Are smaller enclosures reshaping expectations of cable manufacturers?

Electrical enclosures are getting smaller. Control cabinets, panels, and equipment housings now have less space than they did a few years ago, while the systems inside them are expected to do more.

By smaller enclosures, we mean cabinets, housings, or panels that provide less internal volume for wiring and components than earlier designs often because equipment is more compact, systems are more integrated, or installations need to fit into tighter physical spaces.

That change matters because cabling has far less room to move, bend, or be adjusted once installation starts. If cable assemblies are not designed with those space limits in mind from the outset, problems tend to appear late in the project, when fixes are slow and expensive.

As a result, engineers and procurement teams now judge cable manufacturers less on catalogue range or unit price, and more on if they can support tight-space builds from an early stage. Enclosure size has become a practical test of supplier capability, especially where cable assemblies must be designed alongside cabinets, enclosures, and panels rather than added after layout decisions are fixed.

Why do compact enclosures expose capability gaps between cable manufacturers?

Compact enclosures expose capability gaps because tight tolerances amplify weaknesses in repeatability and documentation that remain hidden in less constrained systems.

Tight-space projects expose weaknesses that remain hidden in more forgiving builds. These weaknesses rarely appear on drawings and often emerge once assemblies are installed, when changes are harder to implement. Not every cable manufacturer is equipped to operate within narrow tolerances or manage the knock-on effects of compact enclosure design, particularly once assemblies move beyond prototype builds.

Common capability gaps include the following. In many projects, these issues only become visible once systems move beyond prototype builds and systems enter commissioning or early operation, when access is restricted and corrective work carries a disproportionate cost:

• Limited control over repeatability when assemblies must follow exact routing paths
• Inadequate documentation that fails to reflect how assemblies are installed, not just how they are built
• Inconsistent build quality when assemblies move from prototype to volume production
• Increased risk of damage during installation due to inflexible designs or poor strain relief planning

In compact enclosures, these issues are rarely isolated. A minor deviation can compromise adjacent components or restrict maintenance access, increasing future maintenance effort and system downtime. This is why enclosure size is increasingly used to assess whether a cable manufacturer can operate at a system level rather than a component level. Manufacturers that regularly build cable assemblies as part of complete boxes, panels, and looms are better placed to manage these constraints in practice.

If you’re working with compact enclosures and need to sense-check whether your current cable design or supplier approach is fit for those constraints, it’s often worth addressing that early. Reviewing routing assumptions, installation access, and build documentation before layouts are fixed can help avoid issues that only surface during commissioning.

GEM Cable works with engineering and procurement teams at this stage to assess if cable assemblies are genuinely suited to tight-space builds, particularly where panels, looms, or enclosures are being developed in parallel.

Why is enclosure size becoming a supplier selection filter across industries?

Enclosure size is becoming a supplier filter because shrinking footprints leave less margin for error, making manufacturing discipline and system-level understanding critical across multiple sectors.

This trend is not confined to a single sector. It reflects a wider shift towards higher system density and reduced installation footprints across multiple industries.

In robotics and automation environments, compact housings support higher axis counts and faster motion, increasing mechanical stress on internal cabling. In rail infrastructure environments, reduced cabinet sizes simplify deployment but demand precise, durable assemblies that can be installed quickly on site. Defence platforms and aerospace systems continue to compress designs to reduce weight and improve efficiency, leaving minimal margin for installation error or rework.

Across these environments, enclosure size is shaping supplier selection, particularly where installation teams have little tolerance for adjustment on site and project timelines are fixed. Cable manufacturers that cannot demonstrate experience with tight-space builds are increasingly viewed as a risk, regardless of their product range. This is particularly visible in sectors such as robotics, rail, defence, and telecoms infrastructure, where enclosures continue to shrink while system demands increase.

What questions should you ask cable manufacturers for compact enclosures?

For procurement and engineering teams, smaller enclosures require different conversations with cable manufacturers. The following questions help clarify whether a supplier is equipped to support compact builds:

• How do you account for installation constraints during assembly design?
• What controls are in place to maintain consistency when tolerances are tight?
• How do you document assemblies to support correct installation and future maintenance?
• What happens if design changes occur late in the project?
• How do you test assemblies that operate in confined, high-density environments?

These questions shift the focus from price comparison to capability assessment. They help procurement teams reduce downstream risk by validating how a cable manufacturer performs when tolerance for error is minimal. They also reduce the likelihood of costly changes once systems move into production.

Why do compact enclosures favour engineering-led cable manufacturers?

Smaller enclosures place pressure on every stage of the cable manufacturing process. They reward manufacturers that combine engineering insight with disciplined production, rather than those that rely on generic build practices.

This shift has practical consequences for buyers. The impact typically appears in commissioning effort, installation time, and long-term serviceability. Decisions made at the supplier selection stage increasingly determine how smoothly systems are installed and maintained. Compact enclosures make manufacturing quality visible by exposing gaps in process and control that may remain hidden in larger systems, with direct implications for reliability and lifecycle cost. As enclosure footprints continue to shrink, expectations of cable manufacturers will continue to rise.

Selecting a supplier that understands these demands is no longer a preference. It is a practical requirement for delivering reliable systems in environments where space is limited and failure is not an option. For many teams, this naturally leads to closer scrutiny of a manufacturer’s quality controls and testing processes and ability to deliver consistent results across complex, space-constrained assemblies.

When enclosure space is limited, the margin for error disappears quickly. That makes early decisions about cable design and manufacturing approach far more important than they appear on paper.

If you are planning a project involving compact enclosures and want confidence that cabling will not become a constraint later on, contact GEM Cable!