:Hfl ”J" (‘I .i-‘III II M 33%. III ILJJIIJMII 333' . -‘.‘. I. J. H {rum x: 1'33 $333333? f ‘. } Y,” J“ I III h .‘JJ IJl. ”Iv“ :13? ' 'JéJ‘ 3" 'I‘I II‘ I I‘ II‘ I E33333 I I . ”JIM “(I ‘ ."IL3'3'I‘II’I . .3 E‘JJ‘I'J‘JII" Jill: ' "“333 33 "IIJII I 3JIIIFQ4I. .. I‘-13"lI’ 3'3.‘ " 3I'I J‘I'I‘I .II317I 3' 'II \' IJ§JS . ,IE'“ ”NJ“ .HL .J}J}% . J: MIN” III|J333 :I :IIJ}: ' "I .3333 III.‘ I..-'.‘II'I"|’I‘-’I'"I 3I‘3I.‘-.“;;I‘II‘ I--.. '3'II" 33.133333332131"«33:33:33) IIJII3I3I"I';133’-I3-‘I" 31'3”“3’ I’ ‘ . . "I .... I 313 In." I; 3.3! II III' J3’3I33 3IIIII 'IJIIJJI. ’I’ffll” 3'33“ '3 I'uifl. ’ :. : '.I I ‘?-’I.‘ '.§ '3I.. 'I33‘JJIJI3J'I'1‘f 5““ :I IIII'II?“ 0-133 II II :w:{.II J'l‘I II. .II I \I .I‘I ' 3|.III‘I'IJ.II'I ‘I'I':Il 'IiII‘ I IIIUh' I” I: I‘H ‘n I I THESIS LIBERABY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Task AnaTysis and Projection of Future Tasks for Industrial Robot Maintenance Mechanics: With Impiications for Education and Training presented by Gordon Minty has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of PhiTosophy degree“, Teacher Education a jor professor George‘wz Ferns BMW 6, l¢84 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0—12771 MSU LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiTI be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beTow. A TASK ANALYSIS AND PROJECTION OF FUTURE TASKS FOR INDUSTRIAL ROBOT MAINTENANCE MECHANICS: WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING By Gordon Minty A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1984 ’ / 7 "7 t- 3/ 43 .J ® Copyright by GORDON MINTY 1984 ABSTRACT A TASK ANALYSIS AND PROJECTION OF FUTURE TASKS FOR INDUSTRIAL ROBOT MAINTENANCE MECHANICS: WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING By Gordon Minty The following objectives served as the key purposes Of the study: 1. to.identify the tasks necessary to perform the job Of industrial robot maintenance mechanic in Michigan. priori- tized by frequency performed, criticalness, and Opportunity tO learn on the job: 2. to contrast tasks identified and tasks projected for 1990: 3. tO identify the structural difficulties in existing job classifications for the installation. mainte- nance, repair and Operation Of robots. Implications for educa- tion and training were drawn from the objectives. An inventory Of tasks was developed by: development Of task statements through review Of robot Operation, repair, and maintenance manuals: adding existing task statements related to skill areas identified: consolidation by teacher experts: and review by robot maintenance experts. The data were collected by individual interview with a checklist Of tasks, telephone interview, and follow-up mailed questionnaire. Because very few incumbent workers were identi- fied. the inventory Of tasks was verified and prioritized by representatives Of the six manufacturers that made 97% Of robot sales in the U.S. in 1980. Gordon Minty Identified as necessary for robot maintenance mechanics were 165 tasks. They are within six duties: Installing and Moving Robots: Performing Preventative Maintenance: Maintaining Robots: Performing Repairs: Programming: and Communicating. The actual tasks performed depends on the robots the robot maintenance mechanic is responsible for. Few changes will occur between tasks performed today and tasks performed in 1990 because robots purchased today will still be in Operation in 1990 and changes in robot design will gener— ally require the same basic task performances. Few robot maintenance mechanics exist in Michigan manufac- turing plants for two reasons. One. most plants that have rObOts have tOO few to occupy a full-time maintenance mechanic. Two. most tasks can be performed by occupations already in the plant, and unions are interested in continuing established occupations. There are few Opportunities for robot maintenance mechanics except where diagnostic abilities beyond those that presently exist in the plant are needed. Careful consideration should be given tO employment Opportunities for robot maintenance mechanics. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge those who assisted in bringing the study tO completion. Appreciation is expressed to the dissertation commit- tee: Dr. George Ferns, Dr. Rex Ray and Dr. Charles Black— man Of the College Of Education: and Dr. Daniel Kruger of the School Of Labor and Industrial Relations for their wise council. Dr. Ferns as Dissertation Chairperson gave gen- erous amounts Of time and expertise. Dr. C. Blair McLean Of the College Of Education assisted in the initial planning Of the study. My wife, Linda, typed the drafts: and my' children Dawn and Anne were patient enough to allow her tO do so. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY . Introduction . . Statement Of the Problem Objectives of the Study . Need for the Study Background Methodology and Procedure for Data Collection . . Limitations of the Study Assumptions Definition Of Terms Preview of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Need for Robot Maintenance Personnel Analysis Of Occupations Need for analysis Of occupations . Methods used in analyzing occupations Analyzing New and Emerging Occupations Social Implications Summary . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . Selection of the Method Of Analysis Type of analysis selected Method selected for gathering data . The Three Major Components Of the Analysis. Methodology and procedure for data collection . . . . . . . . The development Of the task inventory Selection Of participants. iii \IU'I-l-‘UJi-‘H 10 10 11 13 14 14 17 17 19 31 34 36 39 39 39 4O 41 42 44 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Collection Of Information . . . . . . . . . 56 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Findings for the First Objective . . . . . . . 62 Frequency of task performance . . . . . . . 64 Criticalness Of task performance . . . . . 78 Opportunity to learn the task on the jOb . 89 Three additional duties . . . . . . . . . . 104 Review Of the tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Findings for the Second Objective . . . . . . 106 Findings for the Third Objective . . . . . . . 108 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 119 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Conclusions for the First Objective . . . . 119 A demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Conclusions for the Second Objective . . . 129 Conclusions for the Third ObjectiVe . . . . 130 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Recommendations relating tO education and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Recommendations for further research . . . 141 Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 APPENDIX A. Letter Requesting Operating/Service Manuals from the Six Largest Manufacturers Of Robots in the U.S. . . 158 B. Persons Consolidating Initial Task Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) C. Experts Responding to Initial Task Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 D. Response to Initial Task Inventory . . 161 E. Plants Contacted in Telephone Survey Of Forty Michigan Potential Robot Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 F. Manufacturers' Representatives Participating in the Study . . . . . . 183 G. Six Individuals Interviewed in Robot User Plants . . . . . . . . . . . 184 H. Questionnaire Used . . . . . . . . . . 185 I. Follow-up Mailed Questionnaire and Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Related to Analysis Of Occupations . . . . 202 Related to Robotics . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Other References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES NUmber of Dissertations Listed Under Task Analysis, Occupational Analysis, Trade Analysis, and Job Analysis that Relate tO Education and Training with Completion Dates . . Sales Of Robots by U.S. Manufacturers Robot Manufacturers Contacted and Manuals Received . Number Of Required Tasks that are Common to the Robot Manufacturers in the Study . Tasks Performed on Robots Of All Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic . . . . . Tasks Performed on Robots Of Five Of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic . . . . . Tasks Performed on Robots Of Four Of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic . . . . . Tasks Performed on Robots Of Three Of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic . . . . . Tasks Performed on Robots Of Two Of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic . . . . . . Tasks Performed on Robots Of One Of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic . . . . Tasks Performed on All Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness Of Task to Job Performance . Tasks Performed on Five Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task to Job Performance Tasks Performed on Four Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness Of Task to Job Performance vi 27 45 46 63 66 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Tasks Performed on Three of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness Of Task to Job Performance . Tasks Performed on Two of the Six Manufacturers'RObots Prioritized by Criticalness Of Task to Job Performance . Tasks Performed on One Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task tO Job Performance . Tasks Performed on All Six of the Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number Of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and Then by Ranking Scale of Opportunity to Learn on the Job . Tasks Performed on Five Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number Of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and then by Ranking Scale Of Opportunity to learn on the Job . Tasks Performed by Four Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number Of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and then by Ranking Scale Of Opportunity tO Learn on the Job Tasks Performed on Three Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number Of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and then by Ranking Scale Of Opportunity to Learn on the Job . Tasks Performed on Two Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number Of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and then by Ranking Scale Of Opportunity to Learn on the Job . . Tasks Performed on One Of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number Of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and then by Ranking Scale Of Opportunity tO Learn on the Job vii 84 86 88 91 94 96 99 101 103 LIST OF TABLES (cont.) 23. Projected Differences Between the Tasks Performed Today and Those Expected tO be Performed in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 24. The Twenty-four Tasks That Were More Prominent in Terms Of Number Of Manufacturers, Frequency, Criticalness and Employer Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 viii l. 2. LIST OF FIGURES Procedure Used in Developing Initial Task Inventory . . . . . . . . Telephone Procedure Used in Attempting to Identify Robot Maintenance Mechanics in Michigan's RObOt User Plants ix 51 53 CHAPTER I OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Introduction "Ready for the robot revolution? Well, it's already begun. There are thousands Of robots at work today in factories throughout the United States and abroad."1 "There are about 3,200 robots in use in the United States 2 and more than 10,000 in use in Japan." The 1982 Robotics Industry Directory lists fifty-eight companies in the United States that are building robots.3 The industry has grown rapidly over the last five years and projections are for accelerated growth. Robot Systems Incorporated project the industry tO be a $500 million industry in 1985 and a $2,000 million industry in 1990.4 Hunt and Hunt report: We expect strong growth in the utilization Of industrial robots in the decade of the 1980's. By 1990 the total robot population in the U.S. will range from a minimum Of 50,000 to a maximum Of 100,000 units. Given our estimate Of the year-end 1982 population of approxi- mately 6,800 units, that implies an average annual growth rate Of between 30 and 40 percent for the eight years of the forecast period, or roughly a seven-to- fourteen-fold increase in the total p0pu1ation of robots.5 Obruyat gave four reasons for the rapid increase in the use Of robots. Previously there was insufficient return on investment, caution about accepting the new concept, stiff competition from other methods of automation, and finally technology just wasn't there for many applications.6 Dzengeleski and Goode, in addressing the question of growth in the robotics industry through to 1980, contended that a . significant reason for the slow growth in robotics is the lack of installation and maintenance personnel at the user level. Right now there is a shortage of these peOple. One result is that some companies have purchased robots but have not installed them, leaving them sitting on the loading dock.7 In March 1982 the Senate subcommittee on employment and productivity met. Education and Work, summed up the message from several witnesses. "Technological advances particularly in computers, robotics, and biotechnology are likely to boost U.S. productivity by the end of the century. But crucial to higher productivity is training of workers to c0pe with the new technologies."8 George Arsell, Dean of .the School of Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, testified at this meeting saying with the coming technological changes . . . there will be a demand for far fewer, but very highly skilled workers; those who will be able to design and build those complex manufacturing systems, and those who will be able to maintain them. To begin to address its productivity problem, the U.S. must be ready to face huge numbers of dislocated workers as well as grain a new generation of engineers and tech— nicians. Hunt and Hunt state: The largest single occupational group of jobs created byrobotics will be robotics technicians. This is a term which is just coming into general usage: it refers to an individual with the training or experience to test, program install, troubleshoot or maintain industrial robots.1 Brookings reports: Simply stated, technicians need to be trained to help design, produce, install, program, and maintain modern robots and other computer-controlled 'automated' equip- ment. This training must come from a combination of electronic, mechanical, and computer programming tech- nical curricula. To prepare such a 'super' technician in the traditional two year postsecondary program may seem unlikely -but it's not impossible.1 Indeed, several Michigan community colleges have begun programs in robotics. Macomb County Community College and Oakland County Community College have students enrolled and Washtenaw County Community College and Schoolcraft Community College, in Livonia, have developed robotics programs. Courses were developed at the following community colleges: St. Clair County, Henry Ford, C. S. Mott, Gogebic, and Grand Rapids Junior College. Michigan companies such as General Motors and Ford Motor Company were developing training plans for the repair and maintenance of robots. The following study was instigated to provide trainers and educators information on the work performed and expected to be performed by robot maintenance mechanics. Statement of the Problem The problem of this study was to analyze the tasks performed by the industrial robot maintenance mechanic (the person who performs the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of industrial robots) in Michigan, and project the tasks expected to be performed in this occupation in the year 1990. With the changing technology in this industry, an attempt was made to address tasks and performances necessary not only for today but for 1990. Types of skills necessary in the future should be recognized in the education and training of these workers. From the analysis, implications for education and training were drawn. The problem addressed, contributes to our readiness for 12 Various authors what Chin calls the robot revolution. have pointed out the need for training and retraining for the robot industry. More skills necessary for technicians and maintenance workers are specifically mentioned in the introduction. What these training needs are, and what tasks will be performed in the near future, are questions addressed in this study. The necessary training in high technology or in any other area cannot be accomplished before an analysis of the work is done and the training needs have been identified. Objectives of the Study The following objectives serve as the key purposes of the study. 1. To identify the tasks necessary to perform the job of industrial robot maintenance mechanic in Michigan, prioritized by frequency performed, criticalness, and Opportunity to learn on the job. 2. To contrast tasks identified for use today and tasks projected for 1990. 3. To identify the structural difficulties in existing job classifications for the installa- tion, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots. Implications for the education and training of persons for these occupational positions, will be drawn from the three previous objectives. Need for the Study The State of Michigan has a vital interest in robotics 'and other high technology areas. With the decline of the automotive industry, Michigan's potential in the high tech- nology areas is being studied. In former Governor Milliken's A Plan to Increase the High Techology Component of Michigan's Economy he states, "It is also prOposed that special emphasis be placed on upgrading and focusing the state's training resources on key high technology areas, including "13 robotics. Lyddon points out that currently, in Michigan, there is no single comprehensive source of informa- tion on the skills of the work force."14 Generally, discussion on the robotics industry centers on the need for engineers and technicians, but Flanders projects, "As in the past, they [college graduates] will make little inroads in the crafts; workers in greatest demand for skilled occupations will continue to be those who have "15 vocational training. Flanders also projects . . . the creation of new occupations and the decline or disappearance of familiar ones are natural results of our technological development. With regard to education, we must recognize that our advancing tech- nology will require most workers to obtain additional training throughout their careers. In some instances, complete regraining for new occupations may be necessary.1 Trouteaud points out: The industrial education community will be instrumental in the true robot revolution, for without peOple -- engineers, technicians and support personnel -- wide scale implementation of Industrial Revolution II cannot take place. The need to educate is immediate.17 Several Michigan community colleges have responded to this need to educate and train by designing programs and courses in robotics. Hunt and Hunt point out: "Given that the robotics technicians will be one of the keys to the Spread of robbtics technology, it is important that the Michigan community colleges ensure that their product is what "18 Analyses of tasks necessary for the employers need. occupations have not been done. A task analysis can serve as a basis for curriculum development. No published research on the robotics industry's voca- tional training needs had been identified by this writer at the outset of this research project. Background Although literature refers to the robotics revolution the robot itself has evolved through technological advance- ments. Hatfield, in 1928, wrote: An automaton, by analogy with the human model, should consist of three parts: limbs to work with, senses to perceive what it is working with, or what result it is producing, and a brain to regulate the action of its limbs in accordance with the perceptions of its senses. Needless to say, we are striving to create, not a Frankenstein's monster, a Robot, a mechanical servant which can be set to any simple task, but thousands of different automata each specialized for a certain task. In our machines we have already develOped limbs of a power and precision exceeding our own many many thousand-fold. In our instruments, we have develOped senses exceeding our own, in many cases, a million-fold in sensitivity. Indeed, they are capable of receiving impressions, such as magnetism, which are qualitatively impercep- tible to our natural senses. What we have still to develOp is the mechangcal brain, the link between instrument and tool.1 Hatfield provides an important link in the evolution of the robot. He refers to the Greek word automaton which means something that behaves in an automatic fashion. He suggests that the stage of technology at that time lacked a mechanical brain. Chin reports that the term automation was used for the first time in 1935 at the General Motors Fisher Body divi- sion when D. S. Harder organized an automation engineering department in the Grand Rapids plant. The term was a com- bination of the words AUTOMatic and OperATION.20 The SOphisticated computer has become Hatfield's mechanical brain and is the technology which wasn't there before. The bringing together of advanced automation and computers has caused the robotics industry to grow drama- tically. This has also generated demands for new skills which are necessary for the growth of the industry. Methodology and Procedure for Data Collection The first objective of this study, to identify tasks necessary to perform the job of industrial robot mainte- nance mechanic, was realized by: A. Reviewing Operating, service and installation manuals of manufacturers whose equipment will be maintained and Operated during the perfor- mance of the job incumbents' duties. Compiling tasks identified through the materials. Adding task statements of existing occupations (for which an analysis had been done) identi- fied as having components of the new occupation. Consolidating the task statements. Having the task statements reviewed by selected experts for additions, deletions, and comments. DeveIOping a questionnaire, using the task statements, to identify the frequency of the task performed, criticalness of performance of the task, and the Opportunity to learn the task on the job. G. Conducting personal interviews, using the questionnaire, with selected experts on the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots in use in Michigan. H. Sending a follow-up mailed questionnaire to the experts for input on additions and comments arising from interviews. The second objective of this study, contrasting dif- ferences between tasks performed today and tasks projected for 1990, was realized by: A. Adding to the questionnaire used above, a question pertaining to whether the task will still be performed in 1990. B. Asking, during the personal interview, what additional tasks and knowledge will be necessary in 1990. C. Adding the input from B to the follow-up mailed questionnaire to the experts for additional comments. The third objective of this study, identifying struc- tural difficulties in existing job classifications to the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots, was realized through: A. Interviews from Objectives One and Two. 10 Telephone solicitation of selected Michigan manufacturers and additional personal inter- views with individuals on the user side. Reviewing company internal literature received during interviews. Limitations of the Study The study was limited by the following constraints. 1. 2. The study was limited to the State of Michigan. The ability of the selected experts to analyze the tasks and make sound judgments pertaining to them. The extremely limited number of experts on the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots, especially on the user side. The extremely limited number of employees who presently install, maintain, repair, and Operate robots. Assumptions The following assumptions were made. 1. Experts can identify the tasks industrial robot maintenance mechanics perform and will perform on the job. ll 2. Given a list of tasks, the expert on industrial robot maintenance mechanics can identify the tasks performed on the job. Duty High Technology Industrial Robot Maintenance Mechanic Job Analysis Occupational Analysis Definition of Terms A large segment of work performed by an individual. It is one of the distinct major activities involved in the work performed, and is composed of several related tasks.21 The integration of state-of-the-art knowledge with existing tools and equip- ment to increase effectiveness or productivity. The employee charged with the maintenance and repair of robots. A process of determining and reporting significant worker activities, worker requirements, technical and environmental factors of a specific job through obser- vation, interview and study.22 A process which examines broad occuPa- tional areas, then classifies them according to an acceptable scheme, and Robot Task Task Analysis Technician 12 finally identifies and describes key occupations.23 A reprogrammable multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools or devices, through variable programmed motions to accomplish a variety of tasks.24 A job activity, or a set of activities, which, if begun by one individual, is most generally completed by him. It is of such a nature that it is not generally practical . . . to further subdivide the Operation so that more than one worker might specialize in doing various parts of it.25 A process of determining the content of jobs by identifying the relative impor— tance of tasks making up the job. Classified occupationally the technician performs semiprofessional functions of an engineering nature, largely upon his own initiative and under general super- vision Of a professional engineer, he assists the engineer and supplements his work.26 13 Trade Analysis A process of identifying the operations that make up a trade or vocation. Preview of the Study A review of the literature pertaining to the study is presented in Chapter II. The review is grouped around four areas: the need for robot maintenance personnel; analysis of occupations; analysis of new and emerging occupations; and the social implications of robots. The design of the study is the focus for Chapter III. The chapter is organized around two areas: the selection of the method of analysis for the study; and the three major components of the analysis. These components are: the development of the task inventory, the selection of parti- cipants, and the collection of the information. The findings of the study are presented in Chapter IV, as they relate to the three objectives of the study. Chapter V is divided into four sections: the conclu- sions associated with the three Objectives; implications of the study; recommendations; and reflections. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature pertaining to this study is grouped around four areas. The first is the need for robot maintenance personnel. The second is literature pertaining to analysis of occupations. The third is analyzing new and emerging occupations. And the fourth is the social implications of robots. The Need for Robot Maintenance Personnel Robots are in Operation. They are breaking down and being repaired. It is not necessary to project or conclude that robots may need to be installed, repaired, maintained, and programmed. They do need to be installed, repaired, maintained, and programmed. Robots stOp, their wires get tangled, they give you all kinds of trouble, so you have to find out what's wrong, repair them and tend them. Only a human can do that, said Junkichi Kobayaski, a fore- 27 Sasnjara said: "Because man at Nissan's Oppama Plant. a robot is a machine it requires someone to program it and set it up, someone to keep it running, even if only indirectly and someone to fix it when it breaks."28 The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis- tics projects that industrial machinery repairers will 14 15 increase from 500,000 in 1974 to 840,000 in 1985. With a projected 12,000 replacements needed each year, an increase of 30,500 industrial machinery repairers per year is neces— sary.29 Maintenance mechanics are projected to increase from 346,000 in 1973 to as much as 439,000 in 1990.30 The Encyc10pedia of Careers and Vocational Guidance states: The anticipated use of more machinery and equip- ment such as machine tools and assembly equipment in manufacturing industries will result in continued growth in the employment of industrial machinery repair- men in the future. With widespread use of automated equipment, breakdowns will lead to greater prodgction loss, and will make repair work more essential. Gritchlow, referring to robots and the impact on labor said: each robot can reportedly do the work equal to one and one-fourth welders. However, this labor saving is somewhat counterbalanced by the need for a larger and more highly trained maintenance crew."32 Dzengeleski and Goode, writing on the robot growth not being as rapid as early projections, state: a significant reason for the slow growth in robotics is the lack of installation and maintenance personnel at the user level. Right now there is a shortage of these peOple. One result is that some companies have purchased robots but have not installed them, leaving them sitting on the loading dock. Brookings states: Simply stated, technicians need to be trained to help design, produce, install, program and maintain modern robots and other computer controlled automated equip- ment. This training must come from a combination of electronic, mechanical and computer programming tech- nician curricula. To prepare such a 'super' technician in the traditional two year postsecondary program may seem unlikely - but it's not impossible. 