The final product - the s540 Collator
RML Automation
This case study was written by Matthew Baird, a Year 13 student at St John's College in Hamilton. Matthew presented the case study as part of the evidence required for assessment against the Level 3 Technology achievement standard AS 90686 – 'Explain knowledge that underpins a Materials Technology outcome'.
Matthew's final project portfolio is presented as part of a full case study of the Year 13 Technology programme at St John's College, to be published mid July.
Also see St John's College/RML Link profile with comments from teacher Steve Andrew and RML Director Peter Botting
Introduction
The final product - the s540 Collator
Technologists: RML Automation
Client: Nestlé Ice Cream, Australia
Product: s540 Collator
RML automation is a New Zealand firm based in Hamilton. This engineering firm has its focus within the automation of production lines. While they do have set machines which they market independently on a global basis, they also specialise in developing one-off solutions for companies on a by-demand basis. This particular project began when Nestlé Ice Cream, a confectionary company based in Melbourne Australia, approached RML with an issue they were experiencing. The supermarkets to which the ice cream was being supplied had requested that the cartons be delivered in a new format. Nestlé's production line machines could not support this new format, thus the need for a new machine arose, from, this market demand.
Nestlé approached RML with a set of specifications they wanted for the new machine. RML considered these over a six week period while liaising with the potential client. They formulated an initial concept with a set of finalized specifications and an estimated cost, which were then sent to Nestlé for them to review. The plans were accepted and the contract for RML was secured. Following this, another six weeks were assigned to design work which towards the end was analysed for safety. Once the safety was deemed compliant all the drawings were detailed and organized for construction. Following this stage 10 weeks were assigned for the manufacture and assembly, after which a secondary safety check was done. Once this was concluded the completed machine was disassembled and shipped to Nestlé in Australia where a team of two RML engineers reassembled the collator and trained the Nestlé engineers in the running and maintenance of it. Once the s540 had been fully installed and commissioned the job was complete.
The Knowledge
The Nestlé Ice Cream which needed to be handled by the new machine to be packed in a new format
RML is a long standing specialised engineering firm; from its many years of operation it has gained a large amount of tacit knowledge. This is knowledge that has been gained over time and is exclusive to the firm. It is used frequently in all projects and is integral for them to produce sophisticated specialist machinery. The areas in which this knowledge is apparent is in the following:
However even with a long standing firm, each project is different and a demand for new knowledge is present. In the case of the specialist machine, the s540 collator, this was even more so. The areas in which new knowledge was requires are as follows:
Pre-gained Knowledge
The collator was controlled by a large amount of sophisticated electronics
Time management and Project planning are integral for any project. Before a 'job' is even secured a significant amount of dialogue occurs between the two parties. RML are usually requested to create preliminary solution to a problem. To do this, machine and safety specifications are needed from the potential client. Actual and implied key factors are discussed also. This is all kept within an 'Administration Folder'. While this is most important prior to securing a contract, it is kept and often referred back to in the duration of the project. Once a project has been secured many more folders are created for each individual part, however these all stem from this first Administration Folder.
Often clients come to RML requesting projects completed within a very small time frame. Being able to deliver within these constraints is only achieved by highly involved planning. As with Sharp Concepts, RML use the software Microsoft Project to plan their projects by method of timelines. These timelines hold a significant amount of information. Key milestones are able to be set at different dates, each one containing a set of tasks needing to be completed. These tasks are each allocated a certain number of working hours within which they must be completed. This allows for a very accurate way of judging if a project can be completed within a requested time frame before a contract is even secured. In addition to being able to plan the project task-by-task, it also has the facility to plan resources. These resources range from anything such as sheet steel through to the amount of working hours a particular employee will be working on a specific task. For example, a task may be that a certain part of the machine needs assembling within 3 hours. If 200% employee resource is associated with this, it means that two people will be assembling the machine for completion within 3 hours. At a glance it could also be seen that a certain amount of specific grade steel is required from another department etc. Being able to do this is a huge advantage as it reduces the risk of taking on too many projects or having unallocated time which reduces revenue. It also allows for an instant pricing of the machine as all resources are allocated prior to the project being commenced.
Once the over-all project is planned using the specialist software and a job is secured, the machine is designed and prepared for manufacture. At this stage each part is made separately, often by different people at different times. Keeping track of these and ensuring everything is completed to specification is essential. To do this RML use a unique folder system. Each part of the machine is assigned a folder within which all the drawings for that part are kept. This folder effectively follows that part of the machine as it is manufactured and then finally checked to ensure quality and accuracy. Once all the parts are completed the folders are collated, re-checked and the machine is assembled from the drawings.
