NadiaAli0204 · 5 Nov 2025, 14:23 UTC
Price the fixture work explicitly. Existing staff is not a fixture design. Who establishes the enclosure location, how it releases, and what happens when one sticks? Those questions can consume the pilot before you move a batch.
19 pointsI'd buy a small feasibility study before an arm. You may find a handling snag cheaply. You may also find the job is dull enough to automate, which would be a nice result.
3 pointsWhat does your colleague want the pilot to decide? Reduced handling time, fewer errors, or whether it can unload this fixture at all?
12 pointsWhether it saves the setter time across a batch. Not just whether it can lift an enclosure. We already spend ages getting the fixture ready.
17 pointsThen follow one ordinary batch before drawing the pilot boundary. Who prepares the fixture, waits for release, takes the enclosure away and resets things? A handling demo can look quick because all that work has migrated outside its stopwatch.
11 pointsIs the same setter doing another task while the batch runs, or would the pilot merely move their waiting time somewhere else?
19 pointsInclude the person who will answer the first interruption. I mean actual time to understand and recover the job, not a general training allowance buried elsewhere. That can matter more to the setter than a faster successful unload.
12 pointsKeep the software scope small too. You need an understandable attended trial with defined recovery, not a production dashboard because someone can add one while they're there.
13 pointsAnil, watched a normal batch. Preparation and clearing use the setter; during the middle they check another fixture. Dinesh Ali, there is useful work to return to, but interruptions drag them back.
1 pointsThen unattended shift claims can stay out of this. You've got a sensible smaller question: does the unloading arrangement reduce those returns enough to justify its own preparation and interruptions?
12 pointsPavel, I agree on the claim, but I wouldn't assume the fixture is feasible yet. Nadia, has anyone shown how the enclosure releases without the setter's little hand adjustment?
19 pointsNo. That's exactly the motion the demo skipped. Henry, thanks for putting it plainly; I had called it operator assistance and made it sound optional.
17 pointsKeep that observation in the study request in ordinary words. Show the supplier what the setter actually does. They might propose a fixture change or decide the pilot is a poor fit, but at least both answers address your job.
6 pointsWill you cost the existing method over the same batch boundary? It is easy to give the manual method its best few minutes too.
12 pointsYes, same start and finish. Study request now includes release and fixture preparation. Colleague will review the hours with me before we ask for a pilot price.
14 pointsAnd put a decision after the study, before the pilot spend. Otherwise the small first stage becomes a deposit on the big stage whether the result is useful or not.
17 pointsHas the supplier accepted that release problem as part of the study? I'd be interested in their answer, especially whether it changes the fixture proposal or just adds more assistance from your setter.
15 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .