Episode 4: Virtual assembly, centralizing data, and death by a thousand non-cyclic seconds with Clara Goldberg from Ford Motor Company.

Season 1 Episode 4, May 19, 2021

author

We speak to Clara Goldberg, Lead Process Engineer for e-Motors (Rotor), about how her love for puzzles led her to manufacturing, virtually assembling units, and how she tackled the crucial problem of non-cyclic tasks on the factory floor.

Topics in this podcast

Automated data capture, Analytics, Communication, Documentation

Show Transcript

Clara: [Background music]What are the challenges that we face? A small product change can throw the cycle time of an operation off completely, and we would have to re-balance our manufacturing systems, which can tend to be very expensive depending on what the change can be.


Intro: [Background music] Pashi presents, the Means of Production. A podcast about what it really takes to build, maintain, and scale the processes that produce the physical products that power our world. Every episode, we ask a manufacturing expert to walk us through the nuts and bolts of how they do their job. We explore how and why they got into manufacturing. Dive deep into the hardest problems they've solved on production lines and discuss their thoughts on what's broken in manufacturing today and how those things can be fixed. This podcast is hosted by Siddhit Sanghavi, Pashi's US manufacturing, operations lead, and former assembly engineer at Ford Motor Company. If you are a part of the manufacturing world and you're interested in being a guest on the Means of Production, please get in touch with me siddhit@pashi.com.


Siddhit: Welcome to season one episode four. Today we have Clara Goldberg lead process engineer for E Motors Rotor, for powertrain engineering for Ford Motor Company. Welcome Clara.


Clara: Thank you, Sid. Thank you for having me.


Siddhit: Yeah, thank you for being here. Before Clara gets started, she has a disclaimer message to say.


Clara: Thanks Sid. I just want to say that I work at Ford, but this is my own opinion and is not the opinion of Ford Motor Company. I am not a spokesperson for Ford Motor Company official or otherwise.


Siddhit: Thank you, Clara. How are you? What is going on? How are you adjusting to COVID? How is everything, Clara?


Clara: I am doing very well. Thanks Sid. It's been quite an interesting year, going into the office every day and then transitioning now, working from home most of the time. Except, going to suppliers, into our manufacturing facility to install some equipment, but otherwise have been working from home. I feel very fortunate because we have a lot of virtual tools that we can use to communicate with each other and to do our work.


Siddhit: So glad you're doing well and safe and you're able to work and be productive. So glad to hear that Clara. Why don't we get started? Tell us a little bit about like what you do at Ford Motor Company and how did you get here in the first place? What was that journey like? From as far back as you want to start. Tell us how you ended up as a lead process engineer for Ford Motor Company.


Clara: Absolutely. I guess to start back from the beginning of time you, one thing that has always interested me is puzzles, figuring out complicated puzzles or situations and organizing them. That kind of led me to engineering in general. When I was in college, I learned of industrial engineering. I became very interested in manufacturing systems. I think there are so many different aspects to manufacturing and so many different roles that are played into making a manufacturing system. Not that designing a certain product or widget is not. That has many different aspects to it too, but for me it was partially the systems aspect to it that had interested me. Product development is one piece of bringing an actual product to life. I guess Ford Motor Company in particular, was of interest to me because it was the grandfather of manufacturing, getting in product to people as they wanted it for a good price.


ClaraThat has always been very interesting. I shouldn't say always, but as I learned more about manufacturing and the industry, that has become very interesting to me. I hired into Ford Motor Company. They call the role FCG Ford College Graduate . It's a leadership rotational program for employees. I was a full-time employee. But what I did was I rotated throughout different jobs within three years. I started at Ford Motor Company as a virtual assembly engineer. We would model equipment and manufacturing systems on the computer with 3D models. We would use that to design our manufacturing systems before we built them and spend money to build the equipment and put them onto the floor. That was a great position to be in because I had to work with many different people, like I do now which is what I'll get to. As a process engineer, we have to design this manufacturing system and put all of the pieces of the puzzle together to make a full system. Being in virtual assembly, while I wasn't working with any physical equipment in the manufacturing facilities, it was a great role to start out in and learn about all of the different aspects that go into building a manufacturing system.