Material Knowledge is a large part of RML's success. Due to the fact that their forte is cutting and packing within the food industry, much experience has been gained over the years in this area. For example the stringent hygiene standards usually require the materials to be of stainless steel and specific plastics. All past projects are filed on a central database which the designers can access to review what materials have successfully been used in different situations. Perhaps even more of value is their ability to meld Software, Electronics and Hard Materials into a fail-safe automation solution. In this case study Nestlé was quite a unique client due to the fact that they have their own engineering department within their factory; however their engineers were mainly trained in maintenance and diagnostics rather than the actual construction of machines. RML had the knowledge that was needed to meld together the three components (Software, Electronics and Hard Materials) along with the need of Nestlé's to produce a fail-safe solution in the form of the s540 collator.
Specialist design in their field of expertise is what makes RML the forefront of their field, even to the extent of Nestlé, an Australian company, contracting them in New Zealand. As mentioned earlier, Nestlé have their own engineering department within their Melbourne factory. This meant they knew exactly what they wanted in their machine, even to the point of being able to name specific components. RML stated that approximately 80% of the machine was pre-determined by the Nestlé team. However the remaining 20% needed to be solved by the RML design team. They had the knowledge to take what Nestlé had specified and construct it into a working solution.
The initial concept of the s540 Collator designed on the CAD software Solid Works
This was done by a slightly different method than that employed by Sharp Concepts in my previous case study. Instead of first building a mock-up to see if the solution could be solved, they went straight into design with the confidence in themselves that they could solve the problem with the knowledge and expertise they had. This did not mean that they blindly constructed a final product hoping that it would function. Instead, they carried out all their design, modelling and testing on the computer based application Solid Works. This is CAD authoring software which is used throughout much of engineering industry today. Fully scaled three dimensional models can be created from which plans can be taken for construction. RML 'buy in' the knowledge to run this in the form of the engineers that make up the deign team. The ability to do this testing meant much time and money could be saved by avoiding constructing a physical working mock-up. It was during this design and computer testing stage that the remaining 20% was solved to formulate the working machine which Nestlé could not create themselves. This 20% consisted of being able to run the machine at up to 100 tubs packed per second, being able to fill either 1.2L or 2.0L tubs and complying with certain safety standards (See safety procedures for more details on this) while retaining functionality.
Manufacturing quality is taken very seriously at RML as it is not only how they maintain a good name within industry, but also to reduce the need for costly call-outs and repairs. Quality is assured in a number of ways, the most obvious being the use of good materials and selecting the right processes to accompany them. In addition to this is the need to remove the likelihood of human error. This can only be done by comprehensive checking. After the drawings are completed by the design team for manufacture, they are checked over before being sent to the construction floor, if anything is picked up it is corrected and re-checked. Once the manufacturing of all the separate parts is completed, again a process dubbed "QA” (quality Assurance) is carried out. This is where a team of people physically check the dimensions etc against the associated drawings. Once all the parts have passed this and are assembled, the machine is set fully running on RML's premises, observed by the client's staff before it is installed and commissioned.
Project Specific Knowledge
As part of the Safety Compliance all hazards had to be fully marked, such as compressed air
Communication with an off-shore client was a distinctive part of this case study. While it was a compliment that Nestlé chose off-shore RML to contract, it also presented several very real problems. Due to the fact the Nestlé engineering team were so particular about what they wanted, they needed to be constantly liaised with. This problem was solved with little difficulty by means of telephone conferences and frequent e-mail contact. This worked well until drawings and the actual workings of the machine needed to be discussed. After some consideration, this was resolved by the Solid Works software which allowed for a three dimensional interactive model to be sent digitally. This allowed for the Nestlé team to check certain parts, virtually being able to see inside the planned machine. Before the s540 could be shipped over for installation in the Melbourne factory, it needed to be finally checked by Nestlé for it function and safety. This was done by taking a high definition digital video of the collator in operation from different vantage points; this was then sent in digital format to Nestlé who could then review it before agreeing for the installation to commence.
Safety, Laws and Legislation were all factors which had to be considered very carefully in the design of the s540 collator. Not only did the product have to comply with the familiar New Zealand regulation but also with those in Australia, where it would be installed. These standards were unfamiliar to the RML team and required them to research into how they could ensure their machine would comply without reducing its functionality.
The specific standard they had to work with the most was the AS4024.1. This standard contains the many regulations concerning the safety of the machine when it is running. The requirements it contains range from the position of hazard stickers to the strength and types of metal acceptable for use in guards covering moving parts. The factor which was of largest concern with the design was the position of these guards. Nestlé required that the containers of ice cream would be accessible while on the machine, the problem was achieving this while staying in compliance with AS4024.1. The designers were briefed on the issue and managed to form a solution by extending out the sides and fully enclosing the internals of the machine, leaving only the belts open. The safety compliance of the machine was fully checked by both RML and Nestlé before installation in the factory.
In addition to the safety standards, care had to be taken for customs. This required that all the parts be accessible for checking around to ensure nothing illegal or hazardous was included in the shipping container.
Before installation the circled area was identified as a hazard, as a hand could get caught
Trouble shooting is something which RML commit to when guaranteeing their product and is also considered a good way to improve their knowledge. In this case study it had to occur in two places. The first of these was picked up in the video check sent to Nestlé. During their safety analysis, they identified that there was a possibility that an operators hand could get caught in the area circled in the picture. They contacted RML regarding this, to which they responded by removing the outlet feed further back into the machine, and by changing the drop feed rate.
