简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

UR5e packing proposal with training priced and changeover left blank

HazelAllen0310 · 2026年5月10日 08:09 UTC

回复讨论
HA
HazelAllen0310
We have added guarding and presentation fixtures to our sensor-module packing estimate. Training is priced as a visit, but neither proposal says what our covering packer will be able to change over afterwards. I do not want to buy a day on a calendar and discover that the awkward bits need another visit.

16 条回复

GA
GabrielAli0192

Which changeover is missing from the training scope?

7
HA
HazelAllen0310

Changing the carton insert and selecting the matching job. Both exist in the proposed cell, but the quote only says operator familiarisation.

24
AN
AnilAbbott0027

Write that task into the enquiry with the actual operator and covering person. Familiarisation could mean watching a supplier do one easy cycle. You need an agreed handover of the work you're buying, including what happens when the insert and job don't match.

19
BR
BrunoAli0191

And who supports it afterwards? Training the packer does not create a maintenance contact. I'd want ownership of the fixtures, job changes and faults named alongside the visit, especially if different firms supply them.

6
FA
FarahChan1113

Try the proposed insert change as a simple walkthrough before pricing extra instruction; if its identity is hidden once fitted, more training may just teach people to remember something the design ought to show.

18
HA
HazelAllen0310

The packer found exactly that problem in the mock-up: the insert label faces the bench when fitted. Designer is moving the identification to a visible face. Both suppliers have the same changeover and cover brief now.

12
AN
AnilAbbott0027

Farah, yes, that is a design issue worth fixing. But Hazel still needs the covering person included; a clearer label won't explain who can authorise a job change or deal with an unexpected wait.

16
GA
GabrielAli0192

Did either supplier price the revised scope?

22
HA
HazelAllen0310

One has priced the defined changeover handover and a support contact. The other still excludes fixture changes and asks us to arrange a separate designer, so I have not ranked its lower total as equivalent.

-8
BR
BrunoAli0191

That second route can work, but somebody has to integrate the two responsibilities. I'd cost that honestly rather than reject it just for having another name on the drawing.

22
FA
FarahChan1113

Bruno's right; the question is whether the separate designer accepts the job and its handover, not whether one invoice looks tidier.

16
GA
GabrielAli0192

Do you have a designer willing to take it?

17
HA
HazelAllen0310

Yes. Their complete offer arrived, including integration with the robot supplier. It costs slightly more than the first proposal and offers no benefit for our two insert changes, so we are choosing the first.

24
AN
AnilAbbott0027

Does the chosen order now name the covering packer's changeover check? I mean demonstrated with the supplied job and insert information, not merely attendance at the visit.

21
HA
HazelAllen0310

It does. The agreed order includes that demonstration, mismatch handling, support ownership and the visible insert identification. We can finally compare and choose complete proposals; thanks Farah for the early mock-up point.

18
BR
BrunoAli0191

Useful outcome. Keep that agreed scope available to whoever receives the cell, because they're the person who will notice whether the promised handover actually happens.

18

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。