El impacto de la robotica

8/7/2019 El impacto de la robotica

1/57

Abstract:

The Impacts of Industrial Robots

November 1981Robert Ayres and Steve Miller

Department of Engineering and Public Policy andThe Robotics Institute

Carnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, PA 15213

(412)-578-2670

This report briefly describes robot technology and goes into more depth aboutwhere robots are used, and some of the anticipated social and economic impactsof their use. A number of short term transitional issues, including problems ofpotential displacement, are discussed. The ways in which robots may impact theeconomics of batch production are described. A framework for analyzing theimpacts of robotics on ecnomywide economic growth and employment ispresented. Human resource policy issues are discussed. A chronology ofrobotics technology is also given.

This research was supported by the Industrial Affiliates Program of the CMU Robotics Institute and bythe Department of Engineering and Public Policy.

A version of this paper will appear in Technology Review in the spring of 1982.


2/57

I

1 What Are Industrial Robots?2 Chronology of Robot Developments3 Robot Use in the United States4 Robot Technology- A Brief Review5 Robot Applications in Standard I n d u s h l Tasks6 The Role of Robotics in Manufacturing7 Integration of Robots into CAD/CAM Systems in Metal\Norking8 The Potential for Prorluctivity Improvement9 Societal Benefits Beyond Productivity10 Motivations For Using Robots1 1 Uses of Future Robots12 Short Term Transitional Problems

12.1 Potential Displacement13 Union Responses to Technological Change14 Broader Economy Wide Issues .15 The Problem of Human Capital1 A Chronology of Significant Devices and Events in the History of Robotics

I

I-is-i0%Figure 1:Figure 2:Figure 3:Figure 4:Figure 5:Figure 6:Figure 7:Figure 8:Figure 9:

F i g u r e sEstimates of U.S. Robot Population, 1970-1981Comparison of Production TechnologiesDisiribiition of Value Added in flit?Engineering 1i:dustries by Batch SizeDistribution of Value Added in Mnniifacturiny by Batch aiid Mass ProductionRobot Serving a CellFlexible Computerized Manufacturing SystemCategories of Producer's Durable EquipmentEconomy Wide Impacts of Improviny ManuFacturing ProductivitySex/Race Distribution of the blanufacturing Workforce, 1980

11 .248

101 5 .20 '252526'27283039 .4146

31112131718232431

Figure 10: Sex/Race Distribution of Manufacturing Operatives and Laborers 32Represented b y Labor OrganizationsFigure 11 : Analyzing Economy Wide Employrwnt Issues 40


3/57

Table 1: Robot CapabilitiesTable 2: Overview of Robotic SensorsTable 3: Classification of Industrial Robot T a s k sTable 4: Ratio of Production Workers to Robots, Mid 1981Table 5: Estimates of Productive Cutting Time in Metalworking ManufacturingTable 6: Estimates of Average Machine Tool Utilization in the Metalworking

Industries,l977Table 7: Motivations for Using RobotsTab le 8: Prime Operative Tasks for Level I RobotsTable 9: Prime Operative Tasks for Level IIRobotsTable 10: Annual Average Turnover Rates in ManiJfaCtUring, 1980Table 1 1 : Aye Distribution of the Manufacturing Workforce, 1980Table 12: Major Unions Representing Workers in the Metalworking IndustriesTable 13: Wage and salary Workers Represented by Labor Organizations, May 1980Table 14: Characteristics of Union Clauses Relating to the Introduction of N e w

TechnologyTable 15: Enrollments and Completions in Public Vocational Education in SelectedMetalworking Occupations: National Totals: FY 1978

.

579

152122262929333435363844


4/57

1

1 What A r e I n d u s t r i a l Robots?THE IMPACTS OF ROE30TICS

Industrial robots are machine tools. They are not hurnan-like androids which c m stroll around andconverse like the famed R 2 D 2 and C3PO of Star Wars. hilore realistically, they are programmablemanipiilators which can move parts or tools through a prespecified sequence of motions.Reprograi~~rnnbilitymeans that the robot's actions can be modified by changing control settings,without changing the hardware. They combine some attributes of traditional machine tools as well asattributes of machine tool operators. Like a machine tool, the robot can repeat the same task forprolonged periods with great precision. Like an operator, it is flexible enough to be taught to do a newtask, and i t can use accessory tools to extend its range of physical capabilities.

Robots are valued in industry for the usual qualities of machines: untiring availability, predictability,reliability, precision and (relative) imperviousness to hostile environments. They do not, as yet,possess several important capabilities which come naturally to humans: the ability to react tounforeseen circumstances or changing environments, and the ability to improve performance basedon prior experience. State-of-the art robots (mostly in, , research labs) do have crude senses of "sight"and "touch", and limited capability to coordinate their manipulators with sensory input. Because ofcurrent limitations, today's robots are usefully employed in highly structured. industrial environmentswhere practically all of the variability and decision making can be engineered out of the workplace.Existing uses of industrial robots all involve repetitive preprogrammable tasks such as spot welding,spray painting, palletizing, and the loading and unloading of many types of metal forming and metalctitting machines. The next generation of sensor based robots will be able to p erf irm a broaderrange of tasks under less structured conditions, in addition to becoming cheaper and easier to use.Expected uses of robots with vision and improved feedback control will include inspection, asseiiibly,heat treatment, grinding and buffing, and electroplating.

Eventually, many of the "hands on" tasks performed by production workers on t h e factory floor willbe done by robots in. computer controlled manufacturing systems. Programmable automation isbeginning to replace the current generation of manually controlled machines. This transition willundoubtedly continue for many decades. There is a potential for significantly improving theproductivity of our manufacturing sector, and increasing the wealth producing potential of theeconomy as a whole. We also face significant social impacts , such as the short term prospect oftechnological displacement, and the longer term prospects of basic structural shifts in the economy.

2 Chronology of Robot DevelopmentsThe term "robot" allegedly stems from the Czeck word "robotnik", meaning serf. It was first

introduced into the popular language by Caret Capek, a Czeck Playwright, in R.U.R. The concept ofi)rocJr~imiii~il)l:?machiiiery. however, (fates b x k niii ch e:trtic?r. to the 18 t h cer,fcir-y. when l l ieFrenchman Bouchon. Vacaunson,Basile. Falcon and Jacquard developed mechmical loonis whichwere coi?trollt.d by punch cards. Spericer's Au toma t . a cain prograinnxible lathe used for producingscrev/s. f l l i ts. ; t t 1 ( . 1 gt?;irs. V J ~ ScontrolIi'd b y f ; t t i i l< j CJLJidZS to Ill5 ci ld O f a rotating cli-uin in the inid1S70's.Since ttiert. rnecli:iriical contro ls have proliferntecf iii 11i?iitachiii e tool iiidtistry.


5/57

2

~ . . ~ ~ c h ~ n i c e lrn?r,ipiilators 3;so h::ve 2 I cng f>iS tCr) i . In 1Es2 , %:./Xd ! b?k ; ! t , 0:Pitts?ll;(;h, p2!2nfeda T G i Z r Y c:aii~ viith a motc;ized s:i;2>: for reniot;ing ir;c_;oisoL;t of ~LI:CXCS. The first jGii-,f-3.dmechanical Z r r n v;hich coii ld cou !~ !>!a;; t ; x k C? szries cf motions $.vasc ' ~ v - s - : o g ~ ~ Jby Poli~i-cJin lcJ3r-j.The n?achine VJBS specialized for spray paint ing. The first gznerc?! ,mr?ose p!a;ibac% [Init fc;contro:!ing machines wr?sdsveloped by G m r g e Dnvcl in 1945. I-le i i cwsed the &vice to RemingtonRand, \Vho intended to use it for the Univac; Coniputer, :;.hich w 3 s just devdoped. The ccntr ol !a wasnot fast enough for the desired purpose, and the paient was returned to Devol. In 1954, DCYJOIdeveloped !he first general purposc manipu!ator with a playback mtrnory arid soin t-io -po int cantrcl.The pztent for this P:ogrammed Arlicle . T rms fe r was issued in 1961. T he patent'siates, Universa lAutomation, or "Unimation", is a term ;hefmay well charac te r ize th e generel object of this inven:ion. .Devol's early patents \@re sold to Condec, and formed base for Condec's robot division, Unimaiion,Inc. In the ptr lod between 1954 and 1963, Devol and several others patsn:ed the niajor featurss ofthe first generation of robots.

Early robots had cornpuier l ike functions, such as memory, but were mzde up of electronic log iccomponents "hardwir.ed" to perfo rm a specific set .of tasks. Electronic con tro ls w3re used toessentially duplicate the functions of othe: "hard automated" contr ol functions. Robots controlled bygeneral purpose computers wer8 developed in th e early 1970's. The first mini computer controlledwas commercialized in 1974 by Cincinnati Milacron. Microprocessor controll~drobots follo~vedseveral years later. The computer conirolied, or "soft wired" robot, is far more powerful than amachine with specialized electronic logic circuts. It can work in severzl coordinatg systems. beprogrammed "off-line", interface with sensors, and so on. Computer controll& robots a r t no1.vbecoming very s2ecialized peripheral features of a General purpose. computer. A partial, and stillpreliminary chronology of signifi cant developments in robotiCs is given in tha apbendix.