Siddhit: Hey Clara, before you move on, can you explain what virtual assembly is?


Clara: Virtual assembly is when we model our equipment and our manufacturing systems in the virtual space, prior to getting the physical equipment and procuring the physical equipment. It allows us to do engineering upfront without actually spending the money and resources and time to build the equipment. We can learn a lot about the system in our virtual space prior to building it. Laying out all of the pieces of equipment in a layout, making sure that there's enough room for people to move around the equipment. In the virtual assembly space, we would model people working within the equipment. It gives us a good sense of space for modeling. Virtual assembly is a place where we can design our manufacturing systems upfront in the virtual space, on the computer prior to building any of the equipment on the floor.


Siddhit: Awesome. Well, thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Please go on with your experience.


Clara: Virtual assembly was a great place to learn about procuring equipment, making a manufacturing system, all in a space where we could quickly and easily change it on the computer and virtual. We can learn a lot. There's a lot of different teams of people that get involved into designing a manufacturing system. For example, we have material handling. We have our safety team, ergonomics team. We have our equipment suppliers.


ClaraVirtual assembly was a great place to learn about procuring We have our industrial or assembly engineers, our layout engineers. There's quite a lot of people that come together to make a manufacturing system. That was a great opportunity for me to learn about how to design a manufacturing system, especially being a new engineer because it was prior to having any equipment built and, having to make expensive changes if I made a mistake.


It was a great place to learn about that. My next role was industrial engineering and in one of our transmission plants. It was a great opportunity for me to see how a manufacturing facility worked you know, with ongoing production, what are the challenges that we face such as like a small product change can throw the cycle time of an operation off completely. We would have to rebalance our manufacturing systems, which can tend to be very expensive depending on what the change can be. I got to see a lot of things like that in the manufacturing facility.


My next role I was working with you, Sid, as a workstation engineer or assembly engineer. That was to launch a brand new transmission line. Very exciting. What I did in that role was focus on the workstation aspect of it. A workstation, for those that don't know is basically, a section of the assembly line where an operator has specific tasks that he or she has to do in that portion of the assembly line. We would be responsible for coming up with the process for, what the operator would have to do in that specific workstation, the layout of the workstation.


For example, what tools do they have to perform their job? How is it laid out, so that it's the most comfortable, easiest and efficient way that they can do their tasks. Make sure that it's ergonomically safe and then make sure that the entire line is balanced, so that we can meet our throughput that we are required to meet. From there, I did a process engineering job, for multiple engine programs.


When I joined that position, I was doing more of the upfront cost studies. That was very useful for me because I got to understand how much things cost. This was also the very beginning of designing and manufacturing systems. Very high level, what are all of the different aspects of a manufacturing system and sometimes you don't always think about the costs of, let's say for example, installation or some of our gauging or software costs.


A lot of little details that tend to add up. That was very valuable for me to understand the value of these systems that we are putting into our facilities. One of the aspects of that position is, we would submit a cost study. For example, how much is it going to cost to build this particular engine? Then we have other teams that would take that cost and then determine if it was worth spending that money to build this product. How cost-effective is it to build this manufacturing system? That was a good rotation for me. From there, I went into quality operating systems role.


In this role, we were focused on not only the quality of our manufacturing systems and the products that we were producing, but the system to which we build quality products. When I say the system, I mean, all of our processes, procedures, system applications. How do all of these different applications, systems, processes come together so that our engineers build quality systems that will build quality products for our customer.