16 The Russians are attempting a large build-up of robot utilization but they are hindered by ". . . the lack of skilled technicians to install and service the units."35 If there is a demand now, will it still be there in the future and will it be in sufficient demand to have implications for training and educating? Projections are wide ranging. Centron and O'Toole give the largest forecast; they are projecting: The next generation of robots will be able to see, touch, hear, smell and even Speak. They'll need extra loving care, which means lots of service jobs for the robot technicians. We predict there will be a: mfigyuag.léiogillgoqgggbqg technicians on the job Nicholson, Fineman and Ruiz by comparing information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Forecasting Inter- national Ltd., and Occupational Forecasting Inc. projected employment in industrial-robot production by 1990 of 800,000. However, they do not mention Specific occupations}?7 Dzengeleski and Goode contend the ". . . only really new job that will develOp as a result of robots is the robotic technician. This is an individual that learns how to install and maintain robots while attending a community college or similar institution."38 Vedder and Hunt do not have such glamorous predictions. Vedder sees that if ",., . even the most Optimistic fore- casts of sales growth materialize total employment in robotic manufacturing would not exceed 50,000 at any time ”39 in the next decade. Hunt and Hunt state: "We expect 750 17 to 2,700 robotic technicians outside the auto industry will be created in Michigan by 1990."40 Industry's needs for robot maintenance mechanics will vary from industry to industry. Lustgarten reports that three industries account for 76% of robot purchases; they are: automotive, casting/foundry, light manufacturing.41 According to Martin, "As of 1980, roughly one-third to one-half of all robots manufactured in the United States "42 were shipped to auto plants. Heginbotham and Production Engineering report the activities robots are used for; however, they are not in full agreement. Heginbotham states that spraying and coating activities account for 22.3% of installations, machine unloading 29.6%, and spotwelding accounts for 18.3%."3 Production Engineering reports machine loading/unloading accounts for 24%, parts handling/ positioning, 19%, assembly 9%, and welding/soldering/braz- ing 9%.44 Analysis of Occupations Need for analysis of occupations Since the Smith—Hughes Act in 1917, vocational educators have used analysis of the occupation as a basis for their curriculum. Herschbach reports: "Analysis has long served as the primary means of deriving instructional content for occupational education curricula."45 The first accepted authority was Allen who wrote The Instructor the Man and the 18 Job which was published in 1919. Allen said: The instructor must know just what the trainee must know, and to be able to do so he must take 'account of the stock' . . . Such a stock taking is commonly called analyzing the trade and is the first Operation which the instrugtor must take in laying out a course of instruction.4 Just a few years later Selvidge said: In order to teach a trade successfully, we must have a clear notion of what is required of the mechanic whose trade we would teach. Every important item in the trade must be known and listed. The teacher who does not have such a list is likely to go far astray and waste much valuable time even though he is highly skilled in the trade.47 Frylund followed up on Selvidge's work contributing several publications on occupational analysis. In one he wrote, "In order to teach an occupation or a subject or an activity there must first be an inventory of the elements to "48 be taught. He also stated: "Most occupations in which there is.human achievement can be analyzed and listed so they can be taught in an orderly and systematic way.”49 He mentioned the reason for this necessity for analysis when he stated: The occupational analysis technique is necessary in the training of industrial and technical training personnel. The occupational elements become habits, and habits are not noticeable to those who have them; therefore it is necessary to analyze the occupation and list the e%8ments so the new instructor will know what to teach. It is important to know that any given kind of work that is worthy and is complicated enough to make instruction necessary should be analyzed into its elements before attempting to teach it, if thorough instruction is desired. l9 Bollinger and Weaver report the task analysis technique is the same as the technique used in scientific investiga- tion.52 The chemist, Bollinger and Weaver say, is able to take a container of ordinary milk and by means of tests and examinations tell you what it contains. By the same careful and scientific procedure the tradesman can examine his trade to determine what it contains. The analysis technique should not be affected by time or technology. Frylund states: the fact that there are technological changes in industry does not mean that the time will come when trade and job training no longer will be needed. Indeed, it is true that as technical changes do take place changes are also being made in the status of occupa- tions. Many of them are broken up; new occupations appear but simultaneously the needs and demands for training are increased. Analysis of occupations as of today brings industrial training up to date; whereas education in general, because of its reliance on book content, lags behind in attempting to keep pace with conditions in the world outside of school. Critics of education say that education is slow in making adjust- ment. Industrial education, because of the trade and job analysis technique, is in a position to keep pace. There is constant seeking of up-to-date occupational teaching content. Methods used in analyzing occupations. Analyzing work in terms of what peOple do and can do on the job has been called occupational analysis, job analysis, task analysis, trade analysis, and position analysis. Some writers see little or no difference in many of these terms, others see differences which have major implications for how the analysis should be conducted. 20 Bundy states: . . when the subject of how to teach a job is mentioned, one's thoughts naturally go back to the work of Charles Allen during the First World War.- His influence has been great in the development of analysis procedure and its application to teaching.54 Allen develOped his method of analysis and teaching while supervising training courses of the Emergency Fleet Corporation during and after World War I. To Allen . . . analyzing the trade simply means listing out all the things that the learner must be taught if he is to be taught the complete trade. If the trade is that of a carpenter, the instructor notes down all the different jobs that a carpenter has to do. If it is plumbing, or book binding, or machine shOp work, the same listing of jobs must be carried out. If in addition to the jobs themselves, there are certain special words (technical terms) whose use he must learn, or special tools whose use he must know or constructions or computations which he must be able to make or special safety precautions that he must take these must also be listed completely out.55 Allen looked at the trade and broke it down into jobs, technical terms, tools, computations, constructions, and safety precautions. Selvidge considered the analysis of the job to be inapprOpriate. Very few trades can be analyzed on the basis of jobs. It is not practicable to list all the jobs that may occur in a skilled trade. Even if it were possible to do so it would be necessary to analyze each job into the processes involved in doing it, in order to teach the job. Since every conceivable job is made up of the Operations of the trade, in various combina- tions, the simplest method of procedure is to analyze the trade for the Operations involved and use this anal sis as the basis of all job analysis. No job can e analyzed except én terms of the Operations of the trade or vocation.5 21 Frylund, building on Selvidge's work, used the broader term occupation believing his analysis procedure can be applied not only to the trades but to any occupation requiring systematic training.57 He considered the essen- tial elements of the occupation should be taught. In the shOp these are Operations. Operations are further reduced to steps. Some steps are of a doing nature, some of a knowing nature and some are a combination of both. For the steps that require knowledge the related information should be taught. Although Allen refers to the listing of jobs and Selvidge and Frylund to Operations, Allen defined jobs differently and really concerned himself with the Operations that workers performed. Allen, Selvidge and Frylund concerned themselves with analysis for education and training only. Frylund wrote: While the trade and job analysis techniques can be used in analyzing other than industrial trades, it is for identifying instructional units and not assumed to be for ersonnel management or for production purposes.SB Other writers have not concerned themselves exclusively with education and training. Bundy, who recognized Allen's influence in the analysis procedure for teaching, said when discussing how to teach a job: ”Since job analysis is a rather laborious process, it should be standardized as to form so that one analysis, prOperly and completely made would be available for all of the uses to which it can be put."59 He recognized three other uses to which the one 22 analysis can be put: time and motion study, for setting standards; job evaluation, for establishing job rates; and job requirements, for employment interviewing. McCormick, using the term task analysis, believes the technique developed not with Allen and Selvidge but with 60 Indus- the methods analysis of the industrial engineer. trial engineering has its origin in the early work of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth during the turn of the century. Gilbreth's study of human motions led him to suggest ways of learning a trade. In Bricklaying System he lists the right and wrong operations for an apprentice bricklayer and says that the list ". . . shows what he should learn first, as well as how he should learn it."61 Regardless of how the analysis technique developed, the recent literature suggests three titles are used when doing an analysis of workers for educational purposes: job analysis, task analysis, and occupational analysis. Outside of the field of education job analysis is more predominant. In the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Thesaurus, occupational analysis is considered synonymous 62 In 1980 a "sc0pe note" was added to with job analysis. task analysis to clarify its difference to job analysis. Position analysis and trade analysis are not and have not been used as descriptors. Melching and Borcher point out: While job analysis experts employ concepts such as task, function, responsibility, duty, etc. as though 23 the distinctions among them were both obvious and fixed, this is simply not true. The curriculum designer should be warned that any attempt by him to place these terms into a reliabég hierarchy may turn out to be not very rewarding. Braden and Paul report, "Most writers and researchers seem to use the terms job analysis and task analysis inter- changeably."64 The U.S. Department of Labor's Training and Reference Manual for Job Analysis states: Job analysis is defined as the process of deter- mining, by observation, interview, and study, and of reporting the significant worker activities and requirements and the technical and environmental factors of a specific job. It is the identification of the tasks which comprise the job and of the skills, knowledges, abilities, and responsibilities required of the worker for successful job performance.65 Chenzoff and Folley define task analysis as: The collection of activities that are: performed by one person, bounded by two events, directed toward achieving a single objective or output, and describable by means of the method set forth so that the resulting task description conveys enough information about the task 68 permit the necessary training decisions to be made. Rupe's definition of a task is the definition used in this study. A task is defined as a job activity, or a set of activities, which, if begun by one individual, is most generally completed by him. It is of such a nature that it is not generally practical . . . to further subdivide the Operation so that more than one worker might specialize in doing various parts of it. "Task analysis has come to be viewed over the last decade as a methodologically sound alternative to job and trade analysis, for years the dominant approach to instruc- tional development in occupational education," said 24 68 Herschback in 1976. He reports it is because task analysis lends validity to the content selection process, more so than was possible through trade and job analysis. Its techniques are flexible and suitable for application to a wide range of instructional situations."69 Occupational analysis is generally considered a broader term. Kenneke, Nystrom and Stadt state: Occupational analysis serves to delimit specific employment situations from the total productive arena. It examines broad occupational areas, then classifies them according to an acceptable scheme, and finally identifies and describes key occupations. The entire process sets the stage for subsequent steps of content, concepg, job/trade, task and instructional analysis. The Air Force task analysis projects through 1964 have influenced the methods used for analysis by vocational educators. Originally the term position analysis was used to . help select, classify and train men for Air Force positions."71 "The Air Force method used group interviews of incumbents and conferences of technical experts in carry- ing out position analysis."72 Morsh, Madden and Christal revised the Air Force pro- cedures for analysis to center around a task inventory for job analysis and evaluation.73 The categories for analysis used by Morsh, Madden and Christal were the terms of duty and task. Their conclusions were based on many Air Force research projects. One by McCormick and Ammerman concluded that a task checklist was a useful procedure for obtaining 25 task performances, length of task time, and general task 74 difficulty. Another by McCormick and Tombrink compared task elements and work action statements for consistency 75 of job information with the use of a checklist. They concluded that tasks and elements gave more consistent information than work actions for frequency of performance of the activity, time required for performance, mental difficulty, and physical difficulty. But work actions were more consistent than tasks (elements fell between the two) for the type of training received, type of training desired, and type of assistance Obtained.76 The Center for Vocational and Technical Education at The Ohio State University develOped a system of task analy- sis by applying the Air Force task inventory concepts. The method is described as follows: Developing and using task inventory involves three main phases. These phases, along with some of the goals and activities of each, are: 1. Construction of Initial Inventory of Tasks. Here the goal is to generate a comprehensive inventory of duties and tasks for a given occupational area, using various standard sources of information. With the aid of experts, statements are refined and grouped and made ready for administration to job incumbents. 2. Acquisition of Information about Each Task. In this phase, the inventory of ta§ks is submitted in questionnaire form to a large group of job incumbents. After each incumbent provides certain background information about himself, he checks each task in the inventory that he actually performs. Following this, he indicates the relative amount of time he spends performing this task compared with other tasks that he does on his job. On occasion, incumbents may be asked to provide other information about the tasks that they perform. 26 3. Analysis of Task Data. Once questionnaires are returned and checked fOr completeness, responses are tabulated and summary statistics derived. The results can then be used to guide phe develOpment or revision of training programs.7 In 1967 Mager and Beach published a book organized around a method of task analysis with the terms tasks and steps.78 They directed the analysis exclusively to instruc- tion. The tasks were to be rated in terms of frequency of performance, importance, and learning difficulty. The steps were rated by type of performance (recall, manipula- tive, problem solving); and learning difficulty. However, they said ”. . . there are probably as many techniques for performing a task analysis as there are peOple doing it The only large error you can make is not to use any task analysis technique at all."79 Sherman and Willidman came to the same conclusion as Mager and Beach. They said: . there is agreement among all the theorists on at least one point: Task analysis, at a minimum, assists the instructor or designer to understand the content to be taught. This alone is sgfficient reason for recommending task analysis. 0 The Comprehensive Dissertation Index Database indicates the shift to a task analysis approach. There are ten dis- sertations listed under occupational analysis, fifty-two under task analysis, three under trade analysis, and sixty- four under job analysis. Of those dissertations that relate to education and training there have been twenty task analyses since 1974, eight between 1964 and 1974, and 27 one before 1964. There have been three occupational analyses since 1974, four were completed between 1964 and 1974 and one before 1964. There was one trade analysis before 1964 and one job analysis before 1964 (see Table 1). TABLE I Number of Dissertations Listed Under Task Analysis, Occupational Analysis, Trade Analysis and Job Analysis that Relate to Education and Training with Completion Dates Since 1974 1974-1964 Before 1964 Task 20 8 1 Occupational 3 4 1 Trade 1 Job 1 Source - Comprehensive Dissertation Online, 1982 While educators use the term task analysis more commonly, the U.S. Department of Labor has done much simi- lar work in job analysis. The Training and Employment Ser- vice describe, in their handbook, basic techniques of job analysis. The handbook reflects the results of continued research on occupational analysis by the agency. Their . are flexible and adaptable to meet such "81 techniques Objectives as job restructuring and job development. Training is identified as one area that benefits from job analysis. 28 Jobs should be analyzed as they exist; therefore, each completed job analysis schedule must report the job as it exists at the time of the analysis, not as it should exist, not as it has existed in the past, and not as it exists in similar establishments. The job analysis is intended for recruitment and placement, better utilization of workers, job restructuring, vocational counseling, performance evaluation, plant safety as well as training. Both the work performed and worker traits are identified. The U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration (later changed to the Employment and Training Administration) stated: Job analysis may be defined as any process of collecting, ordering, and evaluating work or worker- related information. It is not an end in itself but rather a means to any of several ends. The purposes for which an analysis is conducted largely determine the types of information gathered and the ways in which the information is arranged. Thus, a study whose objective is to develop jobs for the physically handicapped may use different scales,high-lighting different aspects of the task data, from one which is intended to assist in establishing a position classi- fication system. The information may reflect job content, expressed in terms of specific work activities and procedures, or it may consist of the worker characteristics (skills, knowledge, aptitudes, tolerances, etc.) required for adequate job perfor- mance. In some instances, both job-oriented and worker-oriented information may be useful.83 The method used to gather information and from whom it is gathered does not seem to be influenced by the term Of task, occupation or job as much as the Objective for the data. Rupe's analysis of Air Force jobs was a task analysis 84 using data collected from the workers. Braden considered supervisors a better source of information on the relative 29 importance of each task to the complete job description and the educational and vocational preparation needed to enter and progress in nuclear technician occupations.85 Mager's technique requires ratings by the worker, the observer/interviewer, or supervisor on scales related to frequency of performance, importance, and learning diffi- culty.86 Ammerman et al. found in a survey of eight Army service schools that there was a greater tendency to obtain information from the job situation for equipment- related courses (such as maintenance instruction programs)."87 In training for new equipment the contractor and the equipment itself were prime sources of information."88 Morsh gives eight methods of obtaining information: questionnaire, checklist, individual interview, observation and interview, technical conference, daily diary, work participation, and critical incident.89 The most pOpular methods of Obtaining information . appear to be the questionnaire and checklist. But the method of develOping the questionnaire is often difficult to ascertain. Graham's task analysis procedure was to form an advisory committee to select a list of basic processes and tasks necessary to complete the process.90 This list of tasks was compiled as a questionnaire and mailed to selected persons. The reaponses were then tabulated for final presentation. 30 Skouby's occupational analysis of electromechanical technicians occupations was to determine the frequency of performing selected tasks and the area of activity (elec- trical, mechanical, etc.) in which these tasks were 91 performed. Sixty-six supervisors of electromechanical technicians and 137 electromechanical technicians from fifty-seven industrial establishments were interviewed by twelve master's degree candidates using a questionnaire. The questionniare was develOped by the degree candidates. Sprankle, in a task analysis of electronic skills, used a mailed survey reported by 219 individuals in 82 occu- pations.92 Chenzoff concluded from his review of task analyses: Two basic approaches to task analysis for deriving training and training device recommendations were found. 1. The Miller (l956d) approach begins with a determination system functions and output criteria. What should the system be able to do and how well should it be able to do these things? Then the functions are allocated to men and machines and the functions to be performed by human Operators are broken down into tasks and, if possible, subtasks. Both the task-relevant and the contextual variables which are anticipated to affect task performance are described. The skills and knowledges required to perform the task are analyzed according to speci- fied rules. Eventually, after a number of such analyses, there is deemed to be sufficient data so that one can construct a curriculum and choose training equipment. 2. The Gustafson, Honsberger, and Michelson (1960) approach begins with the decisions which have to be answered before these decisions can be made. The questions which need to be answered for one system are not necessarily those which should be answered for another system. Thus each task analysis is tailor-made to gather the necessary and 31 sufficient information for the training decisions associated with one particular system, although there are generalizable classes of decisions and data which will be relevant to most systems. The Gustaf- son, Honsberger, and Michelson approach has the obvious advantage of economy of information to be gathered. However, it has not been sufficieggly refined to permit its immediate application. The Vocational-Technical Education Consortium of States (V-TECS) uses the task analysis technique. Their method begins with identifying the occupation through the Office of Education (O.E.) Code and the Directory of Occupational Titles (DOT) Code, that make up the educational program area.94 A state-of-the-art review is then made. A State-of-the-Art review of all identifiable performance-based curriculum materials that are appropriate to the develOpmental domain of the catalog should be conducted. The State-of-the-Art study should also include a review of other related materials or information that might be used as supportive docu- ments to the developmental process or materials. In addition, State-of-the-Art should include a review of existing V-TECS catalogs to identify task statements/ performance objectives/performance guiges that have potential for-the development project. 5 Development of an occupational inventory is then done. When complete it is used to survey incumbent workers. They are requested to check each task they perform on the job. Tools used by the worker are also identified. Analyzing New and Emerging Occupations The study of longitudinal data has been useful in identifying changes in occupations. However, Pfeiffer and Stronge suggest factors that can impair any system of data 32 collection in identifying new and emerging occupations: "The length of time in the survey period coupled with the length of time necessary for processing the data may make some of the staffing estimates obsolete prior to the projections process."96 They make two interesting sugges- tions. One is simply a study of job listings. The other they call residual studies, where during the Occupational Employment Statistics Survey employers . . . are asked to add descriptive information and employment data on occupations in their firms that are not included on the pre-printed O.E.S. survey form. Since the pre-printed survey form is based on occupations that are known to be characteristic of $335.?ii,$332.2.ZEEEYOSSOEESE£2213‘7““S “'3’ he” 1“ Forgione and Kopp considered new and changing occupa- tions as those with high employment growth, recent emergence (within ten years), arising from a new industry, or restructuring or modification of an occupation.98 They add that it is difficult to identify new occupations because existing data sources are based on existing occupations and it is difficult to obtain data;regarding future demands from employers. Orth and Russell found six requirements for the identi- fication of new and changing occupations. They are job descriptions and job duties, education and training require- ments, employment outlook, employment environment, career outlook, and organizations knowledgeable about the parti- cular occupation.99 33 Stembridge addresses the difficulties in analyzing tasks in new and emerging jobs. He suggests a delphi probe . be used to reach agreement on "100 using experts may possible future tasks an occupation may include. His concern with the utilization of experts either through a survey or jury is a problem of identifying these experts. He suggests a task list be developed ". . . through a review of technical operating manuals and the tasks required to maintain and repair the equipment derived from "101 He believes workers can determine the the manuals. validity of the list and tasks on the list. However, the worker population for a new and emerging occupation may be Ahard to identify. In a study of the biomedical equipment technician, which fits the description of a new and emerging field, it was determined that the educational program should be designed to give students skills and knowledge relevant to calibration, preventative maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair. This was based on a list of nineteen tasks and thirty-six pieces of equipment which respondents to a survey indicated that they do or do not use.102 The American Society for Training and Development is conducting a study to identify the training and development roles and competencies [of training directors] not only needed today but also needed in the future."103 The method involves multiple rounds of questionnaires to 34 experts and review by an outside group of experienced practitioners.104 A relatively new approach to determining curriculum content is the DACUM (DevelOping A CurriculUM) approach. This approach could be used to determine content in new and emerging areas. Finch and Crunkilton write: The develOpment of a DACUM profile involves using a committee of ten to twelve resource persons who are experts in the particular occupation. These resource persons are nominated by employers as being skilled in the occupation and currently serving as a worker or supervisor in the area . The DACUM committee functions as a group with the developmental activities taking place when the members are together. Time required to complete a DACUM profile generally ranges from two to four days. A coordinator from outside the committee works wi h the group to facilitate the develOpment process. There was no study identified, during the review of literature, regarding tasks performed by the robot main- tenance mechanic. Konstantinov had suggested a few broad duties in his paper on on-site servicing of robots.106 Several studies are underway and will soon be completed, but not in time to assist in the design of this study.107 Social Implications There is little information on the social implications of robots. There appear to be no questions as to what level of automation is socially acceptable. Literature on robotics pre-supposes the continuing historical pattern of using advanced automation when possible. 