Guidelines for successful robotic systems training

Citation

Soska, G. (2012), "Guidelines for successful robotic systems training", Industrial Robot, Vol. 39 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ir.2012.04939aaa.001

Guidelines for successful robotic systems training

Article Type: Viewpoint From: Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Volume 39, Issue 1

Abstract

In the 40+ years I have been involved with applied industrial robots I have seen highly viable and absolutely excellent robotic projects die because the companies that were trying to implement them failed to take into consideration the critical aspect of training.

I have found in most instances that corporations require their factories to address the aspect of training rather than include training in the total cost of the project at the corporate level. This is definitely not the way to approach robotic training for a highly viable application than makes a great return on investment.

This article will present several aspects for companies to seriously consider regarding training if they want to see high-potential robotic applications succeed.

No brainer

It does not take a PhD or any other degree for that matter to see what needs to be done. It is all a matter of common sense. We are dealing with hourly operators, plant engineers, maintenance supervisors and skill trades personnel. Everyone has a roll to play when it come to implementing a robotic system. I think the key word here is “SYSTEM.” When we talk a system, we need to consider all those who are involved to make that system work successfully and provide a return on investment.

Here are some real-world practical guidelines that will help you be successful with robotic training.

Who to train

It is critical to determine who your company needs to train. Many companies think they only need to train those folks who will be programming the robot. Big mistake, because at the end of the day, someone needs to install the robot, interface it to its working environment, operate and maintain it. To me, that suggests the work of more than one person. My uncle, who was a plant superintendent when General Motors got into industrial robotic welding for the Chevy Vega at its Lordstown, OH plant told me that GM wrestled with the idea of a job classification called robot programmer. Boy, in a union environment, I would have done anything to get that job. However, after GM management gave it some deep thought, they came to realize that once the robots were programmed and put into production, all of the so-called robot programmers would do is sit around doing nothing and get paid for it. Therefore, GM decided to create a skilled trades classification called the welding equipment maintenance and repair. This worked extremely well and is still in place at GM today. Had GM gone ahead with the programmer classification, I would have quit my day job, joined the United Autoworkers Union and taken one of those positions. What a great way to get paid to do very little and maybe touch up a robot program during a break or lunch. While the line was running, I would be sitting on the side doing nothing and getting paid for it. Hat’s off to GM for its foresight.

When you look at who to train, you need to consider all those individuals who will be involved with the installation, operation, maintenance and programming of the robot system. I stress the word “SYSTEM” because that is exactly what it is, a system, not a stand-alone device.

Operators

Operators need to know how to start, stop and put the robot into operation. They also need to know what to do if it malfunctions. Essentially, in the case of a malfunction, they need to know to contact their immediate supervisor who can alert maintenance personnel of the problem. Operators are not expected to troubleshoot or repair problems, but they should be expected to tell a skilled-tradesman what occurred so the problem can be resolved. Statements like, “the robot doesn’t work,” will not cut it. They need to say things like, “when the robot went to weld this wheel well, it got stuck on a clamping fixture.” A statement like that tells maintenance personnel where to look for the problem. Without proper training, an operator will never be able to relay such a message. Just remember that an operator probably knows more about a robot application and the nature of their job than anyone in the factory. They live with it day after day.

Skilled trades

How about the skilled trades personnel who have to support and maintain the robotic system? They certainly cannot work in the dark. They need to both know and understand how the robotic systems is supposed to work and what it looks like when it is not doing what it is supposed to be doing.

How in the world can any of the best skilled trades personnel be of any value if they do not know how a robotic system is supposed to work?

These people need to know what a properly performing robotics system is supposed to do and what it looks likes when it is doing that. Otherwise, their best efforts are simply guess-work. Guess-work is the last thing any factory that is running 24/7 needs. It is just money down the drain. Yet, those of us who work in factories are always being beaten up to cut costs. I guess I have to ask that when the opportunity to cut costs is staring us in the face, why do not we take advantage of that opportunity?

Plant engineers

These are the folks a company relies on not to only identify potential robotic applications, but to oversee that they are successfully implemented. If these people are kept in the dark because some entity in a factory thinks it has a potential robotic application and tries to go it on their own, the only thing they will realize is failure. You need highly competent technical people to assist you with a potential robotic application. These folks need to be kept in the loop because they can suggest and recommend training requirements. In many companies, these will be the folks who end up writing a training specification or defining training requirements. Please do not cut these folks short.

Maintenance managers

These folks deserve a front seat when a potential robot application is being discussed. These are the folk who oversee the skilled trades personnel who will make or break you robotic application. They also need a say in who to train and what those training requirements are.

Top management

Top management can be a real millstone. When a potential robotic project gets submitted for corporate funding, the first thing these folks do it look for ways to cut the budget and the first things that gets cut is training. They will tell you that training is the factory’s responsibility and that corporate has to cut training from the budget.

For some reason, corporate management seems to think that cost cutting is the end-all, the do all. Like, let us move our operations to China since labor only costs a few dollars per hour. We will just load our factories up with labor units instead of automating most of the operations. While such thinking might work out in the short term, companies operating off-shore need to think in longer terms; like what happens to our operations if all of a sudden local labor rates go up? What do you do, close your China factory and move your operations to Indonesia to save $1.00 per hour in labor costs? That would definitely take a toll on your balance sheet would not it?