That's one area that I think a lot of people don't really get to work in or get to see. It's one area that I think is very important, but it's not always valued because it's not necessarily a technical aspect to our jobs.So from there that finally brought me to the role that I'm in now. I feel very passionate about making our vehicles more safe for the environment. I'm very happy that Ford is moving in that direction and I very much wanted to be in that area. Not only that, but also, I'm very interested in all of the different aspects of engineering and systems and bringing it all together to make a system that produces products for our customers. That is what led me to want to be a processing engineer. Further than that into electrification. Even further than that, it's also a field that's newer to the industry. There's a lot to be learned. It's very exciting, lots of new designs and puzzles to solve. That's where I got to where I am now.


Siddhit: That's a great answer, Clara. Let me unpack this a little bit and I want to preface this by saying that there are so many girls that, want to get into STEM fields, and now there's good encouragement for them to get into STEM fields. But even then there is some hesitation in going into the "dirty fields" right. Manufacturing it is admittedly messy and dirty, but I do want to say, and Clara can confirm to all the ladies who are listening, and the future girl engineers who are listening is that we have so many tools now.


Things are being innovated in manufacturing so much, and yes I'm referring to the virtual assembly part, and all of these new electrification programs. It's not like what you might expect in your head that you're going to keep moving heavy objects or something.Yeah once in a while, you'll have to go to the floor and you'll have to get inside the machine and troubleshoot it. But other than that, it's very creative. It's very fun. It's very interesting to see an entire assembly line come alive and make something that was just pieces on one end and become like a component on other end.


I hope it gives our listeners, you know, encouragement that the way Clara came from getting into this field, looking at all of these different rotations and then ending up in making an assembly line for a very advanced part of the company. I hope that really inspires the others to follow because manufacturing is quite an often neglected area when it comes to STEM fields. Having said that, when you explain what a virtual factory is, and that's still something that a lot of the big companies are doing, but we expect with lots of stuff like AR and VR and the ease of using CAD, smaller companies to also be able to save a lot of money simulating their whole line upfront, or like their smaller lines or their shops upfront, before building them, they can find out a lot of problems that might happen.


I didn't know about your other rotation with the cost study. I know it now and you're right. It absolutely gives you a great commercial or financial picture of what it takes to build a line financially. I'm glad you got that role. The quality operating systems is like you said, it's literally defining and then writing and managing the standards that keep our quality up where it should be and making sure that it is enforced or it is followed, updating it when it needs to be updated and so on and so forth.


I think you've got a really well-rounded set of assignments to prepare you for this role. I think there's a good answer and yeah, all the best in this new role. I think you might already have some good answers for the next question, with all of the things you've done. What was the hardest technical problem you've had to face in your career? It could be in any of your roles. It could be a series of problems. It could be a tough year, it could be anything. How did you face it? Walk us through that please.


Clara: Thank you Sid for saying that. I hope that being a female in this field can be an inspiration to people that haven't thought of it before. Very interesting, very exciting stuff going on. Thank you for for saying that. As far as technical problem, I'm going to go back to the time that we worked together in our assembly engineering on the new transmission line. One of the big problems, I think that we were having with not only in our program, but programs across our powertrain manufacturing, engineering was cycle time estimation or prediction.


When we were doing the engineering versus what we were seeing in real time, I think there was, there were some aspects that were missing. One of the aspects of that was our non-cyclic tasks and non-cyclic tasks, which is just what we called it.They are cyclic tasks, which is funny, but they're cyclic tasks that don't happen every single cycle. For example, when an operator has to get a new package of washers or bolts or handle different material packaging, or something like that where they're not necessarily doing it every cycle, but they have to do it. That goes into our cycle time.


I don't remember the exact numbers, but let's just say each workstation had a cycle time requirement of 20 seconds. 180 transmissions per hour that we were building, we needed to make sure that every workstation on our assembly line was 20 seconds to meet that JPH (jobs per hour). What we would do, or what I guess was the standard at the time, was we would estimate 0.3 seconds of that cycle would go to these non-cyclic tasks on average.