35 Gold reports: The basic fact is that unemployment in any firm is caused primarily by a decline in its competitive- ness. If it fails to adopt the technological advances utilized by competition, its employment will decline much more rapidly than if it adOpts such advances even if these involve some displacement of labor.108 The literature suggests that though some jobs will be replaced by robots they will generate or create new jobs. The problem is in identifying the number or jobs replaced and the number of newly created jobs. Hunt and Hunt found ". . . no existing data base to estimate the number of jobs that will be created by the robot industry in the U.S. or Michigan."109 They said: Our interviews strongly supported the following conclusion about the average displacement effect of robots: one robot replaces one worker per shift. That conclusion should not be surprising. Robots are not any faster than human workers, and regardless of the protestations of some in the industry that robots should not be compared to humans, robots do in fact perform {usctions that were previously done by human workers. 1 Hunt and Hunt's conclusions are similar to Behuniak's who states: "Robots, unlike other forms of automation, usually only replace humans on a one-for-one basis."111 Hunt and Hunt project the Michigan robot count to be between 6,500 and 12,000 by 1990, and from this conclude 13,000-24,000 jobs lost. They also conclude between 5,127 and 17,737 jobs will be created in the robot industry in Michigan. However, ". . . the occupational profile of those jobs created, is that well over half of all of these j°b9 require two or more years of college."112 36 The Exploratory workshOp on the Social Implications of Robotics held by the Office of Technology Assessment concluded, "Any examination of the effects of robots on jobs would need to consider, at least in part, a much "113 broader context of automation technology. Gold had said at this workshOp: More than 25 years of empirical research on the productivity, cost and other effects of major tech- nological innovations in a wide array of industries in the U.S. and abroad have led me to draw two con- clusions: First: that the actual economic effects of even major technological advances have almost invariably fallen far short of their expected effects; and Second: that such exaggerated expectations have been due to their over-concentration on only a limited sector of the complex of interactions which determine actual results. Hence, sound analysis of the prospective effects of increasing applications of robotics in domestic industries on their cost effectiveness and international competitiveness requires avoidance of such over-simpli- fications. Another social consideration is the quality of working environment. The Exploratory WorkshOp concluded: If robots are employed principally for jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous and if the new jobs created by robotics are better, the quality of worklife will improve. Productivity increases may also, in the longer term, result in a shorter, more flexibly scheduled workweek. Summary A need for robot maintenance personnel for today and in the future has been identified. However, the projections 37 as to the numbers needed are wide ranging. Centron and O'Toole predict 1.5 million robot maintenance technicians on the job in the U.S. in 1990.116 Hunt and Hunt project as few as 750 robot maintenance technicians may be employed outside the auto industry in Michigan by 1990.117 With the auto industry projected to use about one-half the robots, and Michigan being one of the largest states in terms of numbers of robots used, it is clear the two pro- jections are far apart. Analysis of occupations has long been used as a basis for curriculum by vocational educators. Several types of analysis have been used: job analysis, occupational analysis, trade analysis and task analysis are the more common types. The most common analysis since 1974 for edu- cators has been task analysis. Herschbach believes task analysis lends greater validity to the analysis process.118 There are additional problems in analyzing new and emerging occupations. The first problem is in actually identifying the new and emerging occupations. Once identi- fied, experts have to be identified for the analysis. Stembridge recommended when machines and equipment are used in the occupation, a review of Operating manuals can 119 be completed in developing a task inventory. No com— pleted analysis was identified on robot maintenance mechanics.120 38 There is little information on the social implications of robots. Some jobs will be replaced by robots and some jobs will be created by the use of robots. Information on the net gain or loss of jobs due to robots is conflicting. However, quality of the working environment is projected to improve with the use of robots. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY In this chapter the method used to achieve the objectives of the study is presented. The chapter is organized around two areas: the selection of the method of analysis for the study; and the three major components of the analysis. These compo- nents of the analysis are: the develOpment of the task inventory, the selection of participants, and the collec- tion of the information. Selection of the Method of Analysis Type of analysis selected. It was seen through the review of the literature that many methods can be used in analyzing occupations. The method chosen depends on the objectives of the study. It is therefore apprOpriate, at this time, to restate the key purposes of the study. 1. To identify the tasks necessary to perform the job of industrial robot maintenance mechanic in Michigan, prioritized by fre- quency performed, criticalness and Opportunity to learn on the job. 39 40 2. To contrast tasks identified for use today and tasks projected for 1990. 3. To identify the structural difficulties in existing job classifications for the install- ation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots. Given the objective of identifying common tasks necessary to perform the job of robot maintenance mechanic, the method which is generally considered the more narrow method of analysis, that of task analysis, was selected for the study. It was not the objective of the study to iden- tify environmental factors or physical requirements of the job, or to identify similar and related jobs as job analysis and occupational analysis are often considered to do. The objective was to identify tasks and prioritize them for educational purposes. Method selected for gathering data. Morsh gives eight methods of gathering task analysis data: questionnaire, checklist, individual interview, Observation and interview, technical conference, daily 121 The diary, work participation, and critical incident. method chosen depends on the objective of the study and availability and COOperation of the respondents. Objective One of the study was to prioritize the tasks in terms of frequency performed, criticalness to job performance, and Opportunity to learn the task on the job. Objective Two 41 was to contrast tasks identified and tasks projected for 1990. Objective Three, structural difficulties in existing job classification for the installation, maintenance, re- pair, and operation of robots, required discussion which could not be standardized on a response form and would take an estimated 30-45 minutes of response time. The level of OOOperation Of the proposed participants was high, based on telephone contact. However, their avail- ability was restricted, thus ruling out any group conference approach, such as DACUM. Multiple rounds of a questionnaire necessary for a delphi approach in addition to the intervieW' necessary for Objective Three, could have exceeded the inter- est and cooperation of the participants. The individual interview with a checklist of tasks was selected as the method which would best match the Objec- tives and the availability and cooperation Of the respon- dents. This method allowed for greater response and atten- tiveness due to the presence of the interviewer. The indi- vidual interview also allowed for one-to-one discussion nec- essary for Objective Three. The Three Major Components of the Analysis Three major components of the analysis describe the procedure for data collection. It is therefore appropriate to restate the methodology and procedure for data collection. 42 Methodology and procedure for data collection The first Objective of this study, to identify tasks necessary to perform the job of industrial robot mainte- nance mechanic, was realized by: A. Reviewing Operating, service and installa- tion manuals of manufacturers whose equipment will be maintained and Operated during the performance of the job incumbents' duties. B. Compiling tasks identified through the materials. C. Adding task statements of existing occupa- tions (for which an analysis had been done) identified as having components of the new occupation. D. Consolidating the task statements. E. Having the task statements reviewed by selected experts for additions, deletions and comments. F. DevelOping a questionnaire, using the task statements, to identify the frequency of the task performed, criticalness of performance of the task, and the Opportunity to learn the task on the job. G. Conducting personal interviews using the questionnaire, with selected experts on the installation, maintenance, repair and Opera- tion of robots in use in Michigan. 43 H. Sending a follow-up mailed questionnaire to the experts for input on additions and comments arising from interviews. The second objective of this study; contrast dif- ferences between tasks performed today and tasks projected for 1990, was realized by: A. Adding to the questionnaire used above, a question pertaining to whether the task will still be performed in 1990. B. Asking, during the personal interview, what additional tasks and knowledge will be necessary in 1990. C. Adding the input from B to the follow-up mailed questionnaire to the experts for additional comments. The third Objective of this study, identifying struc- tural difficulties in existing job classifications to the installation, maintenance, repair, and operation of robots, was realized through: A. Interviews from Objectives One and Two. B. Telephone solicitation of selected Michigan manufacturers and additional personal inter- views with individuals on the user side. C. Reviewing company internal literature received during interviews. The three major components of the data collection are 44 the development of the task inventory, the selection of participants and the collection of information. The development of the task inventory. At the time of developing the task inventory there was no source identified as to the tasks required of robot maintenance mechanics.122 It was therefore necessary to develop a task inventory for the checklist of tasks. The preliminary groundwork for this research project suggested that Stembridge's concerns:fin:the difficulties in analyzing tasks in new and emerging industries, discussed in the review of literature, were applicable to the robot maintenance mechanic - especially his concern about the difficulty in identifying the worker pOpulation from which to draw task information.123 An important characteristic of the robot maintenance mechanic is actual performance on the machinery or equipment. Ammerman et a1. and Stembridge specifically mentioned when machinery and equipment were used during the job incumbents' work that tasks could be identified through the machinery 124 and equipment. A study of the biomedical equipment tech- nician was done using the equipment as a basis to gather data.125 A review of Operating, repair, and maintenance manuals to develop an initial task list as suggested by Stembridge appeared feasible, based on Lustgarten's list of manufacturers of robots in the United States. Lust- garten's list (Table 2) shows total robot sales in 1980 as 45 $100 million. Unimation (Condec) sales were $40.0 million, Cincinnati Milacron had sales of $30.0 million and Devilbiss (Champion Spark Plug) was the third largest in sales with $9.0 million. ASEA (U.S. Operation) had sales with $7.5 million, Prab Robots had sales of $6.0 million, and Auto- place (COpperweld),the sixth largest company, had sales of $4.5 million. After these six companies came Nordson with $0.7 million, Mobot with $0.7 million, Automatix with $0.4 million, and all other companies accounted for $1.2 million. The six largest companies, therefore, made up 97% of sales. It is interesting to note that foreign built robots "126 are not a significant factor currently. However, Lust- garten does consider they will be a factor in the future. TABLE 2 Sales Of Robots by U.S. Manufacturers Company Sales in Millions Unimation (Condec) 40.0 Cincinnati Milacron 30.0 Devilbiss (Champion Spark Plug) 9.0 ASEA (U.S. operation) 7.5 Prab Robots 6.0 AutOplace (COpperweld) 4.5 Nordson 0.7 Mobot 0.7 Automatix 0.4 Others 1.2 Total 100.0 Source - U. 8. Congress, Office of Technology assessment, Social Impact of Robotics, "Robotics and its Relationship to the Automated Factory” by Eli S. Lustgarten (Washington, D. C. Government Printing Office, 1981), p. 128. 46 A review of Operating, repair, and maintenance manuals was undertaken to develOp an initial list of tasks. Ini- tially a request was made to the apprOpriate individual at each of the six largest companies, as listed in Table 3, for manuals relating to the company's robots (Appendix A). Each company responded with at least one of its manuals. Table 3 is a list of the six manufacturers of robots contacted and the manuals received, and the principle use for the robot described in the manual. TABLE 3 Robot Manufacturers Contacted and Manuals Received Robot's Company Manual Use Unimation (Condec) 4030 Series Spot welding equipment manual Cincinnati Milacron Pre-installation Machine manual for T3T.M loading/ Operating/teaching unloading manual for T3T.M Service manual for T3T.M Devilbiss TR-3500 operations Paint (Champion Spark Plug) manual spraying TR-3000 maintenance manual Basic troubleshooting I ASEA (U.S. Operation) ASEA Industrial robot Machine system maintenance loading/ ASEA Industrial robot unloading system operation ASEA Industrial robot system description Prab Operation programming and Machine maintenance manual loading/ 4200/4800 series unloading AutOplace (COpperweld) Maintenance manual Parts CRSO robot handling 47 The manuals received were reviewed to extract tasks necessary for the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of the robot. This review produced 154 tasks, The 154 tasks were arranged into six duties. Duty A, Installing and Moving Machines; Duty B, PerforminggPreven- tative Maintenance; Duty C, Maintaining Equipment; Duty D, Performing Repairs; Duty E, Programmipg; and Duty F, Com- municating; It was recognized that the review of manuals alone might not produce a complete list of tasks for the robot maintenance mechanic. The tasks identified through the robot manufacturers' manuals were in the skill areas of electronics, hydraulics, mechanics, pneumatics, programming and communication. Existing task analyses of occupations which pertain to these skill areas were sought. The areas of electronics, hydraulics, mechanics, and pneumatics yielded task statements. No task statements within the area of robot programming or communication were identified as helpful. The publications used to make additions to the task list were: "An Occupational Analysis of Electromechanical Technicians Occupations with Implications for Curriculum DevelOpment" by Skouby.127 Electronics Mechanic: A Catalog of Tasks, Performance Objectives, Performance Guides, T5613 and Equipment by Skutack.128 Maintenance Mechanic: A Catalog of Tasks, EErformanceObjectives, Performance Guides, Tools andequipment by Krogstod and Dawson.129 48 These three publications produced 57 additional tasks which were not identified in the review of manufacturer manuals. They were tasks in the areas of electronics, mechanics, hydraulics and pneumatics associated with the develOped duties of the robot maintenance mechanic of Installing and Moving Machines, Performing Preventative Maintenance, Maintaininngquipment, Performing Repairs, Programming and Communicating, Four additional duties appeared in this review that might be required of a robot maintenance mechanic, yet were not identified in the review of the manuals. The additional duties were: Administrating Personnel, Supervising_Maintenance and Rgpair Function, Workipg Metal with Hand or Portable Tools and WorkingyMetal with Machine Tools. These duties, however, were not central to the mechanic's job as defined. The list of tasks now totaled 211, with four addi- tional duty statements to consider. Two individuals with not less than two years teaching experience in their respective areas were asked to remove and consolidate duplications of task statements. One of the teachers, in the field of electronics, reviewed the electronics tasks. The other teacher, in the field of hydraulics, mechanics and pneumatics reviewed the hydraulics, mechanics and pneumatic tasks. The reason for selecting teachers was that they were familiar with task statements and could eliminate, consolidate and rewrite duplications 49 (Appendix B). These teachers also verified the task area, such as: electrical or mechanical. This reduced the number of tasks statements from 211 to 186. The four additional duty statements remained the same. The next phase of the development of the task inventory was to request responses from experts in the robot mainte- nance field to the task list, with a request for additions and deletions. Six individuals were selected who were know- ledgeable in the field of robot installation, maintenance, repair, and operation. It was required that they each have at least two years of experience in the area of robot installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation. Two represented the robot manufacturers' view, two represented the robot users' view, and two represented the educators' view (Appendix C). Initial contact was by telephone. The survey form was then mailed (Appendix D). The survey form contained a list of the 186 task statements and four additional duty state- ments which the respondent would check either yes or no to the question: Will this be performed by the robot mainte- nance mechanic/technician? The term technician was added because the review of the literature suggested the robot maintenance mechanic is sometimes called a technician. The cover letter requested additional comments and suggestions. All six individuals replied by completing the check- list and giving additional comments and suggestions. 50 The survey form in Appendix D shows the reponses to the task statements. The additional comments and sugges- tions are also recorded in Appendix D. If more than one individual responded yes to the question: Will this be performed by the robot maintenance mechanic/technician? the statement was placed on the final task analysis checklist form. The comments and suggestions were also used in develOping the final task analysis check- list form. This completed the task inventory develOpment, reducing the number of tasks from 186 to 171, and the additional duty ‘ statements from four to three. The procedure followed,in develOping the task inventory, is illustrated in Figure 1. Selection of participants. It was then necessary to select experts on robots in Michigan to validate and prioritize the tasks (Objective One); identify differences between tasks necessary today and tasks necessary in 1990 (Objective Two); identify structural difficulties in existing job classifications for the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots (Objective Three); and to draw implications for the education and training of persons for these occupational positions. Incumbent workers, it was found in the review of literature, were often (but not always), used as experts. FIGURE 1 Procedure Used in DevelOping Initial Task Inventory 51 Step Step Step Step Step Step Development of task statements through review of robot Operation repair, and maintenance manuals. i Development of additional task statements using selected publications relating to skill areas identified in Step 1. Review and consolidation of task statements by teacher experts. + Initial task inventory prepared Review of initial task inventory by robot maintenance experts. Refinements, changes, additions and deletions as recommended by robot maintenance experts. 52 In this study, incumbent workers were robot maintenance mechanics. Two sources were considered for locating incumbent workers: one, the robot user plants or pur- chaser; two, the robot manufacturer. In an attempt to identify expert robot maintenance mechanics in the robot user plants, forty Michigan establishments were selected from robot manufacturers' sales lists and from The Directory of Michigan Manufac- turers.130 The establishments on the robot manufacturers' sales lists were known to have purchased robots; however, not all robot manufacturers were willing to share this information. The establishments selected from the Michigan Directory of Manufacturers were selected because they were potential users of robots. The industries using robots and the activities robots were used for, identified in the review of the literature, were considered useful in identifying the potential robot users through their Standard Industrial Classification number and their activities.131 The personnel departments of the forty selected establishments were contacted by telephone. The companies contacted are listed in Appendix E. The telephone procedure is shown in Figure 2. Based on the projected need for robot maintenance mechanics it was expected that many would be identified. 53 FIGURE 2 Telephone Procedure Used in Attempting to Identify Robot Maintenance Mechanics in Michigan's Robot User Plants Introduction J Do you have a job title or description associated with the repair of robots? No Yes Do you have7any Yes How many ro ots. employees have this N0 title? /\ Don'- know Discussion and close Can May I speak I speak to to the superviso of son one who robot repa1r does ma1ntenance? know? Discussion Request interview Close 54 Only one person was identified who met the requirement for completing the checklist. The requirement was that the persons have had as their major job responsibility the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots for at least one year. The reason for identifying only one person is explored and discussed in Chapter IV. In attempting to identify expert robot maintenance mechanics in robot manufacturing plants, it was decided that the experts were the manufacturers'_service managers respon- sible for the Michigan area. All met the requirement of having as his major job responsibility the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots. Through these peOple flows all information regarding the company's robot maintenance activities. The six manufacturers that had assisted in the review of manuals and accounted for 97% of all robots sold in the U.S. in 1980 had service managers responsible for the Michigan area. These six service managers agreed to participate in the study (Appendix F). As previously stated, only one robot maintenance mechanic was identified, in the user plants, who met the requirement for completing the checklist. The review of literature projected a significant number of robot mainte- nance mechanics would be needed and that this position fitted the description of an emerging occupation. There- fore, for Objective One, the question became as much what should or will be performed as what i§_performed. Informa- 55 tion on what should be performed and how it is performed is generated through the Office of the manufacturer's ser- vice manager. In five Of the six companies the service manager par- ticipated in the completion of the checklist. In one of these cases a robot maintenance mechanic assisted in com- pleting the checklist; in another, two robot maintenance mechanics assisted in completing the checklist. In the sixth company the service manager designated a robot ser- vice mechanic, he believed most capable of representing the company, to complete the checklist (Appendix F). TO identify the structural difficulties in existing job classifications for the installation, maintenance, repair, and operation of robots (Objective Three); and to identify implications for the education and training of persons for these occupational positions; it was necessary to interview experts from both the robot manufacturers' plants and robot users' plants. The same representatives from the six manufacturers participating in meeting Objectives One and Two were selected to participate in meeting Objective Three. The selection of participants from the robot user plants for Objective Three was based on the telephone procedure in Figure 2 and the subsequent telephone interviews (these interviews are discussed as findings 56 in Chapter IV). The one person in the user plants who met the requirement for completion of the checklist for Objec- tives One and Two (although he did not participate in Objectives One and Two) was selected for personal interview. Four persons were selected from another plant for interview. These two plants represented opposing procedures of installa- tion, maintenance, repair, and operation of robots. A sixth individual was selected to further explore the structural differences and training requirements of robot maintenance mechanics. The individual had responsibility of training for robot maintenance in a large automobile company. The names of the individuals interviewed appear in Appendix G. Collection of information. The information was collected through a checklist Of tasks and interviews. Collection of information for Objective One. The six par- ticipating manufacturers ' representatives completed the check- list of tasks at the beginning of the interview. The checklist of tasks consisted of the 171 task statements and three additional duty statements in the task inventory. The task statements were grouped into the six duties identified: Duty A, Installing and Moving Machines; Duty B, Performing Preventative Mainten- gggg: Duty C, Maintaining Equipment; Duty D, Performing_Re- péipg; Duty E, Programming; and Duty F, Communicating. The task statements within each duty were listed alphabetically. 57 The three additional duty statements were then listed (Appendix H). The interviewee was asked to respond to each statement on the checklist in terms of frequency performed, critical- ness to job performance, employer expectation, and Oppor- tunity to learn the task on the job. The two questions regarding employer's expectation and Opportunity to learn on the job were necessary for prioritizing the tasks by Opportunity to learn on the job. For frequency performed the interviewee was asked if the task (or one of the three duties) was performed daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or never. The apprOpriate box was then checked. For criticalness to job performance the interviewee was asked the level of criticalness. He responded with a number from one for most critical to the job performance to five for least critical to job performance. For employer expectation the interviewee was asked if the task performance was expected of a new employee, or within six months, or not expected within the first six months. The appropriate box was then checked, or left blank if the task was not expected within the first six months. For Opportunity to learn the task on the job, the interviewee was asked if the Opportunity was good, average or poor. The apprOpriate box was then checked. 58 During the interview one broad question was addressed for Objective One. What additional tasks or duty performances not listed are required of the robot main- tenance mechanic? The individuals interviewed contributed some additions to the survey form. These additions necessitated a follow- up questionnaire so each participant could react to the suggestions (Appendix 1). Collection of information for Objective Two. The information was gathered from the six participating manu- facturers' representatives through the checklist of tasks and interviews. The question, Will this task he performedzhi 1990? was added to the checklist of tasks (see Appendix H). The interviewee responded by checking either yes or no. Any explanation of the answer was recorded for further discussion during the interview. During the interview a second question was asked which related to Objective Two. What additional task performances will be required in 1990? Collection of information for Objective Three. The information was gathered from the six participating manu- facturers' representatives through personal interviews, from telephone interviews with forty potential robot users, and through six personal interviews with persons in robot user plants. 