linuslarsson

Precision is not the biggest issue here. There are very precise robots out there.

The big issue is improvement of standardized work. If you automate early you get tethered by subpar standards. This is natural when you have workers: you iterate work instructions and what tools to use together as a group. This is basically how Toyota is so good at producing: every worker know what to do and when to do it. They haven't always been like this; they have slowly iterated into what they are today.

Improving on work instructions for a robot is tideaus at best, and really, really costly as a worst case: you either re-program, or you're forced to reinvest if the robot isn't capable of the new movements/steps.

I think a lot of people see "automation" as this end-all solution. When in reality it's expensive, unflexible and unstable. Most producing companies don't have good enough preventative maintenance for it to work at all. When you have recurring problems that your own technicians can't solve you're in deep water. It's easy to hire and (unfortunately) fire workers, but a bot you're stuck with.

I see robots/automation as a solution to a problem. That problem is safety. Either repetitive work that slowly breaks down the human, or "this is not good for you"-work that's directly dangerous.

I like that question from the sensei in that goldratt book: "did the robots make you more productive?".

Trying to invest your problems away is a waste of time and money if you don't know, and continously work with your processes. Or what they call kaizen in the article.