The problem with that was the cyclic tasks change, you know, for every cycle, depending on what the operator has to do. Sometimes an operator might have to do something as simple as open a bag of a new bag of bolts. It could be as complicated as, taking a cart or getting a new cart of products. Moving these big, heavy plastic bins over. Changing, swapping out cards, which takes quite a significant amount of time. What I found during that role and doing many studies of performing these tasks was there were some that would average out to be about 0.3 seconds per cycle, but there were others that I found that would take about five seconds per cycle on average.


That is a big chunk of our cycle timing. That is really big. When we're only estimating 0.3 seconds for that task, that means we're going to be over cycle. There's no way that we can meet our cycle time with estimating 0.3 seconds when it's actually an average of five seconds. It was a big impact to our manufacturing systems. What I did was, I studied the tasks that our operators do. I created this calculator, because estimating the cycle time is very meticulous.


It takes a lot of work and it's a lot of details. We use MODAPTS (modular arrangement of pre-determined time standards) to estimate our cycle time and MODAPTS is basically a standard for estimating cycle time. It would assign a certain cycle time for each movement an operator would make. Those movements can be as small as, turning your fingers to twist a bolt. That one movement is assigned to a certain amount of time. It's a very meticulous task to go through and do this work to estimate cycle time. What I did was, I created a calculator where our engineers could just input what tasks the operator has to do, and it would spit out a cycle time.


Using that calculator, we were able to more accurately predict the cycle time that we were seeing on the floor, and it helped us so that we didn't have to change our equipment around so many times if we couldn't meet cycle time on our particular workstation. We would have to move work from one workstation to another and basically re-balance the line. When you have equipment that's in place, that can be very expensive to do that. It's very frustrating because it seems like for something as simple as non-cyclic tasks that are, just moving some material around.


It can be very frustrating because it's just this little task that puts you over a cycle and you have to spend all this money to make this change. That was a difficult task and very meticulous. It was also difficult because it was something that people didn't really pay attention too much. 0.3 seconds cycle time seems like it's fine. It could be they only have to move some material, but then once you see it can add up to as much as five seconds per cycle, it can really make a big difference.


Siddhit: That was really good. I did want to hear it from you, because we worked on this a little bit, but I didn't know how exactly you went about it and what you did and thanks for saying all that. There's a lot to unpack here, before we move on to our next question, some technical terms and some other non-technical stuff. MODAPTS, I was just wanted to say that for viewers not familiar, it's the modular arrangement of predetermined time standards.


I want to emphasize that meticulousness that Clara was talking about and also something that's very interesting. This is literally recording every single movement, every operator on every workstation makes. If there are 100 operators on an assembly line, there are MODAPTS codes explaining, or describing every finger movement for every one of those operators, for every task. Just imagine that how much instruction we have and how much recording and how much careful detail is being put into this, because every minute is, three transmissions like Clara was saying. Every lost minute is transmissions lost.


There is scrutiny about everything. All of that scrutiny, which was missing was that when they have to arrange these trays or data packet or something like that, many of those actions were missing or inaccurate.I also wanted to remind our guests, some of you who are familiar with statistics. You might be pointing out and saying that, yeah you're distributing this within each cycle. That's correct. We don't really have a great way of putting something that takes, five minutes, every 200 cycles and in a great way into our cycle time. There's not a really a good way to do that.


We estimated by dividing it between all of these cycles and going like, five minutes divided by 200 cycles, that's what got us talking about the 0.3. But it does mean that when they do have to change it, they literally stopped doing their work because they have to change it and change the stray. Or sometimes it's such really big car that they have to move in and out, and that disturbs a lot. Then they have to go at really fast speed playing catch up with the next jobs. It's important that we at least capture this correctly and that's what Clara's calculator made it very easy to do. I wanted to just emphasize how detailed that was, and how these little things can really bleed revenue if not captured. Thanks a lot for that explanation Clara, that was a great example. If you don't have anything else to add on that, let's move on to the next question?


Clara: Sure. Thank you for providing that explanation.