With this issue addressed the machine was disassembled, packed and shipped. Both an automation engineer and a mechanical engineer were flown over to install and commission the machine while training the Nestlé engineers. However once the machine was installed and running they discovered another significant problem. The two belts which carried the cartons out from the machine, were slipping beneath them for a second before it gripped them enough to carry them out. This was due to condensation forming on the outside of the containers. The result of this was a dramatic reduction in the speed of the machine. The issue had not been picked up in past testing as all the cartons had been dry of condensation. The two engineers resolved the problem by changing the type of belts to ones with a rougher surface to increase the friction of them. The information gained from these problems is considered valuable as it will help prevent similar problems in future products.
Patents are usually taken out on machines created by RML, however in this case it was decided that it was not worth the cost. The reason behind this is similar to that of Sharp Concepts with the Skorpian Skate, Matthew's second product development case study for this acievement standard. Due to the fact that the s540 collator is a one off product for a very specific use, in the unlikely event that another company would require such a machine, they would come to RML as they are the best at making them. Due to the large amount of tacit knowledge that they contain they remain the head of their field.
Download a video of the machine in action
Screen captures of the machine from the video
Avi
Mov
Wmv
Intellectual property issues
The following questions were put to RML Director, Peter Botting in late 2007 by Susan Corbett, of Victoria University of Wellington, as part of her study, Intellectual property in Technology teaching, identifying intellectual property implications and issues that emerge from selected Techlink case studies. Their replies take the form of edited reported speech.
As far as Peter Botting is aware, there is no particular meaning associated with the name RML. He is not sure why the name was originally chosen. However he is often asked about this and generally tells inquirers that the name stands for Reliability Manufactured Locally.
The name has not been registered as a trade mark. This kind of intellectual property (IP) protection is not considered to be particularly relevant to the kind of business that RML Automation operates. RML Automation specialises in developing specific machinery for packaging for the food industry. Usually the machinery is created on an individual basis for a particular food manufacturer, such as the s540 Collator for Nestlé in the case study. Marketing using a trade mark or brand is therefore not a big part of RML Automation's business strategy, which is more reliant upon developing relationships of trust and a reputation for quality and good service with food manufacturers.
However, Peter Botting explains, the RML logo is regularly used on their letters, website, and products in order to identify the company to other potential customers. The company is therefore establishing a reputation in this brand and could apply to the Intellectual Property Office (IPONZ) to register the logo as a trade mark.
This is correct. The term tacit knowledge, as used by RML Automation, also includes 'human intellectual capital'; that is, the knowledge that is in its employees' heads.
Thus, a client who engages RML Automation to design a specific item of machinery will often ask RML Automation to sign its IP rights in the machine over to the client as a condition of getting the job. However, RML Automation will only agree to make the machine if the client agrees that RML Automation will retain all IP rights in any of its own tacit knowledge that is used in designing the machine. The client also has to agree that this tacit knowledge can be re-used by RML Automation to design other machinery (even, potentially, for a competitor of the client).
Is it usual for clients, such as Nestlé, to require RML Automation to enter into a confidentiality agreement before describing their specific requirements for a new project?
In this particular case study a confidentiality agreement was not required. Often, however, the client will require RML Automation to enter into a confidentiality agreement before it discusses its requirements. This is particularly important where there is a competitive situation in the marketplace and the client's discussions with RML Automation will inevitably reveal its competitive strategies.
An individual inventor who wishes to discuss his or her ideas with RML Automation will almost always take the precaution of asking for a confidentiality agreement to be signed.
RML Automation has not consciously thought about keeping a copyright trail on its original designs and plans for new machinery. Designs and plans are, of course, automatically protected by copyright as 'artistic works' for the lifetime of the author and a further 50 years. The company does, however, keep dated archives of these items; these would be useful in any dispute, as evidence that an RML Automation employee was the original author and that the copyright belongs to RML Automation as the employer. They also provide evidence of the term of copyright protection.
RML Automation does not generally apply for patent protection in situations where it has developed a "one-off” machine to fill a specific need for a client, such as the s540 Collator for Nestlé. This is because the cost of applying for a patent and also, possibly, defending it in court if anyone infringes the patent can be very high.
An application for a patent can be made by any person (or persons) claiming to be the inventor. Where there might be several parties claiming input into an invention the legal provisions are complex. It is always best to have a legal agreement (a contract) drawn up from the outset which sets out how the rights to commercialise the patent will be shared.
A legal agreement from the outset would also be effective if the parties have initially agreed to rely only upon confidentiality agreements but later decide that the invention might have commercial potential.
Of course, it might not be possible to patent some of RML Automation's new inventions, as by the time the company realises their commercial potential they might have already placed it in the marketplace and thus removed the 'novelty' to the New Zealand market which is required for patenting.
