Decision tool

Should I automate this?

Twelve inputs on labor, repeatability, mix, ergonomics, quality, and readiness. The factor chart, score, and cell architecture update as you answer.

Live score · 0/12

Weak candidate for now

Diagnostic sequence

Question 1 of 12

Input 1 / 12

What work are you considering for automation?

Pick the closest match. This steers the technology shortlist more than the score.

Select an answer to advance. The readout tracks every input.

Free screening tool for planning conversations - not engineering, safety, or financial advice. Collaborative operation is set by risk assessment of the application, not by robot marketing labels.

How this tool works

This is a first-pass tool that tells a plant engineer whether a task is worth scoping for automation before anyone calls an integrator. Answer 12 questions about labor, process, mix, and readiness, and the tool returns a 0-100 suitability score with a suggested approach. It is free and ungated, not a capex model or a quote.

How the score works

The 12 questions cover labor economics, repeatability, mix and stability, ergonomics, quality, environment, plant readiness, and the task type itself. Each answer carries a weight, and the total is normalized to a 0-100 score that updates live while you answer. The final score maps to one of four suitability bands: strong, promising, conditional, or weak.

A few answers apply penalties because they tend to sink real projects, for example chaotic part presentation, cycles that need human judgment every time, or an unstable process. The score then routes to a suggested approach: process first, semi-automation, cobot, industrial, specialized, or not yet. Task type mostly steers that approach and the technology shortlist rather than the number.

What the inputs mean

Labor hours and loaded cost set the economic case, so count the people actually doing the work across shifts and use a real loaded rate. Repeatability and presentation describe how robot-ready the physical task is, and mix and stability describe whether the process will hold still long enough to pay back.

Ergonomics and quality act as soft multipliers, so a hard or injury-prone task can still screen well when the pure labor math is thin. Environment and readiness steer the architecture and flag whether the plant can actually own the project. Payload and reach are not scored here; use the robot catalog once the envelope is known.

How to read the payback band

The payback band is a rough range, not a quote. It comes from your labor hours times your dollar rate times about 250 working days, compared against typical all-in cell cost envelopes by approach, for example roughly 60k to 180k for a cobot cell or 150k to 450k for a guarded industrial cell.

Ergonomics and quality nudge the displaceable value up, and sporadic or low-frequency volume pulls it down. The result is one of four bands: under 18 months, 18 to 36 months, over 36 months, or needs more data. Treat it as a directional filter, since integration and tooling often dominate the robot price and only an integrator quote reflects your real site.

Worked examples

These are typical input patterns and the band and approach they usually produce. Your own answers can move the result.

1. CNC machine tending, one busy shift
A machine tending task that runs near-continuously, with 8 or more labor hours a day, fixtured parts, and repeatable cycles often lands near the strong band. With a clean or typical floor and a moderate mix, the suggested approach is usually a cobot cell, or an industrial cell when the mix rarely changes. Confirm door interlocks and part orientation at the machine before an integrator conversation.
2. End-of-line palletizing, high volume
Palletizing that runs continuously or eats 8 plus hours a day tends to score well and route to a guarded industrial cell. The economics are usually driven by sustained volume and consistent case infeed, so check case rates and pallet patterns early. Expect payback to hinge on how steady the infeed and pallet mix really are.
3. High-mix assembly that is still changing
An assembly task with constant changeovers, variable cycles, or a process about to be redesigned usually screens as weak or conditional and routes to process first or not yet. The tool flags the loudest constraint, often part presentation, cycle variability, or an unlocked roadmap. Stabilize standard work and tooling, then re-run the screen.

How to use the result

Use the score and band to decide whether a task is worth a deeper look, not to size a project or set a budget. A strong or promising result is a cue to time-study the task, build a rough all-in budget including tooling, safety, and integration, and get a loaded labor rate from finance. A conditional or weak result usually means fixing presentation, mix, or process stability before shopping for arms, then screening again.

Copy your result to a colleague who owns the line, or follow on LinkedIn where new assessment tools and fault-code pages go up first.