Standardization in Custom Automation & Robotics
Increasing margins and productivity in custom automation through standardization
Custom is Standard
Paradoxically the easiest way to effectively raise margins in custom automation is to make things more standard.
In the world of custom automation there is one constant; and that’s change. Customers want things done a specific way, using specific components and love to give URS’s that have lots of unique requirements…and we all got into this game knowing that’s the case.
But does it have to be? I have had the unique perspective of being on both sides of the buy/sell relationship as well as offering both “custom” and “standard” products. I use quotes because neither are truly custom or standard.
RND Automation began as a 100% custom machine builder. The customer asked for a solution and we provided it. Often from scratch starting with a clean slate. Sure we had knowledge of past machines but we never could really “copy” many of the designs because the customer always wanted something unique. This is the situation many younger machine builders find themselves in as they are not in a position (or afraid) to push back on the customer.
Over time (several years) I began to realize that reinventing the wheel every single project was no way to scale. We needed to standardize. But how do you do this when each project is unique?
The Standardization Process
We began by identifying our past projects. We found that primarily we built three main types of systems:
Dial indexing machinery
Linear conveyance machines (linear motor or indexing conveyor racetrack)
Integrated robots (robots on a pedestal that interacted with a grinder, CNC, welder etc..)
In each of these we found the basic frame, indexer, conveyance, pneumatics, distributed I/O etc was all very similar. But not standard.
So I made a very hard decision to spend time and money on standardizing our offerings. This is often tough for most machine builders as it’s a sunk cost. You don’t get back any of your time… at least in the short term. This is where you have to be forward thinking.
For dial machines we developed a standard platform in 4 sizes: Small, Medium, Large, and XL. Those were the choices. If the product fell between a Medium and Large then you got a Large. We were not shrinking the machine by 6” for a one off.
Note: This is an good time to point out that we were not totally inflexible. We would, as a friend once told me “Never say no, put a price to yes”. So if they really wanted something between a Medium and Large we would provide them with a fee to do this. As you’ll see later in the article the customer almost never accepted this and went with the proposed solution. I speak to this more in my article on proposals.
These platforms had standard frames, indexers, enclosures, pneumatic panels and I/O distribution architecture. We would design the machine to have 16 valves per manifold even if the machine only needed 10. We just put blanking plates in the other 6. But by standardizing on these manifolds we could buy in volume and stock them. Not to mention the mounting and plumbing were now standardized.
So out of the gate we had 30-40% of the machine already designed and ready to release.
But what about the individual stations Sean? Surely they can’t all be standard. And you’re right. Each station does something unique. But you can standardize the design methodology. We picked out 2-3 standard welded risers from Misumi to use as root stands. We chose 6 grippers, a S,M,L in both two and 3 finger varieties. We standardinded the EOAT mounting and made plates that could hold 1 or 2 grippers depending on the application. We standardized our robot dress packages. So while yes, there was always some modifications to these designs, we had a good 80% head start. Unless there was a compelling reason to deviate from these standard components we did not alter them.
We did the same for our linear motor powered machines. We developed a 1 meter long bay with frame, linear motors, pneumatics, safety etc.. Each had upper and lower tooling plates where we could mount sub assemblies or other equipment. We could then bolt together multiple of these bays to make an assembly system as small as a single bay and as large as 7 bays (could feasibly go more as well).
For stations we used the same standard principles as with the dial indexers for robots, grippers, pneumatic and more. When we would need to use a new components (say a flex feeder) we would take the extra time to make standard mounting plates and interfaces so that the next time we use these items it would be reused.
But What About the Customer’s Spec?
This is probably the most asked question I would get from other machine builders. Our customers want XYZ brand pneumatics and ABC brand bearings etc. And while yes, something’s are non negotiable (PLC/HMI brand and model, robot brands, perhaps safety equipment) I have found that if you offer a well built machine using high quality and readily accessible components that the customers really don’t care. As noted above we would offer an adder if they wanted to use their standards but I would say 95% of the time they relaxed their standards. As long as they could get spares and work on it, they just wanted a machine that worked. Now you milage my vary depending on your customer’s industry. However for us, this turned out to be very successful.
And this is why… manufacturers want to buy equipment and solutions, not a concept. In my experience, you can demand greater margins from standard machines than customer. Logic would say this should be the other way around but I have found it not to be the case.
If I can show my customer a photo or detailed 3D CAD drawing that shows them more or less what their machine will look and function like (and maybe even video of a past applications) they are going to be FAR more comfortable purchasing than from someone who just offers a general high level layout drawing and a vague proposal.
The Case for “Standard” Products
Which leads us to the next phase in my standardization journey. I bought a packaging company. At RND we had been developing a standard product which was a vertical medical device poucher. We saw a need for it in the industry and there was only one company filling that need (and in our opinion poorly). We had developed this standard machine with a series of options that could bolt on like lego blocks. There was some customization in the tooling and loading mechanisms but 80%+ of the machine was the same from project to project. The success of this poucher led us down the path of acquiring a horizontal form fill and seal company that specialized only in medical device and consumer product packaging.
We had to redesign the base machinery to standardize it but once we did we had yet another platform upon which to build standardized solutions. Some machines had printers, some with horizontal cutters, some with vertical, some with leak testers etc… but each of these options were also standard designs that needed little changes to fit in the scope of any project. This is what I like to call “Engineered To Order” (ETO) products. Not 100% standard but pretty close.
Acquiring this line of ETO products helped us to flatten some of the peaks and valleys of cash flow that are normal in the world of custom automation. We also saw larger margins on these “standards” than on some of the custom cells. Again, attributing to the reason mentioned above. Finally selling a standardized set of components (vs a custom spec) is easier when the product is “standard”.
Conclusion
While the term “standardized custom automation” is an oxymoron by definition there are use cases and situations where you can have design reuse and standardized components and methodologies. It takes time and money to get to this point but reaping the benefits or higher margins, lower COGS, reduced supply chain dependence and faster time to market can be great results of this investment.
The Automation Navigator is brought to you by Automation AMA, a company founded and run by an industry leader in assembly, robotics and packaging. Automation AMA offers a variety of services to help you on your automation journey or to help fine tune your engineering, sales, operations and business development departments. Learn more at www.automationAMA.com or shoot me an introductory email.