I priced the arm and gripper, then asked my colleague to invent the enclosure fixtures for free. He's unimpressed. What should a small paid study answer before we call anything a pilot?
My FR10 enclosure estimate gives the fixture maker no budget
SarahBaker0502 · 2025年12月12日 21:56 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
20 条回复
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分Could 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分What physical trial, if any, is included in that study, rather than only drawings and an option review?
9分Drawings and option review first. No working robot trial promised. We have representative enclosures available.
7分Then 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分Does 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分Our 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分Include 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分Two variants cause most of the preparation. Both included, chosen with him. Thanks Beth, not just my favourite sample.
22分You 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分Alex, 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分What 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分Compare the options and decide stop, revise the scope, or price a supervised pilot. No automatic next order.
11分Will the study return its assumptions and unresolved access or holding questions with those options?
25分And 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分Review notes and candidate drawings, with assumptions and gaps. Production tooling excluded. His attendance and sample preparation have allowances.
20分That 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分And 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分Has your colleague agreed to the staff allowance, Sarah, or is it still your estimate of what you hope he can spare?
15分Keep 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分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .