Which bit does your colleague doubt most: the transfer, or all the work needed to present a housing for it? I'd ask before choosing the pilot hardware

Preparation and fixture changes. I talked about the transfer as though the housings would arrive ready for it.

Then observe the present preparation with the person doing it, including changeover, before deciding which robot demonstration would answer your colleague.

Agree how much staff time that first observation can use; small does not mean free.

And agree a stop point. You can learn enough to reject this approach without proving the transfer impossible.

I wouldn't call the observation a robot pilot yet. It's the cheap question before one: what work are you proposing to automate, and what work will remain?

Fair. We've agreed a short preparation study first, with both our time counted. No robot purchase attached to it.

Keep the actual housing and tray variation in it; selecting the easiest examples would answer a different job.

Study done. Sorting the mixed incoming housings and changing presentation took more time than I had allowed for the whole handling step. The motion was never the only job.

Did your colleague agree the observations reflect normal work, rather than an especially awkward lot?

And keep the individual tasks, not only one total. You may find a specific preparation problem worth addressing even if the robot idea waits

Yes, we reviewed the task notes together. It was ordinary incoming work. The largest unknown now is whether a simple nest change reduces sorting, not how fast the UR5e can move.

That nest change needs its own limit, otherwise the study just starts spending under another name.

Who would use the changed nest after you leave the bench? Include them before declaring the preparation easier.

We've agreed a capped bench comparison with the usual loader involved. Tooling has proposed a simple insert, and we will compare preparation and seating against the current method. No robot trial yet.

What result would let you spend on the robot trial afterwards?

Make that explicit with your colleague now. Otherwise any improvement in the insert may get interpreted as permission for the arm you originally wanted

Agreed: a repeatable preparation method within the joint time allowance, then a separate review of remaining fixture and support cost. Improvement alone doesn't authorise an arm.

Both signed off that limited next study today. Thanks Owen; asking which part worried my colleague changed the conversation. We have a shared spending decision now, while robot feasibility is still an open question.