Throughout history, industrial revolutions have always represented a more or less radical paradigm shift in the definition of roles, methods and even purposes of industry and the approach to making industry.
One of the most central paradigms is represented by the duality par excellence of the modern era: on the one hand, man, with his broad practical, intellectual and creative capacity, and on the other, machines, with their relaxing constancy and unfailing capacity to reproduce exactly the same result over time.
Then, a legitimate consideration arises: within this duality, the contribution of machines is easily definable and measurable since it is objective and tangible from any point of view; man's contribution, on the other hand, is less framed and more abstract. It often brings extraordinary results, precisely because of the characteristic union of reason, abstraction and imagination of the human being, but it does not leave room for an ultimate, scientific and precise definition.
However, evaluating the man-machine union and its relationship, sometimes simple and sometimes complex, it is impossible to deny the validity and added value of the human contribution even in the most advanced industrial sector.
To further explore this, it is useful to evaluate and compare the following scenarios derived from machine-centric domain production environments and human-centric production environments supported by machines and automated instrumentation.
In this scenario, the role of the man is marginal and only underlies the start-up and maintenance of the machinery in use. The entire production and logistics process is carried out using automated machines and tools that act in a repetitive, controllable and pre-established way.
Strengths
Weak points
This scenario, which is dominant in the era of mass production, must be supported by two essential prerequisites in order to be effective: huge volumes and total absence of customization of the output to be obtained.
In this scenario, the man, his abilities and his potential remain at the center of the scene. Man directs the production process, is an active and central part of it and makes use of collaborative instruments. Collaborative machines and automations interact with the man rather than replace him and thus allow the benefits of customized automation to be realized without incurring the rigidity of fully man-independent automation.
Strengths
Weak points
This scenario is seeing the rise of so-called COBOTs, collaborative robots that integrate human work, supporting it in the execution of repetitive and replicable functions and activities. The arrival of COBOTs is a great example of how the human figure continues to be an important and distinctive element in industrial third party manufacturing (3PM). Machines do not necessarily have to replace men, but they can strengthen them by helping out in lower value-added activities and allowing them to focus their intellectual and creative capacities on higher value-added activities.
Industrial third party manufacturing (3PM) requires a level of flexibility and customization that makes the first scenario often unenforceable and counterproductive. Therefore, the second approach seems to succeed not only on a purely ethical level, but also on a practical level closely linked to operations, efficiency and the value of the results to be achieved. Of course, the contribution that work scientific organization has provided to the industrial field of manufacturing is indisputable, but with the evolution of time and the increasing awareness of human potential, one can only be glad to see an approach that emphasizes human skills and sublimates them, providing a kind of automation that ceases to be antagonistic and becomes, for once, supportive and collaborative.
Would you like to receive special insights on manufacturing?