"A Robotic Pilot Is Easy. Keeping Production Running Is the Test"
A successful robotic demonstration answers a narrow question: can the machine perform the task? A production deployment asks whether the operation can depend on it when products change, equipment wears and the next process is already waiting. The difference matters because a robot can complete its assigned movement while the wider operation still misses its target. A gripper may handle an item successfully but too slowly to justify the investment; an autonomous yard truck may move a trailer efficiently to a dock that cannot receive it.
The purchasing decision therefore extends beyond the equipment’s demonstrated capability. Buyers need to establish what constitutes acceptable performance across a working shift, what happens when that performance deteriorates and who restores the operation after a failure. Responses to The Supply Chainer from Tesollo, which develops multi-finger robotic grippers and dexterous hands, and Holman, which is working with ISEE on autonomous yard vehicles, illustrate those requirements at different ends of the facility. Both place operating conditions at the centre of deployment, although neither response supplies numerical acceptance thresholds.
Test the Customer’s Work
For Youngjin Kim, President and CEO of Tesollo, qualification starts with the products the customer actually needs to handle. That makes the test more demanding than demonstrating a selection of objects chosen to show the equipment’s capabilities. It also establishes whether dexterity solves a commercially important handling problem before the buyer evaluates the financial return. His proposed sequence moves from technical feasibility to economic performance and then sustained operation.
“The first step should always be to verify whether the gripper can handle the customer's actual products and tasks. Multi-finger grippers and robotic hands are particularly valuable when dealing with a wide variety of objects, irregular shapes, or frequently changing handling requirements, where conventional grippers may have limitations. Once technical feasibility is confirmed, the next step is to measure cycle time and throughput to assess economic viability, including the expected return on investment and payback period. Finally, extended operation tests should verify consistent performance over a full production shift, focusing on grasping success rates, repeatability, and operational reliability.”
That sequence gives procurement and operations a shared basis for acceptance. A successful grasp is one measure; completed work over the required period is another. The buyer must decide how failures, retries and interruptions will count towards the agreed result. Without that definition, a technically successful trial can leave the production team responsible for resolving an economic shortfall.
An Existing Vehicle Needs a Site Assessment
Holman’s response applies a similar principle to retrofitting yard vehicles. Joe Foster, Vice President of Robotics, said the assessment covers both the truck and the environment in which it will work. This creates a potential route to autonomy using existing assets, but it does not establish that every vehicle is suitable or that every site can follow the same implementation schedule. Foster described the approach and proposed performance measures:
“As customers look to enhance existing yard vehicles with autonomous technology, Holman and ISEE will assess both the condition and configuration of their current yard trucks as well as the customer’s specific operating environment to determine which units may be a good candidate to be upgraded. The goal of the Holman and ISEE partnership is to simplify that process and offer customers a faster path to deploying autonomy without necessarily incurring the significant capital investment.”
“As Holman and ISEE work closely with each customer to deploy autonomous solutions, we’ll focus on the metrics that matter most to that specific customer, including safety, productivity, utilization, reliability, and overall economics. The initial focus is repetitive trailer movement across environments such as distribution centers and manufacturing facilities, where autonomy can have an immediate operational impact.”
The response identifies useful categories for evaluation, but leaves customers to establish the baseline and required improvement. It provides neither a deployment timetable nor results from a named installation. Earlier Supply Chainer coverage also highlighted why vehicle performance needs to be assessed alongside dock activity. Austin Percifull, Global Key Account Manager at Körber Business Area Supply Chain, previously said: “From a labor and congestion standpoint, most dock pain comes from clustering, not total volume.” His observation concerns coordination rather than autonomous driving, but it identifies a constraint a faster trailer movement alone cannot remove.
Recovery Belongs in the Acceptance Decision
Maintenance adds a further condition to the investment case. Kim said Tesollo’s modular joint architecture allows customers to hold spare modules and replace individual joints following a failure, rather than replacing the complete robotic hand. The practical value depends on the customer’s repair procedures, available skills and time needed to restore service. Those arrangements deserve agreement before deployment expands across multiple cells.
The common test is whether the operation can sustain and recover its output. For a gripper, that means measuring handling performance together with retries, stoppages and repair time; for a yard vehicle, it means assessing completed movements within the receiving operation. Acceptance should establish those responsibilities while the supplier and customer are still defining the deployment. Otherwise, the pilot proves that the machine works, while production discovers what keeping it working requires.
