:Hfl
â€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. â€Iv“ :13? ' 'JéJ‘ 3" 'I‘I II‘ I I‘ II‘ I E33333
I I .
â€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'“ â€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" 31'3â€â€œ3’ 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 fulï¬llment
of the requirements for
Doctor of PhiTosophy degree“, Teacher Education
a jor professor
George‘wz Ferns
BMW 6, l¢84
MSU is an Afï¬rmative 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: mï¬gyuag.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
â€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.â€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: â€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 â€. . . 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:ï¬n: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:ï¬n: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 ucocï¬EOLS who: one: page mance uncu-xu:ozh och
ON mam<h
128
WWWN
c
mooxo~a5m
362 no amok
wcwuumaxm
acousuomuscm:
no 969332
mm.
oo.
mm.
mm.
I—I—iN—i
mm.—
om.—
mN.
cc.
ON.
wk.
an.
ac.
NN—INNa—I
ammo—mogumuu
z\3\o o
>~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<b
Aneuumumiumomv
mm‘u~>_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—nmï¬Soquua 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, â€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, â€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, â€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, â€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 ï¬rinting 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, â€Job Analysis in the United States
Air Force, Personnel Psychology 17 (Spring 1964):
7-16.
Gregory 8. Graham, â€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, â€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, â€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
:caaamï¬mamcw
Lo mops wbmawhg
:oï¬amccon co
co
acwsaw u:~ma
mowfl Lo moï¬xm 2;“;
once; o>oz
m -m4m:_
:oa—zm xudsï¬xoba -mum:~
Lou macaw Haoï¬cazows -aam:_
mmthaLLmn acmLm
Loamcmba no; gone; wean:
oohsow Haembuoo
Lam be
a Axooco “q omu
:o m mcï¬oza 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<o_ï¬uzo
cow: opï¬mcsowpwmzo m xï¬GCogm<
186
x. 030
C
___a so- oz;
o. m a :me
: w“.
HG
mu_.a
x
a
_mo~a_bo
coELOQLwQ awe:
vouowaxm m—
m“ was?
zo~9<eommxm mmmzq<oua~zu
A5203 3 chCmew
.oao umcw
.mbwc
:
$187
:ca 0:;
a_=u
0;
Locza :am—c
mama :mo-c
:mo—c
two; o;md cow-U
mLOLL Leuoo_um; :mmgc
650 o; :mw.c
mzou__u
Logos 0 Luoo_o :mm_c
geomAw caw~
micamA
mmmzo :mw
LQCMQ
.mc_a‘;o
cosboupea ca duo:
coaowaxo m~
a“ :_:9
zo~9<bomaxw mmmzq<cusmzo
A.pcoov m xAUSQO<
188
..
>
<
sea 9...
mug“
0;
Hmduoz
WE
Locsoooh wan» memo.ccs;
~ wamomzszg
,Laow mo
gnaw:
.mo_a_bo
cosnouuoq amo:
coaooaxo a.
a. m_:%
zo~9<iommxm mmmza<o~huzo
fpcoov m Snaps???
189
oL3mmoLa o-=mzt>; unzï¬c<
:0 o gmzac<
mamdmac_5:: amsa=<
mzwm am2n7<
Hogazoo mzcou Am:n1<
mo:mu_omaao caz—L gaznt<
Loom o>~c= umzwt<
usaaso Loumzocom o: amzac<
m: ans-c<
uazogno Hogucoo
:a
mo.»~m:oa:~ owczm Sm:q=<
~o>
mszm
oocaa azaaso c< amzec<
3o headgocow u< amzec<
ammo;
.moau_uo
ace oza cosbouhoa umo:
muse coaoomxo ea
c» em =.;&
zo~a<éommxm mmmza<o~9~zo
A.pzoov : xflUComm<
190
mm>ï¬gc Loom cmaï¬<
ao>_;c
anamoELoza am3e2<
bang amzac<
mo>~m>o>gow umzac<
~mo o:c;a umsï¬c<
w>~a> you-m;
coo a c<
2.23 6.. 03558:: 1<
mmobacoo mszo:: amzec<
moo~>oc oagaoo_mouo«a gmsnc<
mbwquauasm u
Legummaomo umzn=<
owmucoozw; comum_:cos umzec<
Lo>w~
ammo;
_=o.a_Lo
UoELouqu amoz
uoaovaxo a“
mm =.:?