3 Robot U s e in t h e United StatesIndustrial robots i n the United States are undergoing a virtual population explosion. Their n um ba s

have increased from 200 in 1970 to 4,1)00by 1980, and to nearly 5,500 by the end Of 1981. Icdustry'sexperience with robots, however, has SL) far b r en largtly confined to a relatively small number offirms. A t the beginning of 1981,almost 30 percent of the U.S. robot population belonged to only sixfirms, three of which were in the au to industry. By all indications, the real impact of robolics has just'begun to be felt.

The Japanese have more experience in robot applications, even though robots w8re originally Ideveloped, and first ap9lied in th a United States. Accord ing to Paul Aron (Aron,81), as of thebeginning of 198i; there were over 11,OGOmachines in Japan which match the definition of industriairobots applied in the United Stztes. Comparing this Count to cur US oopulation es!imates, theJapanzse have nsarly three times as many industrial rOSOtS ir1s:ailed and operating as the Unitedstates.'


6/57

3 THE ILfPACTS OF ROBOTICS

5500500045004000350030002500200010005001500 . #(partial count)

A

Point # o f Date SourceRobots

A 200B 1200c 2000D 2000E 2400F 1600G 3000H 3500I 3200J 4000K 5500

1970 (April)1974 (Dec.)1975 (Dec.)1976 (Dec.)1977 (Dec.)1978 (Dec.)1980 (Jan.)1980 (June)1980 (Dec.)1980 (Dec.)1981 (Dec)

Engelberger, First National Symposium onIndustrial Robots ,1970Frost and Sullivan,U.S. Industrial Robot Market, 1974Frost and Sullivan, The Industrial Robot

, Market in Europe, 1975Eikonix Technology Assessment, 1979Eikonix Technology Assessment, 1979American Machinist 12th Inventory, 1978Walt Weisel, Prab ConveyorsBusiness Week, Verfied by Cincinnati MilacronGeneral Motors Technical Staff,(Bache,Shields estimate)Walt Weisel, Prab Con\JeyorsSeiko Inc., Marketing Dept.

Figure 1 : Estimates of U.S. Robot Populat ion, 1970-1981


7/57

4 THE IMPACTSOF F3030TICS

4 Robot Technology- A B r i e f R e v i e wExisting industrial robots, are essentially, programmable multi-jointed arms with gr ipe r s or tool-

holders at t h e end, capable of moving a tool or workpiece to a pre-specified sequence of points, oralong a specified path within the arms reach and transmitting precisely-defined energy flows (e.g.forces and torques) or objects to these points. Capabilities of commercially available robots, andcapabilities under development for future robots are listed in Table 1.*

Their are four general architectural types of kinematic and structural designs distinguishable interms of coordinate systems:

Cartesian (rectilinear)CylindricalPolarRevolute (polar-articulated) ( W > C p J )Each of these systems has three degrees of freedom, sufficient for the arm to reach any point within avolume of space defined by the maximum extension of the arm.3 Of these types, the anthropomorphicrevolute (or polar articulated) architecture, requiring only cylindrical couplings, o ffe rs komparativelylarge working volume with minimal spacial intrusion and good ability to avoid obstacles along theposition path. The chief disadvantage of polar architectures has been that servo controls forcontinuous path operation are more sophisticated than controls required for the other architectures.However, recent advances in computer processing power have effectively eliminated this drawback.For this reason, Cartesian and cylindrical architectures are likely to assume reduced importance in thefuture, except where exceptional positional accuracy is needed.

As three degrees of freedom are required to reach any point within the working volume, threeadditional degrees of freedom are required to deliver the tool or workpiece in any arbitraryorientation. This may not be necessary in some cases, e.g. i f the workpiece is cylindrical or spherical.Most robots have some type of articulated wrist, giving them the addjtional degrees of freedom asneeded.

The performance characteristics ,of robots without sensory feedback can be summerized underfour headings:

0 manipulabi l i ty of the payload


8/57

5 THE IMPACTS OF H013O-TICS

Learning

DecisionMaking

Sensing

Manipu-Iat1o n

Mobility

Reliability

Coni me rcia II y A v a iIabIeCapabilities (1980)

c online programming viateach/playbac k modesc teaching inmultiple coordinatesL local and l ibrar y

memories of any sizeI program selection by

random stimul icomputer interpre tationof sensory datacomputer interfacingt 2 - D vision wit hbinary recognitionforce/torqu.e sensinglimited speech input

* s i x inf initely control lablearticulations betwee nbase and gripper* point to point control* continuous path cont rol* posit ion accuracyrepeatable to 0.3mm* handles up t o 150 kilos

* synchronization wit hmoving wo rk p ieces

* 400 hours for meantime between fai lure

Capabilities Soughtfo r t h e FutureF general purpose ro bott off l ine programming@ "learning" with experienceL "wor ld model" ofF positional sensingN 3-D vision wi thgrey levels and colort tacti le sensing* voice communica tion* improved processing of

sensory input s .coordination of mult ip lesensory inpu ts and cont roI* miniture manipulators* greater posit ion accuracygrea ter dynamic cont.ro1general purpose hands* multiple hand-to-ha ndcoordinationprogrammable omnidirectional mob ile bases* self navigatingmobile bases* "walking" robots

. pregram miag languages

working environment

* self diagnosticfault trac ing

Table 1 : Robot Capabilities


9/57

6 THE IMPACTS OF ROBOTICS

o rel iabi l i ty0 p roy rainmabil it yo mobi l i ty of the robot as a whole

More detailed discussions of these characteristics and extensive references are found in(Toepperwein,l980) and (Engelberger.1980). Temporary limitations of robots relate to the speed ofthe arm, the amount of fo rce or payload it can deliver, the precision of the motions, the ease ofprogrammabili ty and the complexity of sequence of actions it can be instructed to do. There aresignificant tradeoffs between the various performance characteristics. Extreme accuracy is availablefrom robots with only three or four dsgrees of freedon1,a very small payload, and a relatively tinyworking volume. Such robots may be appropriate for limited operations with very small parts, such asassembling watches or cameras. On the other hand, robots capable of handling large payloads oversii nif icant working volumes do not, as a rule, achieve very precise?positional accuracy.

Present manipulators are still far inferior to human arms, and are unsatisfactory for manyapplications, due to limitations on speed, accuracy, and versatility. Transmission mechanisms, suchas gear trains, lead screws, steel belts, chains and 'linkages used to transmit power from motors to theload cor;strain performance capabilities. New robot designs, such as the direct drive manipulatordeveloped at Carnegie-Mellon (See Asada,81), make it possible to remove all the transmissionmechanisms between motors and the load, and pave the way for a new generation of light weight,high performance robot arms.

The more fundamental limitation on present day robot capabilities relates to the need for pre-specification of t h e task in complete detail. Most tasks in the real world cannot be pre-specified to therequired degree, but require adjustments and modifications as the task proceeds. Picking standardparts from a bin is trivially easy for humans and exceeding difficult for a robot. The same applies tocutting logs or fitting pieces of cloth together. The robot must sense the appropriate attributes of theworkpieces as the operation proceeds, and make corrective maneuvers as needed. I t must be able torecognize when the workpiece is damaged and shoiild be removed from the line, and recognize whenthe desired result has been achieved. These are major challenges to the state of the art.

Capabilities necessary to overcome the difficulties of coping with non-standard orientations andvariable workpiece attitudes can be summerized under two headings:

0 sensing0 learning and planning

Robot sensors are divided into three major categories, following (Raibert. 1981),in Table 2. While therange of possible sensory inputs is quite large, the problem of interpreting the sensory signals by therobot's controlling "brain" remains as a separate dimension. The transducers respond to externalstimulation. and provide a stream of input data which is transported to the robot's control system viacommunication devices. However,the information cannot be used for purposes of decision makinguntil computational elements filter, enhance. interpret, and make perceptions on the raw data. Veryfew sensors have been Lised in industrial applications to date. but industry and research labs areactively studying new sensing devices and algorithms for interpreting sensed information.


10/57

7 TtiE IMPACTS OF Rot io - r t cs

Table 2: Overview of Robotic Sensors----In ternal Sensin3 Sensors to measure internal variables important to the control of 3 robotic

mechanism, such as the position and velocity of joints in a manipulator or in alocomotion system, or internal forces, temperatiires and pressures. Ttiore is nodirect interaction between the sensor and the outside environment. Some t y p e ofinternal sensing is found in every type of robotic mechanism.-Co nt ac t Sensing Sensors measuring touch, force, pressure, slip, or any type of tactile or force inp iitto monitor the interactions between the robot and its environment. Sinal1deviations in position which are normally hard to measure can result in very largeforces which are easy to measure.

