Inpixon

Name: Inpixon
Address: KnesebeckStr. 62/63, Berlin, 10719, DE
Telephone: (408) 702-2167

Inpixon® (Nasdaq: INPX) is the innovator of Indoor Intelligence™, delivering actionable insights for people, places and things.

Inpixon® specializes in AI-powered Indoor Intelligence®, offering advanced RTLS solutions and Location as a Service (LaaS) to enhance efficiency, safety, and innovation across industries.

13/08/2026

Stable flow is quieter than a crisis, which is why it rarely gets talked about. It should.

At the Siemens Energy Nuremberg site, location-aware workflows did not just speed things up. They made the flow more predictable, which is the harder and more valuable outcome in engineered-to-order production. In the validated scope:

- up to 20 percent higher parts throughput
- up to 25 percent more stable dwell times in critical zones
- up to 20 percent fewer congestion-driven interruptions

The pattern behind those numbers: fewer surprises. Bottlenecks surface as they form instead of after a zone is already blocked, so handover points and floor space get managed before they back up.

The project was jointly inducted into the Champions Circle at the Microsoft Intelligent Manufacturing Award 2026, which matters here mainly as independent confirmation that the results held up to outside scrutiny.

Predictable beats fast. Fast plants still get surprised. Predictable ones stop getting surprised.

12/08/2026

Most "AI in operations" stops at the alert. And an alert ten hours after the fact only tells you what already went wrong.

In engine MRO, that is too late. A single delayed turbine ripples through leases, schedules, and customer trust. By the time the alert fires, the schedule is already broken.

The version worth building is foresight early enough to act on. With the right data, you can see which turnaround is drifting off plan ten days out, while there is still room to re-sequence, reallocate, or escalate. Ten days before, not ten hours after.

One condition: it has to be explainable. A skilled technician does not need a black box telling them something is wrong. They need to see why a problem is emerging and where to step in. That is the difference between a tool people trust and one they quietly work around.

This was never about replacing the people doing the work. It is about giving them the lead time to do it well.

11/08/2026

The blocker on most operations-improvement projects is not technical. It is the capital request.

A large upfront spend on infrastructure means a slow approval, a depreciation schedule, and a long-term bet on one technology in a year where leadership wants flexibility. Plenty of worthwhile projects die right there, before anyone evaluates whether they would have worked.

A service-based model changes the conversation. The cost becomes a predictable operating expense instead of a capital commitment. Approval gets simpler, rollout across sites gets faster, and obsolescence stops being your risk to carry, because upgrades and service levels are included.

This is less about the technology and more about how it enters the building. The same project that stalls as a capital request often clears easily as an operating one.

If a project keeps getting deferred, it is worth asking whether the obstacle is the solution itself or the way it is being financed.

10/08/2026

Nobody prints this receipt, but every plant pays it.

On an engineer-to-order floor, the constraint was never machine time. It is skilled labor and test-bay hours. And a surprising amount of both gets spent not building anything, but walking a hall and an open yard looking for a rotor, a fixture, or a kit that is technically right there.

Add it up across a shift and it lands somewhere uncomfortable: a full skilled-labor day, spent searching, with nothing produced and nothing in SAP to show for it.

That is the cost Inpixon RTLS takes off the books. Every order, component, and load carrier reports its own position continuously, indoors and out, so crews find anything in seconds instead of walking for it. At a century-old Siemens Energy turbine plant in Nuremberg, that meant up to 90% less search time, skilled hours back on the actual build.

If your best people spend part of every shift searching, that receipt is already being paid. It just never reaches your books.

Link in the comments.

06/08/2026

Here is a situation every engine MRO planner knows.

You need a replacement part with 50 percent of its flight cycles left. Only one is available. It has 80 percent. And it is already allocated to another customer.

No alarm goes off. Nothing is technically broken. But that quiet mismatch between what is needed, what is available, and who already claimed it is exactly how cascading delays start in turbine MRO. By the time the conflict surfaces, it is already a schedule problem.

A turbine overhaul runs through disassembly, inspection, repair, and reassembly. Hundreds of interdependent steps with long lead times. If one part or approval is late, the whole process stalls. Knowing what is needed, when, where, and by whom is not paperwork. It is the job.