59 The interviews with the six participating manufacturers' representatives were based around one question: What is the quality of installation, mainte- nance, repair, and Operation in the user plants? The procedure for the telephone interviews with forty potential users is shown in Figure 2 (page 53). The discus- sion section of the procedure was organized around three broad questions. 1. Who installs, maintains, repairs, and operates your plant's robots? 2. Do you experience any difficulty with the method? 3. If yes, what do you attribute this difficulty to? Six individuals were selected for personal interview from the telephone procedure. This interview was organized around the same three questions. Exposure to the structural difficulty was obtained by attempting to complete the check- list of tasks at two plants which used Opposing methods of installation, maintenance, repair, and operation of their robots. The interviews raised a major concern in the method of repair, which necessitated an additional question being added to the follow-up questionnaire sent to the six manu- facturers. The follow-up questionnaire is shown in Appendix I. 60 Summary The method of analysis selected for the study was task analysis. The purposes for doing a task analysis are consistent with the key purposes of this study. The method selected for gathering data was individual interview with a checklist of tasks. This method suited the key purposes of the study and the availability and COOperation of the respondents. The develOpment of the task inventory proceeded through six steps: develOpment of task statements through review of robot Operation, repair, and maintenance manuals; develOpment of additional task statements using selected publications relating to skill areas identified in step 1; review and consolidation of task statements by teacher experts; prepara- tion of initial task inventory; review of initial task ' inventory by robot maintenance experts; refinements, changes, additions, and deletions as recommended by robot maintenance experts. Information on what tasks should be performed is generated through the office of the manufacturer's service manager. Representatives of each of the six largest com- panies were selected to participate in identifying tasks for Objectives One and Two. To meet Objective Three, the six participating manufacturers' representatives were interviewed, forty 61 companies who were potential users of robots were contacted by telephone, and six people from robot user plants were interviewed. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter presents the findings from the task checklist, the personal interviews, the telephone inter- views, and the follow-up mailed questionnaire as they relate to the, three objectives of the study. Findings for the First Objective The first objective was to identify the tasks neces— sary to perform the job of industrial robot maintenance mechanic in Michigan, prioritized by frequency performed, criticalness, and opportunity to learn on the job. Of the 171 task statements on the final checklist it was found 158 were performed in the installation, mainte- nance, repair, and Operation of robots. That is, at least one of the six manufacturers' representatives sur- veyed identified the task statement as necessary in the maintenance of his company's robots. The three additional duties on the checklist were also found to be performed in the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots. The personal interviews generated an additional seVen task statements and no additional duty statements. The follow-up questionnaire with the additional task 62 63 statements from the personal interview increased the number of tasks performed by robot maintenance mechanics in Michi- gan from 158 to 165. All these tasks were within the six duties previously identified. Thirty-five tasks were performed in the maintenance of the robots of all six manufacturers. Twenty-seven tasks were performed in the maintenance of robots of five of the six manufacturers. Thirty-two tasks were performed in the maintenance of robots of four of the six manufacturers. There were twenty-four tasks performed in the maintenance of robots of three of the six manufacturers and twenty-six tasks performed in the maintenance of robots of two of the six manufacturers. Twenty-one tasks were performed in the maintenance of only one of the six manufacturers' robots. Table 4 shows the number of tasks common to the six robot manufacturers in the study. TABLE 4 Number of Required Tasks that are Common to the Robot Manufacturers in the Study Number of Manufacturers 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of Tasks Common 35 27 32 24 26 21 to the Manufacturers The tasks necessary to perform the job of industrial robot maintenance mechanic are reported in each of the following three sets of tables: Tables 5 through 10, 64 Tables 11 through 16 and Tables 17 through 22. Tables 5 through 10 order the tasks by frequency performed by the robot maintenance mechanic using the frequency responses from the checklist. Tables 11 through 16 order the tasks by criticalness to the job performance using the critical- ness reaponses from the checklist. Tables 17 through 22 order the tasks by the Opportunity to learn on the job using the employer expectations and Opportunity to learn responses from the checklist. Frequency of task performance Tables 5 through 10 list the tasks performed on robots by frequency performed by the mechanic. The frequency listed in the tables is the most often checked frequency, or the mode of the responses. The number of respondents checking this frequency is also listed. The tasks are prioritized by frequency of performance selected by the modal group. The more frequent the performance the higher priority the task is given. When more than one task has the same priority they are further prioritized by the fre- quencies checked by the non-modal group. Any tasks which still have the same priority status are listed in the order they appear on the checklist. The thirty-five tasks reported performed on robots of all six manufacturers are listed in Table 5. Table 6 lists the twenty-seven tasks reported performed on robots of five of the six manufacturers. Table 7 lists the thirty- 65 two tasks reported performed on robots of four of the six manufacturers. Table 8 lists the twenty-four tasks reported performed on robots of three of the six manufac- turers. Table 9 lists the twenty-six tasks reported performed on robots of two of the six manufacturers. Table 10 lists the twenty-one tasks reported performed on robots of one of the six manufacturers. Table 5 lists the tasks performed on robots of all six manufacturers by frequency performed by the mechanic. All of the six manufacturers' representatives indicated the task was performed with their robots. Task number D3, Locate electronic component malfunc- tions usipg fault guides, is listed as the highest priority. The most often checked frequency was daily; five of the six manufacturers who required the task indicated that the task is performed daily. The last task to appear on the table is task number D27, Replace gear drives. The most often checked frequency was yearly; four of the six manufacturers requiring the task indicated it was performed yearly. Responses for D10, Replace bearings, were identical to D27. The task D10 appears before task D27 only because it appears first on the checklist. 66 TABLE 5 Tasks Performed on Robots of All Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency D3 Locate electronic component daily 5 malfunctions using fault guides F12 Communicate verbally daily 5 E4 Enter program using daily teach control F11 Communicate using the daily 4 telephone E5 Erase program memory .D/W/M 2 F14 Initiate maintenance D/W/M 2 activities (self starter) D4 Remove electronic components D/W 2 D20 Replace electrical circuit D/W 2 components E10 Test run program weekly 4 F13 Communicate in writing weekly 4 E3 Edit program weekly 3 F1 Interpret blueprints weekly 4 D22 Replace encoders W/Y 2 A6 Connect machine to air/ monthly 3 hydraulic/electrical source D26 Replace fuses monthly 3 C6 Adjust automatic gain monthly 3 control circuit C30 Align gear drives monthly 4 A10 Install proximity switch monthly 4 D39 Replace indicator lamps monthly 4 A9 Install mechanical stOps monthly 3 for robot motion D11 Replace capacitor monthly 3 67 TABLE 5' (cont.) Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency D73 Solder/unsolder electronic monthly 3 components B18 Lubricate gear drives monthly 4 D74 Splice wires monthly 3 B3 Clean chassis monthly 5 B4 Clean circulation fans/ monthly 5 ventilators D62 Replace solid state diodes monthly 3 D67 Replace teach control monthly 3 D6 Replace actuator monthly 4 D57 Replace relays yearly 3 D40 Replace integrated circuits yearly 3 (memory) D59 Replace ribbon cables yearly 3 D19 Replace electric motor yearly 4 D10 Replace bearings yearly 4 D27 Replace gear drives yearly 4 Table 6 lists the tasks performed on robots of five of the six manufacturers by frequency performed by the mechanic. One of the six manufacturers' representatives indicated this task was not performed with their robots. Task number F2, Interpret schematics of electronic circuitry is listed as the highest priority. The most often selected frequency was daily; three of the five manufacturers who required the task selected daily. 68 The next four tasks listed: C3, Adjust AC output resis- lpgpgg; D24, Replace faulty PC boards; E9, Reinitialize program memory; and A2, Attach safetnguards, shields and covers, were the only tasks to cause an inconsistency between the objective of prioritizing by frequency per- formed by the robot maintenance mechanic and the method chosen to show this priority. The reason is the various responses by the five manufacturers' representatives. The responses were: C3 Adjust AC output resistance; daily 2, weekly 3 D24 Replace faulty PC boards; daily 2, weekly 3 E9 Reinitialize program memory; daily 2, weekly 2, monthly 1 A2 Attach safety guards, shields and covers; daily 2, weekly 1, monthly 2. Following the method of priority used they should appear in the order E9, A2, C3, and D24. It was decided to be con- sistent with the objective of prioritizing by frequency performed by the robot maintenance mechanic and make an exception to the method chosen to show the priority in these C8888 . 69 TABLE 6 Tasks Performed on Robots of Five Of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency F2 Interpret schematics of daily 3 electronic circuitry C3 Adjust AC output resistance weekly 3* D24 Replace faulty PC boards weekly 3* E9 Reinitialize program D/W 2* memory A2 Attach safety guards, D/M 2* shields, and covers C7 Adjust bias network weekly 3 E2 COpy diskette weekly 3 C16 Adjust linkages and weekly 4 lever mechanisms A1 Align machinery W/M 2 E8 Produce data tape W/M 2 A4 Complete incoming monthly 3 checklist A5 Complete preinstallation monthly 2 facility checklist C9 Adjust drive gear monthly 2 B19 Lubricate linkages and monthly 3 lever mechanisms B15 Lubricate chain and monthly 4 Sprocket drive D60 Replace servomechanisms M/Y 2 D63 Replace solid State diodes M/Y 2 D53 Replace pressure switch M/Y 2 D51 Replace potentiometer yearly 3 D64 Replace switches (lead, yearly contact, mercurial) D65 Replace tachogenerator yearly 3 70 TABLE 6 (cont.) Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency D52 Replace pressure line yearly 3 A14 Position & secure yearly 3 machinery on foundation D9 Replace air regulators yearly 3 D16 Replace digital display yearly 3 segment F8 Train new employees yearly 3 D61 Replace shaft assembly yearly 4 *Correctly prioritized by frequency performed using all responses. Table 7 lists the tasks performed on robots of four of the six manufacturers prioritized by frequency performed by the mechanic. Two of the six manufacturers' representa- tives indicated this task is not performed on their robots. Task E11, Transfer program.memory to cassette tape, is listed as the highest priority. The most Often checked frequency was daily. Three of the four manufacturers indicated it was done daily. The last task listed is C31, Align piston (rod) of hydraulic cylinder; three of the four manufacturers checked that it was done yearly. 71 TABLE 7 Tasks Performed on Robots of Four of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency E11 Transfer program memory daily 3 to cassette tape 821 Record meter readings weekly 3 F3 Interpret schematics of weekly 3 hydraulic system C23 Adjust pressure control weekly 3 unload valve D31 Replace hydraulic gasket weekly 2 and seals E7 Load programmable system weekly 2 tape A3 Block and brace equipment W/M 2 for moving _ E1 Complete programming chart W/M 2 F4 Interpret schematics of W/M 2 . pneumatic system D37 Replace hydraulic system weekly 2 valves D2 Install flexible couplings monthly 3 D38 Replace hydraulic valves monthly 3 C29 Align chain and sprocket monthly 3 drives D17 Replace drive coupling monthly 2 D32 Replace hydraulic gasket monthly 2 and seals D58 Replace resistors monthly 2 D69 Replace transducers monthly 2 D71 Replace transistors monthly 2 D75 Replace electrical clutch monthly 2 or brake F7 Prepare safety reports monthly 2 72 TABLE 7 (cont.) Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited , Frequency All Install sensing plate monthly 2 D36 Replace hydraulic monthly 2 strainer/filters D41 Replace mechanical seals monthly 2 B23 Sample hydraulic fluid monthly 3 D48 Replace pneumatic lines monthly 3 and fittings D54 Replace programmer M/Y 2 D70 Replace transformers M/Y 2 D23 Replace energy Storage yearly 3 cells A15 Prepare area for machine yearly 3 installation A16 Raise machinery using yearly 3 jacks, bars, slings, etc. 322 Refill hydraulic system yearly 3 C31 Align piston (rod) of yearly 3 hydraulic cylinder Table 8 lists the tasks performed on robots of three of the six manufacturers prioritized by frequency performed by the mechanic. Three of the six manufacturers' repre- sentatives indicated this task is not performed with their robots. Task C25, Adjust servovalves is listed as the highest priority. The most often checked frequency was weekly. 73 Two of the three manufacturers indicated it was done weekly. The last task listed is D34, Replace hydraulic pressure ggpgg. Two of the three manufacturers indicated it was done yearly. The last five listed tasks all have the same priority status because of identical responses. They are therefore listed in the sequence they appear in the ques- tionnaire. The previous five responses appear before, because of the frequency checked by the third manufacturer. TABLE 8 Tasks Performed on Robots of Three of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency C25 Adjust servovalves weekly 2 C32 Align shafts D/W/M 1 C35 Calibrate timing/clock D/W/M 1 pulse C34 Calibrate vertical weekly 2 amplitude C38 Calibrate multi-vibrator monthly 2 circuit C22 Adjust pneumatic rotary monthly 2 actuator D8 Replace air filters monthly 2 Bl Change gearbox oil W/M/Y 1 C28 Align and adjust belt W/M/Y l . drive B7 Clean hydraulic Strainer/ monthly 3 filters 74 TABLE 8 (cont.) Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency A8 Erect barricades monthly 2 B5 Clean electrical contact monthly 2 points D35 Replace hydraulic pump monthly 2 F10 Write Operational monthly 2 procedures D68 Replace thermal breakers yearly 2 F9 Translate graphic yearly 2 information to written D28 Replace guide rollers yearly 2 D33 Replace hydraulic motor yearly 2 D45 Replace pneumatic clutch yearly 2 A12 Move machine/equipment yearly 2 with skids or dollies 810 Clean tape head yearly 2 D21 Replace electrical relief yearly 2 , valves D29 Replace heat exchanger yearly 2 D34 Replace hydraulic yearly 2 pressure gauge Table 9 lists the task performed on robots of two of the six manufacturers prioritized by frequency performed by the mechanic. Four of the six manufacturers' representatives indicated this task is not performed with their robots. Task C21, Adjustgpneumatic controls is listed as the highest priority. The most Often checked frequency was daily. Both manufacturers indicated it was daily. 75 The last task listed is D47, Rgplace pneumatic gauge assembly. Both manufacturers indicated it was done yearly. The last four tasks have the same priority status and are listed in the sequence they appear on the questionnaire. TABLE 9 Tasks Performed on Robots of Two of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency C21 Adjust pneumatic controls daily 2 C14 Adjust hyrdraulic flow D/W 1 C15 Adjust hydraulic pressure D/W 1 C18 Adjust oscillator D/W 1 E6 Load data plate D/W 1 F5 Plan quality assessment D/W l checks C8 Adjust DC generator output D/M 1 C19 Adjust output of high weekly 1 frequency amplifiers C24 Adjust probe calibrator W/M 1 Signal C27 Adjust thermostat W/M 1 C36 Change direction of W/M 1 hydraulic pump motor C37 Change rotation of W/M 1 electric motor A7 Crate robot for transfer W/Y 1 D25 Replace frequency converter W/Y 1 (motor generator) B2 Clean air filters monthly 2 B6 Clean electric motor monthly 2 76 TABLE 9 (cont.) Number Citing Most Often Most Often Task Cited Cited # Task Frequency Frequency B9 Clean reflector mirrors monthly 2 D5 Replace accumulator monthly 2 B16 Lubricate electric motor M/Y 1 D14 Replace chain and sprocket M/Y 1 drive D46 Replace pneumatic cushion M/Y 1 unit D56 Replace radio frequency M/Y. 1 interface filters B17 Lubricate fans/ventilators yearly 2 D43 Replace motor starter yearly 2 D44 Replace motor starter yearly 2 transformer D47 Replace pneumatic gauge yearly 2 assembly Table 10 lists the tasks performed on robots of one of the six manufacturers prioritized by frequency performed by the mechanic. Five of the six manufacturers' represen- tatives indicated this task is not performed with their robots. Tasks C2, Adjust AC output resistance, C26 Adjust tape reader; C33, Calibrate P-P voltagp, and D18, Replace dynamotor are all listed as the highest priority; the manufacturer indicated the task was done weekly. Task C2 appears first only because it appears first on the ques- tionnaire. priority Status. performed yearly. 77 The last five tasks listed all have the same The manufacturer indicated the task was Task D55, Replace pulley belt, is listed last only because it appeared after the other four tasks on the questionnaire. TASK 10 Tasks Performed on Robots of One of the Six Manufacturers Prioritized by Frequency Performed by Mechanic Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency C2 Adjust AC output resistance weekly 1 C26 Adjust tape reader weekly 1 C33 Calibrate P-P voltage weekly 1 D18 Replace dynamotor weekly 1 B8 Clean potentiometers monthly 1 B11 Clean tape reader monthly 1 B12 Clean tape recorder monthly 1 820 Lubricate tape recorder monthly 1 C4 Adjust armature or field monthly 1 connection voltage C11 Adjust focus control monthly C23 Adjust pressure control monthly (relief) valve D7 Replace air compressor monthly 1 D12 Replace cathode ray tube monthly D30 Replace hydraulic monthly 1 accumulator bladder F6 Prepare estimates of monthly 1 ' down time A13 Paint machinery/equipment yearly 1 78 TABLE 10 (cont.) Task Task Most Often Number # Cited Citing Frequency Most Often Cited Frequency C12 Adjust gibs yearly 1 C17 Adjust modulation yearly 1 percentage D15 Adjust hydraulic pressure yearly 1 D49 Replace pneumatic yearly l lubricator D55 Replace pulley belt yearly 1 Criticalness of task performance. Tables 11 through 16 list the tasks performed on robots by criticalness to job performance. The reSpondentS gave the task Statement a score of one if it was considered most critical to job performance down to five for least critical. The mean score of the respondents is used to prioritize the tasks by criticalness to job performance. The mean score was determined by adding the scores and dividing by the number of respondents assigning a score to the task. Table 11 lists the tasks performed on robots of all Six manufacturers by criticalness to the job performance. All six manufacturers' representatives had indicated on the checklist that the task was performed with their robots. Task D3, Locate electronic component malfunctions using fault guides; task D4, Remove electronic components, and 79 task D20, Replace electrical circuit components, receive the same high priority in the table because the mean criticalness of each of these tasks is 1.67. They are listed in the table in the sequence they appear on the questionnaire. Task D39, Replace indicator lamps has the lowest priority with a mean criticalness score of 4.17. TABLE 11 Tasks Performed on All Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task to Job Performance Task Task Criticalness # D3 Locate electronic component_ 1.67 malfunctions using fault guides D4 Remove electronic components 1.67 D20 Replace electrical circuit 1.67 components C6 Adjust automatic gain control 1.83 circuit F11 Communicate using the telephone 1.83 F12 Communicate verbally 1.83 F14 Initiate maintenance activities 1.83 (self-starter) ' D22 Replace encoders 2.00 D40 Replace integrated circuits 2.00 (memory) D59 Replace ribbon cables 2.00 E4 Enter program using teach control 2.00 E10 Run test program 2.00 F13 Communicate in writing 2.00 D6 Replace actuator 2.17 D26 Replace fuses 2.17 80 TABLE 11 (cont.) Task Task Criticalness . D27 Replace gear drives 2.17 D57 Replace relays 2.17 D62 Replace solenoids 2.17 E3 Edit program 2.17 C30 Align gear drives 2.33 D11 Replace capacitor 2.33 D73 Solder/unsolder electronic 2.33 components D74 Splice wires 2.33 F1 Interpret blueprints 2.33 A10 Align machinery 2.50 D10 Replace bearings 2.50 E5 Erase program memory 2.50 A6 Connect machine to air/hydraulic/ 2.67 electrical source 818 Lubricate gear drives 2.67 D19 Replace electric motor 2.67 A9 Install mechanical stops for 2.83 robot motion D67 Replace teach control 2.83 B3 Clean chassis 3.16 B4 Clean circulation fans/ventilators 3.50 D39 Replace indicator lamps 4.17 Table 12 lists the tasks performed on robots of five of the six manufacturers by criticalness to the job perfor- mance. One of the six manufacturers' representatives had checked that the task is never performed with their robots. Task C16, Adjust linkages and lever mechanisms, receives the 81 highest priority in the table because the mean criticalness of the five respondents was 1.4. Tasks A5, Complete pre- installation facility checklist, and D9, Replace air regulators, receive the lowest priority with a 3.6 mean average. TABLE 12 Tasks Performed on Five of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task to Job Performance Task Task Criticalness # C16 Adjust linkages and lever 1.4 mechanisms D60 Replace servomechanisms 1.6 A1 Align machinery 1.8 F2 Interpret schematics of electronic 1.8 circuitry C3 Adjust amplifier gain 2.0 C7 Adjust bias network 2.0 D24 Replace faulty PC boards 2.0 A4 Complete incoming checklist 2.2 053 Replace programmer 2.2 D64 Replace switches (lead, contact, 2.2 mercurial) D65 Replace tachogenerator 2.2 E8 Produce data tape 2.2 E9 Reinitialize program memory 2.2 A2 Attach safety guards, Shields, 2.4 covers D61 Replace shaft assembly .4 A14 Position & secure machinery on 2.6 foundation Bl9 Lubricate linkages and lever 2.6 mechanisms E2 Copy diskette 2.6 82 TABLE 12 (Cont.) Task Task Criticalness # C9 Adjust drive gear 2.8 D63 Replace solid state diodes 2.8 B15 Lubricate chain and sprocket drive 3.0 D16 Replace digital diSplay segment 3.0 D51 Replace potentiometer 3.0 D52 Replace pressure line filter element 3.2 F8 Train new employees 3.2 A5 Complete preinstallation facility 3.6 checklist D9 Replace air regulators 3.6 Table 13 lists the tasks performed on robots of four of the Six manufacturers by criticalness to the job perfor- mance. Two of the six manufacturers' representatives had checked that this task is never performed with their robots. Tasks E11, Transfer program memory to cassette tape; E7, Load programmable system tape; and F3, Interpret schematics of hydraulic system receive the same high priority in the table because the mean criticalness of each of these tasks is 1.75. Task A15, Prepare area for machine installation has the lowest priority with a mean criticalness score of 4.5 TABLE 13 83 Tasks Performed on Four of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task to Job Performance Task Task Criticalness # Ell Transfer program memory to cassette 1.75 tape E7 Load programmable system tape 1.75 F3 Interpret schematics of hydraulic 1.75 system All Install sensing plate 2.00 C23 Adjust pressure control unload valve 2.00 D38 Replace hydraulic valves 2.00 C31 Align piston (rod) of hydraulic 2.25 cylinder D23 Replace energy storage cells 2.25 D69 Replace transducers 2.25 D70 Replace transformers 2.25 F7 Prepare safety reports 2.25 C29 Align chain and Sprocket drives 2.50 D31 Replace hydraulic gasket and seals 2.50 D32 Replace hydraulic lines/fittings 2.50 D37 Replace hydraulic system valves 2.50 D71 Replace transistors 2.50 D75 Replace electrical clutch or brake 2.50 F4 Interpret schematics of pneumatic 2.50 system 821 Record meter readings 2.75 D2 Install flexible couplings 2.75 D36 Replace hydraulic strainer/filters 2.75 D58 Replace resistors 2.75 A3 Block and brace equipment for 3.00 mOV1ng D17 Replace drive coupling 3.00 D41 Replace mechanical seals 3.00 D48 Replace pneumatic lines and fittings 3.00 84 TABLE 13 (cont.) Task Task Criticalness # El Complete programming chart 3.00 A16 Raise machinery using jacks, 3.25 bars, slings, etc. D54 Replace programmer 3.25 823 Sample hydraulic fluid 3.50 822 Refill hydraulic system 3.75 4.50 A15 Prepare area for machine installation Table 14 lists the tasks performed on robots of three of the six manufacturers by criticalness to the job perfor- mance. The other three of the six manufacturers' representatives had checked that this task is never per- formed with their robots. TaSk C22, Adjust pneumatic rotary actuator has the highest priority with a mean criticalness of 1.33. Task F9, Translate graphic information to written specifications and A8, Erect barricades, have the lowest priorities with a mean criticalness score of 4.33. TABLE 14 TaSksPerformed on Three of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task to Job Performance Task Task Criticalness # C22 Adjust pneumatic rotary actuator 1.33 C28 Align and adjust belt drive 1.67 C32 Align shafts 1.67 85 TABLE 14 (cont.) Task # Task Criticalness C35 Calibrate timing/clock pulse 1.67 D21 Replace electrical relief valves 1.67 CB4 Calibrate vertical amplitude 2.00 C38 Calibrate multi-vibrator circuit 2.00 85 Clean electrical contact points 2.67 D28 Replace guide rollers 2.67 D68 Replace thermal breakers 2.67 87 Clean hydraulic strainer/filters 3.00 810 Clean tape head 3.00 C25 Adjust servovalves 3.00 D8 Replace air filters 3.00 D29 Replace heat exchanger 3.00 D34 Replace hydraulic pressure gauge 3.00 D35 Replace hydraulic pump 3.00 81 Change gearbox oil 3.33 D33 Replace hydraulic motor 3.33 D45 Replace pneumatic clutch 3.33 A12 Move machine/equipment with skids 3.67 or dollies F10 Write Operational procedures 3.67 A8 Erect barricades 4.33 F9 Translate graphic information do 4.33 written specifications Table 15 lists the tasks performed on robots of two Of the six manufacturers by criticalness to the job per- formance. The other four of the six manufacturers' representatives had checked that this task is never per- formed with their robots. Tasks C8, Adjust Dngenerator 86 output; 024, Adjust probe calibrator Signal; and D25, Replace frequency converter (motor generator) have the highest priority with a mean criticalness of 1.00. Task 89, 9133p reflector mirrors, has the lowest priority with a mean criticalness score of 4.5 TABLE 15 Tasks Performed on Two of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task to Job Performance Task Task Criticalness # C8 Adjust DC generator output 1.00 C24 Adjust probe calibrator signal 1.00 D25 Replace frequency converter 1.00 (motor generator) C14 Adjust hydraulic flow 1.50 C18 Adjust oscillator 1.50 C19 Adjust output of high frequency 1.50 amplifiers C21 Adjust pneumatic controls 1.50 C15 Adjust hydraulic pressure 2.00 C36 Change direction of hydraulic 2.50 pump motor C37 Change rotation of electric motor 2.50 D5' Replace accumulator 2.50 D46 Replace pneumatic cushion unit 2.50 D56 Replace radio frequency interface 2.50 E6 Load data plate 2.50 82 Clean air filters 3.00 816 Lubricate electric motor 3.00 C27 Adjust thermostat 3.00 D43 Replace motor starter 3.00 TABLE 15 (cont.) 'Task Task # D44 Replace motor starter transformer D47 Replace pneumatic gauge assembly F5 Plan quality assessment checks 86 Clean electric motor A7 Crate robot for transfer D14 Replace chain and sprocket drive 817 Lubricate fans/ventilators 89 Clean reflector mirrors Criticalness bbbbwwww .00 .00 .OO .50 .00 .00 .00 .50 87 Table 16 lists the tasks performed on robots of one of the six manufacturers by criticalness to the job perfor- mance. The other five manufacturers' representatives had checked that this task is not performed with their robots. Tasks C4, Adjust armature or field connection voltage; C33, Calibrate P-P voltage; and D55, Replace pulley belt, have the highest priority with a criticalness of 1.00. C17, Adjust modulation percentage; D49, Replace pneumatic lubricator; and F6, Prepare estimates of down time all have the lowest priority with a criticalness score of 5.0. 