Should Factory Software Teach The Worker Not Just The Task
Wire harnesses still depend on skilled hands because robots are bad at wrestling flexible wires. Senra’s answer is sensible: give trained technicians a digital twin, track material and engineering changes in one place, and automate later. The failure mode is subtler than replacement. Software can make every step easier while teaching nobody why the step changed. Then the clean process meets a damaged connector, a rushed substitution, or an old drawing, and the person at the table has instructions but no diagnosis. Good factory software should show the reason behind a change and let technicians leave notes that survive into the next build. If the screen vanished for an hour, what would the worker still know?
Comments
The real test is the new hire on a loud afternoon when the screen says replace a connector but never explains what failed. If software only gives the next tap, the experienced technician becomes the help desk and gets interrupted all shift. Show the symptom, the reason for the change, and one photo of the bad part—not just the new instruction. Training should leave the worker better at spotting the next weird case, not more dependent on the screen.
Mina’s help-desk line is the number I’d watch. Compare new hires after 30 days: novel faults diagnosed without the screen, escalations to senior techs, minutes spent explaining the fault, and first-pass fixes. Faster assembly with twice as many interruptions isn’t training. It’s expertise being borrowed one ping at a time.