TECHNICAL PAPER

TP04PUB206
Comparison of Fixed Automation and Flexible Automation from a Productivity Standpoint
author(s)
DANIEL E. KANDRAY, PE
Kent State University New Philadelphia, Ohio

abstract
This paper presents scenarios, from a productivity standpoint, of when a flexible automation system can be justified over a lower cost, fixed automation system. The traditional definitions of fixed and flexible automation systems are presented along with standard selection guidelines. A theoretical case study is offered with production requirements and machine costs. Calculations are performed to evaluate the productivity of a fixed automation solution and a flexible automation solution. Machine productivity variables are selected and altered to evaluate various situations.

conference
Automation & Assembly Summit May 10-12, 2004 Fort Worth, Texas

terms
Automation Fixed Automation Flexible Automation Partial Automation Productivity Machine Productivity

2004

Society of Manufacturing Engineers One SME Drive P.O. Box 930 Dearborn, MI 48121 Phone (313) 271-1500 www.sme.org

SME TECHNICAL PAPERS This Technical Paper may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form without the express written permission of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. By publishing this paper, SME neither endorses any product, service or information discussed herein, nor offers any technical advice. SME specifically disclaims any warranty of reliability or safety of any of the information contained herein.

Comparison of Fixed Automation and Flexible Automation from a Productivity Standpoint

Daniel E. Kandray, PE, Kent State University Abstract
This paper presents scenarios, from a productivity standpoint, of when a flexible automation system can be justified over a lower cost, fixed automation system. The traditional definitions of fixed and flexible automation systems are presented along with standard selection guidelines. A theoretical case study is offered with production requirements and machine costs. Calculations are performed to evaluate the productivity of a fixed automation solution and a flexible automation solution. Machine productivity variables are selected and altered to evaluate various situations. Based on the calculations, guidelines are developed to aid in selecting the appropriate automation solution. The case studies are limited to partial automation of the total manufacturing process. The intent of the paper is to aid small to medium sized manufacturers in selecting the automation system that will yield the most productivity. lost for changeovers1. This is the key aspect of the flexible definition. Since flexible and fixed automation can be applied to a wide variety of processes, some narrowing of the scope is necessary to make the analysis more manageable. Consequently, the focus of the research was limited to assembly production of small components. Additionally, the research is limited to partial automation of the total manufacturing process. Partial automation involves only automating a small portion of the overall manufacturing process. The overall process is a mix of automated and manual work stations2. Traditionally a fixed automation approach to productivity improvement is used when the following conditions are met1:

Low product variability Predictable and stable production requirements for 2 to 5 years. High production volume High production rates

Background
The intent of this paper is to verify the recommendations commonly made as to when to use a fixed automation approach or a flexible automation approach to improve productivity within the factory. Evaluation of each system is based on machine productivity. Fixed automation is characterized by a series of closely spaced production stations linked by materialhandling devices to move the parts from one machine (or operation) to the next1. It is a sequential production process with each station performing one of the process steps. Essentially, raw material or components enter the automation and finished parts exit the machine. Typically the system produces only one or a few different types of parts1. Changeover time from one product to another can be substantial. Fixed automation can be thought of as special purpose automation2. It is designed to automate a specific process or series of processes. Therefore it is essentially fixed to that task. Flexible automations physical makeup is similar to fixed automation. It consists of a group of production stations interconnected with material handling equipment and controlled by a computer system2. Flexible automation is capable of producing a variety of parts with virtually no time

These requirements exist because of the relatively high initial investment and the inflexibility of the automation to be used with any other product. Thus to justify the investment, the cost will have to be spread over a single high volume product. Fixed automation systems typically have faster production rates than flexible automation. Conversely, flexible automation is used when1: Product mix is manufactured on same production system Constant product engineering changes to

Product family will expand with similar models Moderate production volume

Like fixed automation, flexible automation can be an expensive proposition. Its costs are typically higher than that of fixed automation, at slower production rates. Therefore, to justify the investment, the cost must be spread over many different products with varying

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

production volume. The flexibility of the system makes this possible. Also, unlike fixed automation, the stability of the products is not that significant because the system can process a variety of different products. However, the production rates can be significantly slower than fixed automation. Both fixed and flexible automation have prospered equally well in the traditional batch and queue environment of modern industry. However, with the Lean Manufacturing revolution, that situation is bound to change3. Lean manufacturing strives to eliminate waste; lowering inventory and focuses on pull manufacturing. Pull manufacturing is producing only what the customer wants, when they want it. This effectively eliminates batch manufacturing and inventories. It requires flexible manufacturing for quick product changeover as driven by customer orders. Consequently, the pressure to have flexible manufacturing systems is growing. Therefore the purpose of this document is to quantify values of specific variables to aid a manufacturer in the decision process of when to use fixed or flexible automation.

