Shop Login
Contact UsStandard vs Specialised Standard
OK, I admit that the title doesn't suggest an exciting and informative text. But read on, because this is actually an important topic!
More than 20 years ago, we took the risk of offering automation with Robots as a standard device or standard system. The device that was developed back then, the SUMO Multiplex, still exists today, with various improvements. However, it was clear to us already back then that we had to remain flexible at the interfaces to the workpiece and process in order to offer our customers the best possible solution with maximum ROI, despite standardisation. Robot automation that is fully standardised and available from the loading ramp can at best be a good 80% solution – but usually less. If you are satisfied with this, do not want to sacrifice productivity and return on investment and do not want any further details, you can stop reading now...
...I'm glad you're reading on, so let's take a closer look at the specialised standard.
The first important aspect is to consider the workpiece-specific boundary conditions. If we imagine a flat parts storage system that has prefabricated nests for a range of workpieces, but your workpiece has a maximum of 70% of the intended dimensions, then you are giving away 30% of autonomy. This can mean, for example, that the planned ghost shift has 30% less output at night and you are therefore wasting money.
Here's another example: when automating a machine, it is always worth looking at both the upstream and downstream processes. For example, is there an opportunity in the upstream process to ensure that your workpieces are output in a way compatible to automation, e.g. in workpiece carriers that always have the same external dimensions but different workpiece-specific setting or change parts in order to react to variants? Wouldn't it be an advantage if you didn't have to pick up each workpiece a second or even third time to feed it into or remove it from an automated system?
Would you like another example? The position of the robot in relation to the machine door and workpiece storage. In a completely standardised system, this is fixed and only the position of the overall system can be changed – within the robot’s range. However, I would strongly doubt whether all boundary conditions such as accessibility to the machine for set-up or for small batches and ergonomics in workpiece logistics can then be taken into account. Protective fence-free systems with floor scanners are then often used. What may initially look like an advantage often leads to disillusionment after installation and during operation, when the individual access areas, which for safety reasons reduce the robot’s travelling speed, are marked on the shop floor. This impacts space requirements and also automation output, because if the marked areas are regularly entered, the robot moves more slowly and productivity drops significantly. In such a case, safety guard that is geared for the conditions on site, providing convenient access and the necessary accessibility to the machine, is often a much better solution without really costing more. After all, a floor scanner and the necessary safety control system for the robot – with its programming – are not for free.
Lastly, let’s look at our motives and motivations. Why are we foregoing the opportunity to build large quantities of systems that are all exactly the same? Such systems would be much easier to sell online or through dealers without a great deal of specialised knowledge, instead of analysing, advising and offering application-specific details in each individual case? Marketing and sales and would be much easier and we would reach our targets much faster.
We do this because of what we believe in and we do it for you – because you continued reading this article because you don’t want to settle for 80% or less of what is possible.
Our SUMO automation systems form the basis for Standard Automation Systems that are customised to meet specific requirements in the best possible way.