In tactile or touch sensing, switches, piezoelectric devices, pressure sensitive plastics, ancl straingauges are used to measure very sinall forces at a number of points on the robot'send effector. Except for the simplest on-off devices, tactile sensors are n'ot yetfound on commercial ly available robots.

Forces are sensed by using strain gquges or piezoelectric sensors to measure all forces ancl torquestransmitted from the robot's end effector to the rest of the manipulator. Forcescan also be measured-at the actuators.Ranqe Sensinq Sensors.which measure the interactions of the robot and i ts environment without

any form of mechanical contact. Vision, laser ranging, proximity sensing, sonar,and radar sense the environment by collecting 2nd measuring reflected energy. Incomputer vision systems, TV cameras are interfaced to computer systems toanalyze what is seen. and to act upon this information. Proximity sensors radiatelight over small distances and mdasure the reflected light from a specific volume.Laser rangefinding is used to analyze a three diniensional geometry. A steerablelaser transmits a spot of light toward the region of interest. The time-of-flightdevices measure the time it takes for the spot to return to determine the distanceto the reflecting object. Triangulation devices displace the receiver from thesource so that the horizontal location OF the reflected spot indicates its distances.

Adapted from:Marc Raibert, Robotics in Principle and Practice-A Tutorial ,The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1981.


11/57


Computer vision has received the most research attention to date of all the range sensingtechniques. Vision systems which could determine the range and shape of an object using the"structured light" technique were first developed in 1971. In this approach to robotic vision, light isprojected onto the object in a controlled manner. The range is determined by triangulation, and theshape is inferred form the intersection of the object and the beam. There are several cornrnerciallyavailable sys!ems using the structured light technique. These systems are used to inspect, count,locate, and orient parts, as well as to guide (servo) a manipulator to an object in real time. Moreadvanced vision systems which have the capability to use grey scales , stereo ranging and threedimensional modelling, and which can be programmed to recognize shapes, are approachingcommercialization.

Learning capabilities relate to the creation and modification of an instructional program on-line,based on a goal statement and sensory input data. Researchers recognize the need for a softwareinterface to achieve "learning by experience", and high level planning. It is very easy to tell peoplewhat to do, and have them figure out how to do it. Given the instruction, " Put the nut on the screw",any normal child could accomplish the task without further detail. But today's robot would requireever each and every detail to be specified in great detail, from how to hold the screw and the nut, tofinding collision free paths. Robot .programming languages can , to varying degrees, plan simpletasks given instructions. These programming languages are classified in terms of the amount ofknowledge and reasoning power they require of the robot. Expl ic i t ly - programmed languages requirethe user to specify manipulator positions and trajectories. World-modeNing languages use verysimple instructions merely to specify what is to happen. Manipulator positions and trajectories aregenerated automatically.

Clearly. robot programming languages can only be used with 'robots that are controlled by ageneral purpose, programmable computer. As of today, very few of the robots currently installed inthe US. and throughout the world are actually computer controlled.

5 Robot A p p l i c a t i o n s in S t a n d a r d Industrial TasksA convenient classification of factory tasks robots are capable of doing, , following (DeGregorio,

7980), is given in Table 3. Robots have initially had the greatest success to date in spot weldingapplications, followed the loading and unloading of machine tools, forges, die casting machines andstamping presses, as well as spray painting, palletizing. and heat treating. Even in these establishedapplications areas, many practical problems remain to be solved.

Metal cutting machine tools can be loaded and unloaded by hand,. by robots or by integrateddevices fed by automatic transfer lines, as in automobile engine plants. The role of robots here will b elimited to cases where automatic transfer lines are inappropriate, because a variety of different partsmust be processed, but batch sizes are large enough to justify numerically controlled machine tools,fed by robots. Because commercially robots cannot ye t handle nonoriented parts, the mostsuccessful present applic: 3n is one where the robot unloads one machine and transfers the part tomo ther rriachine. The operational linkages between robots and other machines is discussed later on.

A vital task that has attracted much research attention is parts assembly. With minor exceptions,


12/57

9 THE IIAPACTS OF ROBOTICS

Table 3: Classification of Industrial Robot Tasks1. PURE DISPLACEMENT

a. Loading/Unloading of Machines:i.machine tools: debwring. drilling. grindin~.i~iilling.routingmachinesii.plastic rnaterialstorlning and injection machinesiii.metal die casting machinesiv . hot forging and stamping machinesv . cold forging machinesvi. cold sheet stamping machinesvii. furnacesviii. heat treating machines

ix . foundry equipmentb. Parts hlanipulation

i.packingii.sortingiii.conveyingiv . orienting

c. Palletizing2. DISPLACEMENT AND PROCESSING

a. Spot Weldingb. Continous Weldingc. Mechanical/ElectricaI Parts Assemblyd. Spray Paintinge. Cablingf. Cuttingg. Other Processing Operations With Portable Tools

3. DlSPLACEhlENT AND INSPECTIONa. Dimensional Controlb Other Quality Control Functions

Source G M de Gregorio.Technological Forcc3stlng of Industrlal Robotics.Proct>edmgsof the 10 th International Syniposium on Industrial Robots,1980. M i l ~ n .Italy


13/57

10 TH E IMPACTS OF ROBOTICS

existing asseriibly line jobs cannot be efficiently accomplished by present-day robots for severalreasons, incluc!ing inability to recognize and pick up a desired part from a mixed collection, lack of asufficiently flexible multi-purpose gripper, and ,the lack of high level programming languages toreduce time consuming and expensive se tx p procedures. These liinitations can be removed, to someextent. in newly designed plants where all parts are palletized, or otherwise pre-oriented as they enteffrom the outside, and handled automatically thereafter. The other, and more general approach to theproblem is to develop robots with vision,and tactile feedback, or other forms of contact or rangesensing, and that can be programmed "off-line", using high level languages. Another factor whichhas emerged through research is that assenibly tasks often must be restructured to exploit thecapabilities of the robot.

6 The Role of Robotics in ManufacturingThe basic production processes employed in industry today are distinguished by the batch size- or

the length of the production run. The basic production processes are outlined in Figure 2. Thedistribution of value added in the engineering industries-- industries producing metal, electrical, andelectronic goods-- is shown in Figure 3. Contrary to p.opular belief, American manufacturing industryis not primarily involved in mass production. According to these widely publicised figures, publishedlast year b y the Machine Tool Task Force, between 50 - 75 Sb of the dollar value of manufacturedgoods in the engineering industries are batch produced. Our own estimates on the distribution ofvalued added by batch and mass production for all manufacturing are shown in Figure 4. Ourpreliminary estimates are consistant with the earlier figures. The bulk of value added in durablegoods industries (which includes the engineering industries) is derived from batch produced goods.Our figures suggest, however, that when all manufacturing is considered, over half of value addedoriginates from mass produced goods4 Acknowledging inaccuracies in our estimates, it seems clearthat a large fraction of all manufactured goods are batch produced! and industry specialist aresuggesting that this fraction will increase.

In batch production, operations are done repetitively, but only for periods of hours or days, ormaybe weeks. There is a need to perform efficiently, since a sizable number of copies of eachproduct are made. There is also a need for flexibility, since the machine must be reconfigured foranother product at the end of the run. Only "flexible" types of automation- multipurpose, computercontrolled machines which are easily reprogrammed-- such as robois and- numerically control ledmachine tools are suitable for, batch production.

Robots are not yet cost effective in most custom applications because in such cases, a largefraction of the labor time is spent settinq un the machines. This still requires the active involvement ofa skilled machinist. Also, prograinming time would typically exceed operation time. For one-of-akindand prototype products, it is usually easier for a skilled machinist to make the piece then to figure outhow to do i t again with a robot. However, developments in computer aided design, such as the

4There is no prwise w a y for identifying industries as batch or mass producers. These estimates are hased on our ownjudgement and e ~ p f ~ tterice T h e dillererice between batch and mass production is growing less distinct. and. as as machineybecoives inoit- I l ~ x i b l e .the distinction will become indistinguishably blurry.


14/57

11 TH E IMPACTS OF F3OHOTlCS

I------A V E R A G E BATCH SIZE .

4----- DIVERSITY OF PRODUCT MIX4LABOR SKILL LEVEk

SpecialG e n e r a l- e EQUIPMENT___h SPECIAL TOOLING

P VCURRENTDOMAIN OFINDUSTRIAL ROBOTICS

-eRw< >

ADAPTED FR OM: Mikell Groover.Automation.ProducttonSystems, 2nd Computer Aided Manufacturing

Figure 2: Comparison of Production Technologies


15/57


100% I 1 1 . 1-Relative

Use ofAutomatedParts

L-

Handling -

( I N TI-1E.ENGI NEERING I NDUSTR I ES)

Source:Machine-Tool Technology

American Machinist, October, 1980Abstracted from the Report of theMachine Tool Task Force

loo% r-

TypicalBatchSizes

VALUE OFOUTPUT,

10-3001-101-300 300-15,000 over 10,000 Small,simple par t

Machininglndust ries

0%

S I h A Em1I ESTIMATE^


16/57

13 TH E IFAPACTS OF FKIBOTICS

N0i-r Dm ralbles(42.2%)-L,Batch Mass(40.3%) (59.7%)

Du iables(57.8%)

Batch(55..3%) .Mass(44.7Yo)90 3 h e rMetalwok i n g O t h e rk!lach i ne ry H e a v y B a t c hMachinery ProducedDu rables(2.6%) (6.6%) (90.8%)Figures for Value-Added: 1977 Census of Manufactur ing

Grouping of B a t c h and Mass Production Industries: Ayres&MillerFigure 4: Distribution of Value Added in Manufacturing

by Batch and Mass Production


17/57

14 THE IMPACTS OF ROGOTICS

aLitomatic generation of parts programs froin design drawings, are making robotics more applicablein small batch znd custom operations.