These systems typically consist of an industrial robot integrated with a vision system. In the fixed automation system, the products have to be presented mechanically in the correct orientation to the correct workstation at the correct time.

1
Figure 1:

Physical Structure
The physical structure of a fixed automation machine or cell and a flexible automation cell are similar. A fixed automation machine is shown in Figure 1. The basic components as shown in Figure 1 include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Machine frame and tooling plate Prefeed hoppers

The robotic system has intelligence in that it can determine which part is presented, its orientation and which workstation can assemble it. As would be expected, these capabilities come at a considerable cost. The question then becomes, at what productivity level justifies the cost of the added capabilities of the flexible system?

Case Study Model

Part feeders Processing stations Computer control In order to analyze when flexible automation should be chosen over fixed automation, two versions of a typical assembly machine will be evaluated. The first machine will be a fixed automation machine as shown in Figure 1. The second machine will be a flexible automation version of the machine shown in Figure 1. The machines are designed to assemble 3 different types of parts. The parts consist of an insert (either plastic or metal) and a grommet. The parts are shown in Figure 2. Part A has a plastic insert and parts B & C have metal inserts. In the case of the fixed automation machine, a specific machine setup will be required to run each part (A, B, or C). Once the machine is setup for that part, it

A flexible manufacturing cell developed to perform the same assembly process as shown in Figure 1 would contain many of the same basic components. The primary differences would be with the part feeders and processing stations. Each of these elements would have to be able to process a variety of products. Consequently intelligent robots would be used with more workstations to handle the assembly of the product mix. Intelligent robots are defined as robotic systems capable of discriminating and locating the products to be assembled.

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

can assemble only that part. When it comes time to run the next part, the machine will have to be shutdown and setup to run that part. It will only be able to run one type of part (A, B, or C) at a time.

Figure 2

The flexible automation machine, on the other hand, will be able to run either of the parts, at anytime, without setup. Therefore, by dumping different parts in the hopper the machine will automatically adjust for the next part. This will be accomplished with two articulated robots equipped with vision systems. One robot will load the grommets; the other will load the inserts. The prefeed hoppers will feed the parts onto short conveyors. The robot vision system will identify the type of part (A, B or C) and its location. The robot will then pick the part up, orient it correctly and place it in the appropriate assembly fixture. A break down of the major components and corresponding prices for each machine are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Note that the prices are estimates by the author based on past experience. The two most notable differences between the machines are that the flexible machine is more than double the price of the fixed machine and has 9 fewer subassemblies. Utilizing the articulating robots with vision systems eliminated $8525 worth of items on the fixed machine. Additionally the flexible machine has a lower design and assembly price because of the fewer components. However the price of the robots and vision systems far exceeds these savings, hence the more than doubling of the price for the machine. Table 3 lists the assumed production capabilities of each machine. Each setup will require 2 operators 4 hours to complete. Table 4 shows theoretical average annual production requirements of each type of part.

Table 1 Fixed Automation Machine Price No. Subassemblies 1 Machine Frame & Exit Hopper 2 Tooling Plate 3 Insert Prefeed Hopper 4 Grommet Prefeed Hopper 5 Insert Bowl Feeder 6 Grommet Bowl Feeder 7 Part A Orienting Tooling 8 Part B Orienting Tooling 9 Insert Bowl Feeder (Part A) 10 Insert Bowl Feeder Tooling for Part B 11 Insert Bowl Feeder Tooling for Part C 12 Insert conveying equipment (Part A) 13 Insert conveying equipment (Part B) 14 Insert conveying equipment (Part C) 15 Grommet conveying equipment 16 Assembly Tooling - Part A 17 Assembly Tooling - Part B 18 Assembly Tooling - Part C 19 Electrical Control System 20 Design & Engineering 21 Labor & Material for Assembly Total