88 TABLE 16 Tasks Performed on One of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Criticalness of Task to Job Performance Task Task Criticalness # C4 Adjust armature or field 1.00 connection voltage C33 Calibrate P—P voltage 1.00 D55 Replace pulley belt 1.00 811 Clean tape reader 2.00 C2 Adjust AC output resistance 2.00 C23 Adjust pressure control (relief) 2.00 valve 026 Adjust tape reader 2.00 D7 Replace air compressor 2.00 D12 Replace cathode ray tube 2.00 D18 Replace dynamotor 2.00 88 Clean potentiometers 3.00 812 Clean tape recorder 3.00 820 ‘Lubricate tape recorder 3.00 C11 Adjust focus control 3.00 C12 Adjust gibs 3.00 D15 Replace deflection yoke 3.00 D30 Replace hydraulic accumulator 3.00 bladder A13 Paint machinery/equipment 4.00 C17 Adjust modulation percentage 5.00 D49 Replace pneumatic lubricator 5.00 F6 Prepare estimates of down time 5.00 89 Opportunity to learn the task on the job. The responses on the checklist regarding employer expectation and Opportunity to learn on the job were used to compile the priority list for Opportunity to learn on the job. It is generally considered that task competencies required of new employees take a high priority in the teaching of a trade prior to employment. And the greater the Opportunity to learn the task on the job the lower the priority it should take in the teaching of the trade prior to employment. There is, however, a problem with-this consideration and the actual employment situation of today for robot maintenance mechanics that was pointed out during the personal interviews. If the Skills or competencies needed for the job are lacking in the job applicants and new employees, the company has to create the Opportunity to learn them. Consequently, in this field, at this time, the opportunity to learn many of the tasks is good Simply because employers are conducting much of the needed training. In prioritizing the task list for Opportunity to learn on the job, those task competencies required of new employees have priority because they are likely to be job hiring criteria. The larger the number of manufacturers' representatives indicating the task competency is expected of a new employee the higher the priority. The priority 90 list is further prioritized by the Opportunity to learn on the job. The manufacturer's representative had to check whether the Opportunity to learn the task on the job was good, average or poor (Appendix H). Using a scale of one for good, two for average, and three for poor, a priority ranking for the Opportunity to learn was established. The numbers were Simply added to give a priority count. For example in Table 17, task F12, Communicate Verbally; task F13, Communicate in writing; task F11, Communicate using the telephone; and task D39, Rgplace indicator lamps, are the four highest priority tasks because in each case five of the six manufacturers' representatives expected this task per- formance by a new employee. The other tasks had less than five of the six manufacturers' representatives expecting the task performance by a new employee. The four tasks are then prioritized by the Opportunity to learn the task on the job using the priority score. Tasks F12, Communicate verbally, and F13, Communicate in writing, received the highest score which was 14 so they appear highest in priority (a score of 18 would indicate every manufacturer's representative con- sidered the opportunity learn on the job,poor). Task F11, Communicate using the telephone, received a score of 13 so it appears next. Task D39, Replace indicator lamps, received a score of six so it appears after task F11. After these tasks come those where four of the six manufacturers' representatives expected the task performance by a new 91 employee. These tasks are then prioritized by the score for Opportunity to learn on the job. After the tasks where four of the six manufacturers' representatives expected them to be performed by a new employee, are the tasks where three of the six manufacturers' representatives expected them to be performed by a new employee, prioritized by the score for Opportunity to learn on the job. This procedure continues through the Table. The lowest ranked task in Table 17 is A9, Install mechanical stops:fin:robot motion. None of the manufacturers considered it necessary to be performed by a new employee. A score of six was given for the Opportunity to learn on the job; the lower the number the better the Opportunity to learn the task on the job (the score of six indicates every manufacturer gave the Opportunity to learn this task on the job as good). TABLE 17 Tasks Performed on All Six of the Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and Then by Ranking Scale of Opportunity to Learn on the Job Task Task Number of Ranking # Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee F12 Communicate verbally 5 14 F13 Communicate in writing 5 14 F11 Communicate using the 5 13 telephone 92 TABLE 17 (cont.) Number of Manufacturers Ranking Expecting Scale of Performance Opportunity Task By New To Learn # Task Employee on the Job 839 Replace indicator lamps 5 ' 6 D73 Solder/unsolder electronic 4 14 components D74 Splice wires 4 12 84 Clean circulation fans/ 4 7 ventilators 818 Lubricate gear drives 4 7 A6 Connect machine to air/ 4 6 hydraulic/electric source 83 Clean chassis 4 6 F1 Interpret blueprints 3 10 D26 Replace fuses 3 9 D57 Replace relays 2 12 D11 Replace capacitor 2 11 D59 Replace ribbon cables 2 ll F14 Initiate maintenance activity 2 10 D40 Replace integrated circuit 2 10 component D20 Replace electrical 1 l4 c1rcu1t components D19 Replace electric motor 1 11 C30 Align gear drives 1 10 D10 Replace bearings l 9 D62 Replace solenoids l 8 D5 Erase program memory 1 8 A10 Install proximity switch 1 7 E3 Edit program. 1 7 D22 Replace encoders O 12 D3 Locate electronic component 0 11 malfunctions using fault guides 93 TABLE 17 (cont.) Number of Ranking Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance To Learn Task By New on the Job # Task Employee D27 Replace gear drives 0 11 D4 Remove electronic 0 10 components C6 Adjust automatic gain 0 9 control circuit D6 Replace actuator 0 8 D67 Replace teach control 0 8 E10 Test run program 0 8 E4 Enter program using teach 0 7 control A9 Install mechanical stops for 0 6 robot motion Table 18 lists the tasks performed on robots of five of the six manufacturers prioritized first by the number of manufacturers requiring the task competency of a new employee and then by the priority ranking scale for the opportunity to learn the task on the job. Tasks 815, Lubricate chain and sprocket drive, and D9, Replace air regulators, receive the highest priority. Each Of the five manufacturers expected these tasks to be performed by a new employee and each received a score Of six for the Opportunity to learn on the job (a score of five would indicate every manufacturer considered the opportunity to learn the task on the job as good). Task 819, Lubricate 94 linkages and mechanisms ranked lower,though each of the five manufacturers expect the task to be performed by a new employee, because the task received a score of five for the Opportunity to learn on the job (indicating all five manufacturers considered there was good Opportunity to learn the task on the job). TABLE 18 Tasks Performed on Five of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and Then by Ranking Scale of Opportunity to Learn on the Job Task Task Number of Ranking # Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee 815 Lucricate chain and 5 6 sprocket drive D9 Replace air regulators 5 6 819 Lubricate linkages and 5 5 lever mechanisms A2 Attach safety guards, 4 5 Shields, and covers D16 Replace digital display 3 9 segment A14 Position & secure 3 7 machinery on foundation 852 Replace pressure line 3 6 filter D63 Replace solid state diodes 2 12 F2 Interpret schematics of 2 10 electronic circuitry D51 Replace potentiometer 2 9 D53 Replace pressure switch 2 7 95 TABLE 18 (Cont.) Task Task Number of Ranking Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employees D60 Replace servomechanisms l 10 D64 Replace switches (lead, 1 9 contact, mercurial) D65 Replace tachogenerator l 9 82 COpy diskette l 7 A4 Complete incoming checklist 1 5 A5 Complete preinstallation l 5 facility checklist D24 Replace faulty PC boards 0 10 D61 Replace shaft assembly 0 10 C7 Adjust bias network 0 9 C9 Adjust drive gear 0 9 E8 Produce data tape 0 8 E9 Reinitialize program memory 0 8 F8 Train new employees 0 7 Al Align machinery O 6 C3 Adjust amplifier gain 0 6 016 Adjust linkages and 0 6 lever mechanisms Table 19 lists the tasks performed on robots of four of the six manufacturers prioritized first by the number of manufacturers requiring the task competency of a new employee and then by the priority ranking scale for the opportunity to learn on the job. Task A15, Prepare area for machine installation receives the highest priority. 96 Each of the four manufacturers expected this task to be performed by a new employee. The score for the opportunity to learn on the job is five (four would indicate each manu- facturer considered the opportunity to learn the task on the job as good). Tasks All, Install sensing plate; D31, Replace hydraulic gasket and seals; and Ell, Transfer program memory to cassette tape are ranked lowest. None of the manufacturers expected this task competency of a new employee and the score on the Opportunity to learn the task on the job was six. TABLE 19 Tasks Performed by Four of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and Then by Ranking Scale of Opportunity to Learn on the Job Task Task Number of Ranking # Manufacturers Scale of , Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee A15 Prepare area for machine 4 5 installation A3 Block and brace equipment 3 4 for moving D48 Replace pneumatic lines 3 4 and fittings D54 Replace programmer D58 Replace resistors D71 Replace transistors 821 Record meter readings NNNNN O‘C‘VNN D23 Replace energy storage cells 97 TABLE 19 (cont.) Number of 'Ranking Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Task Performance to Learn # Task By New on the Job Employee D32 Replace hydraulic lines/ 2 6 fittings A16 Raise machinery using 2 5 jacks, bars, slings, etc. 822 Refill hydraulic system 2 5 D36 Replace hydraulic 2 4 strainer/filters D41 Replace mechanical seals 2 4 D37 Replace hydraulic system 2 4 valves D70 Replace transformers l 9 F3 Interpret schematics of 1 9 hydraulic system C29 Align and adjust belt drive 7 C23 Adjust pressure control 1 6 unload valve 823 Sample hydraulic fluid 1 6 D69 Replace transducers 1 6 D38 Replace hydraulic valves 1 5 D75 Replace electrical clutch 1 5 or brake F7 Prepare safety reports 5 C31 Align piston (rod) of O 9 hydraulic cylinder F4 Interpret schematics Of 0 8 pneumat1c system D2 Install flexible couplings 0 7 D17 Replace drive coupling 0 7 El Complete programming chart 0 7 E7 Load programmable system 0 7 tape 98 TABLE 19 (cont.) Task Task Number of Ranking # Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee All Install sensing plate 0 6 D31 Replace hydraulic gasket 0 6 and seals Ell Transfer program memory to 0 6 cassette tape Table 20 lists the tasks performed on robots of three ' of the six manufacturers prioritized first by the number of manufacturers requiring the task competency of a new employee and then by the priority ranking scale for the Opportunity to learn the task on the job. Tasks A8, Eppgp barricades, and A12, Move machine/equipment with skids or dollies receive the highest priority. Each of the three manufacturers expect the task competencies of a new employee. The score of five for Opportunity to learn the task on the job was the same for the two tasks. The last ranked task is F9, Transfer graphic information to written specifica- pippp, None of the manufacturers expect the task competency of a new employee and the Opportunity to learn the task on the job is five (average). Task F9 is at the same priority level as tasks C34, C35 and D53 and appears last only because it was last of these four tasks to appear on the questionnaire. TABLE 20 Tasks Performed on Three of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and Then by 99 Ranking Scale of Opportinity to Learn on the Job Task Task Number of Ranking Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee A8 Erect barricades 3 5 A12 Move machine/equipment 3 5 with skids or dollies 87 Clean hydraulic strainer/ 3 3 filters D21 Replace electrical relief 2 5 valves ‘ 81 Change gearbox oil 2 4 .C38 Calibrate multi-vibrator 2 4 circuit D68 Replace thermal breakers 2 4 D8 Replace air filters 2 3 C32 Align shafts 1 7 C28 Align and adjust belt 1 6 drive D29 Replace heat exchanger 6 D34 Replace hydraulic pressure 4 gauge 85 Clean electrical contact 1 3 points 810 Clean tape head 1 3 C22 Adjust pneumatic rotary 1 3 actuator C25 Adjust servovalves 0 6 D28 Replace guide rollers O 6 D35 Replace hydraulic pump 0 6 F10 Write Operational 0 6 procedures C34 Calibrate vertical amplitude 0 5 100 TABLE 20 (cont.) Task Task Number of Ranking # Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee C35 Calibrate timing/clock 0 5 pulse D33 Replace hydraulic motor 0 5 D45 Replace pneumatic motor 0 5 F9 Translate graphic information 0 5 to written specification Table 21 lists the tasks performed on robots of two of the six manufacturers prioritized first by the number of manufacturers requiring the task competency of a new employee and then by the priority ranking scale for the opportunity to learn the task on the job. Task A7, Crate robot for transfer, receives the highest priority. Each of the two manufacturers expected the task competency of a new employee. The score of four for the opportunity to learn the task on the job indicates average opportunity. 101 TABLE 21 Tasks Performed on Two of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and Then by Ranking Scale of Opportunity to Learn on the Job Task Task Number of Ranking Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee A7 Crate robot for 2 4 transfer 817 Lubricate fans/ 2 3 ventilators 82 Clean air filters ' 2 2 89 Clean reflector mirrors 2 2 C21 Adjust pneumatic 2 2 controls D47 Replace pneumatic gauge 2 2 assembly C15 Adjust hydraulic l 4 pressure C24 Adjust probe calibrator 1 4 signal C27 Adjust thermostat 1 4 D25 Replace frequency con- 1 4 verter(motor generator) C18 Adjust oscillator 1 3 C19 Adjust output of high frequency amplifiers C36 Change direction of 1 3 hydraulic pump motor C37 Change rotation of 1 3 electric motor 86 Clean electric motor 816 Lubricate electric motor C8 Adjust DC generator 0 5 output C14 Adjust hydraulic flow 0 4 102 TABLE 21 (cont.) Task Task Number of Ranking # Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee E6 Load data plate 0 4 D5 Replace accumulator 0 3 D14 Replace chain and Sprocket 0 3 D43 Replace motor Starter 0 3 D44 Replace motor starter 0 3 transformer D56 Replace radio frequency 0 3 F5 Plan quality assessment 0 D46 Replace pneumatic cushion 0 2 unit Table 22 lists the tasks performed on robots of one of the Six manufacturers prioritized first by the number of manufacturers requiring the task competency of a new employee and then by the priority ranking scale for the Opportunity to learn the task on the job. Task 820, Lubricate tape recorder receives the highest priority. The manufacturer expected the new employee to have the task competency and, the task offered only average Opportunity to learn on the job. TABLE 22 103 Tasks Performed on One of the Six Manufacturers' Robots Prioritized by Number of the Manufacturers Expecting Performance by New Employee and Then by Ranking Scale of Opportunity to Learn on the Job Task Task Number of Ranking # Manufacturers Scale of Expecting Opportunity Performance to Learn By New on the Job Employee 820 Lubricate tape recorder 1 2 A13 Paint machinery/equipment 1 1 88 Clean potentiometers l 1 D49 Replace pneumatic l 1 lubricator C2 Adjust AC output 0 3 resistance C26 Adjust tape reader 0 3 C33 Calibrate P-P voltage 0 3 D12 Replace cathode ray tube 0 3 D15 Replace deflection yoke 0 3 C11 Adjust focus control 0 2 D7 Replace air compressor 0 2 D18 Replace dynamotor 0 2 F6 Prepare estimates of O 2 down time 811 Clean tape reader 0 1 812 Clean tape recorder 0 1 C4 Adjust armature or field 0 1 connection voltage C12 Adjust gibs O 1 C17 Adjust modulation 0 1 percentage C23 Adjust pressure control 0 l (relief) valve 830 Replace hydraulic 0 l accumulator bladder D55 Replace pulley belt 0 1 104 Three additional duties. There were three additional duties on the checklist. Although they were not considered central to the robot mechanic's job as defined, data on these duties were con- sidered useful. The Duty of administering personnel was indicated done by three of the six manufacturers. The most common frequency was weekly and the task had a critical- ness level of 2.67. No employer expected this task to be done within the first six months of employment. The 22px of supervising maintenance and repair function was done by all six manufacturers. The most common frequency was weekly and the task had a criticalness level of 1.67. No employer expected the task to be done within the first six months of employment. And the Duty of working metal with hand or portable tools was expected by five of the six manufacturers. The most common frequency was monthly and the task had a criticalness level of 2.4. Three Of the five employers expected this duty to be done by a new employee. Review of the tasks. Tables 5 through 22 list the tasks performed on robots of the six manufacturers in terms of frequency performed, criticalness, and Opportunity to learn on the job. Some tasks are performed on robots of all six manufacturers, some on the robots of five of the Six manufacturers, some 105 on four of the Six manufacturers, some on three, some on two, and some are performed on the robots of only one of the manufacturers. The essential tasks for an individual robot mainte- nance mechanic will vary depending on the robots for which he is responsible. However, the more manufacturers requir- ing the task performance the more likely an individual is to be required to perform the task. For this reason, more concern should be given to tasks expected of all Six manu- facturers than of five manufacturers and more concern given to tasks expected of five manufacturers than of four manu- facturers and so on. The selection of tasks from the tables will vary according to the needs and preferences of the selector. Herschbach says a great number of combinations of selection factors exist and while some procedures help quantify the decision-making as to what should be taught, they do not eliminate the need to make judgments.132 The weight one puts on frequency of performance compared to criticalness of performance will influence any overall priority order of tasks; as will the weight one puts on criticalness of per- formance compared to Opportunity to learn on the job. The objective of this study was to identify tasks, prioritized by frequency, criticalness, and opportunity to learn on the job. The educational designer can then make the necessary judgments as to what to teach from the tables. 106 This writer has made some selections. It is acknowledged they contain a level of judgment. The selections are presented and discussed in Chapter V. Findings for the Second Objective The second objective of the study was to contrast tasks identified for use today and tasks projected for 1990. The procedure used in identifying these differences is discussed in Chapter 111. No task is eliminated from the present list of tasks when projected to tasks necessary in 1990. No Specific tasks were identified as being necessary in 1990 which are not now being performed, although some general and broad areas were suggested. These general and broad areas included camera repair work for robots with vision. Two reSpondents mentioned an increased use of pneumatics. One respondent mentioned a decreased use of pneumatics. Robots with self- diagnostic qualities were also mentioned. It was reasoned by the respondents that most robots purchased today will be in Operation in seven years time. Changes in robot design will be in the form of additions and improvements, such as vision, which will have little effect on the basic task competencies required. For these two reasons the reSpondents see little change in actual task requirements from today when looking to 1990. 107 There are a few changes in the number of manufacturers who will require the task be completed. Table 23 is a list of the projected differences between the tasks performed today and expected in 1990 by the manufacturers. For all but two of the tasks listed, the number of manufacturers requiring the task to be performed in 1990 will drOp by one (-1) from the number of manufacturers who presently require the task performance. In the case of task C28, Align and adjust belt drive, the number of manu- facturers requiring the task will drop by two (—2) from three to one. The only task which increases is C21, Adjust pneumatic controls. Two respondents considered a line of robots being develOped with more advanced pneumatic capabilities will require adjustment of controls which are not now necessary. One respondent considered this task to be unnecessary in 1990. This gives the task a gain of one in the number of manufacturers requiring the task. TABLE 23 Projected Differences Between the Tasks Performed Today and Those Expected to be Performed in 1990 Task Task Number of Change in Manufacturers Number of Requiring Manufacturers Task Now Requiring Task in 1990 A8 Erect barricades 3 -1 85 Clean electrical contact 3 -1 points Task # 810 811 812 816 817 C9 C28 C29 C30 D38 C21 TABLE 23 (cont.) Task Number of Manufacturers Requiring Task Now Clean tape head 3 Clean tape reader 1 Clean tape recorder l Lubricate electric mOtor 2 Lubricate fans/ 2 ventilators Adjust drive gear 5 Align and adjust belt 3 drive Align chain and sprocket 4 drives Align gear drives 6 Replace hydraulic valves 4 Adjust pneumatic controls 2 108 Change in Number of Manufacturers Requiring Task in 1990 Findings for the Third Objective The third objective of the study was to identify the structural difficulties in existing job classifications for the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots. In verifying the tasks performed by robot maintenance mechanics, contact with mechanics who worked for the manufacturers and mechanics who worked for the robot user 109 companies was attempted. It was soon found, however, that despite the projections for robot maintenance mechanics in the future very few of them were, at the time, working in the robot user plants. This was consistent with literature identified in Chapter II of this study. Telephone contact with forty Michigan plants and subsequent personal interviews with six individuals associated with the use of robots in their plants, clearly demonstrated that a problem exists between projections and the Situation of today. The selection of the forty Michigan plants contacted was discussed in Chapter III. Of the forty plants surveyed. seventeen used robots. In fourteen plants robots were repaired and maintained by personnel with previously existing job titles. At the Budd Company in Detroit, electricians were responsible for the plant's two robots. Whirlpool Corporation in St. Joseph had several robots which were maintained and repaired by their millwrights, electricians, and machine maintenance personnel. Mueller Brass Company in Port Huron had their elec- tricians and machine maintenance personnel repair every problem with the plant's robots except once, when the problem was covered by the manufacturer's warranty. The Personnel Manager of Tecumseh Products said his company saw no need for robot maintenance mechanics because Skills necessary to maintain and repair them 110 existed within present job classifications. Any new job classification would not be covered by the union-management agreement. The union had an interest in identifying any skills necessary as being part of an existing job. Similar comments were made by the head of the Master Mechanics Department at General Motors Pontiac Plant. He said robots were just another piece of equipment on an automated assembly line. Consequently the equipment was maintained and repaired with the skills already present in the existing job classifications: electricians for electri- cal problems, machine maintenance for mechanical and . hydraulic problems, pipefitters for pneumatic problems. In addition, millwrights were responsible for installation and the lubrication department was responsible for lubrica- tion. He pointed out that unions had made clear their interest in keeping with these job classifications and their lines of demarcation. The unions believe this will shelter the jobs of current union members and allow them to learn new skills relating to their jobs. Otherwise, they fear, a new job could be created requiring new employees, reducing the jobs of existing employees. Ford Motor Company was develOping robot maintenance training within existing job classifications. Specifica- tions for a Technical Training Program on Industrial Robot Maintenance states: 111 Since Ford has a variety of trade classifications which may require robot training, the equipment shall be subdivided into the following groups: electrical, mechanical, fluid power. . . The in- cluded audience of this program is the Industrial Electrician, Hydraulic Repairmen or Machine Repairman (depending on task concerned) at Ford Motor Company. This program has the support of the union. It appeared that for many Michigan manufacturers a robot maintenance mechanic is considered unnecessary. The Skills needed or expected to be needed to install, maintain, repair, and Operate the robots exist within current jobs. The companies that had created robot related positions- had developed different job titles. At Steelcase in Grand Rapids, the recent purchase of robots required two new job titles, a Robotic Mig Welder and a Robotic Arc Welding Technician. The Mig Welder "Observes Operation of robot to detect any control malfunctions and performs minor correc- tive action. Reports any major malfunctions to the Robotic Mig Welding Technician or Supervisor. Sic"134 The primary function of the Robotic Arc Welding Technician was written, "Program and select apprOpriate modes of Operation for the automatic arc welding robots. Troubleshoots equipment mal- function. pip"135 The immediate supervisor for both jobs was the foreman. At Bendix Corporation's Hydraulics Division in St. Joseph, a person with the title of Robot Engineer was responsible for maintaining, repairing, and programming the plant's robots. 