Innovation Peer

Automation Project Studio · Case Study

Case Study Overview

Dual lathe load/unload for hydraulic valve bodies

Example outputCNC Machine Tending Starter SolutionEnough for Initial AssessmentPromising, Needs Validation

PrecisionNorth Machining · PrecisionNorth Machining — Cambridge, ON (Cell B — two lathes)

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

PrecisionNorth Machining — Precision machining

Dual lathe load/unload for hydraulic valve bodies.

Current process

One operator loads castings into two CNC lathes and unloads finished valve bodies onto a staging cart, alternating between machines and leaving spindle idle time on second shift.

Problem / bottleneck

Manual load/unload between two lathes limits spindle utilization and creates ergonomic fatigue.

Related Technology Pathway

CNC Machine Tending

Open Technology Pathway

Why the pathway fits

Repeatable part families, defined cycle windows, and a dual-machine cell are a classic CNC machine tending pattern where robotic load/unload can recover idle spindle time.

What data the buyer needed

  • • Machine make/model and door interlock capability
  • • Part weight range and gripper clearance needs
  • • Cycle time study and shift volume targets

Preliminary economics snapshot

Illustrative planning snapshot: ~$210K annual loaded tending labor, 15–20% spindle utilization gain target, capex planning band roughly $220K–$400K CAD for a dual-machine cell (not a quote).

Main risks

  • • Machine interface documentation gaps
  • • Chip and coolant contamination at unload
  • • Recovery procedures for misload events

Required delivery team

  • • Robotics integrator
  • • CNC interface partner
  • • Controls engineer
  • • Safety reviewer

Recommended next step

Complete Project Intake with cell layout, time study, and part drawings, then generate Project Assessment and site readiness checklists.

Document packages generated

  • • Project Assessment
  • • Preliminary economics snapshot
  • • Required Delivery Team
  • • Supplier-Ready Project Scope
  • • Readiness / site data checklist
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 6/6/2026, 3:16:45 AM

Intended audience: Plant Manager · Operations Director

PrecisionNorth Machining · CNC Machine Tending Project

Readiness scorecard

How ready is this project for internal and project review?

Readiness: Enough for Initial Assessment

Fit: Promising, Needs Validation

Next step: Prepare First

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: Medium

Reason: Preliminary payback is relatively long — validate utilization gains, cycle overlap, and labor redeployment assumptions.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm operator count, loaded labor cost, shift schedule, and machine utilization before capital approval.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Open — needs review

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: Needs Review

Reason: Machine guarding, robot safety assessment, and CNC interface interlocks need explicit review before quoting.

Mitigation / validation: Complete machine guarding, robot risk assessment, and CNC interface interlock review.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Open — needs review

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: Tyler Brooks — Cell Lead (Shift 1)

Status: Open — needs review

Required delivery team

Who needs to be involved to deliver this project?

RoleLead / supportCategorySideWhy it matters
Robotics integratorLeadIntegrationSupplier-sideDesigns cell layout, robot programming, cycle optimization, and commissioning.
End-of-arm tooling designerSupportingMechanicalSupplier-sideSpecifies grippers, nest fixtures, and part presentation for the part family mix.
CNC machine interface specialistSupportingControlsSupplier-sideConfirms door interlocks, cycle start, and alarm handling with machine OEM protocols.
Safety assessorSupportingSafetySupplier-sideValidates guarding, risk assessment, and compliance with local machine safety standards.
Customer-side operations ownerSupportingCustomerBuyer-sideOwns production priorities, shift coordination, and sign-off on cell downtime and handover.
Customer-side operations ownerBuyer-side contactCustomerBuyer-sideTyler Brooks — Cell Lead (Shift 1)
Maintenance contactBuyer-side contactMaintenanceBuyer-sideGreg Morrison — Maintenance Supervisor

Project overview

Dual lathe load/unload for hydraulic valve bodies at PrecisionNorth Machining · PrecisionNorth Machining — Cambridge, ON (Cell B — two lathes). Automation pathway: CNC Machine Tending Starter Solution. Readiness: Enough for Initial Assessment. Fit: Promising, Needs Validation.

Current problem

Skilled operator shortage on second shift. Repetitive lifting of 6–8 kg castings drives fatigue and near-miss ergonomic reports. Spindle idle time limits output on a growing valve family contract.

Desired outcome

Robotic tending for both lathes with structured infeed/outfeed, predictable cycle overlap, and safer repetitive handling — targeting 15–20% spindle utilization gain without adding headcount.

Preliminary economics

Current labor baseline ~$210,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $71,400–$96,600 CAD/year; Project cost $220,000–$400,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 27–67 months; Base-case payback 31–57 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
CommercialMediumPreliminary payback is relatively long — validate utilization gains, cycle overlap, and labor redeployment assumptions.Confirm operator count, loaded labor cost, shift schedule, and machine utilization before capital approval.TBD — assign during project reviewOpen — needs review
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
Robotics integratorLeadDesigns cell layout, robot programming, cycle optimization, and commissioning.
End-of-arm tooling designerSupportingSpecifies grippers, nest fixtures, and part presentation for the part family mix.
CNC machine interface specialistSupportingConfirms door interlocks, cycle start, and alarm handling with machine OEM protocols.
Safety assessorSupportingValidates guarding, risk assessment, and compliance with local machine safety standards.
Customer-side operations ownerSupportingOwns production priorities, shift coordination, and sign-off on cell downtime and handover.

