I've proposed a UR5e fixture-loading pilot for our contract shop. I priced the robot and gripper, then my colleague asked who was making the fixtures and covering the operator while we debug it. I had no useful answer.
We both want a small trial, but I want the budget and success criteria to include the work needed to hand it over. What should we settle first?
Pick one part and one complete loading job. Then list who supplies the fixture, integration, safeguarding and training, including the time your own staff will spend. Otherwise 'small trial' means a small quote with the rest donated by annoyed colleagues.
One housing family and one fixture is agreed. The toolroom can estimate fixture work, but we had assumed our operator would attend every trial without allowing for cover on his usual job.
Put that cover in. Also decide what result would make you stop or change course. You don't want every extra week described as nearly there because nobody agreed what the pilot had to show.
We want repeatable loading, a workable changeover and somebody besides the programmer able to recover the common interruptions. I'm asking the integrator to price that scope, rather than a demonstration cycle only.
Yes, and allow for making the trial suitable to run in your shop. Temporary equipment still needs its risks addressed. That cost often gets discovered embarrassingly late in the word 'pilot'.
How is your colleague feeling about the revised scope? They were right to question the missing labour, and they'll probably spot the next hole before a supplier does.
Much better. We have a shared cost sheet with owners for the unknowns and a capped investigation stage before ordering hardware. The pilot is still possible, just no longer pretending our staff time is free.