Robots are not generally cost effective in most mass production applications, either, becausespecialized mass production machinery can usually perform the operations more efficiently. Cycletimes for today's robots are cornpnrable to h iman cycle times, malting it difficult from thein to be usedin high speed work. Mass production machinery, or hard automation, on the other hand, is highlyspecialized to repeat a fixed sequence of operations at high sp.eeds for very long periods of time. Autoengines and transmissions are manufactured in this way. However,it always difficult and expensive--ifnot impossible-- to reconfigure the hard automated system for another product. It is usually cheaperto scrap the machinery, and rebuild the system from scratch. As cycle times are reduced, andsystems designs improve, rob6ts will become more widely used in high speed, large volumeoperations.

The important characteristics of the specialized "hard automated " transfer lines used to produce

...The system is based on a large volume of repetitive but complex machiningoperations. Because of precision tolerance requirements in addition to volume production,large manufacturing capital cost are involved. Except over a very limited range, littleflexibility is inherent in the system to accommodate change. Only a single produc t is madewith very limited or minor variations, but under a manufacturing environment that isenginesred to turn out the product in large quantities at minimum cost.

automobile engines are described in (Taylor, 1979):

The last sentence reveals the inherent limitations of "hard automation" technolpgy. It is the cheapestmethod of production precisely because each element in the system is dedicated to a single function,for which i t is optimized. But the entire plant is virtually a single specialized machine capable ofproducing only a single product. Hard automation is also very expensive to install because eachapplication is custom-made and ,therefore, quite labor intensive.

Most of the batch production industries, and potential robot users, fall within a group of industriesthat are commonly referred to as the metalworking sector. This sector includes the followingindustries (followed by their Standard Industrial Classification Code)?

Fabricated Metals (SIC 34)e Machinery ,except Electrical (SIC 35)

Electrical and Electronic Equipment (SIC36)Transportation Equipment (SIC 37)

Accordiiiy to The 12 th American Machinist inventory of machine tools in the metalworking sectortaken betweal 1976 and 1978, less then three percent of the three million machines in these


18/57


industries were numerically controlled. According to estimates by several robot inanufacturers, thereare roughly 5000 robots operating throughout all of U.S industry as of mid 1981. of which around &O%are in the metalworking sector. This means there is roughly one robot for every 1300 productionworkers in the metalworking industries, or even more surprising, less then one robot for every 3000production workers tl ~ro ur~ ho iitall manufacturing.

Table 4: Ratio of Production Workers to Robots, Mid 1981META LLVOR K ING(SIC 34-37) (SIC 20-37)ALL

MANUFACTU RING

Estimated numberof robots, June,l980Number ofProduction Workers(Annual Averages fo r 1980)

80 % of 5000 =4000

5000

5,387,000 14,277,000

Workers/Robots 1347 2856Sources :Robot Populat ion: C t N Robot ics Survey , A p r i l , 1981.Employment: Employment and Earnings, March. 1981: Tab1e.B-2.Bureau o f . . L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s .We see that despite the improvements in computer controlled machine tools and robots over the past20 years, the production technology in most batch production factories, and in practically all jobshops is still labor intensive and manually controlled . Thus, a large share of all manufacturing isperformed with labor intensive methods involving manual control.

It is no wonder that the United States industry is having problems controlling cost, maintaining h ighstandards of product quality and improving productivity. Batch production makes it difficult tooptimize machine tool and/or labor utilization. The greater the variability of the product mix, theharder i t is to control the cost and quality standards for a particular product. From a producers pointof view, a variable product mix, and the capability to manufacture new products is highly desirable.On the other hand, to improve productivity the flows o f inputs and outputs mus t b e more tightly (bu tflexibly) coordinated and controlled. One of the primary reasons for performance problems in theU.S.rnanufacturing sector is international competitions is forcing producers to simultaneouslyincrease both product variety and groduct quality. These simultaneous but mutually interferingrequirernents are pushing existing production technologies and management techniques beyondtheir CLI r rent capabilities.

7 Integrat ion of Robots into CAD/CAM Systems in MetalworkingRobots are considered L 'flexible" technology because their reprogrammability allows them to be

quickly adapted to changes in the production process. Robot flexibility has tw o aspects. First, a robotmay be programmed to perform the same task on a variety of different work pieces. This t y pe of


19/57


npplic;ttion is conimonly seen in several ai'cas such as spot welding. A second type of flexibilityinvolves shifting an idle-robotto an entirely new task. Our interviews with industrir~lusers suggest thata pnrticular robot is most often specialized to a particular application, partially due to mobilityconstraints. Even though programmable machines are not, as yet, fully exploited for their full range offlexibility, it is widely acknowledged in engineering circles that flexible automat ion- -or flexiblecomputerized manufacturing systems (FCMS) is the "wave of the future" for batch production.

The application of industrial robots in activities relating to metal machining cells is receivingconsiderable attention. In the next few years, we can expect to see industrial robots being i iistalled inmany medium batch size manufacturing plants, servicing tw o or three computer numericallycontrolled (CNC)machines. There will be a strong emphasis on the use of inexpensivemicroprocessors that will coordinate the various pieces of hardware in such a'cell. ' Machine toolbuilders are already committed to a strategy in which considerable programmability is enibedded inthe machine tool system itself. Systems are now commercially available that integrate all design andproduction stages between generating design drawings to generating the cutting instructions for acomputer numerically controlled cutting tool. Stand alone robots are still crucial to the success of thetotal manufacturing operation. Consider the role of the robot in the cell in Figure 5. The part has to bemoved from one machine to another. In addition to such manipulation within the cell, there is apotential need For robots to carry out preprocessing functions, such as cutting ra w bar stock, andpalletizing. There is also a need for supplementary functions, such as deburring. heat treating,surface plating, and assembly. From a human worker's viewpoint, there are many task within theseactivities, such as loading and unloading conveyors or pallets, that are monotonous ahd which suitt h e capability of a robot. Technical developments that enable robots to be iiiore versatile will clearlylend to inore widespread installation in the manufacturing industry. For example, the development ofa "universal grippt," or the ability to identify and pick-up a part placed randornly on a movingconveyor or in a bin are important areas of current research.

In order to carry out e "closed loop machining operation" where the robot may also replace theroutine metrology (measurement and'inspection) operations in a manufacturing cell, tactile feedbackis essential. While some dimensional measurement checks can be made on the machine tool itselfwith sensors placed in the tool changer, there will still be the need for measurement off line. Suchmeasurements are normally done at present by human operators. In moving towards fully automatedcells, the robot will also have to participate in this task via exact placement of parts in measuringstations. The rapidity with which robots that can "see" and "touch" are developed and accepted is ofparticular interest, since these capabilities appear to be vital for applications of robots to assemblyw d inspection.

The next step in systems integration is for several machining cells to be linked together in a FlexibleComputerized hlnnufacturing System (FCMS). Workpieces with a given range of variability can becuitoiwtically subjected to diff3ring production processes. as necessary. by nicii i2s of veryso[)lj isticated control and transport systems. The developinent of mini and micro computers forcontrol I~ f srnncle FCMS practical. Robots interact with numerically controlled machine fools andother ec{uipnient,controlling the sequence of operations. It is more integrated an d inore automatedt1l:in ;I traditional "job shop" consisting of mocfitnes in isol:itioii. opt'ratecl by Incliviclual 1iuin;ins. Aniiii\ber of sticli sy:;twi shave been report& in the 1iter;iture. incliidiiicj the Inyersoll-Rand system iiit h - , 1I.S..t l i r K c i s ! (;.:;Iiiiaii"Prisina ?" System :ind ill? J:ip:ine:,? syslein known ;IS tile l.l-.:licxlol~-rgy for'


20/57

L1LATHELJ17

F ig u re 5 : Robot Serving a Cell

TI-IE IMPACTS OF ROBOTICS

HI LUNG MACHINE

RO BO T

r I 1STOCK A N DH P A L E T I Z I N G STATIONv \ U\

\

M A C H I K I N G CENTERI 1


21/57

18 THE IMPACTSOF ROOOricsF i g u r e 6: Flexible Computerized Manufacturing System

U


22/57

19 TH E IMPACTSOF ROBOTICS

Unmrinned Manufacturing (MU\,!). A reiatively simple example is sliowrl in Figure 6 representing aflexible three c?Il systcrii for making planetary pinion gears at the Massey-Ferguson transmission andaxle plant in Detroit. The manufacturer had or-igitlally plarined for hard automation, b:rt found the useof robots (instead of a Customized transfer line) to be bo th less expensive and quicker to install.Several other systems are illustrated in (Lerner, 1981).