That is what real-time data on parts, tools, and WIP zones is for, paired with analytics that flag the priority conflict while you can still act on it. Not more dashboards to read. Earlier warning on the few conflicts that actually move your turnaround time.

Where do competing part priorities usually collide in your process?

05/08/2026

How much of your planning time is spent replanning?

A material change here, a sequence break there, a machine down for an hour, and a good part of the day goes to rebuilding a plan that was fine this morning. It rarely shows up as a line item, but it is one of the most expensive habits in operations.

The promise of a location-aware agentic AI is not a prettier plan. It is far less replanning. When the system adapts staffing, capacity, and task priority to changes as they happen, the manual rebuild mostly disappears. In the demo, that meant up to 85 percent less planning effort.

That is time your team gets back for the work that actually moves throughput.

Roughly how much of your week goes to replanning that something else could have absorbed?

04/08/2026

You do not need high-precision tracking across your whole site. Most plants over-buy here.

The instinct is to roll out the most precise option everywhere, then justify the cost later. It is the fast route to an over-engineered, over-priced setup that never matches what each area actually needs.

A more honest approach: apply high precision only where it changes a decision. Critical workstations and bottleneck processes earn sub-meter accuracy because the decisions there are tight and expensive. A warehouse, a yard, an inbound staging area often does not. Zone-level is enough to run the process well.

A flexible platform lets each area use what fits, instead of forcing one expensive standard onto everything. The point is not to track everything as precisely as possible. It is to spend precision where it earns its keep, and stay lean everywhere else.

Where in your operation is the tracking more precise than the decision actually requires?

03/08/2026

The most common reason plants put this off: "our site is too old and too complex for that."

Siemens Energy runs a steam turbine service operation in Nuremberg with more than a century of industrial heritage. A brownfield environment with multiple handover points, staging areas, customs clearance zones, and engineered-to-order work where almost every job is unique. About as far from a clean greenfield as it gets.

They did not rebuild the plant. They put real-time location across 16 defined zones, used it as the operational ground truth, and let workflow steps trigger automatically based on where assets actually were.

In the validated scope: up to 20 percent higher parts throughput, despite the brownfield constraints, not in their absence.

Complexity and age are the usual reasons given for waiting. This is a case where they were exactly the conditions that made the gain worth capturing.

If your plant feels too established to change, that is worth a second look. Link in the comments.

30/07/2026

Your ERP doesn't tell you where your work-in-progress is.

It tells you where someone last had time to type it in or to scan it.

Between two manual transactions, the record sits still while the part keeps moving. By the time a supervisor reconciles the system with the floor, the data is already old. Decisions get made on a version of the plant that stopped being true an hour ago.

This is the gap nobody budgets for.

Real-time location closes that gap by letting movement update the record itself. A carrier enters a cell, the operation logs. It leaves, completion is recorded.

So the honest question for any plant running on manual transactions: how many of today's decisions are based on what the floor actually did, and how many on what someone eventually typed or scanned?

29/07/2026

Your operations system data is only as current as the last person who remembered to post an update.

Between transactions, the digital record drifts from the floor. Planning runs on numbers that were true an hour ago. The corrections pile up, and someone spends their week reconciling what the system says against what actually happened.

Siemens Energy went at this differently at their Nuremberg turbine site. Physical asset movement now triggers the SAP posting automatically, through a continuous event loop between the shop floor and the digital core. The posting reflects what happened because the movement is what created it.

Result in the validated scope, across roughly 1,500 tracked assets: up to 50 percent fewer SAP posting deviations. Fewer manual corrections, higher data integrity for everything downstream that depends on it.

Adresse

KnesebeckStr. 62/63
Berlin
10719

Telefon

(408) 702-2167

Webseite

http://www.inpixon.com/

Benachrichtigungen

Lassen Sie sich von uns eine E-Mail senden und seien Sie der erste der Neuigkeiten und Aktionen von Inpixon erfährt. Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht für andere Zwecke verwendet und Sie können sich jederzeit abmelden.