Manufacturing Automation – Ignore the 3Ds, (Dull, Dirty, Dangerous), focus on Productivity!
Eliminating the 3Ds has become a slogan for why manufacturing should deploy more automation, at least as far as the automation suppliers are concerned, but the manufacturers themselves have another and more important motivation to automate!?
That is, to improve the bottom line by increasing productivity and competitiveness, that’s it!??Nothing more nuanced than that, or as romantic as the “3Ds”.
Some thoughts on the 3Ds:
-?????????Dull ?-?is generally thought-of as a repetitive, “mind-numbing” manual task such as loading a part into a machine or repeating the same sequence of value added steps on an assembly as it comes down the line or perhaps at a stand-alone work-station.
Manual assembly steps can all fall into this category but whether automation can be justified on this basis alone is based on the economics.?
These types of assembly steps are often low skilled and serve as the initial entry point into a company or industry while training the operator on the concepts of quality and workflow.?Some operators may reach their maximum capabilities with this step and the task may not be dull for them but a reliable source of income in exchange for reliable work.?
To mitigate the “dullness”, a well-designed work cell will rotate workers through all work cell operations to provide cross training as well as to provide a diverse set of functions for the operator(s), increasing job satisfaction and building a collaborative team.??
None of us like it but we all have to wash the dishes sometimes and unless we do a lot of them every day, we don’t run out to buy a dishwasher!
“Dull”, in and of itself is Not a reason to automate! ?
?
-?????????Dirty ?-??generally refers to the work itself, not the working environment, and this may include the handling of cutting or other fluids, dealing with cutting debris, handling raw materials and many other possibilities as the operator comes into contact with the work.?
In addition, there may be environmental “dirt” such as temperature variations, (hot or cold), elevated but not hazardous noise levels or other inherent process conditions not ideal for the worker. This despite wearing protective gear and while not generally viewed as a safety hazard, can diminish the ergonomics of an operation leading to inefficiencies.??
Often having a high worker turnover or needing compensation incentives, this type of process may or may not meet the economic justification for automation but steps to alleviate the conditions include the devising of workflows so that the worker’s exposure to the “dirty” conditions is minimized.?Further, the worker may be able to be separated from the “dirty” conditions by using customized part handling tooling and semi-automated fixtures as well as maintain “cleaner” if not perfectly “clean” conditions where the operator handles to process and where the “dirty” process itself, a barrier zone.
Semi-automated systems can be developed that mitigate the “Dirty” work.??
Mopping the floor is a “dirty job” but an operator pushing a rotating mop makes it much less so!
“Dirty”, in and of itself is Not a reason to automate! ?
?
-?????????“Dangerous” ?- Assuming we’re in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements and safety standards, dangerous refers to the repeated motions that may be within compliance but can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome, or perhaps repeated lifting, still within the limits but can lead to hidden injuries that manifest themselves over time.?Perhaps the operator is forced to carry a load while twisting or other non-ergonomic motions leading to fatigue and over time, cause operators’ injuries.?
Traditionally, these types of functions have been staffed by trained employees who are physically up to the task along with an awareness but this is still not enough to totally eliminate these risks over time.?In each of these and other examples, worker assist devices, fixturing, manually directed power tools and equipment can be designed which eliminate these hazards for the operator and bringing the operation(s) back to acceptable routine manual worker levels.
The workstation and tools provided for the task need to be engineered and matched to operator protection productivity objectives.
“Dangerous”, in and of itself is Not a reason to automate! ?
?
To be clear, the minimization or elimination of the 3Ds, led by the manufacturing and industrial engineering teams, does, and will increase worker productivity and should be part of a manufacturer’s continuous improvement program and results in:
-?????????Increased Safety.
领英推荐
-?????????Improved cross training, worker engagement and morale.
-?????????Predictable balanced workflows.
-?????????Predictable staffing.
-?????????Consistent product quality.
-?????????Other “unknown” and “unknowable” soft benefits that characterize a predictable and responsive process are realized.
Not Signals for Automation:
Since automation does indeed eliminate or minimize the 3Ds, one might ask “Why not use the 3Ds as a signal to automate?”?
The answer is simple:
Automation is a sunk cost based on some ROI or IRR calculation and once deployed, it locks in that process step or sequence, making it very difficult or impossible to remove that automation until its depreciation cycle has run and the company has realized the gains promised by that ROI or IRR calculation.??In effect, using the 3Ds as a signal to automate creates “Islands of Automation” whereby line imbalances are created, raising costs elsewhere such as WIP and other costs, while forcing further automation to re-balance the throughput.?
While deploying sequential automation through the process can and does provide many benefits and increased productivity, by doing it in a piecemeal approach, using the 3Ds as a signal, the probability of ultimately reaching the expected productivity gains is diminished as incremental gains in labor reduction are quickly erased by the increased incremental automation capital input costs, making it an “all or nothing” proposition to ultimately realize the gains.
A better way:
Separate the goal of minimizing/eliminating the 3Ds from the goal of automation.??
Since there are many ways to mitigate or eliminate the 3Ds from the process, reflexively going to automation directly is an indicator that automation is viewed as some kind of panacea that solves underlying process problems or a process that is not fully thought through or engineered.
Applying a combination of industrial engineering, lean manufacturing and semi-automated tooling and fixtures can most often deal with the 3Ds with lowered investments, lowered skill sets and rapidly realized productivity improvements.
“The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.”
Bill Gates
Automation is required to achieve step function increases in productivity but only when applied to a process that is stable and in control.?Automation cannot solve underlying process problems which have led to the 3Ds in the first place.??
The extend to which automation eliminates the 3Ds, as it very often does, is not a reason to automate but the incidental benefit of automating a “good” process.
Otherwise, we’re automating a “bad” process!
Do you have examples of automation being deployed on the basis of the 3Ds??
Your thoughts are appreciated and please share this post if you think your connections will find it of interest.
Connect or DM to discuss further.