There is a fundamental reason why robot integrated FCMS may encroach in the traditional massproduction area. It is because of growing coiisumer demand for product diversification,spurred by avariety of factors, including the introduction of new goods, shorter product life cycles, shifts inpreferences, and a growing desire, and sometimes need, for more customized products. To achievetrue diversity o f products a more flexible manufacturing technology will be needed . Production runswill be shorter and changeovers more frequent. Most important, the need for extensive retooling toaccommodate production redesign must be reduced or eliminated. Curiously enough, the way toincrease flexibility in the mass production of consumer goods seems to be increased standardizationof capital goods. Machines used to mass produce products , such as high speed transfer lines, arecustom built for a single product, or for a small number of variants. As a result, mass-produced goodsare not as cheap as they could be because they depend on specialized machines and equipment thatare very costly by virtue of being custom made in very small numbers. Mass production would becheaper, clearly, if the produ ction equipment itself were also mass produced-or at least produced ona larger scale. The virtue of programmable, general purpose robots is precisely that a standardizedunit may be utilized in a large number of of different configurations, and situations, achievingspecialization b y software, rather than hardware.

.

Machines currently used for batch production, such as manually controlled, general purposemachine tools. or stand-alone NC machines, can be produced in much higher volumes then massproduction machines since one type of machine can be used for a wide variety of purposes. However,the drawback to the current generation of general purpose, or so called flexible machinery, is that unitoperating cost are high because of low output levels and high labor intensity.6 The development ofhigh performance, general purpose robots, and their integration into FCMS wi l l eventually permit Listo use mass produced machines to mass produce consumer products-a fairly revolutionary change.

An not-so-obvious implication of this trend is that an important existing inhibition on technologicalchange in mass production industriss may be relaxed.This is because the current generation ofcustom built mass production machinery is inherently inflexible. If the product is obsolete, themachine can only be scrapped,and reptaced. If FCMS were successfully implemented throughoutindustry, pr odiict modifications, and product development would not be so costly. If computerizedfactories were so flexible that average unit cost of a thousand (or a million) copies of one productw r e the same as average unit cost of one copy of a thousand products, a new era of technologicaldynamisrn ri ) ight follow.


23/57

20 THE IMPACTS OF HOCOTICS

8 The Potential f o r P r o d u c t i v i t y ImprovenientIn the engineering sectors (SIC 33-38),average utilization of inrtncially operated machine tools is

remaikably low. Estimates range from 596'to 30 % in job shops and batch production, as compared tobetween 20 % and 40 96 machine utilization rates attainable in typical mzss production plants. Ourestimates figures for the overall utilization rates of metalcutting, metalforminy, and welding equipmentare 12 %, 15 %I and 22% respectively, assuming theoretical full iitilizztion corresponds to 20ho ur dd ay and seven days a week, to permit scheduled maintenance. Incomplete us e of the secondand third shift, and plant shutdowns account for some of the lost time. Scheduling inefficiencies, andset up time account for much of the remainder. Due to the complexities of scheduling, and mostlymanual material handling systems, there is typically a large work-in-process inventory on the floor.Low machine utilization, and large quantities of work in process hold down capita i productivity.

The introduction of computer aids in assembly line processes is expected to result in animprovement in material and labor productivity. Applications such as spray painting , cutting, andinspection are partly motivated by materials savings possibilities , and partly by quality controlconsiderations If quality control is improved less material would fal l out of the process. Less laborwould go into rework, and less productive time and resources go into producing an excesspercentage of output in anticipation of fallout.

The coming revolution in manufacturing technology, among other things, may greatly increase theefficiency of utilization of machine tools used in batch production. There is an importait implication.Capital goods-- producer's durable goods including machine tools listed in Figure 7 - - are almostentirely batch produced. The use of robots and computer control mean that new capital goods will bemuch more productive than the old equipment i t replaces. I f the real cost of manufacturing prodcrcersdurable equipment were reduced as a result of productivity improvements, the pr ice of capital goodsin relation to final products could be expected to decline fairly sharply over the next half ~ e n t u r y . ~Itis difficult to overstate the significance of this event. There would undoubtedly be a ripple effect onprices of manufactured goods throughout the economy, as outlined in Figure 8. We expectreductions in the real price of producer's durable equipment to reduce real unit capital cost in thesectors purchasing this equipment. We expect this effect to , in turn, reduce the real price of finaloutput of mass produced consumer goods, as well as the real price of output of thenonrnanufacturing sectors. Final demand might be stimulated to to. some undetermined extenL8Lower real cost might incidentally have a very beneficial impact on the rate bf inflation. If inflation is

caused by "too much moneychasing to few goods", a sharp increment in productivity is perllaps thebest way to break out of the vicious cycle. These second order effects, while less immediate, m a yhave greater ultimate importance then the expected direct improvements in labor productivity inmanufacturing.

7Tt,e abSoliJte price of capha1may not decline. but we expect the price per unit of capability, or quality . to steadily decrease,as 11.7s beeu the case with computing equipment.

81t IS possible tha t the real cost of manufactured goods could be reduced without necessarily increasing either realtll:;pcs.lbk inconies 01 demand. For example. if markets for m a n y categories of standardized goods were nearly satiir3ted.co~~~um: : i swould primal i ly bu y to replace old. or worn oul i tems. and not to increase their "stock." In this mole wealthiersoc i~?t~' .p r o l ~ l ecoiild cfioose to increase their leisore time. raltier than increase their real buying power.


24/57

P r o d u c t i v eCutt ing TimeR e a s o n s forLost TimeIncomplete Use of2nd and 3rd ShiftHolidays andVacationsPIant ShutdownWork StandardsAllowances andMiscellaneous LossesLoad /Unload,Noncut tingSet-up,GaugingTool ChangeEquipment FailureInadequateStorage

21 TH E IMPACTS OF Rmoricsi able 5: Estimates of Productive Cutting Time in

Metalworking Manuf ac t u ringLO W V O L U M E MID V O L U M E HIGH VOLUME6% 8% 27%

44%

34%

12%

40%

28%

4%

7%7%

6%

27%16%

14%

7%

7%7%

Idle Time 2%

Theo ret ic alCapacity

100% 1OOYO 100%

Source : The Technology of Machine Tools, Volume 2: MachineTool Systems Managenient and Utilizafion, Lawrence L ivermore Laboratory ,1980.


25/57


SECTOR

333435363738

Table 6: Estimates of Average tvlacliine ToolUtilization in the Metalworking Industries,l977

METAL CUTTING METAL FORMING JOJNJNG (Welding)TOOLS TOOLS TOOLS(96) (%) (% )17.8 35.5 24.41 1 . 1 15.6 17.211.4 . 9.6 21.88.6 - 14.3 10.215.3 20.3 40.67.3 6.9 13.6

Assurnptions.Full utilization of a stand alone, manually contro lled machine toolwould be equivalent to 2 112 shifts,(20 hourslday) operation, seven days a week. This corresponds to7280 manhours per year. Assume 2000 hours per worker per year. Thusone manually controlled tool requires 3.6 operatives per machine per day.

Utilization = # of Non NC machine operators * 2000# of Non NC machines *7280


26/57

23 THE IMPACTS OF ROROTICS

Producers Durable EquipmentEngines and Turbine sFarm machineryConst r tic t ion ,mining ,mate r ial 11 and I ing ecluip

O t h e rl-1 eavyD h c h i n e r yOther special industrymachinery

ackines, General indus try machinrica!) Office,accounting andcomput ing equip inentService industry machin

Electr ical Electr ic transmission,and Electronic distr ibut ion equipmentC omm unic at ions e q u ip mOther electr ic equipmen&Ia c h i ne ryTr uc ks , buSeS,t rai le rsAi rcraf tShips and boatsRailroad equipment

Transportation AutosEquipment

Fab r ic atedMetal p roducts Structual metal producHeating equipmentForgings and stampings

FurnitureFigure 7: Categories of Producer's Durable Eqiripment


27/57

24

-Reductions in theCost of ProducersDu ra5 Ie Eq LI I pment(Capital Goods)

TH E IhlPACTS OF R(3BO'TICS

1 Impacts o n t h e/ Price ofFinal Output

I Improvements inManufacturing ProductivityI I

DumbYe GoodsP rod 11ce rsI N a n D u r a b l e GoodsProducersI

Transportaion TradeUtilities Real Estater ic ' I t u re Cornm u n !cations F i n a n c etL4 i n ingConstruct ion Serv ices

