The motion works. That is the sentence I keep using when my colleague asks what the UR5e pouch trial has achieved. The less pleasant answer is that I spend part of each new order making the pouches arrive in a shape the tool likes.
I have three guides now, with notes only I can follow. Our products change often. I still like the setup, and stopping feels like admitting all that work was foolish, but I cannot ask everyone else to maintain it on that basis. How would you make this decision without giving either enthusiasm or embarrassment the final vote?
Compare a complete ordinary order with the current manual route, including preparation, guide changes, interruptions and clearing away. Not just the robot's transfer. Have somebody else observe so your own time does not disappear while you are busy doing the clever bit.
My colleague observed an order. I was preparing the next pouches while the arm moved, which made the video look efficient but left me occupied throughout. We have not compared the manual route on the same order yet.
Could the trial be limited to a stable pouch family with repeat orders? I would not assume that is worthwhile, but it is a different decision from maintaining guides for every shape that purchasing brings in.
Who else can use the existing guides? If the answer is nobody, narrowing the range may still leave a one-person process. The ordinary operator needs to understand the preparation and what to do when a pouch does not present correctly.
Chloe's narrower option is worth pricing, provided the repeat work exists. I would not start another guide to create a reason for the trial to survive.
One pouch family repeats. The other two were small orders. Nobody else has used my guide notes without me explaining them. I had counted that explanation as helping, rather than support the process needs.
That is useful to know. The narrower option would include completing and checking the handover, not merely putting two guides in a cupboard. Compare that remaining effort with stopping now.
And let the operator say whether the repeated family is actually easier this way. They may value less awkward handling even if the stopwatch barely changes. Or find the new preparation more tiresome.
Yes, but name that benefit before the result, Owen. Otherwise each disappointing comparison discovers a new objective. Cameron, what problem was the original proposal meant to reduce?
Attended packing time. That was the original case. There may be other benefits, but I will not rename the objective to rescue it. I have paused new guide work while we compare the repeat family properly.
A pause seems reasonable. Keep the existing observations, including preparation that overlaps motion, so the next comparison does not start with the optimistic video again.
Manual comparison is complete for the repeat order. It used less attended time overall, though my prepared transfers looked quicker in isolation. The operator also preferred not having to arrange each pouch in my guide.
It is. We are stopping development of this packing trial. I feel disappointed, but less defensive than when every conversation ended with me promising one more improvement.
What useful work survives independently of the robot trial? There may be preparation notes or an order comparison worth retaining, without committing to maintaining the guides.
The order comparison and a clearer refill sequence for manual packing. We will keep those. The tooling is being set aside with its status identified, not handed to production as a nearly finished solution.
Thanks for reporting the uncomfortable result too. You answered the question you started with, and your colleague no longer has to guess how much of the process lives in your head.