My FR10 enclosure estimate gives the fixture maker no budget

Drawings and option review first. No working robot trial promised. We have representative enclosures available.

Then keep the later pilot's safeguarding, competent supervision and commissioning work explicit as future scope, rather than letting a cheap drawing study be quoted as the cost of trying the cell

Does the representative set include the enclosure variants that cause your colleague the most preparation work? The easiest common part may not answer the problem that made him object.

Our first study used the enclosure everyone could seat quickly, then we wondered why the trial did not help on busy days. The troublesome variants were the work. I'd ask the colleague to help select the examples rather than merely supply whatever is nearest the bench.

Two variants cause most of the preparation. Both included, chosen with him. Thanks Beth, not just my favourite sample.

You can still study a narrower variant if it has a worthwhile job of its own. Just do not claim that result solves the mixed workload without comparing what remains manual.

Alex, agreed. I would want the study to state which work each candidate covers, rather than force one universal fixture because the first budget had only one line for it.

What decision would count as a useful stopping point after the study, Sarah? It should be something you and your colleague can recognise even if no candidate is recommended.

Compare the options and decide stop, revise the scope, or price a supervised pilot. No automatic next order.

Will the study return its assumptions and unresolved access or holding questions with those options?

And confirm the actual deliverables before paying. A review meeting, a drawing and production-ready tooling are different things; your colleague needs to know what work comes back to him afterwards.

Review notes and candidate drawings, with assumptions and gaps. Production tooling excluded. His attendance and sample preparation have allowances.

That is a more honest place to start. I would also preserve his current-task observations, not only a total time; two options can take similar minutes while interrupting the setter's other work very differently.

And a candidate that improves those interruptions may be worth discussing even without a dramatic cycle-time claim, provided the complete operation and remaining manual tasks are compared openly

Has your colleague agreed to the staff allowance, Sarah, or is it still your estimate of what you hope he can spare?

Keep that answer beside the supplier price. The original missing cost was somebody's time, and a tidy study proposal should not hide it again.