Figure 8: Economy Wide Impactsof ImprovingManii f act i i r inlj Productivity


28/57


9 Societa l Benef i ts Beyond Product iv i tyThere arc other major benefits to be gained from robotics, of sca.cely less social significance in the

long run. Thz first of th-zse is to improve the quality of work-l ife. This is certainly a social benefi t, eventhough it admittedly Iias a negative side. Throughout history, and continuing today, society hasfunctioned, in part, b y forcing very large numbers of people to perform dull, dirty, dangerous,degrading and/or demeaning (but necessary) tasks. Machines have gradually eliminated many of theworst of these tasks over the past two centuries. For example, in industrialized societies, humans notheir backs. Women no longer have to weave cloth or wash cloths by Iiand. But traditional factoriesstill use humans for many repetitive materials handling, machine loading/unloacling, tool operatingand parts assembly tasks.

longer chop wood, plant, cultivate, or harvest crops by hand. Men no longer carry heavy lo -dd s on

These tasks, in general, make use of the high grade motor skills and natural eye-hand coordinationof humans, without requiring either intelligence, judgment, or creativity. Being repetitive, they areinevitably boring. To the extend that such tasks involve manipulating heavy workpieces, hightemperatures, the use of high speed tools or reactive chemicals, there is also inherently some degreeof hazard. In the long run it can only be counted as a.societal benefit i f such tasks are taken over bymachines, notwithstanding the fact that such tasks currently provide employment and wages for anumber of unskilled and semi-skilled people who are unprepared by education or training toundertake more demanding kinds of work. Transitional issues and social cost are discussed later.

* .

10Motivat ions For Using RobotsAs part of the recent Carnegie-Mellon University study on The (rnpacts of Roborics on the

Workforce and Workplace, members of the Robot Institute o f America were asked to rank the factorsinfluencing their decision to install robots. Of the respondents, 19 were robot users, while 19 wereconsidering adoption. The survey results are shown in Table 7.

9Survey respondents overwhelmingly ranked efforts to reduce labor cost as their main motivation .Users frequently pointed out that the return on investment (ROI) calculation would not be favorable

unless there is a dramatic decrease in direct labor cost. Argumentsfor the benefits of expandingcapabilities, such as improving product quality or increasing production flexibility were oftenconsidered ''nebulous'' by the financial analyst.

The question was raised as to whether experiwced users learn how to quantify "indirect" benefitsas they accurnulate experience using robots. An executiv? at one firm speculated that inexperiencedusers only take direct labor cost into account b?caus? they do not know what other categories of costwill be affected. He said that his firm had learn:?d how to qiiantify other indirect benefits such asimproved prodirct quality rind reductions in inc?irec.t m:iteri,?l reqrrir-ernerits.Other experienced LiSerSdid not report this kind of "learning".

'f)i;ipei Laboratories. Cainbridge.Mass , c a r r e d out a suivey r a d Ing mOtiv3tIOnS for us ing assrmbly robots in 1980. Theirrt'spoiidents also ranked direct labor cos! as the priiiiary motivation.


29/57

26 TH E IMPACTS OF ROUOTICS

Table 7: Motivations for Using RobotsU A N K U S E R S PROSPECTIVEUSERS

Reduced Labor CostElimination of Dangerous JobsIncreased Output RateImproved Product QualityIncreased Product Flexibility

Reduced Labor CostImproved Product QualityElimination ofDangerous JobsIncreased Output RateIncreased Product Flexibility

6 Reduced Materials Waste Reduced Materials Waste7 Compliance With OSHA Regs Compliance with OSHA Regs8 Reduced Labor Turnover Reduced Labor Turnover9 Reduced Capital Cost fieduced Capital CostOther factors mentioned:

e To give an image of innovativeness.' e To keep up with the Japanese..

, SOURCE: CMU ROBOTICS SURVEY: AP RIL, 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - -

Broader strategic concerns such as long term competitiveness apparently are considered, yet theyare seldomly mentioned as the most important motivations. Only one firm said outright that they hadinvested heavily in robot ics to improve the quality and the competitive standing of their product. Theywere also the only firm to give strong emphasis to other "intangibles" such as improved product ionflexibility. Interesting enough, this spokesman was the only person among the inany interviewed tosay that applications were not evaluated primarily on the basis of ROI or payback period.

11 Uses of F u t u r e R o b o tsFuture uses of robots are not limited to "operative" tasks in manufacturing. On the contrary, some

of the most significant future uses of robots may be to provide feasible means of providing services orexploiting resources that cannot be provided or exploited at all at present. Handling dangerousradioactive wastes on a routine basis in a future disposal facility is one example." The choice isbE?t:Ve?n one kind of mechanization and another: human workers cannot be routinely exposed tothese wastes. Mobile robots would offer a much greater degree of flexibility then telaoperators, or*' hard " automat ion.

Exploration, mining. construction or other ro:itine activities in hazardous environments are otherexamples. Such tasks are C'ifficiilt, dangerous. ~ I I K !consizqclently inortiirintely expensive. Cotiots rnay


30/57


find use in coal or other mines, simply because mines are such unpleasant and dangerous workenvironments for humans. Robots could drastically alter the economics of conlinercia1 utilization ofspace, for example. In the long run, i t is likely that if man succeeds in "industrializing" the inoon,orbiting space colonies, asteroids or other planets, i t will only be done with major assistance fromrobots. l'he Viking 2 Lander which touched down o n the surface of Mars in September, 1976, isperhaps only the first of a line of "exploration" robots. Planned Mars surface rover missions will last8-10 times longer than Viking and entail much greater complexity. The U . S . Navy and a number ofother organizations are actively developing underwater robots or "unmanned submersibles" both formilitary 2nd nonmil ita ry purposes.

Finally, prosthetic robots and household robots exemplify service categories that are increasinglyneeded and difficult to obtain in any other way. Paraplegics, and especially quadriplegics, forinstance, might be served full time by voice-activated robots capable of doing a variety of necessarytasks from feeding to page-turning. Such robots are being developed in Japan. In the U.S., theVeterans Administration has an ongoing program in Rehabilitative Robotics. The all porposehoiisehold "dro id" robot is probably a rather visionary idea, at present, but robots could certainly bedesigned to perform some types of jobs, notably heavy cleaning. Joseph Engelberger, President ofUnimation, has promised that he wiil soon have a robot (to be named Isaac,after Asiniov) that willserve coffee in his office. Quasar Industries of Rutherford N.J. built and photographed a model"household" android in 1978, and announced their optimistic intentions for "mass prodiic tion withintwo years." The project was somewhat of a hoax, but there is still unquestionable commercial interestin developing such a product i f only because of the vast potential market. In fact, Nieman-MarcusDepartment Stores advertised a household robot (actually a remote controlled device) in their 1981catelog. For every conceivable application 0 ; an industrial robot. there are at least ten applicationsfor a household robot. It is impossible to believe that such a vast market will not be exploited at theearlest possible time.

It is vitally important to recognize the potential importance of s o m e of these applica tions-- andsome of their adverse consequences--in the picture as a whole. It is entirely conceivable , forinstance,that a century hence historians looking back might say, in effect,"the real significance ofrobotics development in the 7980's and 1990's is that they enabled mankind to expand his abodepermanently beyond the earth's surface. and thereby escape the trap of limiied resources associatedwith that constraint." All of future history could be very different , depending on whether space issuccessfully "colonized" in the next century or not. On the other hand, discounted present valuecriteria might tend to put mme weight on proven short- run applications that pay off because ofdisplaced labor then o n very large but very remote benefitslt is to important to assess short-te rmbenefits and costs, without unduly d iscounting long-term implications.


31/57


occupational titles were singled out as having a high potential for robotization, as shown in Tables 8and 9. The responses t o the survey were quit2 varied, reflecting the different requirements of similarjobs in various industries. The response from each firm depended on its products, the length of thetypical production run, and on the experience of management with robots. Despite obviouslimitations on the completeness of the survey, several occupational categories can still be targeted asprime candidates for replacement by Level I and Level I1robots, even though there are some specifictasks within these occupations that will not be automated for many years to come.

12.1 Potential DisplacementAlmost all of the present membership of the RIA--and90 06 of current robot users-.fall within the

metalworking sector. There are nearly three million workers employed in the nine occupationsdesignated as the prime operative task for Level I and Level I1 robots in the metalworking industries(SIC 34-37) nationwide. Based on the average weighted response of the percent of jobs which robotscould do, it appears that nearly half a million of these operatives could potentially be replaced byLevel I robots. The figure roughly doubles to one million operatives i f Level I1 robots with rudimentarysensing capabilities were available. Extrapolating the data for metalworking to similar task in othermanufacturing sectors, it appears that Level I robots could eventually replace about one millionoperativeis, and Level II robots could eventually replace three million out of a current total of 8 millionoperatives. We think the time frame for this displacement is at least twenty years, however.

