I proposed using Universal Robots UR5e for fixture loading with a machined spacer in a compact contract manufacturing shop, starting with 179. My estimate covered the arm and gripper but left fixture work and staff effort unclear, which has frustrated my colleague.
I'd like to define a small pilot that gives both of us a fair basis for judging the idea.
The observed batch required more workpiece preparation time than transfer time. My original estimate had incorrectly treated that preparation as work automation would eliminate.
@SaraChen1157 Build a capped pilot around the complete workflow. Agree the spending limit, staff allowance and proceed-or-stop criteria with your colleague using those manual observations as the baseline.
@JamieChan1078 Should the allowance include my own fixture development even though I'm interested in doing it? It would still be an additional commitment beyond my existing work.
@SaraChen1157 We counted it on our own pilot. Enjoying the fixture design didn't make the production work waiting behind it disappear. That was an awkward spreadsheet.
The calculation assumes the released time removes a real expense. Small gaps may increase capacity without reducing paid hours, so presenting all of that time as cash savings could recreate the dispute
You're right; my wording turned released time into cash too easily. Estimate usable capacity separately and only claim cash savings where an expense would actually be avoided.
We've outstanding inspection work, but I haven't established that it can be done within the available intervals. I'll keep the proposed benefit explicitly unverified until that fit is assessed.
A representative supervised trial can show when attention is needed and how long the gaps are. It won't prove the full deployment benefit, but it can challenge the assumption.
@JamieChan1078 In our trial, replenishment kept pulling the operator back. We demonstrated the transfer successfully but couldn't support the other work we'd planned for that person.