Ahmet Ö.
Corporate
- Thread Author
- #1
Automation: Smart but Usable!
I've been designing manufacturing equipment for about 30 years, and in that time, I've watched automation evolve. Better sensors, control systems, robots, and software mean we can now do things easily that used to be very difficult.
But despite all this technology, these fundamental questions always come to mind:
- Can the operator use the system without fighting it?
- Can the maintenance crews get to the cylinders, sensors, or fasteners?
- Can components be changed once the machine is assembled?
- Can the equipment adapt when the product changes?
- And perhaps most importantly: Are we automating the right problem?
These questions are part of what I call the "Toolie mindset." I believe automation still needs common sense.
Understand the Problem, Don't Get Hung Up on Technology!
A common mistake in automation is to start thinking about how to make something move without asking why it needs to move. For example, a part might need to be picked up, rotated, re-positioned, and then loaded into the next operation.
We can automate all of that. But before I start designing those motions, I question why the product needs to be rotated. Is that truly part of the process? Or is the product arriving at the station in the wrong orientation? Perhaps the packaging could be changed, or the previous operation could leave the part in a better position.
There might be a valid reason for automation, but it's important to know if the problem could be solved more easily elsewhere before developing an automated solution. That's what the "Toolie mindset" is all about: Don't just solve the problem in front of you; take a step back and question if it's truly a problem.
The Operator Is Still Part of the System!
Automation doesn't always mean completely eliminating the operator. In many pieces of manufacturing equipment, humans and machines work together. This means the operator needs to be considered as part of the overall design.
Where are the operator's hands? Where do they stand? How do they approach the equipment? Are they forced to twist or re-position something every cycle? A single bad motion might seem insignificant in one cycle, but that changes when the operator does it repeatedly for an entire shift.
A machine can perform its automated sequence perfectly, but create a terrible process for the person working alongside it. Automation is only one part of the system.
Someone Will Eventually Fix It!
One of the easiest mistakes to make is to design for installation day. Everything is new, everything works, everyone is happy. But what about a few years down the road? A sensor is damaged, a fitting is leaking, a cylinder needs to be removed. Now what? Did we think about that? Can someone reach it?
The design can go from impressive to infuriating very quickly at that point. A component might fit perfectly in the CAD assembly, but be in a terrible spot when someone has to put a wrench on it.
During design reviews, I like to stop and imagine myself as maintenance personnel instead of the designer. What is most likely to need attention? Can I see it? Can I reach it? Can I get a tool on it? If I remove the fasteners, is there actually room to extract the component?
Being able to unbolt something and being able to remove it are not always the same thing.
Mechanics and Controls Can't Ignore Each Other!
Automation lives at the intersection of different disciplines. Mechanically, a sensor might fit. Electrically, it might work perfectly. But can it be adjusted? Can someone see its indicator? Is the cable routing protected? Can it be replaced?
The same applies to pneumatic components. The cylinders might have the correct bore and stroke. Great. Where are the ports? Where do the fittings go? Can maintenance crews get a wrench on them? Can the tubing be routed neatly? What happens when the air pressure is cut off? None of these questions are strictly mechanical or strictly controls. They belong to the system.
That's why I think the best equipment comes from people who talk to each other early in the process.
Standard Components Make Life Easier!
Whenever possible, I like to use standard components. This doesn't mean everything has to come from a catalog. Custom equipment requires custom parts. But I don't want to create a custom component just because I can.
If a standard cylinder, bearing, clamp, sensor, switch, or other purchased component does the job correctly, there's real value in using it. Replacement becomes easier. Documentation is available. The next designer can identify it.
Maintenance crews have a chance of finding another one years later. Every custom part is another thing that has to be supported for the life of the equipment. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes it's not. I want complexity to earn its way into the design.
Real Equipment Needs Adjustment!
CAD likes everything to be precise. Manufacturing plants are not precise. Parts vary. Welds move. Existing equipment is modified. Products change. Processes change. Operators change. If an automated system only works when everything in the real world perfectly matches the CAD model, I get nervous. This doesn't mean I want adjustment everywhere. Too much adjustment can be just as bad.
What I want is controlled adjustment where variation is likely. Give the builder or maintenance person what they need to deal with reality without giving them so much freedom that they create another problem. Sometimes a single slot, shim location, or adjustable stop can save hours of field work.
The Machine Should Make Sense!
I also think the equipment should make sense when you look at it. If a clamp is locked, it should be fairly obvious that it's locked. If something needs to move, the motion needs to be logical. If there's an adjustment, someone should be able to figure out what that adjustment changes.
Automation can get complicated very quickly. There are times when that complexity is unavoidable. But I don't want the mechanical part of the machine to add mystery just for the sake of being clever. A mechanism that only makes sense when the original designer is there explaining it is definitely not my favorite type of design. The equipment will likely outlive the project team. Design with that in mind.
What Happens When Something Changes?
The first product is never the last product. Manufacturers change models. Parts are revised. Volumes change. Processes change. A machine designed around a single perfect fixed condition can become difficult to reuse later. I'm not suggesting we try to predict every future product. That can also create unnecessary complexity. But when there's an obvious place where reasonable flexibility can be designed in without compromising the original function, it's worth considering.
Features like a controlled adjustment or interchangeable contact points can make it easier to adapt to future changes.