112 At Detroit Plastic Molding Company one person, the Supervisor for Maintenance, had assumed the reSponSibility for the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of all robots in the plant, doing most of the work per- sonally. It was noted that the involvement with robots of Detroit Plastics Molding Company was more than most other companies contacted. Yet the installation, maintenance, repair, and operation of robots were not the only respon- sibilities of the Supervisor's job. To further explore this concern, an additional question was added to the follow-up mailed questionnaire sent to the manufacturers of robots (Appendix I) which asked: In the robot user plant, how many robots do you think it would take for a person (assuming he has all the necessary Skills and the robots are of average complexity) to work full-time in the maintenance and repair Of robots? The mean average response was eleven robots. This suggested that until a plant had at least eleven robots there was not enough work to keep a robot maintenance mechanic employed full-time at that job. Considering this and the fact that Hunt and Hunt reported there were 6,800 robots in use in the United States in 1982, the number of full-time robot maintenance mechanics in the U.S. would be (if every plant that had robots had eleven or a multiple of eleven) a maximum of approximately 618.136 Of the seventeen plants identified who had robots, only four had eleven or more. Therefore, in many instances, 113 the number of robots a plant had in Operation was below the number of robots necessary to require a full-time position for robot installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation. It appeared that there were two reasons for the lack of robot maintenance mechanics in the plants using robots. One reason was that most plants had too few robots to require a full-time position of robot maintenance mechanic. And the other reason was that a robot maintenance mechanic was considered unnecessary in most Michigan plants because the skills needed to install, maintain, repair, and operate the robots already existed in other positions in the plants. The question then became, how will industry get from very few robot maintenance mechanics today to the large numbers projected for 1990? The projection of future robot use is one reason for the increase in robot maintenance mechanics. With the projected growth in numbers of robots there will be more plants with enough robots to have a full-time robot main- tenance mechanic. This would be the case at companies which have taken the maintenance route of Detroit Plastics Molding, Bendix, and Steelcase. The other reason for lack of robot maintenance mechanics today, that of the Skills already existing in the plant, Should not be overlooked when projecting for the future. However, the subdividing of these mechanics 114 into specialized Skill areas within their trade should not be overlooked either. At Massey Ferguson, the Maintenance Supervisor reported that their electricians repaired and maintained the robots. However, they were the electricians who went through the robot manufacturer's training program and they will be expected to work on any new robots. Each of the robot manufacturers participating in this study offered training programs in the installation, main- tenance, repair, and operation of the robots sold. The peOple who attended the training programs were the mechanics. who would be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the robots. At Ford Motor Company the planned training program was designed for trades peOple to assume the duties of mainte— nance and repair of the robots.137 The program covered Unimation, Prab, ASEA and Cincinnati Milacron robots. The maintenance personnel with the specialized skills of main- tenance and repair of robots obtained through training were the individuals expected to maintain and repair them. As the number of robots grows in the plants, the indi- viduals with knowledge of the robots will Spend more time on robot maintenance and less on their other duties. A person may therefore spend all his time on the maintenance and repair of robots but still have the job title of elec— trician or machine maintenance mechanic. This, according to 115 the Service Manager at ASEA in Detroit, is what happened in Sweden's Volvo Plant where he worked for twelve years before working for ASEA. Electricians there, worked with machine maintenance mechanics to maintain and repair the robots. The lines of demarcation between jobs were less clearly defined and they OOOperated in their assigned duties of maintenance and repair of the robots. This had not come about in the companies contacted. The unions were very interested in maintaining clearly defined lines of demarcation. At General Motors Pontiac Plant the attempt to complete the task checklist question- naire required a machine maintenance mechanic, an electrician, a pipefitter, a millwright, a person from the lubrication department and an industrial engineer. This required going to different parts of the plant for each segment of the interview. The electrician would work on electrical problems and the machine maintenance mechanic would work on mechanical problems. Thus, it could take several peOple to take a turn working on a problem with a robot. ASEA'S Service Manager pointed out that his service peOple were usually sent to a plant when the problem was not clearly electrical or mechanical, or when such things as electrical malfunctions caused a mechanical malfunction. He did not understand how (based on his experience at Volvo) ASEA'S customers were willing to wait a day with no produc— tion, for the ASEA service mechanic, because they did not 116 have peOple who knew the machine completely enough to fix it. The Maintenance Supervisor at Detroit Plastics Molding observed that when robot service mechanics were called in, they did not know any more about electricity and elec- tronics or mechanics or hydraulics or pneumatics; they just knew more about robots. An Industrial Engineer at Pontiac Motors believed the maintenance personnel needed to know more about robotics and not just the parts of robots that related to the person's trade. This would, however, lead to crossing established lines of demarcation in unionized plants such as his. The interviews with the Six manufacturers' represen- tatives, six individuals on the user side, and telephone interviews, generated two views on the maintenance and repair of robots. One view was that skills necessary for the maintenance and repair of robots existed in the plant. The other view was that the necessary skills were not the only consideration; efficiency in the installation, main- tenance, repair, and Operation was necessary and Specialists in the maintenance and repair of robots would be more efficient. 117 Summary For the first Objective it was found that 165 tasks were performed by robot maintenance mechanics in Michigan. These tasks are presented in three sets of tables. The first set orders the tasks by frequency performed, the second set orders the tasks by criticalness to the job and the third set orders them by the opportunity to learn the task on the job. The essential tasks for an individ- ual robot maintenance mechanic will vary depending on the robots for which he is responsible. For the second objective it was found that task com- petencies required of robot maintenance mechanics will change very little between 1983 and 1990. For the third objective it was found that despite the projections for robot maintenance mechanics in the future, there were very few of them. There were two rea- sons for this: most plants had too few robots to require a full-time position of robot maintenance; and a robot maintenance mechanic was considered unnecessary in most plants because many of the skills needed already exist in other positions in the plant. There were two views on the maintenance of robots. One view was that skills necessary for the maintenance and repair of robots existed in the plant. The other view was 118 that the necessary skills were not the only consideration: efficiency was necessary and specialists in the maintenance and repair of robots would be more efficient. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section contains the conclusions associated with the three objectives. The second section contains implications of the study. The third section contains recommendations. The fourth section contains reflections by the researcher. Conclusions Conclusions for the First Objective. The first objective was to identify tasks necessary to perform the job of industrial robot maintenance mechanic in Michigan, prioritized by frequency performed, critical- . ness, and Opportunity to learn on the job. There are 165 task competencies necessary for robot maintenance mechanics. These tasks are within six duties. Sixteen of the tasks are within the duty Of installing and moving robots. Twenty-one of the tasks are within the duty of performing preventative maintenance. There are thirty-four tasks within the duty of maintaining robots. Sixty-nine tasks are within the duty of performing repairs 119 120 on robots. Eleven tasks are in the duty of programming the robots and there are fourteen tasks in the duty of communicating. Although not central to the job of the robot maintenance mechanic as defined, there are three additional duties that the robot maintenance mechanic can be expected to perform. These duties are: administering personnel, supervising maintenance and repair functions, and working metal with hand or portable tools. Because the robots are built differently the exact number of tasks an individual robot maintenance mechanic will perform will depend on the manufacture and type of robots the robot mechanic is responsible for. Of the 165 task competencies necessary for robot maintenance mechanics, thirty-five are expected to be performed on the robots of all Six of the six largest manufacturers of robots in the United States (the six largest manufacturers produced 97% of robot sales in the United States in 1980). Twenty-seven of the tasks are expected to be performed by five of the Six largest manufacturers of robots. Thirty-two are expected to be performed by four of the six largest manufacturers. Twenty-four are expected to be performed by three of the six manufacturers. Twenty-six are expected by two of the manufacturers and twenty-one by just one of the six manu- facturers. 121 Of the 165 task competencies necessary, 109 encompass traditional areas of electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic Skills. Fifty-five of the tasks can be considered electrical, twenty-six can be considered mechanical, nine- teen can be considered hydraulic, and nine can be considered pneumatic. Some of the other fifty-Six tasks could fall within the requirements of any of these trade areas depending on how clearly defined the lines of demarcation between the jobs are, as for example, task A6, Connect machine to air/hydraulic/electrical source. Some tasks are difficult to classify such as 88, Clean reflector mirrors.i Programming tasks are not encompassed by other trade areas. The tasks vary in frequency of performance from daily to yearly or less. They vary in criticalness to job per- formance from a level of 1.00 indicating critical to job performance to 5.00 indicating not very important to job performance. The tasks also vary in the opportunity to learn the tasks on the job and the number of manufacturers expect- ing the task performance by a new employee. No task competency was expected of a new employee by all six manu- facturers. There were Six task competencies expected of a new employee by five of the six manufacturers. These compe- tencies were 815, D9, F11, F12, and F13. These task competencies could be considered important as job entry requirements and therefore could have implications for education and training. 122 Any attempt to prioritize tasks based on all informa- tion gathered, that is, the number of manufacturers requiring the task performance, the frequency of the task performance, the criticalness to job performance, and the Opportunity to learn the task on the job is judgmental. An overall prioritizing of the tasks will vary according to the needs and purpose of those doing the selecting. For training to work with Specific robots, only those task competencies necessary for those Specific robots need be considered. The value one puts on the various areas will influence any overall priority order of tasks. A demonstration. For purposes of demonstration the writer of this study has develOped an overall priority list as an educa- tional designer might do for a hypothetical, general, pre- employment program or curriculum for robot maintenance. Considerations are the rank order positions of the tasks and number of the manufacturers requiring the task to be done. Judgment is used in weighing frequency against criticalness and all other combinations of factors such as the worth of a task performed daily over a task performed weekly, or a criticalness to job performance of 1.4 over that of 1.83. There were twenty-four tasks that appeared, to this writer, to be more prominent than the other 141. Of these 123 twenty-four, the tOp ten are discussed in priority order to illustrate the factors involved in the judgment process. All twenty-four are presented in Table 24. No. l 83, Locate electronic component malfunctions using fault guides. All six manufacturers required this task to be done. Five of the six manufacturers said it was performed daily. In terms of the frequency ranking, this task had the joint highest priority. This task had the highest criticalness priority with the Six manufacturers with a criticalness level of 1.67 on a scale of 1-5. No manufacturer expected_ a new employee to perform the task. It had an average learning opportunity on the job. No. 2 820, Replace electrical circuit components. All six of the manufacturers required this task to be done. Four manufacturers expected this task to be performed daily, placing it fifth in priority of the Six manufacturers in terms of frequency performed. The task had a critical- ness level of 1.83 which placed it fourth in criticalness priority. One of the Six manufacturers expected this task performance of a new employee. No. 3 84, Remove electronic components. All Six manufacturers required this task to be done. Two manufacturers expected this to be done daily and two 124 expected it to be done weekly, placing it seventh in priority of six manufacturers in terms of frequency per- formed. The task has a criticalness level of 1.67 which puts it at the highest priority. Although no manufacturer expected a new employee to perform the task, it has an average learning Opportunity on the job. No. 4 F12, Communicate verbally. All six manufacturers required this task to be done. Five of the Six manufacturers said it was performed daily. This task had joint highest priority in terms of frequency. The task had a criticalness level of 1.83 which placed it fourth in priority. Five of the Six manufacturers expected this task performance of a new employee. It was considered quite difficult to learn on the job, placing it highest in terms of lack of Opportunity to learn on the job. No. 5 F11, Communicate using the telephone. All Six manufacturers required this task to be done. Four manufacturers expected this task to be performed daily, placing it fifth in priority of Six manufacturers in terms of frequency performed. The task had a critical— ness level of 1.83 which placed it fourth in priority. Five of the Six manufacturers expected this task performance of a new employee. 125 NO. 6 C16, Adjust linkages and lever mechanisms. Five of the six manufacturers required this task to be done. Four of the five manufacturers said it was done weekly. This task had the highest criticalness level of all tasks. The five manufacturers gave it a criticalness level of 1.40. No manufacturer expected this task to be performed by a new employee. No. 7 F2, Interpret schematics of electronic circuitry. Five of the six manufacturers required this task to be performed. Three of the five expected it to be done daily.k The task was given a criticalness level of 1.8 by the five manufacturers, placing it joint third in priority in critical- ness for five manufacturers. Two of the five manufacturers expected this task to be performed by a new employee and the Opportunity to learn it on the job was average. No. 8 F14, Initiate maintenance activities (self-starter). All Six manufacturers required this task to be done. Two of the manufacturers said it is done daily, two weekly, and two monthly. The task had a criticalness level of 1.83 which placed it joint fourth in priority of those tasks required by all six manufacturers. Two of the Six manufacturers expected this task to be completed by a new employee. The Opportunity to learn this task on the job was a little better than average. 126 No. 9 F13, Communicate in writing. All six manufacturers required this task to be done. Four of the six manufacturers said it was done weekly. The task had a criticalness level of 2.00, which placed it joint eighth in priority of those tasks required by all six manu- facturers. Five of the six manufacturers expected this task to be completed by a new employee. The Opportunity to learn this task on the job was poor, placing it joint highest in terms of lack of opportunity to learn on the job. No. 10 E4, Enter program using teach control. All six of the manufacturers required this task to be performed. Four of the six manufacturers said it was done daily. The criticalness level was 2.00, placing it joint eighth in priority of those tasks required by all six manufacturers. No manufacturer expected a new employee to perform this task on the job and there was a good Opportunity to learn this task on the job. Twenty-four tasks appear, to this writer, more prominent for the teaching of a hypothetical, general pre-employment program or curriculum for robot maintenance. These tasks are listed in the order they appeared on the questionnaire. No attempt has been made to prioritize them; varying objectives for prioritizing would result in a different priority order. The task is listed with the number of manufacturers requiring the task, the most commonly selected 1127 c oc.~ >_xooz m apnoea om xu~aom moo—mom own mucocoasoo _ No._ 2\n o umaouao .nOeuuoo_o won—aox em: 0 mo._ 3\a o mucocoasoo U.SOOOOO_O o>oaoz co mommsw u—zmu wean: mcomuocau~ma commode o No._ x—.mp o ucocoasoO o_:Ouuoo~o cameo; ma wc_suouuom o>~m> poo—c: ~ oo.~ x—xooz . c _ouucoo museums; unamp< emu o No.~ z\3\o m amaze soo_o\w:.s_o Ououpa~nc mnu _ ee.a z\:\e m nameee ewa_< Nee asmmcnsooa e ee.z a_1aaz a ea>a_ ten neweae__ eaanea e_o o o:.~ >~JOOS w xuozuoc no“; unanp< Nu umsouao c an _ xusucos o _Ouu:oO :‘mw oqusOuna umznp< co acoSaasco o ee.~ n.4oa3 a can» ea_e__asa senate no weaeeeaeen: muo>oo can a eq.~ :\o n np_o_zm .opuoaw accuse Lonuu< ~< o oe._ z\2 m aeaeaeons ew._< .a we___naee_ mooao_asm auscuoasoo :62 me some amok wcauooaxm wcmuooaxm humeruoouzcm: muouzuomuncoz a “O Conan: muocnno_umuo xocostLm no coasaz gunk some >83: ecomcouooaxm uo>o~a5m can .mmocmmo«u~uu .AOSOSVOOm .muOuauoomacmz Lo cones: uo nance cu ucocfiEOLS who: one: page mance uncu-xu:ozh och ON mam~xooz o 2.2. a :3. e >~xooz q been a rent a >~xooz o 3\n m auxooz q z\:\n o :18 e AOSOOOQEOU amok w:_uooaxm muouauonuscoz >OCOSUOSR no amasnz A.ucoOv #N m4m_uom cococmuc_ms cameo“:— w:_u«93 :_ mumomcassou a-m3uo> Ououwcaasou ocozao_6u may mega: monuacsasou Seaman o__:eup>: mo mo_ueso;om avenue:— auu_zou_o OMSOOOOO~O uo mouuoSozoo uOuQuOuS. mama Ouuommmo on zuoaos Emquua usuacouh EQOwOOQ can geek zuo5os Emquua o~.~o_4_:.om mama Seaman o—nmfiSoquua coo; access Eoquua omeum gooey wean: amuwoha usacm ammb q_m m—L -m -m mm mm -m adm om mm nm em 4mm? comuaauouc_ wcmuoomcsssou wcmssmquum anon 129 frequency, the criticalness level, and the number of manu- facturers expecting the task to be performed by a new employee. Two notable omissions are tasks 815 and 89. Although five of Six employers considered them job entry requirements, in this writer's judgment they ranked too low in all other areas. Conclusions for the Second Objective. The second objective contrasts tasks identified for use today and tasks projected for 1990. Task competencies required of robot maintenance mechanics will change very little between 1983 and 1990. There are two major reasons for this. The first is, robots purchased today are expected to still be in Operation in 1990. The second reason is that changes in robot design will be in the form of additions and improvements. These changes will have little effect on the basic task compe- tencies required. Improvements in vision, touch, and self diagnostics will generally require the use of tasks already identified. Some new tasks may be expected due to techno- logical develOpmentS such as cameras for vision. New, Specific task requirements arising from technological developments proceed from the development. AS the average age of robots increase in a plant, some tasks will be performed more frequently than when the machines were newer. Robot maintenance mechanics may 130 not perform as many major repairs in the early years of a robot's life as in the later years, so task performances may Shift in a given plant. Conclusions for the Third Objective The third objective identifies structural difficulties in job classification associated with robots. There are, at present, few robot maintenance mechanics in Michigan manufac- turing plants. There are two reasons: 1. Most Michigan plants have too few robots to require a full-time position of robot maintenance mechanic. It takes an average of eleven average complexity robots to require One full-time position of robot maintenance mechanic. 2. A robot maintenance mechanic is unnecessary in most Michigan plants because many of the task competencies neces- sary to install, maintain, repair, and operate the robots al- ready exist in other job positions in the plant. Of the 165 tasks necessary, 109 can be considered the domain of the elec- trician, machine maintenance, hydraulic repairman or pipefit- ter. In some plants the millwrights would be responsible for the complete duty of installing and moving the robot. The Lubrication Department (as identified in one large company) can be responsible for all tasks associated with the lubrica- tion of robots. Some of the remaining tasks are common to more than one trade area, further increasing the number of tasks in the domain of existing job positions. 131 The fact that many of the skills exist in the plants is cause for one view on the installation, maintenance, repair and operation of robots. This view is: since Skills already exist in the plant it is unnecessary to have Specialized full-time robot maintenance mechanics. Unions are subscribing to this view because they have a particular interest in maintaining the present jobs of their members. Another view is, that having the necessary skills is not the only consideration. Efficiency in the installa- tion, maintenance, repair, and Operation is necessary; and Specialists in the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots would be more efficient. This requires a specialized full-time robot maintenance mechanic; a person knowledgeable of the type of problems associated with robots and who can identify them quickly. One view on the installation, maintenance, repair and Operation of robots is supported out of the desire to maintain existing job classifications, the other view is supported out of the desire for efficiency in diagnosis of problems. In this Study the respondents to the checklist of tasks were robot manufacturers' representatives. They had no concern with the maintenance of job classifications in the robot user plants. This writer selected and ranked, for demonstration purposes, ten tasks which were judged 132 to be the most prominent for a hypothetical pre-employment program in Conclusions for the First Objective. Of these ten tasks, little knowledge of any Skill area is required of four of them; they are: F12, Communicate verbally; F13, Communicate in writing; F11, Communicate using the telephone; and F14, Initiate maintenance activities (self starter). All are Skills necessary for diagnosticians to communicate their findings. Task 83, Locate electronic component malfunctions using fault guides and task F2, Interpret schematics of electronic circuitry, are also in this hypothetical tOp ten and are necessary task compe- tencies for diagnoses of robot problems. The task list shows the impOrtance of diagnoses of problems, the interviews at Detroit Plastics Molding Com- pany and ASEA illustrate problems associated with failure to diagnose correctly. For those mechanics who are not able to diagnose a problem, the ability to communicate with the diagnostician is still a high priority. It was not the purpose of this study to find which method of maintenance is best. However, the level of efficiency attained will have a direct bearing on the number of jobs associated with the installation, mainte- nance, repair, and Operation of robots. And the decisions by companies regarding how their maintenance is to be done will have a direct bearing on the number of robot 133 maintenance mechanics in the future. Thus Structural problems with existing job classifications will affect the number of robot maintenance mechanics employed. The single most important factor regarding the structural problems is the position unions in the robot user plants take regarding the job classification of robot maintenance mechanics. Implications During interviews with the six rObot manufacturers' representatives, the telephone interviews with the forty users, and personal interviews with the Six users, two broad questions were asked, to assist in identifying implications: 1. What is the educational background of those who install, maintain, repair, and Operate robots? 2. What is the desired educational back- ground for those who install, maintain, repair, and Operate robots? In Objective One, task competencies necessary in the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots were identified. In Objective Two, few differences between the task competencies necessary today and those projected to be necessary in 1990 were identified. 1k: Objective Three, problems with the existing job classifications for 134 the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots were identified. All of these findings have implications for the education and training of robot main- tenance mechanics. Many tasks identified in Objective One can be divided into the Skill areas of electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, programming, and communicating. These areas are an integral part of the robot mechanic's work and will have to be learned by the mechanic. It can be seen in Tables 5 through 22 that some tasks are per- formed more frequently than others, some are more critical than others, there is a greater opportunity to learn some on the job than others, and some are required of more manufacturers of robots than others. In terms of being expected of a new employee the moat prominent of these tasks are three of the communication tasks. Tasks F12, Communicate verbally, F13, Communicate in writing, and F11, Communicate using the telephone, are expected of a new employee by five of the six manufacturers and they are considered difficult to learn on the job. Task F12, Communicate verbally, is expected to be performed daily by five of the six manufacturers. Task F11, Communicate using the telephone, is expected to be performed daily by four of the six manufacturers. Task F13, Communicate in writing, is expected to be performed weekly by four of the six manufacturers. These three tasks also rank high 135 in terms of criticalness to the job. Tasks F11 and F12 have a criticalness level of 1.83 and F13 has a critical- ness level of 2.00. These levels indicate it is critical to job performance. Communication Skills in education and training programs should take a high priority. Several electrical tasks take a high priority in frequency and criticalness, but they are reported less likely to be required by a new employee. 83, Locate elec- tronic component malfunctions using fault guides, is expected to be done daily by five of the six manufacturers requiring the task. 84, Remove electronic components and“ 820, Replace electrical circuit components are expected to be performed daily/weekly. All three of these electrical tasks have a criticalness level of 1.67. These tasks are not expected of new employees but they are expected within six months of employment. Any education or training pro- gram must therefore provide the necessary background for the new employee to be able to learn and perform the task within six months. Almost all task competencies recorded are expected by the new employee either immediately or within six months of employment. Education and training programs must provide the necessary background in elec- trical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, communicating, and programming areas so the student can perform the task within six months of employment. 136 The ability to not only avoid and correct problems but also to diagnose problems should be taught. For those mechanics who are not taught to diagnose problems the ability to communicate with the diagnostician is essential. The task competencies expected in 1990 compared with today will have changed little. Students educated and trained for repair and maintenance of robots today will possess the necessary task competencies to maintain and repair the industrial robots in the plants in 1990. Any additional competencies necessary will likely require minimal updating of the employee. The major implications for education and training are derived from Objective Three, the Structural problems. If a large prOportion of the plants using robots con- tinue to use existing skill areas for the maintenance and repair of robots, most education and training Should be directed towards these existing Skill areas. Electricians, machine mechanics, hydraulic repairmen, pipefitters, and industrial engineers should be prepared for the Operation of robots. Tasks associated with robots which fit the skill area Should be taught if the student could reasonably be expected to work on robots. If a large prOportion of plants using robots move to the specialized skills of robot maintenance mechanics for the repair and maintenance of robots, education and train- ing programs can provide the necessary competencies required 137 through training on the tasks identified in Objective One. However, very few plants presently have enough robots to occupy, full time, a robot maintenance mechanic. The community colleges in Michigan that have robot programs should consider the employment Opportunities of robot program graduates carefully. The Technical Training and Contracts Supervisor of the Management and Technical Training Department at the Ford North American Training Center, sees no Opportunity for these graduates at Ford for two reasons. The first is, the company is interested in task competencies not course credits; the second is that the company draws from Skilled trades for training in these task competencies. The Supervisor of Maintenance at Detroit Plastics Molding sees a need for the graduates of these programs, robot maintenance mechanics, able to maintain and repair a variety of manufacturers' robots. The robot manu- facturers generally consider the two-year community college robotics program beneficial. In fact, several of the interviewees were on advisory boards to community college programs. Several of the manufacturers' robot maintenance mechanics have been enrolled in the robotics programs. The robot manufacturers consider the community college degree the apprOpriate educational requirement for the job. The unfortunate point is that at present, outside of the robot manufacturers, few companies have a robot maintenance mechanic, few companies are looking to hire robot mainte- 138 nance mechanics, and few companies have enough robots to employ a full-time, robot maintenance mechanic. The high school vocational programs in Michigan should consider robotics education carefully, also. The literature generally projects that robot maintenance mechanics will be graduates of two-year degree programs. The manufacturers in this study generally consider the two-year college pro- gram the apprOpriate educational medium and level. The robot user plants generally consider skilled trades train- ing as the apprOpriate medium. While a robotics program may well be sufficient motivation to learn basic elec- tronics, mechanics, hydraulics, pneumatics, communicating, and robot operating Skills it is unlikely that any signi- ficant number of placements as robot maintenance mechanics (or trainees) will occur. On the one side, manufacturers consider the two-year degree apprOpriate. 