The subject of robots in the kitchen has become the (forgive the pun) “flavor” of the moment. Automation, in one form or another, has in fact been around in the foodservice industry for many years although maybe not as readily taken up as the opportunity that has existed. Robotics, as a form of automation, is also not new – even if in the foodservice industry it is very new (well, emerging over the past five years) and at this stage still tending to be “cool” rather than normal.
To embark on the robotic journey today, and automation for that matter, is to believe that nothing is impossible. The difficulty is to discriminate between options. Do you take the automation rout or the robotic rout and are you aware of how much will be involved in getting it right and getting some return on the effort. The videos make it look easy, it’s not.
How do you choose whether an automation solution is the answer to a cost or reliability problem or would applying a robotic solution be more effective? We have all seen videos of coffee or salad making robots, but to understand that nothing is impossible, it is necessary to explore all the technology options that are used in other industries to find out what actually defines a robot?
In the same way that automation in industry is applying a machine to undertake a task done by a human: moving, filling, lifting, placing etc, the foodservice industry is no different. Moving an item from one point to another can be achieved just as capably by a conveyor as by a collaborative robot (cobot) or parallel delta robot (spider) or other technology.
Suitable applications
Just because a particular technology looks smart is not the reason why it is the most suitable application and will not be the only potential option and certainly not the reason to decide on changing from human to machine operation.
It should be remembered that by replacing skilled human powered work with a machine, which is moving from Industry 1 or 2 to Industry 3 or even 4. This is a leap to becoming equivalent to a High Mix Low Volume (HMLV) manufacturer. At this point as Dr Shahrukh Irani advises, you need to “move from a product-based view to a process-based view” in working through the issues involved.
For the caterer as a manufacturer, when considering the introduction of technology, it is worth approaching the process of change through the principals of Lean HMLV Manufacturing:
- Value: the customer remains central
- Value stream: visualizing the processes involved in the production required to maintain value
- Flow: the processes need to run smoothly in a tight sequence
- Demand pull: the smooth production flow that enables the product to be “pulled” through the process “on demand”
- Perfection: Lean principals are not static and need to be consistently repeated and reviewed
Lean Manufacturing is a process of continuous improvement though the elimination of waste – materials and labor. As has been pointed out, information in the form of data is required for the successful implementation of automation through the connected kitchen. This will include achieving the benefits of the introduction of robotics and, as Dr Irani points out, there will be “Information waste”. Discrimination is required to sort out useful from irrelevant (in the given context) information and data to optimize process.
Resolving labor issues
When considering applying technology to improve a process is to immediately consider a machine with arms that replicate the movement of the human arm; a robot, as being the only option. In fact, the first step is to identify what technologies are best at resolving the typical labor issues being confronted; cost, reliability, capability, speed, accuracy, etc. Each objective may require a different technology solution; or maybe not at all.
Robotic technologies are best at solving volume/accuracy/repetition/speed issues as opposed to tasks benefitting from individual capability. We are inspired (or may be cautioned) to believe that machine learning makes technology capable of getting better at what it is doing; but that is all it does. The machine, the robot, is only useful at repeating the same action, nearly perfectly every time. The consultant and their client have to decide if, and where, that applies, sure in the knowledge that there will always be a machine (or machines) somewhere that can do a particular task effectively.
It is the individuals, or lack of, in the kitchen that become the objective. Reducing the number of individuals needed has to be the purpose, not just replacing them for the sake of. The idea that all the investment in time and money is to complement the existing team is disingenuous. There has to be a significant return on the investment to justify the significant time and money that is required to move to automated production.
The cost effectiveness of alternative machines or automated systems to replace a task, currently requiring a significant number of individual hours worked with fewer hours, can be evaluated on their merits. These will include the complete cost of ownership and the ability to be incorporated into the overall operation without compromising the Lean Manufacturing principals.
As a HMLV manufacturer the critical issue will be ensuring flexibility in the processes and machinery. Maximizing the investment in the technology requires avoiding brittle robots or other machines unable to be programmed and equipped to perform different tasks requiring different tools (as you would expect in the kitchen) to be completed in sequence to deliver a single purpose, eg; plate a meal.
Where these technologies will have real potential value is in the repetitive supporting back of house tasks where there is high volume. Not plating 25 meals an hour but rather over 100 or even 1,000 meals an hour as in large healthcare or industrial applications where at all production and delivery stages the volume requires high labor units to complete.
Code compliance
The introduction of robotics into the kitchen adds another critical control point in the HACCP plan, particularly if handling ingredients and food. When evaluating alternatives, HACCP through UL or other code compliance is an important factor and one which may eliminate some options or equipment because of exposed machine parts, or the lubrication being used not being food safe. Overall, the “cleanability” of the equipment, unlike in an industrial factory setting, is critical and should be imparted to technology suppliers when evaluating systems.
As a cautionary note, for all meals delivered from the kitchen to look identical may be efficient and technologically be possible but should be very carefully considered to make sure it does not impact the real customer value. Handing and preparing a high volume of materials and ingredients for the mis-en-place is an obvious opportunity for the benefits of automation. The final cooking and plating for service to the customer, may not be so otherwise the guest may as well have been handed a takeout meal from the supermarket case.
Postscript: you may have notice that lower case is used for robots and other automation technologies. That is because they should be considered ubiquitous and just another tool in the armory of the consultant’s competence rather than something special or particularly important.
Tim Smallwood
