Industry 4.0. - Economic convenience in process automation.

#robotics #biw #automation

Not always all attempts to automate a productive process are managed to automate it successfully.

Is it possible to always automate a productive process? It depends on the economic convenience, which is what determines everything.

The positive part of working in Germany is that it is a market where you get used to always having large economic investments behind. But what is really invisible for those of us who are in the trenches of process automation, are the economic studies that are done in the automotive industry to assess whether the investment effort will ultimately be profitable or not.

Unfortunately, the focus is on the possibilities that technology can offer, but it seems that the R&D and the very start-up of the process to be automated are left for the latter.

I understand the automation of processes from the perspective of the use of robots to carry out a productive process, but there are much simpler machines, that also perform invaluable tasks in the production process, such as a conveyor chain of parts from one point to another an automobile factory.

Taking a morning coffee before the start of the day, with a veteran (25 years' experience) PLC programmer, who is at the same time a great professional, friend and a great expert of the Daimler standard, he told me the case of the Mercedes E-Class manufactured in Sindelfingen, and that this huge factory has disseminated instead of concentrated the different lines of manufacture necessary to build this model in particular, in different workshops of welding of the factory, anyone can see it in 3D from satellite photographs using Google Maps, and that to be able to move the flow of parts manufactured for that model internally by the factory itself, it causes that it has to be used small trains of containers with pieces, to transport them to the next point in the production flow of the Mercedes E class.

It should be remembered that the square meters of industrial land are not an infinite resource, but rather on the contrary, a scarce good that is always in constant optimization to try to make more productive processes, in the same amount of available space.

The most obvious would be to think that instead of using trains, it would be more convenient to use an aerial walkway, in which a conveyor could be installed, in order to be able to move the manufactured parts through it and in which a robot deposit the piece on it, and another would pick it up, to continue with the manufacturing process, and be able to do it without the mentioned trains. In principle the idea seems good, right?

Well, the technical complexity of installing the walkway, together with the relevant economic study, had determined that the factory itself had rejected the construction of the aforementioned walkway, and that it was cheaper and more operational to employ 100 or more people (remember that we are talking about German salaries) to take care of this flow of parts mentioned, that try to automate the process through the means described above.

In other words, a corporation such as Daimler, which has an important financial capacity, and is capable of paying R & D expenses of one million euros every day of the year, had rejected automation of this process, due to lack of economic convenience.

And it is that the economic convenience determines everything, and of course it is necessary to remember that the automation of processes will depend directly on the investment support that is behind, which nobody has been able to explain from which pocket all this investment effort in this Industry revolution 4.0. of which rivers of ink have already been written, and which, in my opinion, does not stop being a mere marketing campaign in search of guinea pigs or incautious, that assume this investment effort.

In previous articles I have spoken profusely, about the different standards of each of the large groups of car manufacturers, but what is really an automotive standard?

We could say that, from the point of view of the programmers of robots and PLCs, is the set of rules to follow in the programming of processes, to carry out a productive process, but this first definition in my opinion is quite short. For a large majority of programmers, it happens to us completely unnoticed the fact that what is really behind.

Let me use a simpler example to explain how complex an automotive standard is in itself.

If we had to cook a dish using a Thermomix (a kitchen robot quite widespread in domestic & professionals European kitchens), the standard would be the recipe that specifies the steps to follow in order to cook the dish. But the recipe in this case, does not remain in the fact that to cook the recipe specifies how many minutes, at what speed and / or direction of rotation, or whether it is going to use or not the battery of accessories available to the own kitchen robot.

An automotive standard goes further, defining which specific machine model of Thermomix is to be used, which is the voltage to which it must work, as it must be the interface between man and machine, the control device necessary to control the power supply and a long etcetera, in order that the user if he uses so many grams of a certain ingredient, at a certain speed, cooking temperature and mixing the different ingredients in the steps described, will result in a succulent dish.

