Options for the future

Citation

Loughlin, C. (2005), "Options for the future", Industrial Robot, Vol. 32 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/ir.2005.04932eaa.001

Options for the future

Options for the future

The theme of this issue is “Advanced Assembly” and I consider that this basically means assembly operations that are currently undertaken by people rather than by machines.

Some assembly operations such as pcb population and manufacture are already very highly automated and in fact it would be very difficult if not impossible to assemble them by hand, especially considering the very small sizes of components these days and the great precision that is required to align the chips with their solder pads. Although this requires very high precision robots, the task is actually very simple. Some visual feedback is often required to compensate for component misallignment; but apart from this it is a straightforward pick and place task, and perfectly suited to robots or other multi-axis automated machines.

In our context advanced assemblies are those that require the compliance, intelligence and multi-fingered, multi-armed dexterity that people can supply. Not forgetting of course to add in the advanced visual and tactile sensors that come as part of the standard package.

Engineering is generally about using the best tool for the job and in many cases this means people. The only problem with this is that it may force companies that would otherwise manufacture in their own countries, to go abroad where labour is cheaper, and thereby lose some degree of control.

For this reason I consider it essential that companies should re-examine their assembly options and decide if certain operations, or indeed all operations, could be automated if enough effort was put in to solving the problems. The real benefit of automation as opposed to people is that automation can always be improved whereas people have much the same manual dexterity skill base now that they had thousands of years ago.

Compare this with the rate of advance in automation where one could conservatively estimate that performance would double and costs halve every ten years.

Those fortunate enough to also have access to our sister journals Assembly Automation and Sensor Review will be aware that we already have at our disposal all of the sensor and motor skills that are required for even the most complex assembly operations. The only problem is that they do not come ready integrated, and that some research and development can be required before a given system can be made fully operational. This can be one obstacle too far when a readily available alternative is on offer at a very attractive price.

I would encourage more companies to bite the bullet and decide that they will automate one or two, currently manual, assembly tasks. I would not recommend doing too many at once and would certainly recommend doing the easiest first. It also makes sense for these new systems to be activated in parallel with ongoing manual assembly operations. But if these steps are taken, then one by one companies will find that their dependance on manual labour will reduce and that their level of skill and confidence for new challenges will rise dramatically.

So – do not assume that some assembly tasks cannot be automated – challenge the status quo and advance your capabilities and your options for the future.

Clive Loughlin