Innovation Peer

Automation Project Studio · Case Study

Case Study Overview

Manual deburring of cut metal parts

Example outputRobotic Deburring / Grinding / Surface FinishingReady for Project ReviewPromising, Needs Validation

Atlas Metalworks · Atlas Metalworks — Hamilton, ON (Deburr bay)

This sample case study uses fictional company and process data to show the type of documentation Innovation Peer can help prepare.

No supplier contact happens without your approval. Outputs are early-stage project scope — not final engineering design, quote, safety certification, or statement of work.

This is an early-stage project scope intended to support internal review and supplier feasibility discussions. It is not a final engineering design, safety certification, quote, or statement of work.

Company and industry context

Atlas Metalworks — Metal fabrication

Manual deburring of cut metal parts causing ergonomic risk and inconsistent finish.

Current process

Operators manually deburr laser-cut and punched parts at a bench grinder and file station before powder coat prep, with finish variation on sharp edges.

Problem / bottleneck

Ergonomic risk, inconsistent edge break, and deburr bottlenecks before finishing.

Related Technology Pathway

Robotic Deburring / Grinding / Surface Finishing

Open Technology Pathway

Why the pathway fits

Repeatable part families with defined burr locations fit force-controlled robotic deburring with dust collection and sampling inspection.

What data the buyer needed

  • • Part materials and burr locations
  • • Surface finish specification
  • • Cycle time and part family count

Preliminary economics snapshot

Illustrative snapshot: ~$132K deburr labor, 14% rework on coating prep, target rework below 5%; deburr cells often $140K–$300K CAD (not a quote).

Main risks

  • • Part-to-part burr variation exceeds force-control tuning
  • • Dust collection undersized for media type
  • • Fixture access on complex cut profiles

Required delivery team

  • • Robotics integrator
  • • Spindle/tooling supplier
  • • Dust collection partner

Recommended next step

Provide part drawings and deburr defect photos in Project Intake, then generate validation items for fixturing and dust containment.

Document packages generated

  • • Project Assessment
  • • Preliminary economics snapshot
  • • Required Delivery Team
  • • Supplier-Ready Project Scope
Start with a similar challenge

Documentation stack

Industrial automation buying-gate documents generated from your Automation Project record. Use Export Documents in the page header for PDF, Excel, and presentation exports.

Internal Decision Package

Gate 1 — readiness, economics, and capital justification for internal sponsors.

Active package6 docs · Ready for Internal Use

Summarize readiness, preliminary economics, and capital justification for internal sponsors.

Supports: Whether to proceed with feasibility and project definition.

Project Definition Package

Gate 2 — charter, risks, validation, and site readiness for project definition.

Active package5 docs · Ready for Internal Use

Define project scope, risks, validation needs, and site readiness before supplier engagement.

Supports: Whether the project is defined enough to engage suppliers or integrators.

Supplier Preparation Package

Gate 3 — pre-procurement URS/SOW and supplier engagement support (draft sections).

Draft / partial4 docs · Ready for Internal Use

Prepare draft URS/SOW, technical requirements, and supplier evaluation criteria for procurement.

Supports: Whether supplier conversations can start with structured scope and criteria.

Supplier sharing gated — Complete intake gaps and readiness review before supplier-facing exports.

Commercial Readiness Package

Commercial and legal-readiness planning templates before supplier conversations — not legal advice or final contracts.

Draft / partial7 docs · Mixed (Drafting, Ready for Internal Use)

Plan commercial terms, consent, and clarification questions before supplier proposals and contracts.

Supports: Whether the team is ready for commercial and contractual supplier discussions.

Supplier sharing gated — Complete intake gaps and readiness review before supplier-facing exports.

Internal Decision Package

Management Summary

Ready for Internal UseGenerated 3/15/2026, 2:30:00 PM

Intended audience: Plant Manager · Operations Director

Atlas Metalworks · Robotic Deburring / Grinding / Surface Finishing — Atlas Metalworks

Readiness scorecard

How ready is this project for internal and project review?

Readiness: Ready for Project Review

Fit: Promising, Needs Validation

Next step: Feasibility Review Recommended

Core intake completeness

Core intake completeness reflects structured intake capture only. It does not mean final validation, supplier readiness, engineering sign-off, or safety approval.

100% captured

Supplier-readiness completeness

Site, evidence, and pathway readiness for supplier conversations — not supplier approval.

80% supplier-readiness signals

Risk matrix

Level, reason, and validation step for each area

Process risk: Low

Reason: Process context is documented enough for initial assessment.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Technology risk: Low

Reason: Solution technology aligns with stated process needs.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Commercial risk: Low

Reason: Labor and cost inputs support preliminary economics.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Implementation risk: Low

Reason: Site and staffing context supports implementation planning.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Safety / compliance risk: Low

Reason: No immediate safety/compliance flags from intake data.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Change management risk: Medium

Reason: Stakeholder alignment, training, and shift adoption affect automation benefits realization.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm operations, maintenance, and quality sign-off paths; plan communication and training before install.