Siddhit: Yeah, no problem. I found it very interesting what you were doing and that whole subject. There's so many aspects of, being lead or any of the other roles you had because you're always working with a team you're always working in a plan. You're always working with a law. It's a very collaborative experience, building an assembly line. What is the hardest non-technical problem that you have faced and how did you face it?


Clara: Sure. Well, like you were saying, and I was saying earlier, there are so many people involved in producing a system. Communication is very important and can be very difficult. To give an example of communication. I'll go back to when I was in my role in the quality operating systems team. I had inherited the 'our failure mode avoidance procedure.' While this is a very important subject, it was a subject that was very confusing, I will say to most of our engineers. It's amazing what things can morph into when not really understood or communicated well.


This process started out as something pretty simple and for people that are in the manufacturing industry, you're probably very familiar with FMEAs and control plans, how are you controlling your processes and your product characteristics, which can start out as very simple, but it's amazing with, with all of our applications and systems that we come up with, the process we try to communicate. The procedure was handed to so many different hands throughout the years, that it became so confusing that people had no idea what to do or how to perform this process, which is something that really should be very simple.


That was a really big challenge when I came into this group. The first thing I had to do was uncover where things came from and what their intent was. I remember there was something called a prelaunch control plan, and people would confuse that with a preliminary control plan, which is completely different. A preliminary control plan is just, control plan at its early phases. Whereas a prelaunch control plan describes control methods that are used in your manufacturing system prior to its full launch. Prior to it having its normal controls. It's while its manufacturing system is still being launched.


For example, at that time, you might want to have someone checking to make sure that, you have a a full rundown, a hundred percent of the pieces, whereas in normal production we would maybe only check a sample of them. There were a lot of things that were lost in translation over the years. That was a big challenge. In that role I spent about two years just doing research, talking to different people and trying to understand the meaning behind what all of these different terms that were in this procedure meant. Where they came from and how they came to be the way that they are.


I basically had to tear down the procedure to its roots and lay it out, so that it can be simplified and understood by our engineering community. Like I was saying earlier, things as simple as that, which aren't always paid attention to in our engineering world, because it's not quite as technical, but has such a huge impact on our processes and our system and making a quality product that it needs to technical issues.


It's funny because in the role that I'm in now, I'm actually using that process to develop my system. I've used this failure mode avoidance process to find holes in our system, to find areas where we might not have sufficient control methods to make sure that we're not putting out a product that is undesirable to our customers. By following this process in our procedures, I've discovered many holes in our processing failure modes, which enables me to build a better process so that we have better quality products.


Siddhit: Yeah. That's very interesting Clara. It's like a full circle, what you just explained and when you were in the quality operating systems group, it might've seemed at that time as you referred to earlier, not many people pay attention to this, but this is literally where the quality policy and the quality standards are checked and define and updated. You found something that would have so many ripple effects down the line, due to how that system kind of matured. This would be something in every big company right? Something that started off as like a well-intended system, it would sometimes lose kind of institutional form fast forward the next five years or 10 years, because of so many conflicting interested parties.


This is very normal and that's why a group like the one you were in is very important that it be the watchdog of the quality. For our listeners you might already know this, but FMEA is the failure mode and effects analysis. In this case, Clara will be talking about, or in general, the people I meet with on the podcast, will be talking about the process FMEA. This would be related to what can go wrong in the process. If you're making a t-shirt, then you might put something like if a thread is loose, it might lead to the threads coming off and then the t-shirt losing its elasticity or something like that. I don't want to get into technical details about Ford's product, but that is what you would list down.


It's very important that you be able to use the system to list down everything that can go wrong in the process. It is very funny that you're using this system yourself to develop a completely new process, which admittedly very few people in the entire industry globally have done. It's very new making electric cars is very new. It's great that you did that work and now it's helping you in your job today. That's a great example.


I believe that it's not entirely non-technical. I think thinking up all of these technical situations where a process can fail requires a good base and a good setup of that system to help you do it. If that's not there it's going to be very hard for process engineers to actually think of all the ways in which a failure can happen. That was a very good example Clara. Thanks for sharing that.


