18 ms·

I'm interested why over-automation caused so many problems in manufacturing plants. I would think that once an assembly line has been set, full automation woul

I'm interested why over-automation caused so many problems in manufacturing plants. I would think that once an assembly line has been set, full automation would be completely ideal and perfect. Is it because plants are always changing and getting tweaked, and changes require software updates, which invariably have bugs and take time to adapt to changes?

trentmb 8y ago
> I'm interested why over-automation caused so many problems in manufacturing plants. A robot will uncritically do what you tell it. An experienced welder will tell you you're an idiot when you're an idiot.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  So is the issue over-automation or bad QA after the system is set up?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - setr 8y ago
    I would imagine theyd try to automate QA too, akin to unit testing You could imagine a situation where the automated QA is trusted and does its job in sets, with humans interspersed to backup the QA programs. But one of the QA checks is actually buggy and OK’s the missing weld, but the full batch of work covers it up before reaching a human for the double-check In which case, both issues are at fault: too much reliance on the QA program, and allowing too much work to be done before it reached a human (bad double-check setup)
    - archi42 8y ago
      I imagine if you have a list of welding points and feed that list to both the assembly and inspection robots, stuff like this happens. Especially in case the robots share code and e.g. have the same parse error when loading your list of welding points.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  > A robot will uncritically do what you tell it And might well muck it up one time out of 50.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
9wzYQbTYsAIc 8y ago
They may be referring to the actual process of perfecting the automation. Bespoke CI/CD isn’t an instantaneous thing of beauty and efficiency gains.
newnewpdro 8y ago
I think for many operations automation can be perfect, but other operations are really challenging to automate well today. However, I do believe if you were to design the vehicle for optimal automated assembly throughout, it could significantly change the situation. But a design optimized for 100% automated assembly is probably not going to be as servicable. Imagine for example if wiring harnesses were built as rigid modules which were captive within the unibody when it was welded together. This could probably simplify the automated assembly, eliminating a step of snaking a flexible bundle of wires through passages, but then nobody is ever going to be replacing the wiring harness module. I do think things can be done in the vehicle to improve the automation without compromising servicability, but it might not be economical, or maybe it just requires more control over the entire supply chain to tailor everything to the vehicle's assembly process.
m4x 8y ago
It's basically because these production lines are incredibly complex and getting tiny details right is important. When you have humans running a line, they can notice and adapt to the countless possible issues that occur (like "the alignment here is often slightly out" or "tightening X here causes problems for the people in the next station"). Their top speed is theoretically less than a automated line, but they are quite adaptable and robust. Since automated lines are less adaptable and robust, so you have to get them just right. Any tiny little issue can cause surprising problems down the line and implementing fixes is quite slow because you can't just describe the problem and required fix to a human and leave them to work it out. I think the best way to set up a production line is to exclusively use humans at the beginning, and carefully introduce automation once the process is understood and stable
- mattdeboard 8y ago
  humans are a robust people
crocal 8y ago
One of the limit is reliability. Robot don’t self maintain... The more elaborate the task, the more complicated the maintenance to ensure acceptable failure rate. At some point you spend as much time fixing as doing the job. Especially in cases like here where the throughput target is craaaaazy.
xbkingx 8y ago
My guess is that the complexity of integrating sensor information and maintaining calibration isn't refined to the tolerances needed. In theory, you only need to detect physical resistance and visual variations (not like the assembly line workers are licking the bolts). In practice, you can have a series of bolts within tolerance limits, but causing a warp an attached piece that lies outside the preceding sensors' detection ranges. A human might step back and see that the door is bending weirdly, the door bend might not be noticed for several stations, causing more disruption. That being said, car parts in general seems so unnecessarily complex. Too many curves, too little compartmentalization and modularity, etc. At this point in history, I would expect the average person to be capable of practically disassembling most cosmetic pieces in under an hour and with little research, but it's an obnoxious process of hunting down hidden screws and plastic clips in precise sequences. If cars were built in a reasonable manner, it should have been trivial to repurpose most of the parts in these vehicles.

trentmb 8y ago

> I'm interested why over-automation caused so many problems in manufacturing plants. A robot will uncritically do what you tell it. An experienced welder will tell you you're an idiot when you're an idiot.

