EmmaBaker0463 · 2 Jul 2026, 01:15 UTC
What work disappeared from the estimate when you demonstrated the transfer? In my packing trial it was the preparation I did myself. I stopped that trial once we stopped treating my time as a free input, but your comparison needs your own order mix.
6 pointsFlattening the pouches, choosing the guide and setting it for each shape were outside the quoted cycle, Toby, and I usually do those jobs before anyone watches.
7 pointsThen the transfer time isn't your process time. Keep it as a measured component, but add preparation, changeover and clearing the bench. Otherwise each clever guide makes the robot figure better while the actual order gets no cheaper.
14 pointsIs the objection mainly cost, or is there work the proposed method makes less tiring? I wouldn't assume a labour saving is the only possible reason to continue, but any other benefit needs to be stated and funded honestly.
6 pointsOmar, reducing repetitive placement was part of the original aim, but staff now report the pouch preparation is the more awkward task; we have not compared that work formally, so I cannot claim an ergonomic benefit from the transfer alone.
14 pointsWho maintains the changing guides if you are assigned elsewhere?
10 pointsHassan's complete-order comparison is the bit I would do before another guide. In mine, the demonstration had a pleasant middle: prepared stock waiting, tool settled, someone there to catch the occasional awkward item. At the real bench that middle was surrounded by work I had already done or still had to clear away. It wasn't dishonest timing of the transfer; it was the wrong boundary for the claim I wanted to make. I would keep your successful transfer result, Emma, and stop asking it to answer the whole purchase question.
1 pointsToby, agreed, but don't lose the awkward preparation finding either. More attended minutes and a worse task are separate reasons to reconsider, not two ways of describing the same number.
3 pointsZara, there is no named cover for my guide work; we have now reviewed two recent complete orders with the packers, and both needed more preparation and changeover effort than our manual route, while the packers preferred the manual handling arrangement.
6 pointsThat is enough to challenge the present proposal, without pretending two orders describe every future pouch. Has the owner decided what further evidence could justify spending more, rather than leaving you to keep improving it indefinitely?
4 pointsI would put any further trial time against a named decision, not general improvement.
3 pointsThe owner has closed this pouch-loading proposal and cancelled the next guide request after reviewing the actual orders and staffing gap; we will retain the handling observations, but there is no further development commitment disguised as finishing off.
17 pointsThanks for reporting the decision, Emma. That is a useful end to a trial, even when it isn't the installation you imagined. Keep the packers' actual reasons beside the timing so the next proposal doesn't solve only the bit you already solved.
21 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.