Clara: It does make a very big impact in our manufacturing systems to understand what can possibly go wrong. It's amazing, for everything that can go wrong, that you wouldn't expect it to. One of our systems, for example, we've just recently discovered that something was programmed wrong with our robotics and we were completely missing components that needed to be assembled together. Ee had no detection method for it. We went back to our process FMEA and found that there was a failure mode or a cause of failure mode that we did not know before. It's development of these things, especially in new products that we haven't built before where these processes can really help us.


Siddhit: Well, I guess talking about stuff that can go wrong or is not working correctly, if you had a magic wand to fix something in your work or your industry, or just anything related to what you've experienced in your career with the magic wand, what would that be and why? Remember our magic wand is not that strong. It doesn't give you like unlimited money and time or make everyone listen to what we have to say. That'd be a great power, but if it was something else what would that be?


Clara: I would have to say eliminating all of the administrative tasks that we have to do. Hopefully this is a very powerful wand. Even though it doesn't give us all the time in the world, but I think that sometimes we're so bogged down with all the administrative tasks that we do. We have hundreds of systems and that we have to work in and data that's scattered in different places or repeated in multiple locations. I spend so much time trying to either find data asking around, getting access to systems. A lot of waiting around just trying to get access or trying to find someone that knows where to get a certain piece of information, getting trained in our new systems and, inputting data into multiple systems because these different systems don't communicate with each other or share a database.


I would say that I would love to have one cohesive system that allows data to communicate across these different applications and allows better communications of the data so people can easily find it and use it. I think that what we have now is a lot more complicated than it really needs to be. I think that this is something that can be doable. I think it's not only something that is at Ford Motor Company, but I think in the industry in general, I think, we have so many different applications and especially for companies that are so old and it's very hard to change systems, have new systems. There's a lot of people that use these systems and having them communicate with each other can be a very daunting task. I think it's something that can be done but would definitely take time and energy and maybe a little bit of magic wand.


Siddhit: That's a really good answer Clara. Thank you. You went for the real practical, clear and present problems. So, thank you. Because this would be something that everyone identifies with, and this is normal because like you said, if it's a very big mature company or like the granddaddy of manufacturing, like Ford different systems would have evolved for different reasons, independent of each other through time, over decades. It's naturally difficult to have them in one place because they will have their own processes and their own specializations. That is completely understandable.


But if I may plug Pashi here because it's so relevant. With Pashi, it's designed to be the operating system for manufacturing. This is our aim. This is what we want to do. In Pashi, whenever you have a product running on the line, and you can run the entire physical assembly line to Pashi from a web browser, you also see the live traceability in our genealogy view where the interaction of every product with every device and every variable of that device. Like a press would be a device and the press force would be like the variable.


You can see all of that. If you saw something wrong, then we also have maintenance information on the same system. What this means is that if there was some maintenance ticket that happened on the press the night before, or in the night shift, and maybe something was miscalibrated or it didn't go to it's total preventive maintenance and we overshot it's two life or whatever it is, something in the maintenance was not correct. Then you wouldn't have to look at a different maintenance system and a different traceability system to understand what it is that went wrong, because those two would be available in the same spot.


You could in fact overlay it in our analytics and see, okay, at this time, this wasn't changed in the tooling by the technician. Maybe it should have been, or it was not calibrated.Maybe that's why the spike in the press force happened and so on and so forth. This would save you valuable time. In manufacturing time is literally because of the JPH money. This is where Pashi hopes to help the industry, and bring in more and more features, or more and more aspects of manufacturing in one place that you would have to otherwise look into different places.


Thank you for that answer. It addresses a really relevant problem that the industry faces, which is can I have all of my data in one place. Like you said, it's a daunting task, but we want to be there to solve it.


Clara: That's amazing Sid. That would be very helpful, having to go into these different places to find data or even going physically into a plan, which, past year with COVID, isn't always possible to go in and see what's going on. To be able to get the data real-time in one system is very valuable.