Price $1,550 $750 $450 $550 $1,100 $1,550 $800 $775 $1,850 $400 $400 $450 $450 $450 $300 $5,750 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 $12,000 $7,000 $46,575

Table 2 Flexible Automation Machine Price No. Subassemblies Price 1 Machine Frame & Exit Hopper $1,550 2 Tooling Plate $750 3 Insert Prefeed Hopper & Conveyor $850 4 Grommet Prefeed Hopper & Conveyor $950 Articulated Robot & Vison System for 5 $30,000 Grommet Articulated Robot & Vison System for 6 $30,000 Insert 7 Assembly Tooling - Part A $5,750 8 Assembly Tooling - Part B $5,250 9 Assembly Tooling - Part C $4,750 10 Electrical Control System $6,000 11 Design & Engineering $6,000 12 Labor & Material for Assembly $5,500 Total $97,350
Table 3: Production Capabilities Setup time Cycle Time Machine (hrs) (pcs/min) Fixed 4.00 30 Flexible 0 15
The parts are used in an automotive application. Therefore the life of each part is typically limited to 2 to 3 years. After this life, the part is either redesigned or dropped and replaced with a new part. For this analysis it

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

will be assumed that all 3 parts have an effective life of 3 years, after which they will be replaced with similar, but new designs.

FOHRL = factory overhead rate for labor (%) CM = machine hourly rate ($/hr) FOHRM = factory overhead rate applicable to the machine ($/hr) Factory overhead expenses allocated to direct labor can include state taxes, fringe benefits and line supervision. The machine overhead rate is based on the factory expenses that are directly assignable to the machine2. The rate is determined by dividing the annual factory overhead costs by the annual direct labor costs. For this analysis it is assumed that the factory overhead rate for labor is 60% and the factory overhead rate for the machines is 50%. The machine hourly rate is determined by calculating the machine annual cost and dividing it by the total hours the machine will run per year. The machine annual cost is the initial cost of the machine apportioned over the life of the machine at the appropriate rate of return. It is calculated as follows2: UAC= IC(A/P,i,n) Where: UAC = equivalent uniform annual cost ($/yr)

Table 4: Average Annual Production Req. Annual Monthly Part Production Production A 3,000,000 250,000 B 1,000,000 83,333 C 500,000 41,667
Based on the data in Tables 3 and 4, and assuming parts are shipped each month, the required number of hours each machine must run per month can be determined. This data is shown in Table 5. Note that it is assumed the fixed machine will only be setup to run parts B and C once a month. Consequently there will be 3 setups per month for the fixed machine.

Table 5: Run Time per Month Machine Fixed Flexible Setup Run Time Total Run Time (hrs) (hrs) Time (hrs) 12.0 0 208.3 416.7 220.3 416.7

It is assumed that these machines will be used in a 3-shift operation operating 5 days a week, 250 days a year. Consequently, for a given month, the fixed machine will only be running 43% of the time (208.3/480 hrs per month) to meet the current orders. The flexible machine, on the other hand, will need to run 87% of time. In both cases adequate time is available for routine maintenance and unplanned downtime. Also, because these machines are fully automated, each will only require an operator to attend its needs for 15 min of every hour.

IC = initial cost of the machine ($) (A/P,i,n) = capital recovery factory that converts initial cost at year zero into a series of equivalent uniform annual year end value. It can be found in interest tables that are widely available. i = annual interest rate n = number of years service life of the machine The fixed automated machine will have a service life of 3 years at which time it will have a salvage value of $0. Most of its components would have to be redesigned and remanufactured for the next generation of parts. The decision to redesign the fixed machine or replace it with a new machine is not part of this analysis. The flexible machine is estimated to have a service life of 6 years. It will be easily adapted to the next generation of parts. With the current technological advances, however, it is assumed that after 6 years its salvage value will be $0. Using the formulas and data discussed, and assuming a direct labor rate of $10.00/hr the hourly cost rate of each machine is shown in Table 6.

