IW Swings Both Ways on Robots

I was thumbing through the latest online issue of Industry Week and came across an article that raised my hackles: What Happened to the "Auto" in Automation?  Why?  Because IW, of all rags, was promoting robots.  Let's dive into it...

The headlines blared: "North American Robot Orders Declined 17% in First Quarter." Bad news? Yes, but the good side is that "non-automotive orders jumped 36%.

The good side may even be better, adds Rohit Khanolkar, engineering manager at Applied Manufacturing Technologies. His speculation hinges on whether the rest of manufacturing has come to realize how much the automotive industry gained from the lean flexibility of robotic automation. "The automotive industry has taken a lead role in selecting robots as their preferred flexible automation solution," Khanolkar says.

Yeah, right. Give me a second to get myself off the floor and stop laughing. The auto industry really is leading the world right now, isn't it?  Ok, there's also a little fuel cost thing skewing, or skewering, the industry a bit.  And remember that old Superbowl commercial where GM disrepects robots?  But let's move on before I start laughing again...

"Industries other than automotive need to realize the benefits that robots can add to their manufacturing processes. Robots are accurate, flexible, programmable, can work in environments not suited for humans, and more importantly, they are repeatable with a high degree of accuracy. These attributes directly contribute to end product quality, which in turn reduces scrap and rework -- a requirement of lean manufacturing."

And they can't think.  When was the last time a robot submitted an improvement suggestion?  Participated in a kaizen?

The article goes on to describe more of the glories of robotics, stats on how many bazillion have been deployed, etc.  I won't bore you with that; by now you know my opinion.

But then, since I felt I needed another good laugh, I clicked on a "related article" titled Seeking the Lean Potential of Robots.  I fully expected to be wowed by more robotic godliness, especially since the article was written by the same author as the first, John Teresko.  I was wrong. 

"Avoid the mistake of buying a robot and just being content with the expectation that lean process results will automatically occur." That's only the first caution from John Burg, president of Ellison Technologies Automation. His caveats continue: "Improve the task or process before automating it -- and get your organization to agree to the cultural shift that a lean commitment requires. Only then will robot tending of a machine tool or process pay off."

Holy cow... he gets it!  And believe it or not, I'm not necessarily against all robots; I'm against the danger of robots covering up or automating waste.

He recommends a formal investigation to validate the presence of lean processes. "Go beyond merely accepting verbal claims from the engineering department. Despite their assurances on lean, we often discover that machine operators are compensating for a whole host of inefficiencies in the cell.

"In at least 70% of our robot implementations, we find that production management may not be fully aware of the cell operating deficiencies that operators have to contend with."

Burg says, "The conventional goals are double-digit performance gains, otherwise nothing is done. And with robots, in an opportunistic sense, U.S. users tend to look at the automatons as a solution while they're actually only potential opportunities."

The other side of the coin is that a proper lean analysis may also show that there is no case for a robot implementation, adds Burg. "Correctly assessing the lean opportunity for robots is a significant consideration -- both for the customer and for us."

Remember, John Burg is the President of a robotics company.  And he's saying that "a proper lean analysis may show that there is not case for a robot implementation."  Hallelujah... there are a few good robotics guys out there!  At least one.  In fact, I'd suggest that if you are contemplating using robots, you should contact Mr. Burg to get an honest assessment.  It sounds like he'd have the guts to assess your lean implementation first.

The greatest strategic advantage, Burg adds, is to use lean practices as a competitive tool to maintain U.S. manufacturing -- to save the facility from outsourcing.

What a breath of fresh air.

Comments

[Mike]

Would you rather have too many people and have them all in highly repetitive workbench assembly jobs complete with CTDs and stultifying boredom? Or how about we go back to having people perform body painting and welding--work people just loved to do, which is why those jobs were always pawned off on the lowest seniority workers. One of the most common and egregious mistakes lean consultants and "thinkers" make is automatically disregarding robots and other forms of automation. Automation is indeed a vital part of modern manufacturing and can lead to some significant advantages if used correctly (like any other tool). Your sarcastic and cynical attitude is in danger of ruining your credibility, at least with me.

[Dave Blanchard]

Glad to hear we were able to brighten your day with a laugh, Kevin, although I'll admit that wasn't our original intent with the articles (John Brandt is our go-to guy for the humorous stuff). I think you're taking quite a big leap from the fact that IndustryWeek did an article on the slump in robot sales to automakers to assume from that that we're "promoting" robots, especially since as you noted in your comments on the "lean potential" article that some companies may not need robots at all. Since many of the manufacturers who read IndustryWeek do indeed use robots and other automation equipment, our intent is to offer up observations -- pro, con and otherwise -- about the current state of the robotics industry. You're certainly more than welcome to come onboard the IndustryWeek Forums and directly engage our readers on the merits (or lack thereof) of robots.

Best, Dave Blanchard, editor-in-chief, IndustryWeek

[Kevin]

Ok... does NO ONE read to the end of my posts anymore?!

"And believe it or not, I'm not necessarily against all robots; I'm against the danger of robots covering up or automating waste."

And that wasn't even at the end! And I think the second IW article was one of the best on robotics that I've seen in a long time.

Geesh...!

Automation is a vital form of manufacturing, it is extremely precise, and it can reduce ergonomic and other worker-related issues. No doubt! I agree! But I have also seen, and worked in, too many places that blindly implemented robotics simply to save labor hours, without regard to the efficiency of the underly process. "Lean" the process, then use robotics as a tool.

That was my point. If you had read to the bottom.

[John Hunter]

Are you blaming the user? :-) Just kidding. I agree with you, but I think many people read blog posts in a very quick way and can easily miss the point. Poka Yoke isn't just for the factory line.

I suppose trying to make it harder for people to misunderstand post could feel similar to how some feel about poka yoke solution. "Oh come on, how could anyone try to do that with it?" Just tell them to use it the right way and we don't need to do any of this poka yoke junk.

Misunderstanding posts also is a good example of how challenging some area are for doing things like poka yoke.

And really it isn't poka yoke, but the using the concept to make it more difficult for people to misunderstand I can see flowing from poka yoke. I can't really see how you can actually do poka yoke writing since you can't mistake proof writing from people misunderstanding it (I don't think).