0n the other side, the robot user plants are unlikely to hire any signi- ficant number of personnel for the robot maintenance mechanic positions. It was stated in Chapter I that robots have evolved. Robots are not a result of a revolution as much as an evolu- tion; as such, the move to this type of machine has been gradual. Recognition of this by educators and trainers has important implications for their programs. There are other machines that have similar characteristics in terms of electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic work- 139 ings. These machines include: numerical controlled machines, computer numerical controlled machines, computer aided manufacturing machines, and machining centers. A broader program which addresses all these areas, such as an electro-mechanical program, could broaden the employ- ability of Students. One view on the installation, maintenance, repair and Operation of robots is supported out of the desire to maintain existing job classifications. If the ability to diagnose problems is hindered by this (the evidence sug- gests it will), then Opportunities will exist for peOple who can diagnose robot problems either with robot manu- facturers or independent contractors. These individuals will require education and training. The number of indi- viduals required will be determined by the number of robots in Operation, the rate at which problems arise and the ability of the non-diagnosticians to identify the problems themselves. Recommendations Recommendations Relating to Education and Training There are seven recommendations relating to education and training. 1. The schools and colleges in Michigan should care- fully consider employment Opportunities for robot program 140 graduates. Few companies, outside of the manufacturers, have robot maintenance mechanics and few companies are looking to hire robot maintenance mechanics. In plants that have robots, increased knowledge and task competencies relating to robots is expected of employees, but whether this will lead to any significant number of jobs for robot maintenance mechanics is doubtful. Much of the increased knowledge and task competence is acquired through robot manufacturers' training programs on operation and maintenance. 2. Educators and trainers Should consider that robot‘ maintenance may well be performed by electricians, or machine maintenance or some other trade already existing in the plant. The application of these trade areas to the installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation of robots is required by labor management agreements in many of the plants presently using robots. It follows that it would be apprOpriate to teach the task competencies necessary for robot installation, maintenance, repair, and Operation along trade lines. 3. Educators should seriously consider electro- mechanical programs. The increased use of numerical controlled machinery, computer assisted design (CAD), and computer assisted manufacturing (CAM) demonstrate robots are not the only machines develOped with electrical and mechanical components. A broader program thrust such as 141 electro-mechanical could improve the marketability of the students' Skills. 4. The educational program should bring the student to a point where all task competencies will be acquired within at least Six months of employment. Almost all task competencies are expected of a person within six months of employment. The student must have the necessary background to be able to acquire the competencies within this time. 5. DevelOpment of the ability to communicate orally, on the telephone, and in writing should be a high priority in the educational and training programs. These competene cies are expected upon employment and are difficult to learn on the job. 6. Educators and trainers should be concerned with the teaching of diagnostic Skills. 7. Today's education and training programs should be carefully develOped because they will not have to be changed significantly due to changes in robot design by 1990. Changes in robot design will have little effect on the task competencies necessary for installation, mainte- nance, repair, and Operation by 1990. Recommendations for Further Research There are four recommendations for further study. 1. Different occupational titles were identified in the robotics area. An occupational analysis in robotics 142 could identify the different occupations both present and_ emerging in this field. 2. A comprehensive follow-up Study of robotics main- tenance program graduates is essential to identify the demand for robot maintenance mechanic graduates. 3. Research on the acquisition of basic task compe- tencies in electronics, machine maintenance, hydraulics, pneumatics, and communication in high school vocational robotics programs would indicate whether the study of robotics generates greater interest than the traditional program areas for these subjects. 4. Three duties were identified which, although not central to the job of robot maintenance mechanic as defined, could be expected of them. The tasks within these duties should be identified. Reflections When this writer set out to do this Study, the literature indicated robot use was extensive and would grow rapidly, the position of robot maintenance mechanic/ technician was in demand and would grow rapidly. It seemed essential for educators and trainers to allocate resources to meet the training demands and the anticipated demands of what many peOple considered the robot revolution. A task analysis of robot maintenance mechanics was envisioned where a jury of incumbent robot maintenance 143 mechanics would develOp an initial list of tasks and more incumbent mechanics would validate them. It was soon found that the robot pOpulation was smaller than initial literature generally indicated. It was a surprise to find a robot maintenance mechanic was an extremely rare person in a robot user plant. It was necessary, therefore, to follow the sequence described in Chapter III to develOp the initial task inventory, rather than the sequence envisioned. In develOping the task lists a significant problem arose: six companies were responsible for 97% of robot sales. Task competencies necessary to maintain a robot varied with the manufacturer of the robot. Consideration had to be given to this because a task competency considered essential by three manufacturers' representatives for their robots may not be necessary for the other three, the task competency is either essential or not necessary depending on what robots the mechanic works on. For education and training, is the task competency essential or not necessary? The problem was addressed by presenting a series of task tables. This led to another question: should the larger of the six companies be recognized by weighting responses? The answer was no. There are clear indications that it is easier, when diagnosing robot problems, for the mechanic to know the whole system rather than only some parts such as electrical or mechanical. As most robOt user plants have unions which 144 are generally against a new classification of robot mainte- nance mechanic, opportunities may develOp for persons who can diagnose robot problems and for those who train them. A robot user company may have three different manufacturers' robots in its plant. If a robot problem develops which can- not be corrected by in-plant personnel, the manufacturer's representative may be called in. A different representative for each manufacturer traveling from a home office which would likely require considerable travel time to an unfamil- iar plant. Robot user companies may find it more economical in terms of down-time and travel expense to contract with I local companies specializing in robot maintenance. It was found in the study that one full-time mechanic can maintain eleven robots. Many companies will not have eleven robots. It may be more economical for them to con- tract with a local company specializing in robot maintenance also. There is a void that needs to be filled. Either it can be filled as discussed, or robot user plants can upgrade employees' skills to fill this void. Manufacturers' training programs are offered which can assist. However a plant which has robots manufactured by three different manufactu— rers may need the employees to attend three different pro- grams. It was found in this study that robot manufacturers consider the community college degree program appropriate for their mechanics. Their mechanics are the trainers in the 145 training programs offered to robot purchasers. It appears to this writer that the community college is the only poten- tial supplier of training which: has the flexibility to cus- tomize training and upgrading for more than one manufacturers robots: and have the expertise to do it. FOOTNOTES 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 146 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I Felix Chin, ed., Automation and Robots, A Selected Biblio raphy of Articles, number 724 (Monticello IL: Vance Eibliographies, 1981), p. 1. "The Robot Revolution," Time, 8 December 1980, p. 72. Robot System, Inc., The 1982 Robotics Industry Directory (Tujunga, CA: RObot Systems Inc., 1982). Robot Systems, Inc., Basics of Robotics - An Overview (Tujunga, CA: Robot Systems Inc., 1982). H. Allan Hunt and Timothy L. Hunt, Robotics: Human Resource Implications for Miehigan: A Research Summar (Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1982, p. John J. Obruyat, "Robotics Swing into the Industrial Arms Race," Iron Age 223 (July 21, 1980): 48-51, 54, 57. James Dzengeleski and William Goode, paper on robot maintenance, distributed by Occupational Analysis Field Center, Detroit, MI, March 1982. Education and Work, April 6, 1982, p. 5. Ibid., p. 6. Hunt and Hunt, p. 8. Walter J. Brookings, "Today's High Technology Requires 'Super' Technicians," Technical Education News, Fall 1982, p. 21. Chin. Michigan, Governor's Office, A Plan to Increase the High Technology Component of Michigan’s Economy by William G. Milliken, Governor, September1982, p. 11. Michigan Congress, ”Training and Retraining Adults as an Economic DevelOpment Tool," by J. W. Lyddon for Senate bill 354/House bill 4601, February 1982. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 147 Russell 8. Flanders, ”Work: The Prospects for Tomorrow," Occupational Outlook Quarterly 21 (Spring 1977): p. 4. Ibid., p. 6. Robert R. Trouteaud, What the Robot Needs: Smarter Peo 1e (Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1982L p. 2. Hunt and Hunt, p. 8. Stafford H. Hatfield, Automation or the Future of the Mechanical Man (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1928), p. 15. Chin, p. 1. William H. Melching and Sidney D. Borcher, Procedures for Constructing and Usinngask Analysis Inventories (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1973). P. 4. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Training and Reference Manual for Job Anal sis (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1965), p. 6. Larry J. Kenneke, Dennis C. Nystrom and Ronald W. Stadt, Planning and Orgpnizing Career Curricula (Indianapolis, IN: Howard Sams, 1973), p. 258. This is the definition used by the Robot Institute of America and Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dear- born, Michigan. Jesse C. Rupe, Research into Basic Methods and Tech- niques of Air Force Job Analysis - IV quoted in Paul V. Braden and Krishan PauIOccupational Analysis of Educational Planning (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1975), p. 58. G. Ross Henninger, The Technipal Institute in America (New York: McGraw—Hill Book—Co., 1959), p. 18. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 148 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER II Robert Levin, ”Here Come the Robots," Newsweek, 9 August 1982, p. 59. Kenneth Sasnjara, "What is an Industrial Robot," Electronic Servicing and Technology, August 1982, p. 38. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Projections and Training Data bulletin 1918 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976). P. 74. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,- Economic Projections to 1990 bulletin 2121 (Washing- ton, D.C.:: Government Printing Office, 1982), p. 43. William F. Hopke, ed., Encyc10pedia of Careers and Vocational Guidance, 2 vols. (Ohicago: J. G. Ferguson Publishing Co., l972)2:581. Robert V. Gritchlow, "Technology and Labor in Auto- mobile Production," Monthly Labor Review 100 (October 1977):33. James Dzengeleski and William Goode, paper on robot maintenance distributed by Occupational Analysis Field Center, Detroit, MI, March 1982, p. 2. Walter J. Brooking, ”Today's High Technology Requires 'Super' Technicians," Technical Education News, Fall 1982, p. 21. "Russian Robots Run to Catch Up," Business Week, 17 August 1981, p. 120. Marvin Centron and Thomas O'Toole, "Careers with a Future," The Futurist, June 1982, p. 12. Tom Nickolson, Howard Fineman, and Rick Ruiz, "Growth Industries of the Future," Newsweek, 18 October 1982, p. 83. Dzengeleski and Goode, p. 3. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 149 U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Monetary and Fiscal Policy, Robotics and the Economy, by Richard K. Vedder (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982). H. Allan Hunt and Timothy L. Hunt, Robotics: Human Resource Implications for Michigan: A Research Summar (Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1982), p. 8. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Exploratory Workshop on the Social Impacts of Robotics: Summapy and Issues, Eli S. Lustgarten, "Robotics and Its Relationship to The Automated Factory" (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982). Gail M. Martin, "Industrial Robots Join the Workforce," Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1982, p. 5. W. B. Heginbotham, "Present Trends, Application and Future Prospects for the Use of Industrial Robots," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 195, (December 1981):413. "How Robots are Being Used," Production Engineering, May 1982, p. 53. Dennis R. Herschbach, "Deriving Instructional Content Through Task Analysis," Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 13, (Spring 1976):63. Charles R. Allen, TheIpstructor the Man and the Job (Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1919), p. 42. Robert W. Selvidge, How to Teach a Job (Peoria, IL: The Manual Arts Press, 1923), p. 24. Verne Frylund, Occupational Analysis (New York: Bruce Publishing Co., 1970), p. 1. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., p. 13. Ibid., p. 53. Elroy W. Bollinger and Gilbert G. Weaver, Trade Analysis and Course Organization, (New York: Pitman, 1955), p. 6. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 150 Verne Frylund, Trade and Job Analysis (Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing Co., 1952), p. 5. Roy D. Bundy, How to Teach a Job (New York: National Foreman's Institute, 1941), p. 5. Allen, p. 43. Selvidge, p. 25. Frylund, Occupational Analysis. Frylund, Trade and Job Analysis, p. 11. Bundy, p. 43. Ernest J. McCormick, Job Analysis: Methods and Applications (New York: AMACOH, 1979), p. 72. Frank B. Gilbreth, Bricklaying System (New York: M. C. Clark Publishing Co., 1909; Reprint ed., Easton, PA: Hive Publishing Co., 1974), p. 141. Thesaurus of Eric Descriptors 9th ed. (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1982). William H. Melching and Sidney D. Borcher, Procedures for Constructing and Using Task Inventories (COlumbus, OH: Ohio State University Center for Vocational and Technical Education, March 1973), p. 3. Paul V. Braden and Krishan Paul, Occupational Analysis of Educational Planning (Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill Co., 1975), p. 90. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Training and Reference Manual for Job Analysis (Washing- ton, D.C.: Government firinting Office, May 1965), p. 6. Andrew P. Chenzoff and John D. Folley, Jr., Guidelines for Training Situation Analysis (TSA) (Valencia, PA: AppliedScience Associates,51965). Jesse C. Rupe, Research into Basic Methods and Tech- niques of Air Force Job Analysis - IV quoted in Braden and Paul, p. 58. Herschbach, p. 63. Ibid. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 151 Larry J. Kenneke, Dennis C. Nystrom, and Ronald W. Stadt, Planniag and Organizing Career Curricular (Indianapolis, IN: Howard Sams, 1973), p. 258. U.S. Department of the Air Force, Occupational Analysis AFM 35-2 (Washington, D.C.: Department ofithe Air Force, 1954), p. 3. Ibid. J. E. Morsh, J. E. Madden, and R. E. Christal, Job Analysis in the United States Air Force (Lackland X Air Force Base, T : Personnel Research Laboratory, 1961). Ernest J. McCormick and Harry L. Ammerman, Develop- ment of Worker Activity Checklist for Use in Occupa— tional Analysis (Lackland Air Force Base, TX: PersonneliResearch Laboratory, 1960). Ernest J. McCormick and K. B. Tombrink, A Comparison of Three Types of Work Activity Statements in Terms of the Consistency of Job Informationggported by Incumbents (Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory, 1960). Ibid., p. 25. Melching and Borcher, p. 4. Robert F. Mager and Kenneth M. Beach, Jr., Developing Vocational Instruction (Belmont, CA: Fearon Pub- lishers, 1967). Ibid., p. 20. Thomas M. Sherman and Terry M. Willidman, Linkin Task Analysis with Student Learning (Bethes a, MD: Eric Document Reproduction Services, ED 195 229, 1981). p. 1. U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972), p. iii. Ibid., p. 3. U.S. Department of Labor Manpower Administration, Job Analysis for Human Resource Management: A Review of SelectediResearch and Development (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974), p. 3. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 152 Jesse C. Rupe, Research into Basic Methods and Tech- .piques of_Air Force Job Analysis - IV (San Antonio, TX: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, 1956). Paul V. Braden and Krishan K. Paul, A Task Analysis of Selected Nuclear Technical Occupations (Atlanta, CA: Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, 1972). Mager and Beach, Jr. Harry L. Ammerman, et al. The Derivation, Analysis, and Classification of Inatructional Objectives (Alexandria, VA: Human Resources ResearchiOffice, Technical Report 66-9, 1966), p. 7. Ibid. Joseph E. Morsh, ”Job Analysis in the United States Air Force, Personnel Psychology 17 (Spring 1964): 7-16. Gregory 8. Graham, ”A Task Analysis of the Basic Metal Casting Processes: An Industrial Analysis Project with Curriculum Implications for Industrial Arts in Secondary and Higher Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1971). Eric W. Skouby, ”An Occupational Analysis of Electro- mechanical Technician Occupations with Implications for Curriculum Development” (Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1972). Norman H. Sprankle, "A Task Analysis Study Directed to Identify Electronic Skills and Knowledge Required for Occupations in Industry" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1971). Andrew P. Chenzoff, A Review of the Literature on Task Analysis Methods (Valencia, PA: Applied Science Associates Inc., 1964), p. l. V-TECS Technical Reference Handbook for Catalo Develo ment, Third ed. (Atlanta, GA: V-TECS Eentral Office, 1981). Ibid., p. 7. Jay J. Pfeiffer and William B. Stronge, Approaches to Identifying New and Emergingob Opportunities in FlOrida: Using Existing Data Resources (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, 1982), p. 11. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 153 Ibid., p. 7. P. Forgione and L. KOPP. Curriculum Development Needs for Vocational Education: New andiChanging Occupa- tional Areas (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1960). Mollie Orth. and Jill F. Russell, Curriculum DevelOp: ment Needs for Vocational Education: New and Changing Occupations (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Natipnal Center for Research in Vocational Education, 1980 . James E. Stembridge, Jr., New and Changing chupations (Salem, OR: Oregon Occupational Information Coordi- nating Committee, 1981), p. 7. Ibid. Technical Education Research Center, Development of Career Opportunities for Biomedical Equipment Tech- nicians Interim Report 2 (Bethesda, MD: Eric Reproduction Services ED 043 764, 1971). Richard C. McCullough, Trainingyand Development: Job Opportunities and Required Cgmpetencies (Washington, D.C.: American Society for Training and DevelOpment, 1982), p. 3. Patricia A. McLagan, "The ASTD Training and Develop- ment Competency Study: A Model Building Challenge," Training and Development Journal, May 1982, pp. 18-24. Curtis R. Finch and John R. Crunkilton, Curriculum Development in Vocational and Technical Education Thoston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1979), p. 115. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 459, Performing Evalua- tion of Programmable Robots and Manipulators. Michael S. Konstantinov, r'Servicing of Industrial Robots - The Modular Concept" (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976). PP. 123-129. Piedmont Technical College at Greenwood, 5.0. has identified forty—nine tasks for Robotics Application Technician and thirty-seven tasks for Robot Service Technician. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 154 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Exploratory Workshop on the Social Implications of Robots: Summary and Issues, "Robotics, Programmable Automation and Improving Competitiveness" by Bela Gold (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), p. 115. H. Allan Hunt and Timothy L. Hunt, Robotics: Human Resource Implications for Michigan (Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1982), p. 73. Ibid., p. 55. John A. Behuniak, Economic Analysis of Robot Applica- tions technical paper MS79-777, quoted in H. Allan Hunt and Timothy L. Hunt, Robotics: Human Resource Implications for Michigan (Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1982), p. 56. Hunt and Hunt, p. 95. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, p. 15. Ibid., Gold, p. 91. Ibid., p. 15. Centron and O'Toole. Hunt and Hunt. Herschback. Stembridge. For the last available information, see footnote 106 above. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 155 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER III Joseph E. Morsh, "Job Analysis in the United States Air Force," Personnel Psychology 17 (Spring 1964): 7-16. For the last available information, see footnote 106 above. James E. Stembridge, Jr., New and ChangingyOccupations (Salem, OR: Oregon Occupational Information Coordi- nating Committee, 1981), p. 9. Harry L. Ammerman, et al. The Derivation, Analysis, and Classification of Instructional Objectives (Alexandria, VA: Air Defense Department, Human Resources Research Office, 1966), p. 7. Technical Education Research Center, ngeIOpment and Evaluation of Educational Programs in Biomedical Equip- ment Technology, Phase I (Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Center Inc., 1967). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Exploratory WorkshOp on the Social Impacts of Robotics: Summary and Issues. EliOS. Lustgarten, "Robotics and Its Relationship to The Automated Factory” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982), P. 126. Eric W. Skouby, ”An Occupational Analysis of Electro- mechanical Technician Occupations with Implications for Curriculum DevelOpment” (Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1972). Daniel E. Skutack, Electronics Mechanic: A Catalog 2f Taskaj Performance Objectives, Performance Guides, Tools andiEquipment (Atlanta, GA: Georgia State Department of Education, Office of Vocational Educa- tion, 1980). Roland Krogstod and Marilyn G. Dawson, Maintenance Mechanic: A Catalog_of Tasks, Performance Objectives, Performancg Guides, Tools and E ui ment (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Tec nical and Adult Education, 1981). 156 130. Pick Publications, Inc., The Directory of Michigan Manufacturers 1981 (Detroit, MI; Pick Publications, Inc.). 131. See page 17 above. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 157 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV Dennis R. Herschbach, "Selection and Differentiation of Instructional Tasks," Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 14 (Spring 1977):10. W. J. Mallory and T. R. Doyle, "Specifications for a Technical Training Program on Industrial Robot Main- tenance." Technical and Training Contracts Section, Management and Technical Training Department, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, January 1983. Job Description for Robotic Mig Welder. Steelcase Inc., Grand Rapids, MI, effective date 10/82. Job Description for Robotic Arc Welding Technician. Steelcase Inc., Grand Rapids, MI, effective date 1/82. H. Allan Hunt and Timothy L. Hunt, Robotics: Human Resource Implications for Michigan (Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1982). W. J. Mallory and T. R. Doyle. APPENDICES Appendix A Letter Requesting Operating/Service Manuals From the Six Largest Manufacturers of Robots in the U.S. 158 Appendix A Letter Requesting Operating/Service Manuals From the Six Largest Manufacturers of Robots in the U.S. Dear Dzengeliski and Goode have said "A significant reason for the slow growth in robotics in the United States is the lack of installation and maintenance personnel at the user level. Right now there is a shortage of these peOple." While you may or may not agree with this statement, many potential robot users perceive this to be true. The burden of training for the use of a company's product is usually on the manufacturer. But educators can prepare students in the basic skills and knowledge of tools and mechanisims so the user company have em- ployees capable of benefiting from company training programs. In the field of robotics, educators have not sufficiently documented what these basic skills should be. With the cooperation of several manufacturers and users, I am researching the tasks performed by robot installation and repair mechanics. From these lists of tasks, curriculum can be developed to teach students the necessary basic skills. One of the most effective methods of drafting an initial list of tasks is through analyzing operating and service manuals. It is for this reason I turn to you. Your company, as one of the largest U.S. producers of robots, should be represented when reviewing the manuals for the knowledge and skills required to inter- pret and apply solutions in robot maintenance. I am requesting the loan of a couple of robot oper- ating and/or service manuals so a draft of the tasks required can be made. The manuals can be returned within a couple of weeks. A final report will be available, upon request, which could assist in your own company's training courses. I thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Appendix B Persons Consolidating Initial Task Statements 159 Appendix B Persons Consolidating Initial Task Statements Lyndol Aumiller Power and Mechanics Instructor University of Maryland College Park Campus Delbert Carson Electricity/Electronics Instructor University of Maryland College Park Campus Appendix C Experts Responding to Initial Task Inventory Appendix C 160 Experts Responding to Initial .Task Inventory Robot Manufacturers P. J. Rosato Director Technical Training/Pbls. Unimation Inc. Shelter Rock Lane Danbury, Conn. 06810 Robot Users Don Dunn Operations Manager United Iron & Metal Co., Inc. 2545 Wilkens Ave. Baltimore, MD 21223 Educators John Lawson President Feedback Inc. 620 Springfield Ave. Berkeley Heights, N.J. 07922 William Weisel DirectorgEducation Prab Robots 6589 Donjoy Drive Cincinnati, OH 45242 Vince Shannon Supervisor Shaft Seal Koppers Co. P.O. Box 626 Baltimore, MD 21203 Nigel Wright Engineering Ed. Executive Feedback Inc. 620 Springfield Ave. Berkeley Heights, N.J. 07922 Appendix D Response to Initial Task Inventory 161 Appendix D Response to Initial Task Inventory Dear Here is the checklist of tasks for robot maintenance mechanics/technicians as discussed over the telephone. Please check the apprOpriate box for each task state- ment. Comments, suggested changes or additions to the check- list will be appreciated. Please write them wherever you feel it appropriate. Sincerely, Appendix D (cont.) ‘4 O‘\ N 4 DUTY A Installing and Moving Machines i Will this be performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO Al Align machinery 3 3 A2 Attach safety guards, shields and covers 4 2 A3 Block and brace equipment for moving 2 4 A4 Complete incoming checklist 3 2 A5 Complete preinstallation facility checklist 3 3 A6 Connect machine to air/hydraulic/electrical source 4 2 A7 Crate robot for transfer 2 4 A8. Erect barricades 