Calculations
In order to perform an effective analysis of the alternatives, the cost of equipment usage for each machine must be determined. The machine in combination with the operator makes up the assembly work cell. Therefore, the total cost rate for the work cell is the sum of the labor and machine costs. This can be summarized by2: Co = CL(1+FOHRL) + CM(1+FOHRM) Where: Co = hourly rate to operate the work center ($/hr) CL = direct labor wage rate ($/hr)

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

Table 6: Machine Hourly Rate Fixed Description Machine Machine Price $ $46,575 Interest Rate % 10% Service Life yrs 3 UAC $/yr $18,728 Number of hours hrs 2500 operated per year Cm $/hr $7.49 Labor Rate $/hr $10.00 Setup hours per hrs 144 year Setup costs for 2 employees per $ $2,877 year Labor Rate per run hour of machine $/hr $3.65 (CL) 60% FOHRL % 50% FOHRM % Machine Hourly $/hr $17.08 Rate (Co)

Flexible Machine $97,350 10% 6 $22,352 5000 $4.47 $10.00 0 $0

defined as the combined labor and machine productivity. Table 7 shows these calculations. The required production rate was given in Table 4. The Labor Wage Rate was calculated in Table 6. The Yearly Labor Cost is determined by multiplying the Labor Wage Rate by the Total Run Time hours per month, given in Table 5, times 12 months per year. The corresponding Labor Productivity is then the Production Rate (output) divided by the Yearly Labor Cost (Input). The fixed machine is used as the baseline. Thus it has a Labor Productivity Index of 1. The flexible machines Labor Productivity Index is determined by taking the flexible machines Labor Productivity and dividing it by the fixed machines Labor Productivity (360/466). A productivity index of greater than 1 for the flexible machine would indicate it is more productive than the fixed machine. For the example, this is not the case.

$2.50 60% 50% $10.71

The fixed machine has a higher hourly rate even though it cost less than half as much as the flexible machine. This is due to its cost being spread over fewer years (3 versus 6 for the flexible) and lower utilization. If the volume of parts run on the fixed machine were increased, the hourly rate would be much lower. Essentially the fixed machine has excess capacity. This higher rate for the fixed machines verifies the statement made previously that to justify fixed automation, high production volumes are needed. However the high production volumes must be considered relative to the production rates. The higher the rate, the higher the volume required. Note that the higher labor rate per machine hour for the fixed machine is caused by the labor setup costs being added to the standard labor rate.

Table 7: Combined Productivity Comparison Fixed Flexible Description Machine Machine Production Rate parts/yr 4,500,000 4,500,000 Labor Wage Rate $/hr $3.65 $2.50 Yearly Labor Cost $/yr $9,652 $12,500 Labor Productivity parts/$ 466 360 Labor Productivity 1.00 0.77 Index $7.49 $4.47 Machine Rate $/hr Yearly Machine $/yr $19,806 $22,352 Cost Machine parts/$ 227.20 201.32 Productivity Machine 1.00 0.89 Productivity Index Combined parts/$ 152.76 129.12 Productivity Combined 1.00 0.85 Productivity Index

Productivity Calculations
Productivity is simply the output generated from a system divided by the inputs provided to the system4. In order to determine the productivity of the automated machine or work cell one can take the output of the machine in parts per year and divide that by the combined input of labor costs and machine costs. This is

Similarly, the Machine Productivity and Machine Productivity Index can be determined. The Yearly Machine Cost is simply the Machine Rate multiplied by the Total Run Time hours per month, given in Table 5, times 12 months per year. The Machine Productivity is then determined by dividing the Production Rate (output) by the Yearly Machine Cost (input). The Combined Productivity is then calculated by adding the Yearly Labor Cost and Yearly Machine Costs together and dividing the Production Rate by the result.

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

Index

The labor productivity index indicates that the fixed machine is 23% more productive than the flexible machine. This is due to the higher cycle time of the fixed machine. The higher cycle time equates to lower run hours and corresponding lower labor hours. The machine productivity index also indicates an 11% decrease in productivity with the flexible machine. This is due to the higher yearly machine cost. The resulting combined productivity index indicates that the fixed machine is 15% more productive. Based on this analysis it can only be concluded that the fixed machine is more productive for the situation presented. The question then becomes, in what situation would the flexible machine become as productive as the fixed machine? The next section evaluates specific variables and the corresponding effect on combined productivity.

situation. The production rate ratio and the service life ratio were held constant at 0.5 and 2 respectively.
Figure 3: Flexible Machine Productivity Indexes with PRR=.5, SLR=2