Recommended next step

Collect stronger cycle-time, part presentation, machine interface, safety, and utilization data before supplier discussion.

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: 1
  • Hours per shift: 10
  • Shifts per day: 2
  • Working days per year: 250
  • Loaded hourly labor cost: $42/hr CAD
  • Stated annual labor cost aligns with calculated baseline (~$210,000 CAD/yr)

Assumptions used for preliminary calculation

  • No calculation assumptions recorded.

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
PrecisionNorth Machining
Industry
Precision machining
Site / facility
PrecisionNorth Machining — Cambridge, ON (Cell B — two lathes)
Process name
Dual lathe load/unload for hydraulic valve bodies
Selected Automation Solution
CNC Machine Tending Starter Solution
Current process
One operator loads raw castings into two CNC lathes and unloads finished valve bodies onto a staging cart. Machine cycle time averages 4.2 minutes per part, but load/unload and deburr handling add 2.8 minutes of operator-attended time per cycle. The operator alternates between machines, leaving one spindle idle roughly 35% of the time on second shift.
Desired outcome
Robotic tending for both lathes with structured infeed/outfeed, predictable cycle overlap, and safer repetitive handling — targeting 15–20% spindle utilization gain without adding headcount.
Main pain points
Skilled operator shortage on second shift. Repetitive lifting of 6–8 kg castings drives fatigue and near-miss ergonomic reports. Spindle idle time limits output on a growing valve family contract.
Operators involved
1
Shifts per day
2
Hours per shift
10
Working days per year
250
Loaded hourly labor cost
$42 CAD
Cycle time / throughput
4.2 min machine cycle; ~11 parts/hour per lathe with manual tending
Product / part details
Ductile iron valve bodies, 6.2–7.8 kg, two part families at launch (PN-V218 and PN-V224). Sharp flash on gate requires gripper clearance. Coolant and chips present at unload.
Evidence notes
Example only: cell layout sketch, part drawings, time study from Feb 2026, gripper concept photo from prior integrator visit (demo placeholder).
Project owner
Marcus Leblanc — Operations Manager
Technical contact
Sonia Patel — Manufacturing Engineer
Operations contact
Tyler Brooks — Cell Lead (Shift 1)
Quality contact
Aisha Rahman — Quality Engineer

Project Assessment

Current process summary
One operator loads raw castings into two CNC lathes and unloads finished valve bodies onto a staging cart. Machine cycle time averages 4.2 minutes per part, but load/unload and deburr handling add 2.8 minutes of operator-attended time per cycle. The operator alternates between machines, leaving one spindle idle roughly 35% of the time on second shift. Primary bottleneck: Manual load/unload between two lathes Pain points: Skilled operator shortage on second shift. Repetitive lifting of 6–8 kg castings drives fatigue and near-miss ergonomic reports. Spindle idle time limits output on a growing valve family contract.
Selected Automation Solution
CNC Machine Tending Starter Solution
Project Readiness
Enough for Initial Assessment
Project Fit
Promising, Needs Validation
Core intake completeness
100%

Project Readiness and Data Completeness

Enough for Initial Assessment — 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.
TechnologyLowSolution technology aligns with stated process needs.
CommercialMediumPreliminary payback is relatively long — validate utilization gains, cycle overlap, and labor redeployment assumptions.
ImplementationLowSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.
Safety / complianceNeeds ReviewMachine guarding, robot safety assessment, and CNC interface interlocks need explicit review before quoting.

Core intake fields are complete for this assessment level.

Recommended next step

Collect stronger cycle-time, part presentation, machine interface, safety, and utilization data before supplier discussion.

Preliminary Project Economics

Current annual labor baseline
$210,000 CAD
Estimated annual savings range
$71,400–$96,600 CAD
Estimated project cost range
$220,000–$400,000 CAD
Estimated payback range
27–67 months

Business case inputs

  • Current labour hours1 operators · 2 shifts/day · 10 hours/shift · 250 days/year
  • Fully loaded labour cost42
  • Shift pattern2 shifts/day · 10 hours/shift · 250 days/year
  • Throughput requirements4.2 min machine cycle; ~11 parts/hour per lathe with manual tending
  • Scrap / rework impact28000
  • Downtime impact35000
  • Capex estimate range$220,000–$400,000 CAD
  • Opex estimate rangeNeeds data
  • Implementation disruptionSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.
  • Expected savings range$71,400–$96,600 CAD
  • Payback range27–67 months (indicative)

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

Scenario Analysis

Conservative Case

Project cost
$242,000–$440,000 CAD
Annual savings
$44,100 CAD
Payback
66–120 months