Siddhit: Yeah and the least we can do for manufacturing engineers is to at least have all of these administrative tasks, like you mentioned be centralized or be remote or be very easily accessible so that the physical tasks, or the in-person tasks are a little bit better than they are. It would help everyone.Thank you for the magic wand answer. It was a great answer. Now for the fun surprise question, before we close, which is, if this was 2051, or if you could go forward in time to 2051, what would manufacturing look like? Or what would the factory look like to you at that time?


Clara: It's hard to even think that far in the future. 2051. 30 years from now. I would imagine that we're all flying around. No, I'm just kidding. But in all seriousness, I think looking back to my role in the virtual assembly group, I think it was very beneficial to see our manufacturing system on the computer prior to building any of our equipment or making changes. It saved us a lot of money, time and resources to engineer all of our problems out prior to actually spending any of our resources, time, money. There's been a lot of talk of something called the digital twin, and that's actually having our production systems that are currently in production, seeing it on the computer real-time.


Like you were saying with Pashi, seeing how our equipment is performing and potentially addressing maintenance issues with the equipment prior to it actually breaking down and, losing a lot of money because we're losing all of thatJPH when it's broken down, that would be highly beneficial for our systems. We can see how the machines are performing. Also, for continuous improvement, we would be able to continuously improve our equipment based on what we're seeing in our manufacturing systems. Then beyond the data, like I was saying with the 3D and virtual, say, we're seeing an issue with cycle time and we need to re-balance the line.


To re-balance the line, we need to move equipment around. We could do that in the 3D space, see what it looks, see how it performs. If one scenario isn't the best or we missed something, we could easily change it and move it before we actually change or move anything and spend money doing that on the floor. Whereas before, and even today, we might have to make those changes on the floor, see that we have a problem and then spend even more money resolving it on our manufacturing floor.


I would say a system that is connected, integrated, data organized in an easy to find place. In the would end I would imagine that the magic wand will do its magic by 2051. Maybe Pashi will be the system that we have in place to get our data all in one spot.


Siddhit: That'd be a great to be in Ford Motor Company or in a big factory of the future. Like you said, you can do a lot of the virtual work and maybe while you're moving CAD in your computer, everything is resolved. The electrical connections, the spacing, the material, presentations All of that, which is, kind of approximated right now because of technological limitations. We'll add that time be very accurate, extremely precise that if you did it in CAD, on your computer, it would be exactly the same or almost exactly the same on the floor.You would have to do it just once when you're absolutely. I think the factory of the future would have that.


Clara: It's an exciting time to be in manufacturing, especially with all of these technological advancements and all of the opportunities that we have to improve. With all this new technology that we have it's a very exciting saving time to the manufacturing.


Siddhit: Absolutely. Clara, thank you for that answer as well. It was a lot of fun talking to you. It was a lot of new things I learned and some things like we worked together, but I still didn't know about some of your rotations and all the great stuff you did. Thank you for coming on the podcast and, talking about your journey and the problems you face. This could be very encouraging for so many people out there who are thinking of getting into this field, but may not be sure about what it's like and what are the different aspects of manufacturing. I think your well-rounded rotations and experiences would have given them some idea. Thank you so much for coming on the Means of Production.


Clara: Thank you very much for having me said it was a pleasure talking with you.


Outro:[Background music] If you enjoyed this conversation, please subscribe to the Means of Production podcast. For more stories from people behind all the manufactured goods we use love and depend on. This episode was made possible by Pashi, the operating system for manufacturing. Pashi unifies the entire production process for any product encompassing operator instruction and data interpret interfaces, stage logic and parameter thresholding, machine interfacing and configuration, robot programming and coordination, and stage to stage production flow control into a single Pashi program. Check us out@pashi.com and until we meet again, have a fantastic day and take care.


Music from Uppbeat: "Falling" by Zayner. License code: SYFMAQN9WWBAPCSU


close

Help us get to know you more