Workshop practice
Before designing, I look at what I have to hand
How I approach an industrial problem when the same person analyses it, designs it, makes it, wires it and gets it working. And why the best solution is often not the most spectacular one.
Lately I have been seeing plenty of projects on LinkedIn with huge robot arms, complete cells and systems that cost as much as an industrial building. Some are impressive, and many make perfect sense.
But with quite a few of them I find myself thinking the same thing: that handling task did not need a robot. A handful of well-designed parts could solve it just as well, in less time and at a fraction of the cost.
I am not saying that to be contrary. I say it because I have spent seventeen years solving problems on the factory floor, and my way of working has made me think like this from day one.
A one-person team
In a typical industrial project there is a team. A designer who draws the solution. A mechanic who looks at the drawing and says, "you cannot make it like that". An electrician who has to route cables through spaces nobody left room for. A programmer. Someone who installs it. Someone who trains the operator.
Each person has their part, and together they correct one another's work.
In my case, that team is me. From seeing the problem to leaving the solution installed and working, I am involved in every stage: analysis, design, manufacturing, electrical work, automation, installation and commissioning.
That has a very specific consequence. When I design, I cannot draw something attractive and hand the problem to someone else. That someone else is me too. If I design a part I cannot make, I suffer the consequences. If I leave no room for wiring, I suffer the consequences. If installation is a nightmare, that falls to me too.
In industry there is a name for this: concurrent engineering. The idea is to consider design, manufacturing and assembly together, rather than one after the other, so that problems are not discovered when it is too late. Large companies achieve it by getting several people around the same table. In my case it comes as standard.
How I approach it
1. Go to the site
First, I see the problem where it happens. Not over the phone, not from a photo. At the machine, with the operator there, watching the actual pace, the space available, where people walk, what can be changed and what cannot.
Half the information that determines a solution is missing from any written description of the problem.
2. Think it through calmly
Then I do not start drawing. I take the problem away and think about it. I work through several possible solutions before choosing one.
I save the urgency for manufacturing, where you can move quickly without breaking anything.
3. Think about the available means before the solution
And this is what I think characterises my work most.
When I think about solutions, the first thing in my head, almost before the solution itself, is the means available to me.
- What I have in the workshop and what I know how to do with it.
- What materials I can obtain quickly, from any nearby supplier.
- What the customer's machine already has that can be reused.
- How it will be assembled and installed.
- How it will be maintained when I am not there.
I could sit down and design without limits and create something incredible. But I would run straight into reality: that special profile with a three-week lead time, that machining operation only one supplier can handle, that part that makes the assembly endlessly more expensive. A design that cannot be built with what is available is not a solution; it is a drawing.
So my design is based on that from the start: making it easy to build, install and source the materials.
Three examples from my own website
This is not theory. It is in the projects I have published.
A batch of boxes without the folding perforation. The orders had to go out. Instead of looking for a special blade, I took commercial strip from a roll, sharpened it, made the perforations and mounted it in a 3D-printed body with a squaring reference. Less than four hours, and at least a couple of pallets of boxes were recovered.
A batch of cards differing by two hundredths of a millimetre. The first tester was designed, made and tested in one day. For the automatic version I added no actuator: I reused a cylinder the machine already had. I modified one of four ramps, reversibly.
A perforation inspector for an operating printing machine. It is installed without depending on signals from the printer's original controller and without changing its program. No coupling two systems that will age at different rates.
In all three cases, the solution fits into a few parts. And in all three cases, it works.
The right size
Back to robots.
A robot arm is a fantastic tool when its capabilities are needed: flexibility across many different tasks, frequent product changes, complex paths, or work a person should not be doing. I have no objection there.
But many small handling tasks need none of that. They need to move a part from A to B, the same way, to the same place, every time. There are much simpler solutions for that: a guide, a stop, a cylinder, a pusher, a well-designed ramp.
And simplicity has advantages you do not see in the photos:
- It costs less, and not just to buy.
- It can be installed sooner, sometimes without stopping the machine.
- Maintenance staff understand it, without having to call anyone.
- It can be repaired with readily available parts, rather than spares with weeks of lead time.
- It fails less often, because there are fewer things that can fail.
The question I always ask myself is not "what is the most advanced thing I can put here?", but "what is the minimum that solves this properly and for good?"
What this is not
Thinking this way does not mean doing shoddy work or choosing the cheapest option.
Cheap things that break become expensive. What I look for is just enough, done properly: the right material where it does the work, a good finish, and something easy to understand for the person using it every day. For me, finish matters as much as function, even in a part hidden inside a machine.
Nor does it mean refusing complexity. When the problem calls for a complete machine, I build a complete machine. But I arrive at it because it is needed, not because it looks more impressive.
In summary
When someone brings me a problem, this is what will happen:
- I go and see it where it happens.
- I think it through calmly before drawing anything.
- I design with what is available: what I have, what can be sourced nearby, what your machine already has.
- I make it, assemble it, wire it and program it myself.
- I install it and leave it working, so nobody else has to touch it.
The result is usually a working solution that does not cost more than it needs to. And I believe that, more than any particular technology, is what defines 7Axis.
At 7Axis Industrial we solve industrial problems from start to finish: from analysis on the factory floor to a working installation, with solutions sized to the problem.