Base Case

Project cost
$220,000–$400,000 CAD
Annual savings
$84,000 CAD
Payback
31–57 months

Upside Case

Project cost
$198,000–$360,000 CAD
Annual savings
$134,400 CAD
Payback
18–32 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
Robotics integratorLeadIntegrationDesigns cell layout, robot programming, cycle optimization, and commissioning.
End-of-arm tooling designerSupportMechanicalSpecifies grippers, nest fixtures, and part presentation for the part family mix.
CNC machine interface specialistSupportControlsConfirms door interlocks, cycle start, and alarm handling with machine OEM protocols.
Safety assessorSupportSafetyValidates guarding, risk assessment, and compliance with local machine safety standards.
Customer-side operations ownerSupportCustomerOwns production priorities, shift coordination, and sign-off on cell downtime and handover.

Validation Checklist

  • Part drawings and weight range

    Gripper design and robot payload selection depend on geometry and mass.

  • Machine cycle time study

    Proves whether robot tending will improve utilization or merely match it.

  • CNC make, model, and control version

    Determines feasibility and cost of robot–machine handshake.

  • Cell footprint and reach envelope

    Layout drives robot model selection and safety guarding design.

  • Infeed/outfeed concept

    Staging method affects cycle time, flexibility, and tooling cost.

Site Readiness Checklist

  • Floor mounting and anchor plan

    Robot base and staging tables require rated floor loads and anchors.

  • Power and pneumatic supply

    Confirm electrical drop and air quality for grippers and door actuators.

  • Maintenance access clearance

    Technicians need safe access for tool changes and robot service.

  • Operator training plan

    Define who clears faults, changes grippers, and restarts the cell.

Estimated Project Timeline

PhaseMilestoneDurationDescription
Phase 1Discovery and cycle study2–3 weeksTime study, part family definition, machine interface review, and safety risk assessment.
Phase 2Cell design and procurement8–12 weeksRobot and EOAT selection, layout drawings, guarding design, and long-lead item ordering.
Phase 3Install and commissioning4–6 weeksRobot install, machine interface wiring, cycle optimization, and safety validation.
Phase 4Operator training and ramp-up2–4 weeksOperator training, fault recovery drills, and production ramp with maintenance support.

Management Summary

Project
Dual lathe load/unload for hydraulic valve bodies
Company / site
PrecisionNorth Machining · PrecisionNorth Machining — Cambridge, ON (Cell B — two lathes)
Automation Solution
CNC Machine Tending Starter Solution
Project Readiness
Enough for Initial Assessment
Project Fit
Promising, Needs Validation
Recommended pathway
Prepare First
Current problem
Skilled operator shortage on second shift. Repetitive lifting of 6–8 kg castings drives fatigue and near-miss ergonomic reports. Spindle idle time limits output on a growing valve family contract.
Desired outcome
Robotic tending for both lathes with structured infeed/outfeed, predictable cycle overlap, and safer repetitive handling — targeting 15–20% spindle utilization gain without adding headcount.
Preliminary economics
Current labor baseline ~$210,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $71,400–$96,600 CAD/year; Project cost $220,000–$400,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 27–67 months; Base-case payback 31–57 months.
Main risks
Part presentation inconsistency · CNC interface limitations · Robot cycle slower than machine
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
One operator loads raw castings into two CNC lathes and unloads finished valve bodies onto a staging cart. Machine cycle time averages 4.2 minutes per part, but load/unload and deburr handling add 2.8 minutes of operator-attended time per cycle. The operator alternates between machines, leaving one spindle idle roughly 35% of the time on second shift.
Desired outcome
Robotic tending for both lathes with structured infeed/outfeed, predictable cycle overlap, and safer repetitive handling — targeting 15–20% spindle utilization gain without adding headcount.
Production context
Operators: 1 · Shifts/day: 2 · Throughput: 4.2 min machine cycle; ~11 parts/hour per lathe with manual tending · Product/part: Ductile iron valve bodies, 6.2–7.8 kg, two part families at launch (PN-V218 and PN-V224). Sharp flash on gate requires gripper clearance. Coolant and chips present at unload.
Evidence notes
Example only: cell layout sketch, part drawings, time study from Feb 2026, gripper concept photo from prior integrator visit (demo placeholder).
Required Delivery Team
Robotics integrator, End-of-arm tooling designer, CNC machine interface specialist, Safety assessor, Customer-side operations owner
Preliminary economics summary
Current labor baseline ~$210,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $71,400–$96,600 CAD/year; Project cost $220,000–$400,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 27–67 months; Base-case payback 31–57 months.

Risks to validate

  • Part presentation inconsistency: Loose tolerances on incoming blanks or castings cause mis-picks and machine crashes.
  • CNC interface limitations: Older machines may lack modern I/O for robot handshake, requiring workaround interfaces.
  • Robot cycle slower than machine: If load/unload exceeds cut time, spindle utilization gains will be limited.
  • Safety scope creep: Collaborative vs industrial robot choice affects guarding, footprint, and compliance path.
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