I've timed our current spacer unloading and counted the operator visits, so this isn't just an arm-price daydream. Unfortunately my UR5e estimate still treats fixture reset as free. My colleague spotted it before I did and now doesn't trust the rest. Fair enough, but I'd rather measure one representative short order than argue over my spreadsheet again.
Would your colleague choose the short order with you? They may know which changeover causes trouble. I mean a normal order you both recognise, not the easiest spacer because it makes the demonstration finish nicely.
The mixed order is common enough. We have current manual timings for both lengths, including the fixture change. The proposed automation number has one changeover allowance copied across both.
Ask the tooling designer which steps change between those lengths. A common allowance may turn out to be reasonable, but it needs a described task behind it. Who resets, checks and releases the fixture for use?
And if the setter is busy, count the waiting separately from the work. Our apprentice time looked slow once because the log included waiting for someone authorised to check the setup.
Toby, the distinction is useful for improvement. For the order completion comparison, Harish still needs the elapsed time the actual staffing arrangement produces.
We have agreed to compare the single-length run and the mixed order. My colleague will keep handling time, setter work and waiting separate. The tooling designer still owes us the proposed reset steps, so no booked robot trial yet.
Thanks Jane, that explains why we need both figures. Harish, is your existing reset timing for the same operator and setter arrangement you expect to keep? Otherwise the comparison could improve just because the pilot gets extra people.