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 2664 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?

  • 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.

  • 0

    I agree with Antonio Leone that robotics involves a high initial investment, including costs for equipment, installation, and system integration. However, I believe this investment is justified by the long-term return on investment (ROI), as automation can significantly reduce ongoing expenses such as labour, training, and operational inefficiencies.

    In my view, automation should not be considered a complete replacement for manual labour. While robots are highly effective in performing repetitive, high-volume, and precision-based tasks, human involvement remains essential. I argue that humans play a critical role in designing, supervising, and maintaining automated systems, as well as making decisions when unexpected issues arise.

    I also think it is important to recognise the risks associated with automation. For example, a malfunction in a production line could result in large-scale defects, leading to wasted materials and financial losses. This highlights the need for continuous human oversight.

    Overall, I believe the most effective approach is human–robot collaboration, where both strengths are combined. Robots improve efficiency and consistency, while humans provide critical thinking, adaptability, and control, ensuring that business operations remain both productive and resilient.

  • 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