HenryAdams0090 · 26 Jun 2025, 07:09 UTC
Include whoever covers the job when you are away. A process that saves your transfer time but needs you for every awkward pouch can be difficult for maintenance to support. What is the manual comparison?
4 pointsOperator takes pouches straight from delivery box to carton. I prearrange mine in a tray. Our first timing excluded that. Needs doing again.
12 pointsIt does, and don't improve the robot's incoming box before starting the stopwatch this time; that arrangement work is currently part of the job you are proposing
17 pointsYes. Same incoming box for both. I'll also count changing the tray between pouch types, not only filling it.
4 pointsOur simulation omitted replenishment labour. Include every handoff in the real comparison.
10 pointsHow often does the pouch type change in ordinary orders? That determines whether a good run can ever repay a slow setup, without assuming larger batches will appear later.
4 pointsI would also separate future cost from the work you already spent. The past effort is useful experience, but it cannot make the next tray cheaper to design. Does one repeat pouch account for enough orders to consider alone?
11 pointsUsually several changes in an order. One pouch repeats often, but not in large quantities. No big stable order waiting behind this trial.
14 pointsThen stop selling yourself an imaginary production run; you can assess the repeat pouch, but not by pretending customers order it in a way they currently don't
8 pointsI would still ask the operator whether the transfer removes a difficult task. Labour time matters, but an easier reach or less repetitive handling could also be worth something if it actually helps them.
13 pointsAgreed. Measure that benefit too, rather than assuming faster is the only useful result.
22 pointsAnd put those benefits beside the support burden. A slower process could still be useful, but someone must decide that with the people doing the preparation and handling, not just the person who designed it.
9 pointsOperator says arranging seams is more fiddly than manual packing. They like the raised carton position in the trial though. That improvement doesn't need the arm.
7 pointsKeep the raised carton idea and compare it on the manual station, because rescuing a useful improvement does not oblige you to rescue the whole robot proposal
4 pointsThanks, that helps. Proposed a manual-station comparison with the same carton position. No more tray designs while we do it.
11 pointsWho will maintain the prototype if the proposal stops? Decide before leaving it half-owned.
12 pointsLab supervisor will own decommissioning the trial setup and archiving its configuration. We're not handing the packaging team a temperamental backup machine.
-1 pointsThat is a sensible distinction. I meant assess a possible narrow use, not insist you find one. The order pattern you described gives very little stable work to spread the setup over.
19 pointsDecision made: stop pouch automation here. Manual packing with the revised carton position is preferred by the operator and quicker in our comparison. Keeping the findings, not the development queue.
10 pointsThank you for posting the decision. The operator's preference and the full comparison are useful to hear together. Will the revised manual position get checked with the other people covering the job?
23 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .