Robotic systems can often switch formats through recipes – programmed adjustments that are automatically completed when the robot is cued. 

These can make robotics investments worth it if changeovers are a regular thorn in your side. Some manual adjustments may still be needed with each changeover, but the bulk of the manual time is reduced. 

Also, robots excel at adapting to new SKUs – certainly more than traditional automation. Robots need fewer change parts, with much of the adjustment happening through programming. If your line is expected to expand over the next few years, a robot could be the ideal.

Certain products are harder to run on fixed automation. Think of products in: 

• Flexible packaging (e.g. bags, pouches, pillow packs) 
• Inconsistent orientations 
• Irregular presentations 

Uneven weight distribution, fragility, and give to pressure are common difficulties that come with these sorts of products. Running these formats on fixed automation often requires derating speed, regularly intervening manually, and clearing jams frequently. 

Through recipe-guided changeovers and vision-aligned pick-and-place functions, robots are much better equipped to handle these challenges. Robotic systems are often more adaptable and more accurate in their sensing and adjusting. 

Let’s face it: your output cannot rely on who shows up for work. But this is the reality for many operations – and these labor gaps are also driving costs through: 

• Overtime premiums 
• Temp labor markups 
• Missed shipments 
• Line stops from understaffing 

Robots are not replacements for human workers. But robots can fill roles that are chronically understaffed. Think of the manual, physically-demanding positions – a robot can do the heavy-lifting, and the human operator’s task switches to monitoring and managing.

Manual case handling and palletizing positions are often the culprits of ergonomic strains. These result in injuries, restricted duties, absent workers, and high turnover.  

If injuries are already proving risky and costly for your operation, you can shift those costs into robotics investment. The capital investment in a robot will prove more cost-saving than injuries and disruptions for years to come. 

The more complex your needs are for product collating, printing, and orientating, the more challenging your expectations become for fixed automation. And if you find a vendor who can handle your needs, chances are each piece of equipment will run a high price. 

Robots tend to handle complex tasks more effectively because they are programmed with sensors and cameras. You shouldn’t have to sacrifice operational growth because you can’t find the right equipment. Instead, explore how a robotic system might be more aligned with your expectations. 

If your operation runs only one format – or very few – for long runtimes, and are targeting high speed, you’re probably looking for a traditional case packer. They run fast, are suited to standard SKUs, and are cost effective overall. 

If flexibility isn’t valuable to you, then a robot is probably not the right solution.

Robots won’t fix chaos upstream. If spacing, orientation, timing, or accumulation are inconsistent, line performance will suffer – robot or no robot.  

Packaging lines thrive with predictable infeed. For many operations, the real project is to fix infeed and flow. Purchasing a robot may be the step to follow, but it’s certainly not the first step in the plan. 

Products that require a certain level of complex end-of-arm tooling (EOAT), will likely not see the same robotic benefit of flexibility. That sort of EOAT is expensive, and it’s going to be tailored to your specific product – it probably won’t allow the full range of robotic benefits that other operations are seeing. 

If your product is: 

• Heavy
• Fragile
• Sticky
• Deformable
• Unusual

You may want to explore other options before seeking out a robotic solution. 

Most robotic systems require regular and detailed maintenance. You’ll want to do as much of this in-house as possible, because the more you do externally, the higher the price will become. 

If you’re not prepared to follow up your robot with the proper support, you likely aren’t prepared for the in-depth level of ownership a robot needs. Expect to: 

• Train technicians 
• Stock spares 
• Define ownership 
• Respond immediately 

If you can’t accommodate these needs, your overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) will probably benefit from a simpler form of automation. 

Robotics pricing is more comparable to fixed automation than you probably assume. However, depending on the level of complexity and depth of your needs, your system will probably come out more expensive than its automated equivalent. 

Robots might not win on the capital front; it wins on flexibility, resilience, and long-term adaptability. If you’re only looking at the capital, robotics may not come out on top.

1. Quantify Today’s Pain

Pull a short baseline of your current operation – something like 2 – 4 weeks. Then quantify it into three numbers: 

• Labor cost at secondary packaging stations (including overtime and temps) 
• Cost of lost throughput from downtime and changeovers 

Lost throughput = Lost cases x Margin per case 

• Number of quality losses tied to end-of-line issues (e.g. reworks, scraps, etc.) 

2. Compare Robotics to Other Options

Build a comparison between robotics and at least two alternatives: 

Answer questions like, “What area of improvement does X focus on?” or “What does maintenance for X system look like?” 

3. Use Installed Cost and Real Savings

Create a model of ROI using: 

• Total installed cost

Total Installed Cost = Robot + Tooling + Guarding + Integration + Training

• Savings you can actually compare – based on real savings (not just wishful ones)
  E.g. Reduced overtime, fewer temp hours, more line uptime, etc. 

A key piece will be what happens to labor. Will your team be reassigned, reduced, or absorbed by growth?

4. Stress Test ROI-Breaking Assumptions

Before you pitch to your decision-making team, stress test the two assumptions that often break ROI: 

• What happens when you have lower than expected performance (e.g. slower speed or more downtime than you had planned)? 
• What if you can’t eliminate as many labor hours as you had hoped? 

If the project still proves valuable after these questions, it’s solid. If it is only worth it in perfect conditions, maybe it’s not as credible as you had first thought. 

5. Define a “Proof Plan”

Good goals are measurable – they can be tracked and followed through to completion. If you want your company to sign off on your robotics project, they need to see that there’s a plan. They need to see that you intend to follow through to completion. 

Spell out for them what you will measure post-install: 

• Throughput and OEE impact
• Changeover time
• Labor hours (including overtime and temps)
• Quality events

Then set a simple success threshold – the point when the project can be deemed “successful” (e.g. ROI within X months, or overtime reduced by Y%, etc.).