongside investment in advanced manufacturing technology.
Where software escrow fits
Software escrow provides a structured way for a business to access and use the technical materials it may need if a critical supplier can no longer provide service, while continuing to protect the supplier’s intellectual property. The supplier deposits the agreed materials with an independent escrow agent. If a defined release condition occurs, the authorized customer can access those materials and exercise the usage rights set out in the agreement for the stated continuity purpose.
For a locally installed production application, the deposit might include source code, documentation and build materials. A cloud-hosted service may require a broader SaaS escrow arrangement covering the databases, infrastructure information and operational materials needed to restore the service elsewhere. The right arrangement depends on the system and on what the business would actually need to maintain, replace or recover it.
Software escrow does not, by itself, guarantee uninterrupted production, but it provides a route to software recovery. Specialist hardware, licenses, people and technical expertise may also still be required. Recovery discussions should therefore start with clear objectives: what the business needs to restore, how quickly it needs to do so and how it would bring services back online. These objectives should determine the materials required, rather than relying on a standard list of files or outdated definitions.
Software escrow verification testing helps establish whether the materials are complete and usable for the agreed recovery objective. Depending on the agreed level of testing, the process can identify missing dependencies, files and documents, and assess build or deployment procedures. The results provide evidence of recoverability and assist with knowledge transfer within the scope and environment tested; they do not guarantee uninterrupted production services.
Protecting the investment in advanced manufacturing
Georgia’s manufacturers have strong reasons to invest in automation, robotics and AI. The aim is not to slow adoption or treat every software vendor as a potential failure. It is to identify which supplier relationships have become essential to production and put an appropriate recovery plan around them to support a successful project and partnership. Market volatility and economic changes make it essential to assess potential challenges and put plans in place before a disruption occurs.
A contract review is a chance to establish how production would be maintained if vendor support ended, rather than leaving that decision until a disruption occurs.
A clear recovery plan helps manufacturers protect production while continuing to invest in advanced technology.
The Escrow Company helps organizations assess these dependencies through software escrow services, SaaS continuity arrangements and independent verification. Its US presence is based in Atlanta, Georgia, with additional teams in London and Sydney.