Where and when to train

If you want to commit application suicide, have your training conducted at your own facility. That way, when everyone is in class and a maintenance supervisor comes to get John or Mary for just a few minutes to address some factory crisis and they do not get back until 4 h into the training and this process repeats itself day after day, why would you care that the folks you sent to get trained know nothing after a week? The absolute last place you want to have your people trained is in your own factory unless they are absolved from all work all week long and the robotic system they are going to be trained on is not in production. If it is, just forget the training and watch your ROI go right down the drain. You just set yourself up for perfect failure.

The politically correct way to do training is when you have the system run-off at your systems integrator. After acceptance run-off, training can begin. The value-added to this is that your people now know how your robotic system is supported to operate in the real world and they have their training fresh in their minds because the day they leave, your robotic system will be loaded on a truck and shipped to your factory. How better can it get?

Characteristics of proper training

There are essentially five characteristics that define proper training:

1. 1.

   objective/performance based;

2. 2.

   properly sequenced;

3. 3.

   appropriately detailed;

4. 4.

   appropriate ratio of hands-on and classroom instruction; and

5. 5.

   feedback.

Let us take a look at each of these characteristics.

Objective/performance based

What this means is that your people should not go to your supplier’s facility to be trained and only end up attending sports games or being wined and dined. They need to bring you back a return on your investment along with their certificate of training.

What objective/performance-based training means in that your supplier has a well thought out and developed program that no only includes classroom instruction, but also hands-on training with specific desired results by all student.

Let us take a look at a couple hypothetical training modules:

• •

  Module 1. At the conclusion of this module, the student will demonstrate the proper and safe method of starting and stopping the robot whether in actual operation or in an emergency situation.

• •

  Module 2. At the conclusion of this module, the student will demonstrate the ability to program a robot to do (whatever you specific application is). The student will also demonstrate the ability to make both major and minor robot program changes both on-line and off-line.

• •

  Module 3. At the conclusion of this module, the student will demonstrate the ability to re-calibrate a robot follow the removal and replacement of an encoder or other position feedback device and put it back into production.

• •

  Module 4. At the conclusion of this module, the student will demonstrate the ability to re-calibrate a robot following the removal and replacement of a major mechanical drive component or a drive motor and put it back into production.

• •

  Module 5. At the conclusion of this module, the student will demonstrate the ability to diagnose technical problems associated with a robot in a production mode of operation.

• •

  Module 6. At the conclusion of this module, the student will demonstrate the ability to repair a robot based on the diagnoses in module 5.

These are the kind of things you want to be ensured that your supplier can do for your people. Anything less is a total waste of time and money. If your people cannot perform after you have made the investment, then it is money down the drain. Plain and simple. You must get a return on your training investment. Otherwise, should you experience a problem once your robotic system is installed; you have nothing but costly production downtime.

Properly sequenced

You cannot have your people get into robot programming the first day of training. It just does not make sense. First, the need to understand robot safety procedures and then learn how to start, stop and operate the robot (i.e. put it into production). After that, they are ready to learn about programming, troubleshooting and maintenance.

Appropriately detailed

Most folks who attend robotic training are fascinated with what they can do programming one. However, there is more to real-world production and your return on investment than simple programming. Programming is easy. A kid can do it. It is all the other things involved with a robotic system installation that makes or breaks your investment. Spending too much time on theory, or operations and programming at the expense of troubleshooting and repair are very bad ways to approach training. Make sure you supplier’s training program is appropriately detailed-focused.

Appropriate ratio of hands-on and classroom instruction

A student can spend an entire week at your supplier being trained in a classroom and come back totally useless to you. You must take the time to evaluate the ratio of hands-on to classroom instruction. And, when it comes to hands-on instruction, you want to be sure that your supplier has the appropriate student-to-instructor ratio. I have always favored 2 to 1. Two students to one instructor. Otherwise, if you send six people for training, what do the other five do while one is programming? Simple. They stand around, get bored and loose interest quickly. This is not a win-win situation.

When it comes to hands-on instruction, students must be engaged with the instructor. I have no problem where one instructor works with two students. One student programs and the other monitors and works with the robot controller. Then, they exchange rolls. Not difficult concept to comprehend. Yet, I have heard horror story after horror story from clients who have sent people for training only to have them come back with very little skills and abilities other than to go through some basic motions of making a robot run and do some very rudimentary programming. To me, this was a total waste of time and money.

Feedback

Student feedback is worth its weight in gold. When your students return, you want to hold a debriefing session to find out what they thought of their training and what they feel they learned. You also want them to demonstrate what they learned on the job. If they cannot demonstrate what they learned, then you tossed your money away foolishly on training.

In closing

Robotic training is only as good and effective as the company providing it intends for it to be. Unless your people who attend training can demonstrate to your satisfaction they can perform on the job to your expectations, the money you spent on training them might as well gone down the drain. The real name of the game is a successful robotic application that does what it was intended to do and people who can support your investment so you can realize your return on investment.

Geary SoskaRobotic Applications Consulting, North Canton, Ohio, USA

About the author

Geary Soska is a Certified Manufacturing Engineer (MECI) in the field of robotics. He has over 40 years of real-world robotic applications experience and has taught robotics at The Stark State College of Technology in Canton, Ohio for over 15 years. He has worked in the high tech environments of Unimation, Ford Motor Company, John Deere, Cybotech and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. He also has over 20 years experience consulting with Fortune 500 companies in the automotive, aerospace, off-road/heavy equipment and defense industries. In 1991, Geary was the recipient of the prestigious Golden Robot Award.