Quality inspection
Vision-led applications. The arm moves the camera; the camera does the work. Cobot cost is the smaller line — vision system and lighting dominate.
AMD Machines records labour displacement as secondary for inspection, so there is no FTE figure to quote. The payback case rests on quality-escape reduction, which is specific to your scrap and warranty costs.
What this application actually is.
Quality inspection is the slowest-payback application AMD Machines publishes — 18 to 24 months, and only when quality-escape avoidance is counted, because labour displacement here is secondary. The cell cost is concentrated in vision hardware, lighting and analysis software rather than the arm: a $40K bare-arm budget becomes a $100-200K installed inspection cell, because surface-defect detection, dimensional verification and foreign-object detection need high-resolution cameras, often several, plus controlled lighting, plus analysis software (Cognex VisionPro, Keyence CV-X). The cobot is essentially a positioning gantry for the camera. Techman cobots have a structural advantage because their built-in 5MP camera reduces the supplementary vision spend — but for anything beyond basic presence verification the buyer still adds a Cognex or Keyence system on top. Inspection cells make sense when the alternative is a dedicated optical inspection machine or when the inspected part justifies the premium: medical devices, automotive safety-critical parts.
Which cobot fits, and why.
The cost most buyers underestimate.
Cognex In-Sight ($8-25K), specialty lighting ($3-10K), VisionPro / In-Sight Explorer licence ($3-8K). 3D inspection adds $15-35K for Photoneo / Zivid. The inspection task drives the spend — surface defects need high-res, dimensional needs calibrated optics, FOD needs depth.