In today's rapidly advancing technological landscapes, the pursuit of automation has revolutionized industries worldwide, streamlining processes and enhancing efficiency. However, despite remarkable progress, certain tasks remain challenging for automation systems. The debate over the practical limitations of automation versus human intervention continues to shape discussions across various sectors. From complex decision-making processes to detailed physical tasks - such as bulk bag filling, which remains difficult to automate with today’s technology - there are critical distinctions between what automation can feasibly achieve and where human skills are indispensable. We spoke to Jeff Gaines, Application Engineering Manager at AZO Inc., about what is currently achievable, what remains beyond the capabilities of existing technology, and the implications for industries embracing automation in their operations.
Read more of the conversation here:
Nuria Llobet: Jeff, can you give me some examples of tasks or processes that are particularly challenging for automation systems to handle effectively?
Jeff Gaines: Some of the harder tasks to automate are small weighments that have variable weigh ranges across a range of recipes and that are weighed up initially in a central weigh station area and then they're distributed to multiple use points. Those are some of the particularly challenging parts of automating micro ingredient handling.
NL: Do you see those cases often?
JG: Yes, you often see these cases.
NL: What are some industries or sectors where automation has made significant progress and where are the areas where automation still faces major challenges?
JG: There's already been effective automation of bulk and minor ingredient handling across almost all industries where there's a need to reduce repetitive tasks, provide an enhanced safety environment and also to save on labor cost.
NL: And would you specify any specific industry where automation has made significant progress?
JG: It seems like there's been an advancement across all industries. There's not any particular industry that is more heavily automated than other industries.
NL: How do safety and regulatory considerations impact the decision to automate certain processes or tasks?
JG: Well, government safety regulators are continuing to lower the permissible operator exposure levels, which are also known as OELs. Additionally, government regulations and regulating agencies are rapidly classifying most dust as hazardous. Even products that you would not normally think of as being dangerous are now considered to be hazardous just from the standpoint that if operators are continuously exposed to particles, the particles can go into their lungs and cause long term health issues.
NL: Could you discuss some specific examples where attempts at automation have failed or fallen short of expectations?
JG: Most of the time they just fall short of expectations. There aren't as many outright failures as there are results that weren't quite what were hoped for originally in the system design. Generally, there are a lot of multiple small micro ingredients that are accumulated into a larger batch, and then these weighments are transferred in one time over to the use point. There are a lot of areas where some of these transferred batches can be hung up. For example, on surface areas of tubing or the surface areas of the weigh-in equipment and maybe a diverter or on the filter media that's on the vacuum receivers. All of these are places where some of the ingredients that have been previously weighed can be retained and not discharged into the process. Even with a check scale, all you know is that you received a certain amount of the weighment over at the use point, but you don't know specifically what ingredients did not arrive if there's a discrepancy between the pre weighing of the micro ingredients and the actual batch amount that was received at the use point. There's no way to tell exactly what ingredients are missing out of an accumulated weighment.
NL: So this would be an example of an application that, right now, could not be automated?
JG: Correct. In this situation, it's sometimes better to automate the weighing of the material using, for example, an AZO ManDos and the accumulated weighments could then be manually discharged into the use point. Such as a mixer or a reactor or some other process vessel that we're sending the pre-weighed ingredients to. So instead of trying to not have human intervention there, you're using the human to do the pre weighing and then also to make sure that the accumulated batch is discharged into the use point. You could automate the weighing using an AZO ManDos® or some other type of automated system. However, the operator would have to manually transfer the accumulated weighment over to the use point and manually discharge the accumulated weighment into the use point to ensure that all the material arrived
NL: So we see that in some cases 100% automation is not needed. Maybe 90% is appropriate and we will always need some type of human labor. How do you foresee the balance between human labor and automation evolving in the next 5 to 10 years?
JG: I believe automation will continue to increase in the future where there are repetitive tasks or there are tasks where an operator could be injured. So again, any task that's repetitive or there's a possibility an operator could be injured, those are going to be automated more and more in the future. Also, labor is harder to find now and it's more expensive. As labor costs increase, more and more applications will lend themselves to being automated.
NL: And I have a last question. I know you have more than 30 years of experience in the industry now, Jeff.
GL: Yes, 36 years.
NL: So when you first started, automation was way different than what it is now and less common. Did you foresee these advancements in automation when you first started?
GL: The advancements I've seen have more to do with the explosion protection of the systems. It used to be that only a very few ingredients, especially like in the food industry, were considered to be explosive. Maltodextrin for example, being the one ingredient that stands out that we have always provided explosion protection for, but over the years, most organic dusts have been classified as a potential explosion hazard. So the automation industry had to adjust: the system, the designs and the equipment provided to make sure that we mitigate the explosion hazard. Then, if there is an explosion, we have to handle that event in a safe manner. Explosion protection was the one issue that I did not see as being such a focus of the automation industry 35 years ago, but now it very much is.
In our conversation with Jeff, it's clear that while automation has transformed many industries by streamlining processes and enhancing efficiency, it still has its limitations. Certain tasks, particularly those involving variable, complex decision-making or intricate physical handling, remain beyond the reach of current automation technologies. Moreover, safety and regulatory considerations continue to play a significant role in determining where automation is applicable. As we look to the future, the balance between human labor and automation will likely shift further towards automation, especially in repetitive and hazardous tasks. However, human skills and oversight will remain indispensable in ensuring accuracy, safety, and adaptability in complex operations. Jeff's extensive experience in the industry highlights not only the advancements made but also the challenges and critical considerations that will shape the ongoing evolution of automation in various sectors.
If you’re interested in learning more, contact AZO Inc. today.