Owner: Mike O'Brien — Fabrication Supervisor

Status: Open — needs review

Required delivery team

Who needs to be involved to deliver this project?

RoleLead / supportCategorySideWhy it matters
Systems integratorLeadIntegrationSupplier-sideDesigns and delivers the automation scope for this pathway.
Customer-side operations ownerBuyer-side contactCustomerBuyer-sideMike O'Brien — Fabrication Supervisor
Maintenance contactBuyer-side contactMaintenanceBuyer-sideTom Hughes — Facilities & Maintenance

Project overview

Manual deburring of cut metal parts at Atlas Metalworks · Atlas Metalworks — Hamilton, ON (Deburr bay). Automation pathway: Robotic Deburring / Grinding / Surface Finishing. Readiness: Ready for Project Review. Fit: Promising, Needs Validation.

Current problem

Ergonomic reports from repetitive deburr. 14% rework on coating prep due to missed burrs. Deburr station bottlenecks peak volumes.

Desired outcome

Robotic deburring cell for top part families with force control, dust collection, and consistent edge break before finishing.

Preliminary economics

Current labor baseline ~$272,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $82,875–$112,125 CAD/year; Project cost $100,000–$500,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 11–72 months; Base-case payback 12–62 months.

Main risks

Top risks to validate before capital or supplier commitments.

Risk areaLevelReasonValidation stepOwnerStatus
ProcessLowProcess context is documented enough for initial assessment.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor
TechnologyLowSolution technology aligns with stated process needs.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor
CommercialLowLabor and cost inputs support preliminary economics.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor
ImplementationLowSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor

Required delivery team summary

Lead and supporting roles expected during delivery.

RoleTypeRationale
Systems integratorLeadDesigns and delivers the automation scope for this pathway.

Recommended next step

Validate burr locations, force-control approach, dust collection, and part fixturing on production samples before supplier outreach.

Decision needed

Confirm what additional site data and evidence to collect before the next step.

Missing Information & Assumptions to Confirm

Confirm provided inputs, assumptions, and missing items before treating economics as decision-grade.

Provided inputs

  • Operators involved: 2
  • Hours per shift: 8
  • Shifts per day: 2
  • Working days per year: 250
  • Loaded hourly labor cost: $34/hr CAD

Assumptions used for preliminary calculation

  • Calculated baseline (~$272,000 CAD/yr) differs from stated annual labor ($132,000 CAD) — reconcile inputs

Missing information / needs confirmation

  • No major information gaps flagged at this completeness level.
▸ Technical detail / generated assessment panels

Automation Project Overview

Fictional intake data for this sample case study. Assessment panels use the same deterministic logic as live Automation Projects.

Company
Atlas Metalworks
Industry
Metal fabrication
Site / facility
Atlas Metalworks — Hamilton, ON (Deburr bay)
Process name
Manual deburring of cut metal parts
Selected Automation Solution
Robotic Deburring / Grinding / Surface Finishing
Current process
Operators manually deburr laser-cut and punched parts at bench grinders and file stations before powder coat prep, with finish variation on sharp edges.
Desired outcome
Robotic deburring cell for top part families with force control, dust collection, and consistent edge break before finishing.
Main pain points
Ergonomic reports from repetitive deburr. 14% rework on coating prep due to missed burrs. Deburr station bottlenecks peak volumes.
Operators involved
2
Shifts per day
2
Hours per shift
8
Working days per year
250
Loaded hourly labor cost
$34 CAD
Cycle time / throughput
~180 parts/shift across two part families at launch
Product / part details
Mild steel laser-cut panels and brackets, 2 primary families, sharp laser edge burrs.
Evidence notes
Example only: burr defect photos, part drawings, dust collection layout sketch (demo).
Project owner
Karen Whitfield — Production Director
Technical contact
Luis Fernandez — Process Engineer
Operations contact
Mike O'Brien — Fabrication Supervisor
Quality contact
Sandra Liu — Quality Lead

Project Assessment

Current process summary
Operators manually deburr laser-cut and punched parts at bench grinders and file stations before powder coat prep, with finish variation on sharp edges. Primary bottleneck: Manual deburring before finishing Pain points: Ergonomic reports from repetitive deburr. 14% rework on coating prep due to missed burrs. Deburr station bottlenecks peak volumes.
Selected Automation Solution
Robotic Deburring / Grinding / Surface Finishing
Project Readiness
Ready for Project Review
Project Fit
Promising, Needs Validation
Core intake completeness
100%

Project Readiness and Data Completeness

Ready for Project Review — 100% of core intake fields are populated for this assessment level.

