I taught our Universal Robots UR5e job for tray transfer with a machined sleeve in a workshop tray handling cell. Everyone can start it, but an empty pocket or interrupted run means a call to me. I don't think this is attitude.
Our handover covered a clean run and left the awkward decisions out
Our saved handling job needs a better handover - tray transfer
KaiBaker0454 · 2026年8月3日 18:24 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
15 条回复
回复 KaiBaker0454
@KaiBaker0454 A teach-back could reveal where the handover becomes unclear. What do operators understand the restart instruction to mean when they explain it without prompts?
2分I tried that in a discussion. Several people read the same restart line differently. So yes, we've handed over an instruction that doesn't agree with itself
12分回复 KaiBaker0454
@KaiBaker0454 Use the conflicting interpretations to revise the instruction into condition, permitted action and escalation criteria. After the responsible integrator reviews it, check understanding again through an unprompted teach-back.
11分How do I stop teach-back feeling like a test of the operator? The wording was mine. I don't want to make that their failure
20分回复 KaiBaker0454
On my setup, I asked people to find where my guide forced them to guess. That invited corrections instead of making them defend a wrong answer.
7分A clear recovery sheet should stop those calls. Keep the steps short and put it by the controls.
5分@GabrielAdams0105 Not if the system can't tell them what's physically happening. Better wording can't create a recovery path for an unknown held-workpiece state.
1分@JackBennett0776 I overstated what the documentation can solve. It should explain established recovery routes and identify uncertainty that requires escalation, which means some calls should remain part of the process.
15分Reviewing the handover notes, I found that startup was only demonstrated with an empty tool. We didn't explain the case where an interruption leaves the workpiece held
14分回复 KaiBaker0454
@KaiBaker0454 Couldn't the operator just select the pocket they were on? Or is that exactly the guessing you're trying to remove?
-1分Knowing an index doesn't establish whether the workpiece is held or the destination occupied. Recovery needs a defined way to determine those conditions and an integrator-reviewed action for the result.
11分@GabrielAdams0105 My setup had developed an informal habit of consulting whoever knew how to edit the index. A defined escalation route helped us identify uncertainty that the workaround had concealed.
18分An operator also spotted that our screen and printed guide use different names for the same step. I wrote both. Lovely bit of self-sabotage
17分回复 KaiBaker0454
We haven't established reviewed recovery guidance that produces consistent understanding. Where the next action remains unclear, operators still need to escalate
11分回复 KaiBaker0454
Then escalation is still the clear route for those cases. The instruction hasn't earned an independent recovery yet.
2分