By 2025, it is conceivable that more sophisticated robots will replace almost al l operative jobs inmanufacturing ( about 8 % of todays workforce), as well as a number of routine non-manufacturingjobs. As we currently understand the situation, concerted e ffo rts should be made b y the private andpublic sector to redirect the fu tu re workforce in response to these changes. Even though severalmillion operative jobs in the current manufacturing workforce are indeed vulnerable to robotization,the transition seems hardly catastrophic on a national scale, provided new job entrants are properlytrained, and directed. In our view, the oncoming transition will probably be less dramatic than theimpact of office automation over the same period. By 2025, most current operatives would haveretired or left their jobs . The jobs would not disappear all at once, and robot manufacturing,programming, and maintenance itself will provide some new jobs. although we think most new jobswill not be in manufacturing, despite the rapid growth of the robotics industry itself. New "growth"sectors in the economy, including undersea and space exploration may also provide many new jobs.The important conclusion is that young people seeking jobs in the near future will have to learnniarketahle skills other then welding, machining, and other operative tasks fhat are being robotized.

Even though the adjus tmmt problems seem manageable, the potential for social unrest in specificlocations cannot be dismissed quite so lightly. Over hal f of all the unskilled and semi-skilled"operative" workers--the types of jobs which could be replaced by robots -- are concentrated in thefour major metalworking sectors (SIC 34-37). Almost one half of all production workers in these fourindustries are geographically concentrated in the five Great Lakes States-Indiana, Illinois,tdichigan,Ohio and Wisconsin-- plus New York and California. Within these same states, themetalworking sector also accounts for a large percentage of the total statewide employment inmariufacturing. Adjustments in response t0 the rapid diffusion of robotics may be intensified in theseareas. The impacts of not improving the productivity and competitive standing of these very Same


32/57

29 THE IMPACTS OF ROROTICS

OCCUPATIONTable 8: Prime Operative Tasks for Level I Robots

LEVEL I R O B O T S LEVEL I I R O B O T SRange of Average Range of AverageResponses Weighted Response Responses Weighted Resp

Product ion Painter 30-100% . 44% 50-100 % 66%Welder/Flamecutter 10-6 0 % 27 % 10-90 Yo 49 yoMachine Operator" 20 940 50 YoMachine Operators (NC) 10- 90 % 20 46 30-90% 49 %Drill Press Operators 25- 50 % 30 96 60-75 96 65 %GrindingIAbrading Operators 10- 20 % 18 % - 20-100% 50%Lathz/Turning Operators 10- 20 % 18 % 40- 60% 50 %Milling/Plann ing Operators 10- 20 96 18% 40- 60% 50 %Machine Operators (Non NC) 10-30 % 15 96 5- 60 % 30 Yo

Table 9: Prime Operative Tasks for Level II RobotsOCCUPATION LEVEL1 ROBOTS LEVEL I 1 ROBOTS

Elect roplat ersHeat TreatersPackagersInspectorFi lers/G r inders/BuffersAssemblersBased on 16 responses.

Range ofResponses5 - 40 %5-5 0 %1- '40 %5 - 25 %5 - 3 5 %3-20 %

Average Range ofWeighted Response Responses

20% . 5 - 6 0 %10 940 5 - 9 0 % -16 % 2-70 %13 % 5 - 60%20 % 5-7 5 %10 % 20-50 Yo

AverageWeighted Resp

* 5 5 %46%41 %35 %35 Yo30 Yo

Al l Respondents did not give estimates for all occupations.SO U R C E: ChlU ROBOTICS S U R V E Y : A P R I L 1981- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

" h l : i s h i w tool operators includes the sepalate types of machinest listed below. These estimates are used as an average toappio x i i w a t r ~:n e p.:'centaye of all c3tegoiies of inn chw st listed below which could be robotized.


33/57

30 TH E IMPACTS O F ROBOTICS

iridirstries LVIIIalso be concentrated in the same few states. There may also be a disproportionateiinpact on racial minorities and women. Non whites account for only 11 percent of the natiorlalworkforce, but comprise ktween 15 to 20 percent of of operatives and laborers. (See Figure 9.)Woinen employed in semi skilled and unskilled manufacturing jobs are less likely to be represented bylabor organizations than their male counterparts. (See Figure 10.) DeFacto economic discriminationco u Id accord inCJ I y increase.

It is often noted that technological displacement would be minimized if the rate of robotintroduction were paced by the attrition rate. At this time, we cannot say whether or not this is afeasible strategy. A n examination of industry attrition rates and of the age distribution ofmanufacturing operatives and laborers suggest this strategy is not feasible. According to Bureau ofLabor Statistics data, only one to three percent of the workforce in metalworking [SIC 33-38] leavetheir place of work as a result of quits, discharges, permanent disability, death, retirement, andtransfers to other companies. However, these figures may substantially underestimate the percentageof people transferring out of specific jobs , since they only include people who actually leave theestablishment. Workers who transfer jobs within the same establishment would not be counted incurrently published turnover rates.*

Contrary to the notion that many manufacturing workers are old and nearing retirement, the vastmajority of the manufacturing workforce still has 20 or more years of active worklife ahead of them.As of 1980. between two thirds and three fourths of operatives and laborers were less then 45 yt?arsold, which means that barely a third of the workforce would be retired in the normal w i y b y the year2000. (See Table 11 . ) On the average, skilled workers are older, but they are not as likely to bereplaced by robots in the near future.

13 Union Responses to Technological Ch an geOver one third of all wage and salary workers in manufacturing, and a significantly higherproportion of production workers--85%J of motor vehicle equipment operatives. 5206 of laborers, 47 %

of other durable goods operatives, and 41 % of nondurable goods operatives- are represented bylabor organizations. Over 90 percent of those represented actually belong to unions. (See Table 13.)Clearly, unions will be heavily involved in the mechanics of the transition to robotics. The majorunions representing workers in the metalworking industries are listed inTable -12.

There are no reliable statistics which cross classify union membership by manufacturing industry,hiit it appears that almost all of the membership of the UAW, the IAM. the IUE, the UE, and the USWwork in SIC 33-38,whereas most of the membership of the IBEW works outside of manufacturing.


34/57

31

MF

THE IMPACTS OF ROt30'lICS

55.1 8-q 64.230.4 5.d 35_8

SEX / R A C E DISTRIBUT1 Oi'd OF THE MANUF A CTU RING WORKFORCE, 1 980

W N WM 3 5 4 6 - c

Percentage distributions:

Totals41.6

M: m a l eF: femaleW : white MNW: non white F

MF

Totals! 88.d 11.4 100.0

68.q 16.q 84.313 .q 2.71 15.7

SKILLED W O R K E R SOthe; Metalworking

Machine Jobsetters: 658000Iy1 -m 7Tota Is-F

Totals 91. 8.q 1.00.0 Totals 92.SEMI SKILLED AND UNSKILLED 'JVORKERS

Moter VehicleEquipment0 eratives:431,000

MF 15.1 19.7Totals 80. 19. 100.0

Non Durable Goods

Other Durable GoodsMfg. Operatives: 4,166,000

Totals1 85.q 14-11100.0

Manufacturing

SOURCE: CURRENT POPULATIONSURVEY, G U R E A U O F LA8OR STATISTICS

Figure 9: Sex/Race Distribution of the Manufacturing Workforce, 1980


35/57

32

F: femaleLV: w h i t e M .NW: n o n w h i t e F(*): Base less T o t a l s

TH E IbIPACTS OF ROUOTICS

W N W I T o t g k = percent of30.3 36-ti 31-0 occupation group17.q 27.p 18-9 represented by24.q 32.1 25.7 labor organization

W NW48.9

( * )T o t a l s 41. 40.1 40.8 T o t a l s 52.d 49.255-2440.4

Mrrm MF 32.1 3L2 FMachinest and Johsetters: 397,000

FT o t a l s 56. 56.6

T o t a l s54.141.752.2-

Craftworkers: 423.000

SEMI S K I L L E D AND U N S K I L L E D W O R K E R SMotor Vehicle Other Durable Goods -

Mf .0 eratives: 1 917.000MF 33. 35.2T o t a l s 85. 87. 85.8 T o t a l s 46.1 50. 46.8

SC)lIHCF: Earnings and Characteristicsof Organized Wor kors. Llay. 1980, ELS,Sept. 1981Figure 10: Sex/Race Distribution of Manufacturing

Operatives and Laborers Represented by ILabor Organizations


36/57

33 TH E IMPACTS OF R0130TICS

Table 10: Annual Average Turnover Rates in Manufacturing, 1980Total Se pa ra t i~ n ~

.rate for wagesalary workers(per 100ern ployees)

Manufacturing, totalDurable goods, totalLLIm berFurnitiireStone,Clay, and GlassPrimary metalsFabricated metalsMachinery,exp. elec tricalElectrical machineryTransportation equipment

Motor Vehicles and equip.Aircraft and parts. Inslrumenis

Misce!laneousNon Durable GoodsFoodTobaccoTextile MillApparelPaperPrintingChemicalsPetroleum ProductsRubher/PlasticLeather

4.03.86.04.54.33.84.32.83.2 ..4.26.01.62.45.34.36.23.64.15.72.93.21.82.15.16.8

Layoffrate

1.71.82.71.52.22.52.11.11.12.54.5.3.52.41.62.82.01.o2.11.2.8.5.82.22.5

Employment and Earnings, March 1981. Bureau o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s .S e r i e s 0 - 2 . Estab l ishme nt Data, Labor Turnover, Annual Averages.