Someone1234 8y ago
So is the issue over-automation or bad QA after the system is set up?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- setr 8y ago
  I would imagine theyd try to automate QA too, akin to unit testing You could imagine a situation where the automated QA is trusted and does its job in sets, with humans interspersed to backup the QA programs. But one of the QA checks is actually buggy and OK’s the missing weld, but the full batch of work covers it up before reaching a human for the double-check In which case, both issues are at fault: too much reliance on the QA program, and allowing too much work to be done before it reached a human (bad double-check setup)
  - archi42 8y ago
    I imagine if you have a list of welding points and feed that list to both the assembly and inspection robots, stuff like this happens. Especially in case the robots share code and e.g. have the same parse error when loading your list of welding points.
Gibbon1 8y ago
> A robot will uncritically do what you tell it And might well muck it up one time out of 50.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

9wzYQbTYsAIc 8y ago

They may be referring to the actual process of perfecting the automation. Bespoke CI/CD isn’t an instantaneous thing of beauty and efficiency gains.

newnewpdro 8y ago

I think for many operations automation can be perfect, but other operations are really challenging to automate well today. However, I do believe if you were to design the vehicle for optimal automated assembly throughout, it could significantly change the situation. But a design optimized for 100% automated assembly is probably not going to be as servicable. Imagine for example if wiring harnesses were built as rigid modules which were captive within the unibody when it was welded together. This could probably simplify the automated assembly, eliminating a step of snaking a flexible bundle of wires through passages, but then nobody is ever going to be replacing the wiring harness module. I do think things can be done in the vehicle to improve the automation without compromising servicability, but it might not be economical, or maybe it just requires more control over the entire supply chain to tailor everything to the vehicle's assembly process.

m4x 8y ago

It's basically because these production lines are incredibly complex and getting tiny details right is important. When you have humans running a line, they can notice and adapt to the countless possible issues that occur (like "the alignment here is often slightly out" or "tightening X here causes problems for the people in the next station"). Their top speed is theoretically less than a automated line, but they are quite adaptable and robust. Since automated lines are less adaptable and robust, so you have to get them just right. Any tiny little issue can cause surprising problems down the line and implementing fixes is quite slow because you can't just describe the problem and required fix to a human and leave them to work it out. I think the best way to set up a production line is to exclusively use humans at the beginning, and carefully introduce automation once the process is understood and stable

mattdeboard 8y ago
humans are a robust people

crocal 8y ago

One of the limit is reliability. Robot don’t self maintain... The more elaborate the task, the more complicated the maintenance to ensure acceptable failure rate. At some point you spend as much time fixing as doing the job. Especially in cases like here where the throughput target is craaaaazy.

xbkingx 8y ago

My guess is that the complexity of integrating sensor information and maintaining calibration isn't refined to the tolerances needed. In theory, you only need to detect physical resistance and visual variations (not like the assembly line workers are licking the bolts). In practice, you can have a series of bolts within tolerance limits, but causing a warp an attached piece that lies outside the preceding sensors' detection ranges. A human might step back and see that the door is bending weirdly, the door bend might not be noticed for several stations, causing more disruption. That being said, car parts in general seems so unnecessarily complex. Too many curves, too little compartmentalization and modularity, etc. At this point in history, I would expect the average person to be capable of practically disassembling most cosmetic pieces in under an hour and with little research, but it's an obnoxious process of hunting down hidden screws and plastic clips in precise sequences. If cars were built in a reasonable manner, it should have been trivial to repurpose most of the parts in these vehicles.