zo~E<EUMme mwmza<o~s~¢o
A.pcoov : XMUCQO<
191
Logos
:0 on om:m:c
Logos maza od_:m;=>:
ommzq goo~o mambsm~ac
Lo> oam;;~_au
wmma~o>.mug oom;:_~mu
magazm :w—~<
Aha 0‘
Lane;
an
.aulsqto
:oa 02a coshounoq on awe:
m_:a cwaooaxo mu
3 =.aE+
zo~?<sommxm mwmza<o~$~zo
A.v:oov m NHUComm<
192
axe» coaaowmawt woa_:cz
®>
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_e<aommxm mmmza<o~s~=o
A.p:oov m NHUCon<
193
L gnaw;
C
C
L
.acaauLo
:oa oza coELouLuQ on awe:
m_:u :me cuaownxo m_
o»
zo~9<sommxm mmmza<oueuzo
A.pcoov m
u— a—z?
Leas-sï¬zcom oqï¬zmbc>z
Lowcmzoxm usw:
mgo-ou mcmzw
mo>ugc Loom
momsu
Lo»
mctcon on sedan.
mo wwaLOam zwmeo
mcwcooco
uwuï¬o; —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 oï¬uaszoca
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: owï¬zmtczz
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 mmmza<o~9~zo
A.p:oov : xHUCme<
195
mammcmzooeo>com wow-no:
mwï¬smo 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 ozqï¬ oL:mmoLQ woo
Lonesoï¬u:oao: mom
Loom
Lo 0 m5:ocg
noumo.bn:~ ouumszwcg
o «530::
a
o assoc;
Sac: :oflcmzo oï¬amszoca o0:
.moaa
a
now oz; cosbouhca
maze :Luo coaooaxo mu
0» mm =.:?
zo~§<ï¬ommxm mwmza<o~s~¢o
A.p:oov : wangm<
196
.m
>
<
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~$<ï¬ommxm mmmza<onémzo
79:03 : x2289:
19?
>090
: A:
.mo_g_uo
___d_ :o- 9:; cosbouhvn on amoz
n. m—zu :Loo vouooaxo a“
_ n 0... mm 21:.
zo~E<EDmmxm mmmza<ouï¬mzo
A3283 : x2369“:
o» ALoEoE
Loumzmbe
Embwoza :5; come
hhoEoE EmLMOLQ osuamwu_:~oz
unmzo
man» must ooscoxm
two.—
oum~a name too;
zLoEoE
EMLMOLL ommhm
Loacm
Emcwoho adcm
maaoxmuc aaoc
wao~QEoc
198
nmchoooL: ~mcomamnoao ma
mzomamo 2048“
:o «Eco o mam
moo>o_aso Io:
Lozoo adogmm
wed“ C30—J HO mwaM=;.—mw
Cm
mo umsozom uwbzzoa:_
0—
mo ogauoa:_
>La_:obqo oqcohuoo
:MLAw:~n Hohauou
ammo;
.so_a~to
:oe o;a coscouhoa goo:
maze coaooaxo a.
Cu mu 3‘2?
zo~e<sousxm wmng<o_e_=o
A.wcoov m xwosogm<
199
mmood m
;a~3 amaoE :Lo; go ::
oozmcmu:—ms w:mm->Loa=m no 24::
~o::omho: w:—Lodm~:usca go zu::
ho gnaw;
x“
.mo‘aubo
cosbouooa Lao:
oooooaxo mu
3‘ 3‘2?
zenecaummxm mmmzn<o~$~zo
79:03 : xflocmï¬ï¬w
Appendix I
Follow-up Mailed Questionnaire
and Letter
200
Appendix I
Follow-up Mailed Questionnaire
and Letter
Dear Mr.
Thank-you for your assistance in the analysis of
tasks necessary for robot maintenance mechanics.
The time and expertise you supplied was a valuable
contribution to this project.
During my discussions several additions were
suggested. Could you please spend a few moments to
indicate your opinion on these additions.
Again thank-you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
201
maosog On
mm :m HN cm ma
o o m ~
.so—o: xoozo «muo20h ac Launch vzm oocacoacume o:» cm oEua Hush goo: o»
Aaaqxo_osoo wwmzo>a 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~5<aommxm
ammo;
.50—amLo
awe!
mm c.;e
mmmza<o_a_=o
A.Pcoov H chsogm<
LogLMQm-o
cm mum~u_:
wcuambz :M oumo
zï¬ camom::EEou
NU
co m com-ac:
:oo oL:mmoLQ a c<
Logan:_>I-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.â€
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.