Slashdot Mirror
"Augmented Reality" For the Assembly Line
silkySlim writes "EETimes has a short article about a combination data goggles and earpiece device to replace big manuals and reduce training time for assembly line workers. 'In one possible scenario, a technician with data goggles bends over the engine block of a luxury car and removes the covering. He is receiving instructions through an ear piece telling him what to do next while his data goggles mark the screws and bolts on which he must next place his tool.' Apparently, it's already in use by several automotive companies. There's some additional papers also available."
I would be interested to see what in the way of technical writing and documentation goes into this sort of thing. It would force many technical writers to also focus on interface much more than they do now with standard Robohelp systems or other standard documentation.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Talk to most anyone who works on an assembly line and they will tell you that their job is as boring as hell. Some might say that they almost feel like a machine themselves.
Contrast this with a labourer who builds furniture from scratch or a shoemaker and you find yourself in a different situation. While their actions are the same, their efforts have tangible results. If they have their own business selling what they've created the satisfaction runs deeper.
How are goggles shining lights in your face saying "Unscrew this next" going to make you feel any closer to the work that you're doing? It just seems like another level of detachment to me.
Why did the article discuss hardware problems but not social problems regarding the goggles?
Mind you, from a Slashdot geek perspective, the goggles are a cool idea, but I don't feel envious of the people who are going to have to use these things on an assembly line.
Sure its definately cool, but its scary too. Imagine directions being constantly spoken into your ear as you perform your job.
Human beings are not efficent organisms, neither in chemistry or psychology. You can't expect a human to act like a machine, something has got to give.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
I can see a REALLY big problem with this approach, that will probably be difficult to properly instruct for, and that is inconsistencies, errors, and dangerous situations that could crop up, and the technician in question (though if they keep dumbing down the instruction, "technician" might no longer apply) might not be able to tell what is wrong or how severe it is.
Remember, for problems, textbooks usually have fairly lengthy descriptions of types of failures and things to look for, with some representative pictures, but predominately with descriptions. Descriptions allow for describing a blanket set of bad circumstances without having to show one specific circumstance, so the technician could fairly easily connect the condition of a part or assembly to the verbage that was in the textbook. In picture instruction, if the picture of the type of error doesn't look close enough to the actual error, the technician might not realise the severity of the problem, because it was never covered under the training video. Rather than being taught the theory behind what is occuring, (s)he is being taught the specific, one case implementation.
I'm not against training videos, but I believe strongly in training with more than just their use. Hands on training, as well as textbook training for theory offer a much more well-rounded way to learn, especially if the person being trained is going to be performing the same basic job for a long time on many different yet similar machines or models. Once the initial education has been bestowed, freshening of education for a newer model would be almost trivial.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That's... horrible. Efficent, economical and innovative. But horrible--you remove every bit of skill, creativity, and inititive ( I know, I know, not much to begin with ) and make people into meat robots. The real problem is, people will start expecting workers to *be* like robots. No training, no intro, just stick a pair of glasses on them and tell them what bolts to turn. If they slack a little, well the glasses will probably beep at them and alert payroll. You're naive if you don't believe that isn't one of the advertised benifits. I can see a day when people will be fired for putting in four screws in counter-clockwise when the labled instructions told them to do it clockwise.
I could see where statistics, maintained by the system, would organize down to the very last microcent which employee was more productive than another. Given training will be no longer required, the employee can be ranked as easily as a solenoid valve, and replaced just as easily.
This is great news for the businessman, who will undoubtedly lobby ( and win ) any changes to employment law to maximize his profit, just as many IP/Copyright holders are doing now.
This is sad news indeed for the laborer. I guess his prime function in life is just to reproduce and make more laborers.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
The real application for these is an on-demand assembly line to replace a multitude of expensive single product lines that probably don't need to run all the time.
Picture an automotive assembly line that has 300 assembly stations, each one of which gets the "next part" supplied by a chain driven conveyer bringing it to the station on a hook.
Jane, who takes care of placing and tightening down the intake manifold on the engine block in front of her, no longer has to either think about what torque to use, what bolt pattern, or really, anything. Follow the instructions, tighten the bolts per the visual overlay pattern at the designated torque, and on to the next block coming down the line and intake manifold coming off the parts conveyer belt.
The ultimate end of this is much like the Microsoft commercial where the guy in the showroom is picking whether he wants a black car or a red car, and the manufacturing plant is responding almost instantly. Now extend this to not beginning the production on a car until an order is placed, and it'll be ready that day for delivery to the customer's city.
And yes, this reduces Jane to a non-thinking bio-machine for the assembly line. That's the really awful part of this process.
Cast in the Name of Efficiency, Ye Not Cognizant.
Big Ugh.
I don't understand the point of this. If you are having to program a goggle interface complex enough to recognize the screws from any nearby position and have it mark every last step, why not just put a robot arm on it instead of putting a person there? If you are mechaniziing the decision making and visual recognition, the only thing left - arm movement, is cake.
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!