An automotive standard of BiW defines the criteria and specifications to be followed for the control of electrical power, which devices are specially selected for use in the aforementioned standard, the connectors used, the devices to guarantee the safety in a robotic station , the quality of the electrical and fluid cables, the way of designing the tools used in each of the production processes, the material to be used in the supports (nylon or steel), the exact definition of the pieces, both in shape, dimensions , thickness and others, what stages the project has to follow and what objectives have to be met in each of these stages, which audits have to be overcome in order to continue moving forward in the project, how the control cabinets are to be arranged, take into account the subsequent and necessary maintenance of the same, as it has to label everything for a correct identification that display screens and beacons must be used, and of course, which robot brands and PLCs are to be used, and the mentioned rules to follow, to carry out the programming of the same, plus a very long etcetera that would be impossible to list here.

What I have mentioned here would be for us to understand, the small tip of the iceberg that involves the investment effort that each car group has been willing to take on and invest, depending on each of their needs to develop their processes and that not all groups make cars in the same way, just as there are no two bakers who make bread in the same way, and it has taken decades of investment, failure and learning to translate into writing defining exactly how makes a car, according to what they have been willing to invest in the development of the standard, and that this investment effort is subsequently applied the corresponding percentage of depreciation based on the number of units manufactured, in the final price to each vehicle purchased by the final customer who is willing to buy a vehicle from said carmaker.

The automotive industry was one of the first industries that adopted robotic technology in the early 1970s, and has already used robots in their processes for nearly 50 years, and has been able to cover the investment effort to make this machinery operational in their processes, due to the inherent profitability of automobile production.

Also remember that despite the half century elapsed while, the workshops of presses, welding, engines, gearboxes and painting are without a doubt the most automated and robotized within a car factory, on the contrary the assembly shops and final coatings continue to be used mainly to people who perform the final assembly and final quality inspection before delivery the car to the final customer, and not even the very Honda that is the most advanced in the attempt to robotize these workshops, has NOT been able thanks to its humanoid robot "Asimo" that presented it to the general public in the year 2000, to be able to displace the humans of these mentioned departments.

That a robot can be used for other sectors of the economy, of course, I do not doubt it, but my question remains the same:

Who will take the effort in time, money and talent required to carry out the development and implementation of robotic and automated processes, adapted to the specific needs of other sectors that want to also use this technology in their processes?

I am particularly annoyed by the opinions that are constantly being expressed by people of doubtful or void professional experience in the robotics sector and who, for reasons that surpass me, are lucky to get their fifteen minutes of fame by giving out expletives in national and international media, saying that it is not so difficult automation of processes, that with a simulation everything is solved, and similar.

Using another example to understand it, it is like as if they were doing less without any contemplation, the resources and talent needed to establish a human colony on the moon (we are going to make the challenge easy) and that these gurus affirmed with total certainty, that anyone who gets bored on a Sunday in the morning, from the garage of their house they can be able easily of can set up a space program to establish this human colony on the moon.

These false gurus are continually writing barbarities about this "Industry Revolution 4.0." that in fact is no longer than a mere #hashtag, one after another, and therefore although Industry 4.0., is a goal to aspire to, unfortunately we continue in what is called Industry 3.0. and that this fact will not change in the short or the medium term, no matter how much is written about it.

It is going to be precise to be able to put in the market and at affordable prices, new technologies that are still in the embryonic process or even in the very definition of these new disruptive technologies, and more decades of their development will be necessary.

And I have not seen with my own eyes, any implantation of that disruptive technology they talk so much about, and I think I'm in a place that could be used if they would have done it already, since they have the resources and talent to carry it out. However, I have not yet witnessed its implementation in production, in any of the leading factories in the world where I have developed my professional career, and that in case it had already happened, I would have already written an article to make it known to my professional colleagues.

And after the last 20 years of my professional career, I can say loud, that still there are nothing new under the sun, and that it will continue that way for a long time.

I will continue telling my opinion of this "Industrial Revolution" that we are living.