Any proposal for a FAS has to be backed up by facts. These facts will relate to the anticipated cost of the FAS, its benefit to the company, and the payback period that can be expected from the investment. In order that a convincing argument can be put across, it is necessary that the facts reflect the financial, economic, technical, and social aspects of the FAS. It is also advisable that they are given in a format that is objective as well as being in a manner that does not permit subjective personalities, opinions, or preferences to cloud the issue. Failure to put forward a comprehensive proposal could result in the project being rejected out of hand, irrespective of the amount of technical work that has been done in order to prove its technical viability. Lastly, it is important to remember that the “judges” of the proposal will invariably be of a financial rather than engineering background. Hence, it is imperative to avoid the trap caused by the different thought patterns of accountants and engineers vis à vis what constitutes a viable project. The engineer will have tunnel vision about the technical merits of the proposal, whereas the accountant will have tunnel vision about manpower saving being the one and only index for assessing the project. In the end, it comes down to carefully weighed arguments in both the engineers and accountants languages that will make or break the proposal.
KeywordsAssembly System Payback Period Assembly Cost Automate Assembly Tunnel Vision
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.