SarahBaker0502 · 12 Dec 2025, 21:56 UTC
Agree the actual unloading problem and a bounded study scope with him first. Price preparation, fixture work and staff time alongside the supplier work, with a decision before any further pilot spend.
8 pointsCould the designer compare the awkward enclosure contacts using your existing samples before you buy hardware? A useful rejected concept can be a perfectly decent result from that first study.
10 pointsWhat physical trial, if any, is included in that study, rather than only drawings and an option review?
9 pointsDrawings and option review first. No working robot trial promised. We have representative enclosures available.
7 pointsThen 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
6 pointsDoes 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.
15 pointsOur 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.
-2 pointsInclude proposed fixture variants and how they would be identified, stored and replaced. A study need not deliver production tooling, but it can expose whether the concept is quietly creating a cupboard full of future changeovers.
17 pointsTwo variants cause most of the preparation. Both included, chosen with him. Thanks Beth, not just my favourite sample.
22 pointsYou 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.
10 pointsAlex, 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.
17 pointsWhat 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.
8 pointsCompare the options and decide stop, revise the scope, or price a supervised pilot. No automatic next order.
11 pointsWill the study return its assumptions and unresolved access or holding questions with those options?
25 pointsAnd 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.
6 pointsReview notes and candidate drawings, with assumptions and gaps. Production tooling excluded. His attendance and sample preparation have allowances.
20 pointsThat 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.
4 pointsAnd 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
13 pointsHas your colleague agreed to the staff allowance, Sarah, or is it still your estimate of what you hope he can spare?
15 pointsKeep that answer beside the supplier price. The original missing cost was somebody's time, and a tidy study proposal should not hide it again.
25 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .