Human Factor in Manufacturing

This may be a hard question to answer ,and also very tough
to discuss during tough economic times ,but I somewhat need to
factor this in to justify some new automation. That is the Human
Factor in Manufacturing vs Robotics . Do you know of any links or
papers written about this subject ,or maybe a calculation that can
show the loss of production or profit due to humans , loss time,
mistakes , bad attitude , workmans compensation, smoke breaks ,
Healthcare ,etc. vs Robotics (Automation ) parts, breakdowns,added troubeshooting skills needed for maintenance ,etc.
I just left a auction at a plant that shutdown , it is a shame
to see so much manfacturing plants leave the U.S.

Any input would be great,

Thanks,

robots don't take smoke breaks

No matter how idiot-proof you make a system, the company will hire someone who can find the weakest point, or exercise extreme bad judgment in operation.

I have added logic to disallow staplers resting on mice, and other similar troubleshooting issues, making things "anti-bad-operator".

As long as there is a human factor, you can guarantee some inherent down time. I don't think you can tabulate that in advance. Some of the best engineers I know...

Shadrach said:

robots don't take smoke breaks

Click to expand...

Well.......they do occationally have the magic blue smoke

tacm said:

Well.......they do occationally have the magic blue smoke

Click to expand...

yes they do. i usually blame that on the maintenance guys though

Shadrach said:

yes they do. i usually blame that on the maintenance guys though

Click to expand...

It dosent sound as if you have a very tight engineering team if ANYONE is getting blamed.

I've lost my job several years ago due to the lack of automation in our plant. We were making parts for Ford, we had a 5 year contract and each year we had to reduce our cost by 5%. We planned on using robotic (pick and place) to eliminate about 15 job (thru retirement). The union was fighting us all they way. We managed to get approx. 4 robots installed but sabotage was the word of the day. The company actually lost money on each part made during the last year of the contract. When we re-bid the contract we were not selected (cost were too high). Our competitor got the contract and we sold our machines to them. I was loaned out to the new company to help install the machines they purchased...sorry to say everyplace we wanted to place a robot they did. Final count at our plant was 150 people lost their jobs, myself included.

In my company, we base it on head count. A temp is worth, say $20k by the time you factor in their pay and the pay to the temp service. If a robotics job can remove 1 head, it justifies $20k in savings.

Our financial department does not allow us to justify projects based on anything less than that increment. For instance, smoke breaks and absenteeism impact our efficiency number, but do not get counted towards productivity projects.

Additionally, we do not allow for savings if somebody is moved from one department to another, or is shifted from loading the line to operating the robot. This is how a project that should have saved $50k ends up saving only $10k when accounting gets through doing the math. To get the savings, somebody has to go out the door.

I try to be philosophical about my role in putting people on the bricks. We are a relatively small facility in a relatively large company, and employ about 200 people. We keep our costs low with automation, so we can compete with the chinese and their cheap disposable labor.

I focus on this - I'm not putting 3 guys out of a job. I'm saving 197 other people's jobs, including my own.

TM

"I focus on this - I'm not putting 3 guys out of a job. I'm saving 197 other people's jobs, including my own."

Thanks ,that's a good point. I wish that unions ,would see the big picture.

TimothyMoulder said:

I focus on this - I'm not putting 3 guys out of a job. I'm saving 197 other people's jobs, including my own.

TM

Click to expand...

A saying I have used is part of nothing is the same as all of nothing and if your company can not compete with your rivals that is what you will have in the end.

We calculate jobs the same way with a twist. We sometimes calculate based on a fraction of a person. It sounds strange until you look at the big picture. If you have a person doing 2 jobs and you elimated one of those jobs your labor reduction is .5 person. You still need to find a way to eliminate another .5 in labor to actually see any savings but it does show "possible" savings when added to other projects.

Another thing to look at is the cost of customer returns and how automation can save you there. If you can elimiate a possible defect from reaching your customer then whatever that defect costs you in the previous year or 18 months (time is based on your ROI) in customer returns is you justification.

Most people only see the labor as overhead, but you can have alot more than that to use to justify the cost of a project. Power consumption, material used, material wasted, production losses due to failing equipment all factor in.

Justifing projects can at times be as complicated as doing the projects themselves.

tacm said:

It dosent sound as if you have a very tight engineering team if ANYONE is getting blamed.

Click to expand...

actually, i'm the only engineer in a relatively newer plant. Haven't had any robot problems at all yet (knock on wood)

15 fanuc robots with the robot company right in our back yard. it's a nice safety net.

Automation may eliminate some tasks (jobs) but it also creates others.

A point missed in the 'Automation takes away jobs' argument is that automation most often vastly increases productivity. Companies with such increased production often end up with more people and better profits. All that is eliminated is one manual job. If that's absolutely the only thing a given worker could ever do then that worker would indeed loose his/her job. But most often the worker moves on to another newly created position, at possibly higher compensation, due to the increased productivity. The worker may need an upgrade in skills but that's true all the way through life.

You're the man, Bernie!

Higher productivity->higher profit margins->it's easier to justify more workers and pay them more->more money for company and everyone else.

bernie_carlton said:

A point missed in the 'Automation takes away jobs' argument is that automation most often vastly increases productivity. Companies with such increased production often end up with more people and better profits. All that is eliminated is one manual job. If that's absolutely the only thing a given worker could ever do then that worker would indeed loose his/her job. But most often the worker moves on to another newly created position, at possibly higher compensation, due to the increased productivity. The worker may need an upgrade in skills but that's true all the way through life.

Click to expand...

I agree with Bernie. To say it simple, I don't think one robot (ore any automation equipment) replacing one worker is the way to go. Giving one worker one robot and making them do tree times the profit is progress..