Robotic Realities: Near-Term Prospects and Problems

Abstract

Industrial robots are automation, but with a difference. Other machine tools are extensions of human capabilities, while robots are seen mainly as substitutes for human workers. Robots will find most of their industrial applications during the next decade or two in the metal-working sectors, where they will begin to displace semiskilled machine operatives in medium to large batch production operations. They cannot substitute for skilled machinists or other workers doing nonroutine jobs, or specialized, dedicated hard automation used in mass production. The current generation of robots, lacking sensory data processing and interpretation capabilities, can potentially replace up to 1.3 million manufacturing jobs. The next generation, with crude vision or tactile senses; will potentially displace about 3 million more. However, only relatively large firms can profitably utilize many robots at present; it may be 20 years or more before these usage rates are achieved in practice. A shift from stand-alone machine tools, to manufacturing cells consisting of several machine tools served by a robot and controlled by a computer, will accelerate the practical use of robots in the 1990s.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. JIRA , The Robotics Industry in Japan: Today and Tomorrow (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982).

2. The automobile appears to be an exception to the rule but actually is not. The final product, however, is assembled in moderately small batches from simpler subassemblies—engine, transmission, wheels, full system, brakes, and so on—that are themselves mass produced.

3. This system of industrial classification has been developed over a period of many years under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Commerce. All data collected by the Bureau of the Census as part of the economic census, including the Census of Manufacturers, is organized according to the SIC system.

4. UNIDO Monographs on Industrial Development: Volume 4, Engineering Industry (Vienna: U.N. Industrial Development Organization, 1969).

5. “Possibilities and Limits for the Application of Industrial Robots in New Fields,” in Tenth International Symposium on Industrial Robots, Milan (Bedford, England: IFS Publications, 1980).

6. In the next few years time lost to equipment failure could conceivably increase as systems become more automated and more complex. However, over the next two decades we expect improvements in machine reliability and sensor-based diagnostic systems to improve machine and system reliability and to reduce equipment failures.

7. We borrow the broader definition of robotics as machines that can “sense, think and act” from Raj Reddy, director of the Carnegie-Mellon Robotics Institute.

8. “Estimated Requirements for Machine Tools during the 1980-1990 Period,” in Machine Tool Systems, Management and Utilization, ed. Arthur R. Thompson (Lawrence, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1980), vol. 2 of Machine Tool Task Force Report on the Technology of Machine Tools, pp. 31-41.

9. Steven M. Miller, “Potential Impacts of Robotics on Manufacturing Cost within Metal-working Industries” (Ph.D. diss., Carnegie-Mellon University, 1983).

10.

10. However, the flexible manufacturing systems typically have a greater range of capabilities than the equipment it replaces. While overall capital cost might be higher, cost per unit of capability—if this could be measured—might well be lowered for the computer controlled flexible manufacturing system.

11.

11. Much of the savings could in principle be achieved without eliminating labor. However, the higher machine utilization rates can be achieved only by using computers and robots to control the flow of work within the whole factory, eliminating the need for much of the hands-on labor, which in turn eliminates worker-related slow-downs and bottlenecks. If capacity increases are achieved, it would be profitable to pay some of the current workers just to stay out of the way, in order for the machines to be more fully utilized. However, this is unlikely to be the most productive or socially acceptable use of human resources. It also depends on being able to sell the additional output.

12.

12. The demand for a product depends on its own price, as well as on the price of other products that could be used as substitutes. In the discussion we assume that only the price of the product in question is varying, and that prices of other products and of other important variables, such as income levels, remain constant.

13.

13. We assume the following cost proportions: production labor cost equals 23 percent of value of shipments, nonproduction labor cost equals 7 percent, capital cost equals 20 percent, and materials cost equals 50 percent.

14.

14. 0.72 labor units/unit of output × 1.2 units of output = 0.87 units of labor = a 13 percent decrease from the base case.

15.

15. As an aside, if demand were to increase by several hundred percent—and in some cases it might—many established organizations would not be prepared to cope with the increased complexity of organizing their business. It would strain the organizational structure, especially information processing capabilities. As a result producers sometimes purposely restrain their technological capabilities in order to keep their business manageable.

16.

16. The major exception is automobiles. Large appliances, such as refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines, are also mass produced durable goods, but since they are sold to consumers they are not classified as producers' durable equipment.

17.

17. Attrition is used to refer to workers who leave the establishment as a result of quits, discharges, permanent disability, death, retirement, or transfers to other companies. The other main source of labor turnover is layoffs, suspensions without pay for more than seven consecutive days, initiated by the employer. Together the attrition and layoff rates comprise the total separation rate.

18.

18. Assume 6.7 million blue-collar workers in metalworking jobs, and an average rate of 3 percent decrease per year over a 10-year period.