I think almost everyone likes the fresh scent of new cap ex budgets, and for those of you whose fiscal year is the calendar year (most of us), it doesn’t get any fresher than now.
Many companies are buying robots. Two points are in order: 1) it’s not difficult at all to find places in your organization where robots could be a huge help; and 2) the robot vendors are really busy expanding capacity because of Point #1. They want to make it easy to buy a robot. Let’s agree that acquiring grippers and other items that are not the robot but are germane to its tasks will be about the same amount of time no matter what, although outside agencies may be tied to certain brands.
The truth is, acquiring a robot is about as easy now as it ever will be. Any difficulty this year will arise from what to buy and how to buy it. Let’s look at four ways to do this, exposing a few advantages, disadvantages, and down-the-road considerations for each, to wit:
- Choose an existing robot model off the shelf;
- Build a solution in-house;
- Hire an integrator to build a custom solution; and
- Robot-as-a-Service (RaaS)
Off the shelf
The Amazon shopper in each of us appreciates this model. Often, this is the fastest up-front solution—buy the robot, learn the controls, have at it. As with any of these solutions, you’ll have to know things like the weight of what you want to move, the radius of its universe, whether or not people will be around it, etc.
Advantages of off the shelf solutions include fast deployment. The things that make it work are already inside or on the robot. Initial purchase is pretty cost effective. Speed is an advantage too, it’s a short time from box to deployment, unless you have some very difficult criteria. Some advantages come from the very nature of the product—things like reliability (it’s proven in the market), parts (you don’t need them very often but they’re there), and adjunct items such as grippers (people tend to develop for the biggest existing markets, and in this case, it means existing robots).
Disadvantages include things like lack of customization, or lack of an “exact fit” to the potentially complex problem you must solve. It depends on your application. Taking the concept a step further, you might have to change your workflow to accommodate the inexpensive yet potentially rigid solution. It’s possible that you could miss out on flexibility and thus miss a multi-deployment solution. However, some cobots can jump from task to task because of their light weight and ease of programming. Finally, although initial costs may be low, you might find that the ongoing maintenance (lubrication, overhaul after years of service, even ongoing energy costs) is expensive compared to other solutions.
Down the road, you need to worry about a couple of things. First, all the disadvantages mentioned above do not go away, but especially the part about limited adaptability to the task. That may get worse as time goes on. You know that your workplace and the things done in it evolve over time. Your robot won’t, although it is possible you could redeploy it elsewhere. Second, I think robots will become more like cars. We will see more features being “standard,” plus custom options or option packages. As the options become better and as technology evolves, you may find it smart to replace that old robot with a new one with more flexibility or whatever it is you need most.
In-house solution
In this scenario, you have expertise in-house to custom-create a solution. Right off the bat, we need to concede that this is mostly the territory of larger companies, if for no other reason than the staff it requires, from 1 to x person(s) dedicated to robot development, in a company where robot development is not the core business.
Advantages include the obvious two linked aspects of this type of development: 1) in opposition to the first solution, this solution ensures a tailored system, as well as 2) total control. The robot system is designed around your needs/application, not the other way around. Also, your control over the entire development means you know the timetable, the costs, the fit to the application, all immediately. The other advantage is that if components leap forward in capability or speed, you can replace these without waiting for new robots to have new innards.
Disadvantages include high upfront costs. Think about it: creating a robotic solution in-house will be laden with specific needs analyses, sort of a localized R&D, and engineering. Which is related to the next disadvantage, trying to get the right people hired to do this difficult task, and taking on the costs of a new department (in the likely case that this does not exist already). Speed will not be your friend here—it will take much longer to develop and deploy this solution instead of buying a robot and putting it to work. Your maintenance burden will be larger too because you’ll be responsible for every little bit of this solution.
Down the road, you’ll be concerned about technology evolution and related items like revision sync. Also related to technology evolution is that an in-house solution typically uses a mix of brands in each component area. Maybe the components evolve on a different schedule, and the new capability you desire won’t fit into your current lineup of components. That can be a tough place. Your other choice is to redesign and rebuild from scratch.
Integrator solution
This solution is very similar to the in-house solution above with some important considerations, as we’ll see. Any size company can take advantage of working with a system integrator to provide a solution. The point person(s) at your company will need knowledge, but not enough to build the solution. That will be outsourced.
Advantages include something we just said—your company will not need to do the significant non-core business work of creating the solution. The integrator has the expertise and experience to build a solution that will meet the application specifications with precision and accuracy. Also, the work likely will go faster than your in-house development; the integrator has done this exercise with many companies and has learned how and where to gain productivity without losing quality. The other major advantage is that they have access to the best available technology and, often, partnerships with the companies that make them. This is a real advantage. Those same partnerships include information on what’s coming next, which can be a lifesaver when you need updates or improvements.
Disadvantages include a loss of control, although contracts can include reviews and decision points that are in the domain of you, the customer. Still, you will need to cede some of the control to the integrator. Especially for complex systems, the integrator solution may be the most expensive acquisition cost of the four methods—you are paying for the system, their expertise, and their people to get the job done exactly as you want it. Another disadvantage is in the partnerships between integrator and vendor. Depending on the integrator’s business model, they may be contractually beholden to a certain vendor for a certain item, for example a particular brand of robot or even something as simple as wiring and cabling. Also, you could find yourself changing a process or even the physical location of machines while working to deploy the integrator’s solution (although you might do so with the in-house solution method as well).
Robot-as-a-Service (RaaS)
Out of all the solutions, this method is the newest, although the model is by no means new. When a pilot rents an airplane, the per-hour rate is most often a “wet” rate, meaning fuel, maintenance, and storage are figured into the cost, even the amount of a 2,000-hour overhaul is in there. That’s a bit like the RaaS agreements, where maintenance is figured into the equation when creating your monthly bill.
Advantages include the lowest upfront costs of the four types of solutions (essentially zero, it’s amortized over your monthly payments), and the flexibility to handle dynamic production needs by increasing, decreasing or redeploying your solution fairly easily. Two other important points here: there is no sudden maintenance burden, and in fact there is no need for you to maintain a thing; the RaaS company does that; and as an independent provider of robot technology, these firms (like an integrator) have access to the latest, greatest technology.
Disadvantages include ongoing monthly costs. If you keep your robot long enough, these costs will likely outweigh the cost of buying a robot outright. You will have limited control over the solution (a bit like the integrator solution). With all the maintenance being done by the RaaS provider, you will have no reason to (nor perhaps any right to) perform any kind of service on the robot. This may not be kind to one’s schedule on occasion. Additionally, you may be contractually required to share data with the RaaS provider—this is not necessarily a disadvantage but may test your willingness to ink a deal based on your comfort.
Down the road, you may find that one advantage/disadvantage is technology updates, which are typically included in a deal. While you receive updates, you may also be in a situation where you are locked into a single vendor for the length of the contract, forgoing any advances made outside of that one vendor. The other thing to watch for is if the provider changes vendor teams and you will need to do the same. This is balanced, however, with the flexibility discussed above.
I hope this brief and fairly simple look at four potential paths in acquiring robot systems is helpful. If you have comments or questions, please do pick up the phone or send an e-mail. I would love to hear from you. Dave Brambert, 815-668-3050, dave@fifthwavemfg.com.