Project Fit & Risk Scoring

Risk areaLevelNotes
ProcessLowProcess context is documented enough for initial assessment.
TechnologyMediumPart-to-part burr variation and dust containment need validation on worst-case parts.
CommercialLowLabor and cost inputs support preliminary economics.
ImplementationMediumSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.
Safety / complianceNeeds ReviewDust, noise, and cell access control require explicit safety review.

Core intake fields are complete for this assessment level.

Recommended next step

Validate burr locations, force-control approach, dust collection, and part fixturing on production samples before supplier outreach.

Preliminary Project Economics

Current annual labor baseline
$272,000 CAD
Estimated annual savings range
$82,875–$112,125 CAD
Estimated project cost range
$100,000–$500,000 CAD
Estimated payback range
11–72 months

Business case inputs

  • Current labour hours2 operators · 2 shifts/day · 8 hours/shift · 250 days/year
  • Fully loaded labour cost34
  • Shift pattern2 shifts/day · 8 hours/shift · 250 days/year
  • Throughput requirements~180 parts/shift across two part families at launch
  • Scrap / rework impact48000
  • Downtime impact11000
  • Capex estimate range$100,000–$500,000 CAD
  • Opex estimate rangeNeeds data
  • Implementation disruptionSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.
  • Expected savings range$82,875–$112,125 CAD
  • Payback range11–72 months (indicative)

Calculation assumptions

  • Calculated baseline (~$272,000 CAD/yr) differs from stated annual labor ($132,000 CAD) — reconcile inputs

All economics are indicative ranges — not supplier quotes or capital approval.

Scenario Analysis

Conservative Case

Project cost
$110,000–$550,000 CAD
Annual savings
$52,600 CAD
Payback
25–125 months

Base Case

Project cost
$100,000–$500,000 CAD
Annual savings
$97,500 CAD
Payback
12–62 months

Upside Case

Project cost
$90,000–$450,000 CAD
Annual savings
$156,000 CAD
Payback
7–35 months

Required Delivery Team

Roles typically involved in scoping, validating, and delivering this Automation Project. Final team composition depends on site walkthrough and supplier feasibility review.

RoleLead / supportCategoryWhy it matters
Systems integratorLeadIntegrationDesigns and delivers the automation scope for this pathway.

Validation Checklist

  • Baseline process data

    Required for early project scoping and supplier-neutral planning.

Site Readiness Checklist

  • Site layout and utilities

    Confirm during site walkthrough and Project Intake.

Estimated Project Timeline

PhaseMilestoneDurationDescription
Phase 1Discovery and scoping4–8 weeksIntake, site review, and preliminary project definition.

Management Summary

Project
Manual deburring of cut metal parts
Company / site
Atlas Metalworks · Atlas Metalworks — Hamilton, ON (Deburr bay)
Automation Solution
Robotic Deburring / Grinding / Surface Finishing
Project Readiness
Ready for Project Review
Project Fit
Promising, Needs Validation
Recommended pathway
Feasibility Review Recommended
Current problem
Ergonomic reports from repetitive deburr. 14% rework on coating prep due to missed burrs. Deburr station bottlenecks peak volumes.
Desired outcome
Robotic deburring cell for top part families with force control, dust collection, and consistent edge break before finishing.
Preliminary economics
Current labor baseline ~$272,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $82,875–$112,125 CAD/year; Project cost $100,000–$500,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 11–72 months; Base-case payback 12–62 months.
Main risks
Scope definition
Decision needed
Confirm what additional site data and evidence to collect before the next step.

Supplier-Ready Project Scope

This is an early-stage project scope intended to support internal review and supplier feasibility discussions. It is not a final engineering design, safety certification, quote, or statement of work.

Current process
Operators manually deburr laser-cut and punched parts at bench grinders and file stations before powder coat prep, with finish variation on sharp edges.
Desired outcome
Robotic deburring cell for top part families with force control, dust collection, and consistent edge break before finishing.
Production context
Operators: 2 · Shifts/day: 2 · Throughput: ~180 parts/shift across two part families at launch · Product/part: Mild steel laser-cut panels and brackets, 2 primary families, sharp laser edge burrs.
Evidence notes
Example only: burr defect photos, part drawings, dust collection layout sketch (demo).
Required Delivery Team
Systems integrator
Preliminary economics summary
Current labor baseline ~$272,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $82,875–$112,125 CAD/year; Project cost $100,000–$500,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 11–72 months; Base-case payback 12–62 months.

Risks to validate

  • Scope definition: Early assumptions about cycle time, part mix, or site constraints may change after data review.
Preliminary assessment outputs are for planning and internal review only. They do not replace detailed engineering design, hazard analysis, safety certification, supplier quotes, or a formal statement of work.

Start Your Own Project Intake

Create your own Automation Project with your process data. Your project stays private until you choose to request a Project Review — no supplier contact without your approval.

Start Your Own Project IntakeMore sample case studies