Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 24 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 1834 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Robots vs Manual Labour: Cost & Efficiency Comparison

Antonio Leone

The manufacturing industry is changing rapidly, and robots are playing a significant role in this shift. In sectors such as automotive and electronics, automation has changed production methods, boosted efficiency and reduced costs. While production has traditionally relied on human workers, many factories are now exploring the benefits of using robots.

Manual Labour

Hiring and training workers come with upfront costs such as recruitment, onboarding, salaries, and benefits.

Robots

  • Robots require a larger initial investment.
  • Purchase of robotic cells or arms
  • Installation and integration with existing systems
  • Programming and software setup
  • Safety barriers and compliance measures

Even with the higher upfront expense, robotic manufacturing can be advantageous over time, particularly for dangerous operations, for heavy work, in high-volume or precision-focused operations.

Considering that human have the brain, and they should use it, what do you think about the industrial automation investment?

Parents
  • 0

    The shift toward industrial automation is, paradoxically, one of the most significant testaments to the "human brain." Investing in automation isn't about replacing the mind; it’s about relocating it. Historically, we have used our cognitive power to build tools that offload the physical and routine—freeing the brain to focus on the edge cases, the strategy, and the creative "what ifs" that machines still struggle to grasp.

    In 2026, the global perspective has moved decisively from Industry 4.0 (which was obsessed with pure efficiency and data) to Industry 5.0, which places the human-centric approach at the core of the production cycle.

  • 0 in reply to Bomate Pedro

    I haven't seen any sign of this Industry 5.0. What I see is a determined attempt to eliminate as many humans as possible from the workplace. And that includes art and music. 

  • 0 in reply to Simon Barker

    I fear you are right. This '5.0' or generations idea is some marketing label to stick reference points on an effect that is in fact continuous and proceeding at very different speeds in different areas of  activity.
    If you like marketing twaddle, this graphic suggests a large part of it is growing leaves inside the envelopes of light bulbs.
    There is of course continuous change, both to processes or production, and societal expectation of roles and jobs, some good & some bad; and I fear this numbered tags idea is something of an over-simplification.

    regards 
    Mike.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Simon Barker

    I fear you are right. This '5.0' or generations idea is some marketing label to stick reference points on an effect that is in fact continuous and proceeding at very different speeds in different areas of  activity.
    If you like marketing twaddle, this graphic suggests a large part of it is growing leaves inside the envelopes of light bulbs.
    There is of course continuous change, both to processes or production, and societal expectation of roles and jobs, some good & some bad; and I fear this numbered tags idea is something of an over-simplification.

    regards 
    Mike.

Children
  • 0 in reply to mapj1

    I'm not sure I'm convinced of the dates in that graphic either - 1850 for the industrial use of electricity seems a bit early to me - given that  the induction motor and practical incandescent lamp weren't invented until the 1880s and their rollout to run-of-the-mill situations, must have taken some considerable time after that - I'm sure steam engines and natural daylight were much more the order of the day.

       - Andy. 

  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    David Landes, who I understand is credited with popularising the term "the Second Industrial Revolution" (which much much later became the (to me) rather pretentious "2.0"), put it like this: 

    The Bessemer converter and Siemens-Martin hearth, the industrial use of electricity, the gas motor, artificial coal tar dyes, and the Solvay ammonia process belong in the latter; with their ramification and elaboration in later decades, they laid the basis for a new long wave of expansion that some writers have come to call the Second Industrial Revolution.

    The Unbound Prometheus, 1969

    He doesn't put a date on it starting, but I suppose it's fair to say that some of these developments started from the 1850s, although their influence, as he says, would have come later. Just as with computers in the third industrial revolution, many industries remained only lightly touched for decades after their development.

    Interestingly he doesn't mention production lines in this definition at all, it's about the science based developments that influenced industry. Which I suppose does make me a bit less grumpy about defining the third and fourth industrial revolutions as they are, I can see an argument for saying that first the advent of widescale computing, and then the advent of widescale connectivity, were external factors that made a huge impact on the way industry works.

    But I'm less convinced about this proposed fifth industrial revolution (I can't bring myself to use that other term) - that seems to me like more of an idea of how to manage the previous two rather than a thing by itself. (Albeit it seems to me a good idea - and one that many realised was needed through all the previous "industrial revolutions"!) All the others were driven by significant scientific or technical developments.

    The actual definition of this proposed fifth revolution is here:

    https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/industrial-research-and-innovation/industry-50_en

Community Rules & Guidelines