1.85 1.65 1.45 1.25 1.05 0.85 0.65 0.45 0.25 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 Labor Productivity Index Machine Productivity Index Combined Productivity Index Fixed Machine Index

Analysis
Three variables typically involved in the decision analysis of which type of machine to select for a given automation project will be analyzed to determine the effect on the combined productivity index. These variables include: Machine Cost Ratio (CR) Production Rate Ratio (PRR) Service Life Ratio (SLR)

Cost Ratio

An index of 1 represents the baseline productivity of the fixed machine. When an index passes above the fixed machine index of 1, the flexible machines productivity surpasses that of the fixed machine. Figure 3 indicates that varying the cost ratio has no effect on the labor cost index (straight line). However, it does significantly affect the machine productivity index and the corresponding combined productivity index. At a cost ratio of approximately 1.58 the flexible machine becomes as productive as the fixed machine. This is shown in the graph by the Combined Productivity Index line crossing the Fixed Machine Index line. For our example, if the flexible machines price is reduced from $97,350 to $73,590, it will be as productive as the fixed machine. Thus as the price of the flexible machine decreases below a ratio of 1.58, its selection becomes more attractive. Figure 4 shows the effect on the productivity indexes as the production rate ratio is increased to .75. A higher PRR means that the cycle time of the flexible machine is moved closer to that of the fixed machine. As expected, the labor productivity index of the flexible machine is not affected. Figure 4 indicates that as the cycle time of the flexible machine approaches that of the fixed machine, the cost ratio at which the flexible machine becomes more productive than the fixed machine increases to approximately 1.98. Therefore a higher priced flexible machine can be justified if the cycle time is increased relative to the fixed machine.

The machine cost ratio is the ratio of the cost of the flexible machine divided by the fixed machine cost. The ratio for the case study presented is 2.09. The utilization of robotic systems with the flexible machine will cause its cost to exceed that of the fixed machine. A range of ratios from 1.25 to 2.5 was evaluated. The Production Rate Ratio is the ratio of the flexible machines cycle time divided by the fixed machines cycle time. The current ratio is .5. Typically the production rate of the fixed machine will be faster than the flexible machine. Therefore this ratio will be evaluated from .25 to .75. The Service Life Ratio is defined as the service life of the flexible machine divided by the service life of the fixed machine. The service life ratio for the case study presented is 2. The inherent flexibility of the flexible machine suggests a longer service life. A range of service life ratios from 1.5 to 2.5 will be evaluated. Figure 3 shows a plot of machine cost ratio versus several productivity indexes for the case study

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

Figure 4: Flexible Machine Productivity Indexes with PRR=.75 and SLR=2 1.65 1.45 1.25 Index 1.05 0.85 0.65 0.45 0.25 1.25 Labor Productivity Index Machine Productivity Index Combined Productivity Index Fixed Machine Index 1.75 2.25 2.75

productivity index was considered, it would be concluded that the flexible machine would never be as productive as the fixed machine. Conversely, if only the machine productivity index was considered, a much higher cost flexible machine could be selected (Cost Ratio > 1.75). Therefore, it is imperative productivity judgments be based on a combined index4. Figure 6 attempts to summarize these factors by defining a Cost Ratio Break Even Point (CRBEP). This break even point is the Cost Ratio at which the Flexible Machine becomes as productive as the Fixed Machine for a given Service Life Ratio and a Production Rate Ratio. The Production Rate Ratio (PRR) was varied from .25 to 1.0 along the X-axis and the Cost Ratio Break Even Point is plotted along the Y-axis. Four different Service Life Ratio curves are plotted. Note that Figure 6 uses production volumes and setup costs from the case study.
Figure 6: Combined Productivity Cost Ratio Break Even Point versus Production Rate Ratio

Cost Ratio

CR Break even Point

Figure 5 demonstrates the effect of a decrease in the service life ratio. The service life ratio is reduced from 2 to 1.5. Therefore, for the case study, the service life of the flexible machine is reduced to 4.5 years. As the service life ratio is reduced, the cost ratio must be lower for the flexible machine to be as productive as the fixed machine. For the example, the flexible machine does not become as productive as the fixed machine unless its cost is only 1.26 times that of the fixed machine.
Figure 5: Flexible Machine Productivity Indexes with PRR=.5 and SLR=1.5 1.25 1.15 1.05 0.95 0.85 0.75 0.65 0.55 0.45 0.35 0.25 1.25