TotalSeparation -Layoff =Attrition

2.32.03.33.02.11.32.2.1.72.11.71.51.31.93.12.83.61.63.13.61.72.61.31.32.94.3

l 3 Jotzl separations are t e r rninations of employment initiated by either employer or. employee. (Rates per 100employers )Lnyolls are suspensjons wlrhokrt pay for more than 7 consecutive initiated by einployer.(Tordl separd ions - Layo l l s )inrlci(les qwl:;. discliargf:s.permenjrlt dts3hrlities. retirements .transfers to other establtshmerits. and entrances into the ArmedForces. Worktrs who change jobs. but do riot leave their place of work are not included in these figures.


37/57

34 THE Ih4PACTSOF ROBOTICS

Occupation

TOTALEMPLOYEDMac hi neJobsettersOtherMetalworkingCraft WorkersMotor VehicleEquipmentOpeiativesOther Durable

Table 1 1: Age Distribution of the Mmuiactur ing Workforce, 1980Number Percentage Distribution by Age GroupEmployed(000s)

97,290

658

638

431

4,166Goods OperativesNon Durable 3,290Goods OperativesManufacturing 961Laborers

16-19 20-24

7.8

3.3

2.0

2.1

5.5

6.5

9.7

14.0

15.2

9.6

11.3

17.5

16.0

20.3

25-34

27.0

27.8

28.8

30.6

27.9

26.3

28.2

35-44

19.8

19.6

20.8

25.9

19.5

19.3

16.5

45-54

16.7

17.6

20.0

20.1

16.6

18.5

14.1

55-59

7.2

9.4

11.o

5.8

7.4

7.5

5.9

60-64

4.5

5.8

6.7

3.9

4.5

4.5

3.8

Source: Curren t Population Survey, B u r e a u o f Labor Statistics.:Annual A v e r a g e s f o r 1 9 8 0 .

65 +

3.0

1.3

1.1

.2

1.1

.1.4

1,.4

% 45or younger69.0

66.0

61.O

70.0

70.0

68.0

75.0


38/57

35 TH E Ih,IPACTSOF ROB0TIC;S

UNIONT3 tile 12: Major Unions Representing Workers in the kletalworking Industries

United Automobile, Aerospace and AgriculturalImplement Workers of America (UAW)United Steelworkers of America (USW)International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers (IBEW)International Association of Machinestand Aerospace Workers (IAM)Internationat Union of Electrical, Radioand Machine Workers (WE)

MEhlBERSHI PI1978(000s)

1,499

1,2861,012

724

255

United Electrical, Radio and MachineWorkersof America (UE)

166

MEMBERSHIP1980(000s)

1,357

1,2381,041

754

233

162

S o u r c e f o r m e m b er sh ip f i g u r e s :1 9 7 8 : D i r e c t o r y o f N a t i o n a l U n io n s a n d E m p l o y e e A s s o c i a . t i o n s , 1979.n u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s , S e p t . 1 9 80 . B u l l e t i n 2 0 7 91 98 0: P r i n c i p a l U.S. L a b o r O r g a n i z a t i o n s , 1 98 0. B u re a u o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s .Collective bargaining contracts are the formal mechanism that unions use to affect company

policies . Union contracts are marked by their large number, and by their diversity of provisions andtheir sphere of influence. A comprehensive review of union contracts is beyond our scope. However,as part of the project on The Impacts of Robotics on fhe Workforce a n d Workplace, we reviewedrepresentative contracts from the UAW, the IA M, the IBEW, and the IUE, and identified clausesrelating to the introduction of new technology. The union contracts include clauses relating to jobsecurity, job integrity in the workplace, and benefits to the workers in the event of a lay-off. Jobsecurity attempts to provide workers with guaranteed of continued employment at agreed upon wageand benefit levels while job integrity deals with the maintenance of the bargaining unit in the face ofchanges in the production process. Such clauses encompass concerns relevant to the actual workingconditions of the firm. In the event that job security is not attainable, the unions attempt to ease thesituation of the individLial worker in the period after displacement.

Three of the four union contracts studied had provisions which set up joint union-managementcommittees to disctiss the phasing in of new technology. These committees receive advance noticeof impending technological changes, and when necessary. negotiate possible policies to mitigate thenegative effec ts with the collective bargaining unit. These policies incluc!ed advance notification toworkers. ayreenients to niin.irnize displacement, and provisions for retraining. Soine of the specificclauses found in the contracts studied are listed below. A more detailed breakdown of clauses by byunion is shown in Table 14.


39/57


T a b l e 13 : Wage and salary Workers Represented byLabor Organizations, May 1980

A LL O C C U PATIONS / I N D U STRIESMA NU F A CT UR I NG 0C CU PAT1 ONSMachinest and job settersOther metalworking craf t workersMotor vehicle equipment operativesOther durable goods operativesNon durable goods operatiyesManufacturing laborers

,Perceiitage ofemployed wageand salary workersrepresented bylabor organizations

25.7

56.963.185.846.8 , .40.8 ' ,52.2

Number of Nuniber ofemployed wage rep resentedand salary LV o rk ersrepresknted b y in unionslabor o rganizat ions

work ers

(000's) (000's)22,493 20,095

397423

3 8 141 1

315 . 3121,917 1,8021,320 . 1,244436 420

MANU FA CTUR I NG INDUSTRIES

Manufacturing, totalDurable goods, totalOrdnanceLumberFurnitureStone,Clay, and GlassPrimary metalsFabricated me talsMachinery,exp. electricalElectrical machineryTransportation equip ment

AutomobilesAircraftOther trans. equip

Instru mentsMiscellenous

Non Durable Goods

34.837.620.920.928.649.460.539.030.630.155.963.150.448.114.518.8 .30.7

7,309 6,7714,720a6

113132.30571 2530851672

1,1356003 4 11949093

4,3667410312429268649 1798599

1,038582286170'7982

2,589 2,405E a r n i n g s a nd O ther-. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Org an iz ed Workers, May 1980U . S . Depart i r ient o f Labor . Bureau o f L a bo r S t a t i s t i c s . S e pt em be r, 1 98 1.B t i l l e t i n 2 1 0 5


40/57


o Sharing of Increased Productivity Benefitse Paid Personal Holidayse Supplemental llnemployrnent Benefits

e Transitional Allowanceso Advance notice of Technological Changee Severance Paye Retraining Provisionse Integrity of the bargaining Unit

These provisions have evolved over the years as part of an arrangement between the unions andthe firms to soften, or offset the impacts of displacement resulting from technological changes.Technological change, in the view of the unions, results not only from the introduction of new laborsaving machinery, but also from design changes in the product, changes in engineering strategies,and other types of modifications that "speed up the line", or reduce unit labor requirements. Anotherintent of these provisions is to share some of the benefits of improved prof itabil ity with the workforce.

Provisions calling for the sharing of productivity benefits are based on the assumption thattechnological improvements which increase productivity shduld in turn increase corporate profits. Bysharing the increased profits with the union, the company might improve the acceptance of newtechnology. In the contracts studied, the UAW's Wage Improvement Factor was the only example of aclause explicitly calling an annual percentage "productivity increase" exclushe of cost of livingincreases. A UAW spokesman commented that this type of clause is only negotiated i f the plant is in aposition to pay for it, and that where it has been negotiated, productivity has improved by more thenthe wage improvement factor.

Paid Personal Holidays (PPH) are intended to spread fewer available jobs among a greater numberof employees by giving workers additional days off with pay in addition to holidays. The UAW hasnegotiated twenty six Paid Personal Holidays over a three year period for each member working for anautomobile manufacturer.(About 50 percent of the UAW membership.) The intent is to reduce thenumber of workers laid off b y reducing the number of days worked per employee. Other unions haveimplsmenterl similar plans b y increasing the standard vacation time. A UAW spokesman commentedthat PPH's, like the Wage Improvement Factor, are negotiated when productivity is increasing withinthe p1:irit. and unit labor requirements are decreasing. The spokesinan also emphasized that PPH'swere only one part of a total package for offsetting displacement accompanying productivityimprovements. The additional paid holidays can also be viewed as another means of sharing thebenefits o f increased productivity.

Supplemental Unernployfien t Benefits are used in addition to unemployment compensation to aidworkers tllrot igh lay off periods. Nationally, the UAW'is the principal advocate o f this program.


41/57

38 THE IMPACTSOF HOB01'1CS

Table 14: Characteristics of Union Clauses Relat ing to t h eIntroduction of New Technology-

Iu uO Y a u I .- I o 6I o 4 c u 0-

Vu xU I Do

u"4"0

VU50WV

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	freddy-porras-rincon
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

El impacto de la robotica

Documents