RosaBennett0727 · 30 Jun 2026, 15:07 UTC
I've watched a demonstration improve enormously after somebody spent ten minutes presenting the parts. Perfectly legitimate work, but it belongs in the comparison. What did each operator do before the timed motion began, Rosa?
19 pointsThe tidy-tray demo started with every puck centred by hand, while our workshop tray arrived as normally loaded; I didn't record the centring time, and neither clip includes a tray change
2 pointsThen retain both as demonstrations of their stated conditions. Neither is a like-for-like throughput comparison. I'd ask for the same incoming tray condition before ranking them.
11 pointsInclude who prepares and changes the trays. A supplier can offer a different presentation method, but your comparison needs its labour, tooling and handover scope. A clean transfer is only part of the work your shift will own
25 pointsMia, agreed, though I wouldn't force identical trays if one complete proposal genuinely benefits from a different fixture. I'd force an honest common starting condition and include the change needed to reach its preferred tray.
6 pointsThat's what I mean by including the preparation method. Rosa can compare different complete proposals, provided neither gets its preferred presentation delivered by an invisible person before the assessment starts
15 pointsWe've requested both routes from the same incoming pucks and workshop trays, allowing a proposed transfer to another fixture if its work and cost are included; the FR5 supplier proposes staying with our existing tray
20 pointsWhat should happen on an empty or misloaded pocket in that comparison, Rosa, rather than having the demonstrator quietly fix it off camera?
12 pointsAnd record any reduced motion needed for the awkward tray. I mean the complete assessed cycle, not a request to make it faster for the video.
4 pointsLin's interruption point could change the support cost more than a small motion-time difference. I'd include a covering operator in the agreed handover check instead of letting both suppliers remain part of their own demonstration.
2 pointsEmpty and misloaded pockets are in the agreed supervised assessment, with defined stops and escalation rather than improvised recovery; both suppliers have named their training and support scope, and preparation time will be recorded separately from motion
3 pointsHave the complete-order comparisons happened now? I would be interested in which part of the workload actually distinguishes them once preparation is visible
10 pointsThey have: the tidy-fixture route has a faster transfer but needs manual re-presentation, while the FR5 route is slower in motion and lower in total labour on the assessed order; both used their reviewed movement limits, with all help logged
15 pointsAnd the FR5 interruption and covering-operator checks, Rosa, did those pass or are they still outstanding?
15 pointsCompleted within the agreed scope, Lin; the covering operator recognised the empty-pocket and misload cases and used the specified escalation, without the demonstrator correcting the tray invisibly, so we've shortlisted the FR5 proposal for detailed integration costing
5 pointsThat is a shortlist supported by a defined comparison, not a claim that one arm wins every puck job. Keep the workload and preparation records with the next cost review.
11 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.