They actually got a robot for one of the machines for the putting in and taking out parts, but it occasionally screws up and freezes. I don't think a robot would be good for this particular job. A good human can beat the pants off of any robot for this particular type of assembly. There are just too many variables in things that can be "off" that a human can recognize that would totally throw a robot off. That said, if they did automate it, it would be fine by me, as I can do all the other jobs in the area.You know what’s really good at assembling heavy parts at speed?
This is what happens when a software guy (Musk) does hardware. The mantra of software testing these days is automate, automate, automate. It's faster and more efficient, and your code is always in a known state if your test suite is written correctly. Otherwise, green boxes turn red, and the system won't let you deploy it.I've read this is a problem with Tesla cars, that they have tried to use robots for certain parts of the manufacturing that other companies still use humans for because robots just aren't good at it yet, and thus it has created quality control problems for Tesla.
The reason is because buying a robot thats good enough at your job still costs more than paying for you. Once that robot is cheaper than paying for you it'll make sense to buy one.I think the reason the shop hasn't automated this particular job is, to make a rough analogy, similar to how Western main battle tanks use a human loader when they could use an automated loading system. Or to make a really rough analogy, why human pilots are still used instead of trying to make all the military airplanes and helicopters robotic or radio-controlled. There are certain tasks that involve little, subtle things that robots are just not yet sophisticated enough to pick up yet. I've read this is a problem with Tesla cars, that they have tried to use robots for certain parts of the manufacturing that other companies still use humans for because robots just aren't good at it yet, and thus it has created quality control problems for Tesla.
My main point though is in relation to the part of the discussion about how doing a good job can sometimes be to your detriment.
No, I got it, reference the opening line of the second paragraph from the attached historic plaque and note the fate of JH v. Robot.
Someone that finally gets it . . . the entire point of being a PM is to make sure your team isn't wasting their time. And the entire point of Scrum/Kanban/whatever Agile flavor-of-the-month is to be able to say "look, I can prove to you with empirical data how much work we can do in two weeks without killing ourselves. So we'll iterate until we have something the customer likes."Seems like a smart dude with the right approach.
Those 'articles' are click bait that make money by making people feel good about themselves when think they are better at their jobs than they actually are.Worth linking these articles from earlier in the thread (some points overlap) because it's an issue some of my friends and colleagues throughout the company and other companies bring up with me often and I feel it's worth pointing out.
It sometimes surprises people to hear being a high performer isn't always a good thing, but it's possible for it to be a bad thing because there's a human factor to everything. Your co-workers could resent you, or feel pressure from higher-ups, or a whole host of other things.
I've personally experienced many of the points being made. The contradiction lies in the fact there's always work to be done and deadlines and milestones to be met. When things get rough and you're the person having the tenacity to step up to the plate or the go-to because you can be relied upon to bring home the bacon, it can be a damned if you perform well, damned if you don't sort of situation. And it all depends on the people you work with. I've worked with people who epitomize the points made in the above articles, and others who are incredibly supportive, appreciative, and collaborative. The course of action to take when encountered with the former group to mitigate negativity depends on the specific scenario, but that's another discussion. Basically, if for example management tells you they wish the rest of the team was operating at your level, that statement reflecting a good or bad thing for you is entirely dependent on the substance of the people around you and to what extent you're able to navigate a less-than-positive scenario.