2 4 A9 Install mechanical stops for robot motion 4 2 A10 Move machine/equipment with skids or dollies 2 4 All Operate power hoist 0 6 A12 Operate fork lift 0 6 A13 Operate overhead crane 0 5 A14 Paint machinery/equipment 2 4 A15 Position & secure machinery on foundation 2 4 ~A16 Pour concrete (for foundation) 0 6 Al? Prepare area for machine installation 2 4 A18 Raise machinery using jacks. bars. slings etc. Appendix D (cont.) i163 DUTY 3 Performing Preventative Maintenance Will thisbd performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO Bl Change gearbox oil 6 O 32 Clean air filters 5 0 BB Clean chassis 5 1 B4 Clean circulation fans/ventilators 6 0 BS Clean electrical contact points 6 0 36 Clean electric motor 6 0 B7 Clean hydraulic strainer/filters 5 0 BB. Clean potentiometers 5 0 B9 Clean reflector mirrors 5 0 810 Clean tape head 5 0 B11 Clean tape reader 5 0 812 Clean tape recorder 5 0 Bl} Clean tuner 4 0 814 Lubricate air compressor 5 O 815 Lubricate chain and sprocket drive 5 O 816 Lubricate electric motor 5 0 Bl? Lubricate fans/ventilators . O 318 Lubricate gear drives 0 819 Lubricate linkages and lever mechanisms 6 O 820 Lubricate tape recorder 5 O 821 Record meter readings 6 O 822 Refill hydraulic system 6 0 823 Sample hydraulic fluid 5 l Appendix D (cont.) 164 DUTY C Maintainingygquipment TASK Will this bJ performed by the robot technician? YES NO Adjust AC generator output p— Adjust AC output resistance Adjust amplifierjgain 0 0 o In F" C) n: }4 Adjust armature or field connection voltage C6 (C5 Adjust audio intensities Fm 0\U l4 h‘ C) r4 :4 Adjust automatic gain control circgit O C7 Adjust bias network 0 C8 Adjust DC generator output C9 Adjust driveygear C10 Adjust fluid capacitance C11 Adjust focus control C12 Adjust gibs C13 Adjust humidistats C14 Adjust hydraulic flow C15 Adjust hydraulic pressure C16 Adjust linkages and lever mechanisms mmmupmmmmmm o o o \a o o N o o C17 Adjust modulation percentage 018 Adjust oscillator C19 Adjust output of high frequency amplifiers umu C20 Adjust piezoelectric devices \J C21 Adjust pneumatic controls 0\ C22 Adjust pneumatic rotaryyactuator U\ C23 Adjust pressure control (relief) valve \H CZN Adjust probe calibrator signal \n OHOONNON C25 Adjust servovalves 0x O Appendix D (cont.) 165 DUTY C Maintaining Equipment Will this bJ performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO C26 Adjust tape reader 5 0 C27 Adjust thermostat 5 0 C28 Align and adjust belt drive 5 0 C29 Align chain and sprocket drives 5 0 C30 Align gear drives 5 0 C31 Align piston (rod) of hydraulic cylinder 5 0 C32 Align shafts 6 0 C33 Align T.R.F. 1 3 C34 Calibrate multi-vibrator circuit 2 O 035 Calibrate P-P voltage a 1 C36 Calibrate vertical amplitude 4 1 C37 Calibrate timing/clock pulse 5 0 C38 Change direction of hydraulic pump motor 4 0 C39 Change rotation of electric motor p O Appendix D (cont.) LL66 DUTY D Performing Repairs Will this bJ performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO D1 Bleed hydraulic system 5 0 D2 Construct belt joints 1 “ D3 Disassemble/reassemble air compressor 2 3 D4 Install flexible couplings 5 O ""h3335f3'3133f56nic.component malfunctions D5 using fault location guides 5 0 D6 Remove electronic components 5 o D? Repair centrifugal clutch u pp£__‘ D8 Repair drive couplings 5, 1 D9 Replace accumulator 6 0 D10 Replace actuator 6 0 D11 Replace air compressor 5 0 D12 Replace air filters 6 0 D13 Replace air regulators 6 0 D14 Replace bearings 6 O 015 Replace capacitor 5 0 D16 Replace cathode ray tube 5 ii;__‘ 017 Replace chain and sprocket drive 5 0 D18 Replace deflection yoke 5 0 D19 Replace digital display segment 5 1 D20 Replace dynamotor u 1 D21 Replace electric motor 5 3 D22 Replace electrical circuit components 5 2 D23 Replace electrical relief valves 4 l 024 Replace encoders 6 3 P25 Replace energy storage cells 6 D Appendix D (cont.) 167 DUTY D Performing Repairs Will this b4 performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO Replace faulty PC boards 5 0 Replace frequency converter (motor generator) 3 1 Replace fuses 6 0 Replace gear drives 6 0 Replace guide rollers 6 0 Replace heat exchanger 5 1 Replace hydraulic accumulator bladder 3 2 Replace hydraulic gasket and seals 6 1 Replace hydraulic lines/fittings 6 0 Replace hydraulic motor 5 0 Replace hydraulic pressure gauge 5 0 Replace hydraulic pump 5 0 Replace hydraulic strainer/filters 5 0 Replace hydraulic system valves 6 0 Replace hydraulic valves 6 0 Replace indicator lamps 5 0 Replace integrated circuits (memory) 5 1 Replace klystron o 4 Replace magnetron 1 u Replace mechanical seals 4 0 Replace microphone 2 2 Replace mOtor starter S 1 Replace motor starter transformer 5 1 Replace pneumatic clutch and brake 5 0 Replace pneumatic cushion unit 4 l Appendix D (cont.) 1358 DUTY D Performing Repairs Will this b4 performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO D51 Replace pneumatic gauge assembly 6 O 052 Replace pneumatic lines and fittings 5 0 D53 Replace pneumatic lubricator 5 0 D54 Replace pneumatic transfer block seal 5 0 D55 Replace potentiometer 5 0 D56 Replace pressure line filter element 5 0 D57 Replace pressure switch 5 0 D58 Replace programmer 6 0 D59 Replace pulley belt 5 0 D60 Replace radio frequency interface filters 3 2 D61 Replace relays 6 0 D62 Replace resistors 5 0 p63 Replace ribbon cables A 4 1 p64 Replace servomechanisms ' 5 0 D65 Replace shaft assembly 6 0 D66 Replace solenoids 6 0 p67 Replace solid state diodes 4 1 D68 Replace switches (leadicontactlmercurial) 5 0 p69 Replace tacho generator 5 0 p70 Replace tape head 3 2 71 Replace teach control 5 9 P72 Replace thermal breakers 5 O 73 Replace transducers 5 O 74 Replace transformers 6 0 D75 Replace transistors 5 O 169 Appendix D (cont.) V DUTY D Performing Repairs Will this bJ performed by the robot . . a TASK technician. YES NO D76 Replace tubes 2 4 D77 Solder/unsolder electronic components 5 O D78 Splice wires 5 O Ap endix D fcont.) 170 DUTY E Programming Will this bJ performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO El Complete programming chart 3 3 E2 Copy diskette 3 443 E3 Edit program 3 3 E4 Enter program using teach control 6 0 E5 Erase program memory 45 0 E6 Install proximity switch 45 0 E7 Install sensgpgvplate 5 0 E8 Load data plate 3 0 E9 Load programmable system tape 6 0 810 Produce data tape 6 0 Ell Reinitialize program memory 5 0 E12 Test run program 5 0 E13 Transfer program memory to cassette tape p H Appendix D (cont.) 171 DUTY F Communicatingylnformation Will this b4 performed by the robot TASK technician? YES NO Fl Design support hardware 1 4 F2 Draw schematic of electronic circuitry 1 5 F3 Draw schematic of hydraulic system 1 5 F4 Draw schematic of pneumatic system 1 4 F5 Interpret blueprints 5 0 F6 Interpret schematics of electronic circuitry 5 0 F7 Interpret schematics of hydraulic system 5 0 F8 Interpret schematics of pneumatic system 5 0 F9 Plan quality assessment checks 4 2 F10 Prepare estimates of down time u 2 F11 Prepare estimates of production time 1. 3 F12 Prepare safety reports 4 2 F13 Train new employees 3 2 F14 Translate graphic information to written specification ’ 2 3 F15.Write operational procedures 4 2 Appendix D (cont.) 72 4 OTHER DUTIES Will this b performed by the robot technician? TASK YES NO Duty of administering personnel 3 2 Duty of supervising maintenance & repair function 5 l Duty of working metal with hand or portable tools 3 3 Duty of working metal with machine tools f.‘ Ap endix D Econt.) Comments 173 A9 May be done before robot arrives. A14 Maybe touch-up scratches. B16 Usually sealed. B17 Usually sealed. C38 Why? 039 Why? D7 Replace but not repair. DB Replace but not repair. D46 Never seen one. D76 Who uses tubes in 1983? Don't believe any modern robot uses them. D77 Limited use. D78 Limited use. E6 Why under programming duty? (2) E7 Why under programming duty? (2) F13 Depends on company practices. OJT, after formal education and training. Duty A Many of the tasks here have conflicting respon- sibilities in union shOps. There may be restrictions that prevent the tech- nicians from doing the task and may or may not prevent the technician to direct others in doing the work. Often works with specialized skilled trades. Coordinates and checks but may not do this duty. 174 Appendix D (cont.) Comments (cont.) Duty 0 The influence of unions may place each of these tasks under a different group of workers---elec- trical, mechanical, set-up, etc. Duty of supervising maintenance & repair function In union shOp. Duty of working metal with machine tools Small, non-union installations only. Manufacturers normally design for major component replace- ment not discrete parts. Many of these tasks will be done by the electrical tech- nician, mechanical technician and plumber in union shOps. I have not attempted to fill in everything that probably should be listed because I am not familiar with all types of robots presently being used in industry-(suggested several other robot manufacturers to provide information). Additions Have ability to effectively communicate both verbally and in writing. Have well above average ability for good interpersonal relationships. Capable of solving problems and making decisions (often independently). Self-starter. Appendix E Plants Contacted in Telephone Survey of Forty Michigan Potential Robot Users 175 Appendix E BENDIX CORP. Hydraulics Div. 3737 Red Arrow Hwy. St. Joseph, MI 49085 Telephone 429-3221 SIC 37l4-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories BUDD CO., THE 12141 Charlevoix Detroit, MI 48215 Telephone 823-9100 SIC 37l4-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories 3465-Stampings, Automotive CHRYSLER CORP. Warren Stamping Plant 22800 Mound Rd. Warren, MI 48092 Telephone 497-1000 SIC 3465-Stamping, Automotive CHRYSLER CORP. Warren Truck Assembly Plant 21500 Mound Rd. Warren, MI 48091 Telephone 497-1000 SIC 3711-Motor Vehicles & Car Bodies CLARK EQUIPMENT CO. Transmission Div. 1300 Falahee Rd. Jackson, MI 49204 Telephone 764-6000 SIC 37l4-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories 3566-Speed Changers, Drives, Gears Appendix E (cont.) DANA CORP. Industrial Group Div. 23577 Hoover Rd. Warren, MI 48090 Telephone 758-5000 SIC 3566-Speed Changers, Drives, Gears DART CONTAINER CORP. 432 Hogsback Rd. Mason, MI 48854 Telephone 676-3800 SIC 3079—Plastic Products - Misc. DETROIT PLASTIC MOLDING CO. 6600 15 Mile Rd. Sterling Heights, MI 48077 Telephone 979-5000 SIC 3079-P1astic Products - Misc. DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. Div. The Dow Chemical Co. Dow Center Midland, MI 48640 Telephone 636-1000 SIC 2869-Chemical, Industrial Organic — Misc. EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS, INC. 301 Spring East Jordan, MI 49727 Telephone 586-2261 SIC 332l-Foundries, Gray Iron 176 Appendix E (cont.) EVART PRODUCTS CO. Sub. American Motors Corp. 601 W. 7th St. Evart, MI 49631 Telephone 734-5522 SIC 3079-P1astic Products - Misc. FEDERAL—MOGUL CORP. 310 E. Steel St. Johns, MI 48879 Telephone 224-3221 SIC 3469-Metal Stampings - Misc. FORD Wixom Assembly Plant 50000 Grand River Freeway Wixom, MI 48196 Telephone 344-5000 SIC 3711-Motor Vehicles & Car Bodies FORD Dearborn Assembly Plant 3001 Miller Rd. Dearborn, MI 48121 Telephone 322-3000 SIC 3711-Motor Vehicles & Car Bodies GENERAL MOTORS CORP. Hydra-Matic Div Willow Run Ypsilanti, MI 48197 Telephone 485-5000 SIC 3714-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories 177 Appendix E (cont.) GENERAL MOTORS CORP. Pontiac Motor Div. One Pontiac Plaza Pontiac, MI 48053 Telephone SIC 3711-Motor Vehicles & Car Bodies GENERAL MOTORS CORP. GMC Truck & Coach Div. 660 E. South Blvd. Pontiac, MI 48053 Telephone 857-5000 SIC 37ll-Motor Vehicles & Car Bodies GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER CO. Jackson Plant ' 2219 Chapin St. Jackson, MI 49204 Telephone 782-8181 SIC 3011-Tires & Tubes GREAT LAKES CASTING CORP. 800 N. Washington Ave. Ludington, MI 49431 Telephone 49431 SIC 3321-Foundries, Gray Iron HAMILL MFG. CO. Div. Firestone Tire & Rubber, Akron, OH 61166 VanDyke Washington, MI 48094 Telephone 755-7700 SIC 3714-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories 178 Appendix E (cont.) HAYES-ALBION CORP. 1999 Wildwood Ave. Jackson, MI 49202 Telephone 782-9421 SIC 3465-Stampings, Automotive 3322-Foundries, Malleable Iron 345l-Screw Machine Products 3369-Castings, Nonferrous — Misc. 332l-Foundries, Gray Iron and Others HOOVER UNIVERSAL INC. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone 665-1500 SIC 2891 3079-P1astic Products - Mis. and Others JACKSON DROP FORGE CO. 2001 Wellworth Jackson, MI 49203 Telephone 787-5800 SIC 3462-Forging, Iron, Steel KASLE STEEL CORP. 4343 Wyoming Dearborn, MI 48126 Telephone 943-2500 SIC 3316-Stee1 - Cold Rolled Sheet, Strip, Bar KELSEY-HAYES CO. Div. of Fruehauf Corp., Detroit, MI 38481 Huron River Drive Romulus, MI 48174 Telephone 941-2000 SIC 37l4-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories 3728-Aircraft Parts & Equipment - Misc. 179 180 Appendix E (cont.) LA-Z-BOY CHAIR CO. 1284 N. Telegraph Monroe, MI 48161 Telephone 242-1444 SIC 2512-Furniture, Household - Wood, Upholstered MASCO CORP. 21001 VanBorn Rd. Taylor, MI 48180 Telehpone 274-7400 SIC 3432-P1umbing Fixtures - Brass 3471-Electroplating, Polishing, Anodizing 3564-Blowers & Fans MASSEY-FERGUSON INC. Massey-Ferguson Ltd., Toronto, Ontario 12601 Southfield Rd. Detroit, MI 48223 Telephone 493-7125 SIC 3523-Farm Machinery & Equipment 3537-Industrial Trucks, Tractors, Trailer, Stackers MCDONALD MFG. 36870 Green St. New Baltimore, MI 48047 Telephone 725-2111 SIC 3079-P1astic Products - Misc. MIDWEST FOUNDRY CO. Div. of the Marmon Group Inc. 77 Hooker St. Coldwater, MI 49036 Telephone 278-2331 SIC 3321-Foundries, Gray Iron 181 Appendix E (cont.) MITCHELL CORP. 123 N. Chipman St. Owosso, MI 48867 Telephone 725-2171 SIC 37l4-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories MOTOR WHEEL CORP. Sub. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 1600 N. Larch St. Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone 487-4000 SIC 37l4-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories MUELLER BRASS CO. Sub. of U V Industries, Inc. 1925 Lapeer Ave. Port Huron, MI 48060 Telephone 987-4000 SIC 3351-Copper, Brass, Bronze-Rolling, Drawing, Extruding and Others NATIONAL TWIST DRILL & TOOL DIV. 6841 N. Rochester Rd. Rochester, MI 48063 Telephone 651-9531 SIC 3545-Machine Tool Accessories ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL 2135 W. Maple Rd. Troy, MI 48084 Telephone 435-1000 SIC 3714-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories 3079-Plastic Products - Misc. 3321-Foundries, Gray Iron and Others 182 Appendix E (cont.) STEELCASE, INC. 1120 36th St. S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49508 Telephone 247-2710 SIC 2522-Furniture, Office - Metal 2521-Furniture, Office - Wood STURGIS MOLDED PRODUCTS CO. 70343 Clark St. Sturgis, MI 49091 Telephone 651-9381 SIC 3079-P1astic Products - Misc. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS CO. Patterson St. Tecumseh, MI 49286 Telephone 423-8411 SIC 3585-Air Conditioning, Refrigeration TRW MICHIGAN INC. Div. TRW, Inc. 34201 VanDyke Sterling Heights, MI 48077 Telephone 977-1000 SIC 3714-Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories WHIRLPOOL CORP. St. Joseph Div. Upton Dr., St. Joseph, MI 49085 Telephone 926-5000 SIC 3633-Laundry Equipment, Household Appendix F Manufacturers Representatives Participating in the Study Appendix F 183 Manufacturers Representatives Participating in the Study ASEA Robots Larse Peterson Regional Service Mg. 1176 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48084 Cincinnati Milacron Tom Macknosky Regional Service Mgr. Industrial Robot Div. 28500 Southfield Rd. Lathrup Village, MI Copperweld Robotics Inc. Peter Malega Field Service Mgr. Steve Svoboda Service Technician Michael Nieman Service Technician 1401 E. Fourteen Mile Rd. Troy, MI 48084 DeVilbiss John Edelhauser Field Service Technician 300 Phillips Avenue P.O. Box 913 Toledo, OH 43692 Prab Robots F. P. "Woody"Leipold Mgr. Customer Services Joe Messer Field Service Technician 6007 Sprinkle Rd. Kalamazoo, MI 49003 Unimation Brian Hansen Regional Service Mgr. 23400 Industrial Park Ct. Farmington Hills, MI 48084 Appendix G Six Individuals Interviewed in Robot User Plants Appendix G Six Individuals Interviewed in Robot User Plants Dick Socks Maintenance Supervisor North American Plastics Co. 6600 E. 15 Mile Rd. Sterling Heights, MI 48077 J. R. Durfee Master Mechanics Supervisor Pontiac Motor Div. Pontiac, MI 48023 Bob Johnson Industrial Engineer Pontiac Motor Div. Pontiac, MI 48023 Tom Hopper Electrician Pontiac Motor Div. Pontiac, MI 48023 Bob Trent Machine Mechanic Pontiac Motor Div. Pontiac, MI 48023 Dick Hartshorn Technical Training & Contracts Supervisor Management & Tech. Training Dept. Ford North American Training Center 2201 Elm Dale Dearborn, MI 48121 184 Appendix H Questionnaire Used 185 :caaamfimamcw Lo mops wbmawhg :ofiamccon co co acwsaw u:~ma mowfl Lo mofixm 2;“; once; o>oz m -m4m:_ :oa—zm xudsfixoba -mum:~ Lou macaw Haoficazows -aam:_ mmthaLLmn acmLm Loamcmba no; gone; wean: oohsow Haembuoo Lam be a Axooco “q omu :o m mcfioza ouo_ Eco emu—xoozo wcmsoocm ouo_gsoo :wea :00 ooan ccm zoo—m mzw>oo czm m mm zoaau< zzw:~:ocs :w_~< ac Sasq— 9: x _mo.e—Lu zo- os; coELomnoq “no: m—zu :Lao coaowao m« o» ma 2.;? zo~9<90mmxm mmm24 < sea 9... mug“ 0; Hmduoz WE Locsoooh wan» memo.ccs; ~ wamomzszg ,Laow mo gnaw: .mo_a_bo cosnouuoq amo: coaooaxo a. a. m_:% zo~9; unzfic< :0 o gmzac< mamdmac_5:: amsa=< mzwm am2n7< Hogazoo mzcou Am:n1< mo:mu_omaao caz—L gaznt< Loom o>~c= umzwt< usaaso Loumzocom o: amzac< m: ans-c< uazogno Hogucoo :a mo.»~m:oa:~ owczm Sm:q=< ~o> mszm oocaa azaaso c< amzec< 3o headgocow u< amzec< ammo; .moau_uo ace oza cosbouhoa umo: muse coaoomxo ea c» em =.;& zo~a<éommxm mmmzafigc Loom cmafi< ao>_;c anamoELoza am3e2< bang amzac< mo>~m>o>gow umzac< ~mo o:c;a umsfic< w>~a> you-m; coo a c< 2.23 6.. 03558:: 1< mmobacoo mszo:: amzec< moo~>oc oagaoo_mouo«a gmsnc< mbwquauasm u Legummaomo umzn=< owmucoozw; comum_:cos umzec< Lo>w~ ammo; _=o.a_Lo UoELouqu amoz uoaovaxo a“ mm =.:? zo~E: ommzq goo~o mambsm~ac Lo> oam;;~_au wmma~o>.mug oom;:_~mu magazm :w—~< Aha 0‘ Lane; an .aulsqto :oa 02a coshounoq on awe: m_:a cwaooaxo mu 3 =.aE+ zo~? sous-o Amm:amga:ou mom—aw: ossa an; ocozamo wom~aoz Louwomamc commas: mwcmhnoa commamz accum—zwoc Lam wcz~ac= who“ Lam mum-am: Lcmmosasoo L_m mom—1o: Leamzacs ocw~nox hOdwmzazoam mu:o:oasoo o«:onuom—o Has acocoasoo o oo~o mambo; ~asoo 6 Ha -m»m:_ mam > < qsoaa—Lo 20- oz; cosuouhoa umoz maze Sumo coaooaxo m— eg, mg was? zo_ez Lowcmzoxm usw: mgo-ou mcmzw mo>ugc Loom momsu Lo» mctcon on sedan. mo wwaLOam zwmeo mcwcooco uwufio; —mo~;uow~o .c goodbaoo~o o oo o Logosmczc w:_~qzoo w>mbu Laces“; oomaawz won-no: wow—go: wcm~aoz wow-go: mom mom~gom mom-so: mom-ac: ooc~aoz mom-aw: 194 oxmhs oca :ouzuo ofiuaszoca goagwam Logos L0» L59 m LO» OE m-mom Mmowcazoos o wasma Leamomc:« mom—Q on mo>~m> oumzmbc>: mw> Emu 0 who; Locwmbu ass: owfizmtczz wh:mmmba o Logos oqazmgcz: o.~:m;s>z o ~=mucaz go “acq— 2: sooo x c a: .mc‘uugo _—_a see o;a cmELouLoa on owe: a mag» :Lao couooaxo m— — cu mu m«:& zo—P<éommxm mmmzacom wow-no: mwfismo connmh monaaoz aboumumog boa-no: mam-oh oom~ao= whoa-mu womb zocozcoh o oom yawn zo-Mza mom-no: LoEEmeOLQ mom-aw: goaazm mo:mcog; oommaoz Lou-.9 ozqfi oL:mmoLQ woo Lonesofiu:oao: mom Loom Lo 0 m5:ocg noumo.bn:~ ouumszwcg o «530:: a o assoc; Sac: :oflcmzo ofiamszoca o0: .moaa a now oz; cosbouhca maze :Luo coaooaxo mu 0» mm =.:? zo~§<fiommxm mwmza < so“. 23 mmze Como ou me_z wom~am casebgoono Looyom::\ow7~ow moss» mom-:0: mzouw_m:m;a mom-go: wLoELoamcazu ooo_;o= mzoozumcmza com A NEL @28 qozucoo zoom; com: wane Logosocomozuma How 3 ~moauuzo cmELOHLoQ o» amo: wouooaxo a“ a“ maze zo~$<fiommxm mmmza090 : A: .mo_g_uo ___d_ :o- 9:; cosbouhvn on amoz n. m—zu :Loo vouooaxo a“ _ n 0... mm 21:. zo~Eo_aso Io: Lozoo adogmm wed“ C30—J HO mwaM=;.—mw Cm mo umsozom uwbzzoa:_ 0— mo ogauoa:_ >La_:obqo oqcohuoo :MLAw:~n Hohauou ammo; .so_a~to :oe o;a coscouhoa goo: maze coaooaxo a. Cu mu 3‘2? zo~eLoa=m no 24:: ~o::omho: w:—Lodm~:usca go zu:: ho gnaw; x“ .mo‘aubo cosbouooa Lao: oooooaxo mu 3‘ 3‘2? zenecaummxm mmmzna ho ohm muoooh oza cc: m m hbwmmuoo: one «Hm on: u: magazwmmv :omnon a so; oxau emzoz ad x:—:» sea 06 wa090h :NE :0: .u:m~m Low: conch baa :— u: m. «1.0 X” :3: a : : z: ___a 50e oz; coELouhoa m. can» :bmo cocooaxo a“ _H De zo~5I-u~35 o» :0 CE gaze; Lo; macaw m: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 202 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Related to Analysis of Occupations Allen, Charles R. The Instructor the Man and the Job. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1919. Ammerman, Harry L. et al. The Derivation, Analysis, and Classificatipn of Instruction Objectivgs. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Office, Technical Report 66-9, 1966. Bollinger, Elroy W., and Weaver, G. Gilbert. .Trade Analy- sis and Course Organization. New York: Pitman, 1955. Braden, Paul V., and Paul, Krishan. Occppational Analysis. of Educaggonal Planning. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill Co., 1975. Bundy, Roy D. ‘gow to Teach a Job. New York: National Foreman's Institute, 1941. Chenzoff, Andrew P. A Review of The Literature on Task Analysis Methods. Valencia, PA: Applied Science Associates Inc., 1964. Chenzoff, Andrew P. and Folley, John D. Jr. Guidelines for Training Situation Analysis (TSA). Valencia, PA: Applied Science Associates Inc., 1965. Frylund, Verne. Occupational Analysis. New York: Bruce Publishing Co., 1970. . Trade and Job Analysis. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing Co., 1952. Graham, Gregory S. "A Task Analysis of the Basic Metal Casting Process: An Industrial Analysis Project with Implications for Industrial arts in Secondary and Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1971. Herschbach, Dennis R. "Deriving Instructional Content Through Task Analysis." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 13 (Spring 1976): 63-73. 203 "Selection and Differentiation of Instructional Tasks." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 14 (Spring 1977): 7-16. Kenneke, Larry J.; Nystrom, Dennis C.; and Stadt, Ronald W. Planning and Organizing Career Curricular. Indiana- polis, IN: Howard’Sams, 1973. McCormick, Ernest J. Job Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: AMACOH, 1979. McCormick, Ernest J. and Ammerman, Harry L. DevelOpment of Worker Activity Checklist for Use in_9ccupationa1 Analysis. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory, 1960. Mager, Robert F. and Beach, Kenneth M. Jr. Develo in Vocational Instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon PUE- lishers, 1967. Melching, William H. and Borcher, Sidney D. Procedures for Constructing and UsingIask Inventories. C61umbus, OH: Ohio State University, Center for Vocational and Tech- nical Education, 1973. Morsh, Joseph E. "Job Analysis in the United States Air Force." Personnel Psychology 17 (Spring 1974): 7-16. Morsh, Joseph E.; Madden, J.E.; and Christal, R.E. Job Analysis in the United States Air Force. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory, 1961. Rupe, Jesse C. Research into Basic Methods and Techni ues 'ngir Force Job Analysis - 1!, San Antonio, TX: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, 1956. Selvidge, Robert W. How to Teach a Job. Peoria, IL: The Manual Arts Press, 1923. Skouby, Eric W. "An Occupational Analysis of Electro- mechanical Technician Occupations with Implications for Curriculum DevelOpment.” Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1972. Sprankle, Norman H. "A Task Analysis Study Directed to Identify Electronic Skills and Knowledge Required for Occupations in Industry.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1971. V-TECS Technical Reference Handbook for Catalog Development 3rd edl Atlanta, GA: V-TECS Central Office, 1981. 204 U.S. Department of the Air Force. Occupational Analysis Air Force Manual 35-2. Washington, D.C.: Department of The Air Force, 1954. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. Training and Reference Manual for Job Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1965. U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Handbook for Analyzing Jobs. Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice,iI972. U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. ng. Analysisfor Human Resource Management: A Review of SelectediResearch and DevelOpment. Washington, D.C.: GOvernment Printing Office, 1974. Related to Robotics "Automating the Assembly Line." Mosaic 7 (September- October 1976): 8-14. Behuniak, John A. Economic Anal sis of Robot Applications. Technical Paper MS79-777. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1979. Centron, Marvin and O'Toole, Thomas. "Careers with a Future." The Futurist, June 1982, pp. 11-19. Chin, Felix ed. Automation and Robots a Selected Biblio- grgphy of ArticIes #724. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies, 1981. "Dear Factory: Make 100,000 Widgets.” Mosaic 5 (Fall 1974): 2-8. Driscoll, Leo C. and Kotelly, John C. "Blue Collar Robots.” Industrial Research 13 (October 1971): 42-45. Dzengeleski, Jim and Goode, Bill. Paper on robot mainte- nance. Distributed by Occupational Analysis Field Center, Detroit, MI. March 1982. Engleberger, Joseph F. "Robots Make Economic and Social Sense." Atlanta Economic Review 27 (July-August 1977): 4-7. 205 Evans, John M. Jr. and Allus, Jones S. "Robots - Now and in the Future." Dimensions, NBS 58 (November 1974): 246-249. Gritchlow, Robert V. "Technology and Labor in Automobile ‘ Production." Monthly Labor Review 100 (October 1977): 32-35. Heginbothan, W.B. "Present Trends, Application and Future Prospects for the Use of Industrial Robots.” Proceed- ings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 195 (December 1981):409-418. "Here Come the Robots." Newsweek, 9 August 1982, pp. 58-59. "How Robots are Being Used." Production Engineering, May 1982, p. 53. Hunt, Allan H. and Hunt, Timothy. Robotics: Human Rescurces Implications for Michigan. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1982. ~ , Hunt, Allan H. and Hunt, Timothy. Human Resources Implica- tions for Michigan: A Research Summary.w Kalamazoo: MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1982. Martin, Gail M. "Industrial Robots Join the Workforce." Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1982, pp. 2-11. Obryat, John J. "Robots Swing into the Industrial Arms Race." Iron Age 223 (July 1980):48-51, 54, 57. . Peckham, Susanne. "Secondary Students Tackle Robotics." Sghool Shop 42 (November 1982):l7-18. Robotics Today 3, Summer 1981. 5, February 1983. "Russian Robots Run to Catch Up.‘ Business Week 17 (August 1981):120. Sasnjara, Ken. "What is an Industrial Robot.” Electronic‘ Servicing and Technology, August 1982, pp. 4-9. Shaver, Robert W. "Robots: Education's New Challenge." School Shop 92 (November 1982:18,19,21. U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Robotics and the Economy, by Richard K. Vedder. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, March 1982. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. Performance Evaluation of Programmable Robots and Manipu- lators. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 206 Other References Brandon, George L. Vocational Education in a Robot Revolu- tion. East Lansing, MI: MichiganState University Department of Vocational Education, 1957. Brookings, Walter J. "Today's High Technology Requires 'Super' Technicians." Technical Education News, Fall 1982. PP. 23-25. "Emerging Occupations: Not Every Acorn Becomes an Oak." Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1982, pp. 12-13. Flanders, Russell B. "Work: The Prospects for Tomorrow. Occupational Outlook Quarterly 21 (Spring l977):2-7. Gilbreth, Frank B. Bricklaying System. New York: Mc C. Clark Publishing Co., 1909; reprint ed., Easton, PA: Hive Publishing Co., 1974. HOpke, William E., ed. Encyclopedia of Careers and Voca- tional Guidance 2 vols. Chicago, IL: J. G. Ferguson Publishing Co., 1972. McLagan, Patricia A. "The ASTD Training and Development Competency Study: A Model Building Challenge." Train- ing and DevelOpment Journal, May 1982, pp. 18-24. Nickolson, Tom; Fineman, Howard; and Ruiz, Rick. "Growth Industries of the Future.” Newsweek, 18 October 1982, p. 83. Orth, Millie N. and Russell, Jill F. Curriculum Development Needs for Vocational Education: New and Changing Occu- pations. COlumbus, OH: The Ohio State University Nggional Center for Research in Vocational Education, 1 0. Pfeiffer, Jay and Stronge, William B. Approaches to Identifying New and Emerging Job Opportunities in Florida: Using Existing Data Resources. Tallahassee, FL: Florida OccupationalInformation Coordinating Committee, 1982. Somers, Gerald G. and Little, Kenneth J., ed. Vocational Education: Today and Tomorrow. Madison, WI: University chWisconsin, Center EOr Studies in Vocational and Tech- nical Education, 1971. Stembridge, James E. Jr. New & Changing Occupations. Salem, OR: Oregon Occupational Information Coordinating Com- mittee, 1981. 207 Stuart, Stephen D. An Exploratory Study to Analyze New U. S. Skill Content in Selectedgccupations in Michigan and the Mechanism for Its Translation into Vocational Education Curricdla. Columbus, OH: Battelle Laboratories, 1972. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Projections and Training Data. Washington, D.C.: IGovernment Printing Office, 1976.