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.25

CRBEP for SLR=1.5 CRBEP for SLR=2.0 CRBEP for SLR=2.5 CRBEP for SLR=1.0 0.75

Labor Productivity Index Machine Productivity Index Combined Productivity Index Fixed Machine Index

Production Rate Ratio

Index

This data indicates that the lower the SLR and PRR, the lower the CR break even point (CRBEP). If the CR break even point is below 1, this indicates that the flexible machine must be cheaper than the fixed machine. On the other end of the spectrum, a flexible machine with a higher service life ratio (cost spread over more years) and a production rate approaching that of the fixed machine can be justified with a CRBEP of over 2.5. Therefore the flexible machine could cost 2.5 times more than the fixed machine if its service life was 2.5 times longer. Additionally as the cycle time of the flexible machine increases in relation to the fixed machine, the CRBEP increases.

1.75

2.25

2.75

Cost Ratio

Figures 3 through 5 also highlight a very important point. If labor productivity or machine productivity are not combined, the results could be misleading. For example, in Figure 3, if only the labor

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

Note that Figure 6 uses setup costs and production volumes from the case study model. The Combined Productivity Cost Ratio Break Even Point will vary as the setup costs for the fixed machine vary. Figure 7 demonstrates this phenomenon. If setup costs are expressed as a percentage of the uniform annual machine cost, the Combined Productivity Cost Ratio Break Even Point can be recalculated for various percentages. For the case study model the percentage of the uniform annual machine cost is approximately 15%. As shown in Figure 7, if this percentage is increased (i.e. the fixed machines setup costs are increased) the CRBEP also increases. Conversely, if the setup time is decreased for the fixed machine, the CRBEP decreases as well.
Figure 7: Combined Productivity Cost Ratio Break Even Point for PRR = .5 and SLR = 2.0 versus Fixed Machine Setup Costs Expressed as a % of UAC
CR Break even Point 4 3 2 1 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Setup Cost % of UAC

Figure 8: Combined Productivity Cost Ratio Break Even Point for PRR = .75 and SLR = 2.0 versus Production Volume

2.5 CR Break even Point 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 Annual Production Volume (millions of parts)

Conclusion
Productivity analysis of two automation alternatives can aid an organization in making the correct selection from a productivity standpoint and provide guidelines for machine specifications. Additionally, the analysis quantifies traditional guidelines of when to use fixed automation versus flexible automation. In general the following guidelines can be utilized: As the cycle time of the flexible machine is brought closer to that of the fixed machine, a higher cost ratio of the flexible machine can be justified, while still providing the same level of productivity as the fixed machine. Spreading the cost of the flexible machine over more years will also enable the justification of the higher cost of the flexible machine. As the setup cost of the fixed machine is reduced, the cost of the flexible machine to provide the same level of productivity is reduced. Thereby reducing the attractiveness of the flexible machine. Increasing production volume favors the fixed machine. This is shown as a reduction in the cost ratio with increases in production volume.

Similarly, the production volume will also influence the Combined Productivity Cost Ratio Break Even Point. Figure 8 shows that an increase in the production volume will decrease the CRBEP for a given PRR and SLR. For the case study model, an increase in production volume from 4.5 million parts per year to 7.7 million reduces the CRBEP from 1.97 to 1.78. Consequently, a less expensive flexible machine will be required.

Note that these guidelines are in sync with the conditions listed at the beginning of this paper, as to when to use a fixed or flexible automation system. Flexible machines utilizing robotics and vision systems offer many advantages over fixed automation
Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved

machines. Fewer components equate to better reliability. The inherent flexibility translates into longer service lives than fixed machines. With the state of current technology, the processing speed of the systems approaches that of fixed machines. Consequently, from a productivity standpoint, their higher cost can often be justified.

References
[1] Rehg, James, A., Introduction to Robotics in CIM Systems, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall, 2003. Groover, Mikell, P., Automation, Production Systems, and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, 2001. Womack, James, P.., Jones, Daniel, T., Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, 1996. Sumanth, David, J., Productivity Engineering and Management, McGraw Hill, 1994

[2]

[3]

[4]

Copyright 2004 Kandray Engineering, Ltd. All rights reserved