Palletizing Cobots Raise OEE 5% and Save 30 Minutes a Shift

A taxing end-of-line constraint

At a large cosmetics manufacturing plant in western India, operators placed finished boxes onto pallets by hand. Each operator lifted 8,500 kilograms of product during an 8-hour shift, making a routine end-of-line task a serious ergonomic exposure.

The plant's internal analysis classified the work as a Level 4 ergonomic risk, with Level 5 identified as the most severe. The process also relied on a single active pallet, so replacing that pallet stopped the line and consumed productive time.

Staff changes between shifts could affect line efficiency, while different application setups took 60 to 70 minutes to install. The plant needed repeatable handling without making its production floor rigid.

• Heavy, repetitive box handling remained with operators.
• Single-pallet operation forced a line stop during pallet replacement.
• Setup requirements impeded quick movement between applications.
• Shift-to-shift staffing changes could affect process consistency.

A flexible two-cobot palletizing cell

The plant began its cobot program with its first unit in 2016. The documented configuration ultimately used 2 collaborative robot arms for automatic palletizing, arranged so 2 pallets could be handled simultaneously.

That cell design addressed more than the lifting motion. While a completed pallet was replaced, palletizing could continue on the other position, removing the previously documented line interruption.

Programmable application changes also replaced setups that had taken 60 to 70 minutes to install. The source describes the cobots as user-friendly, maintenance-free, and flexible enough for redeployment across the shop floor.

The published record does not specify a formal training curriculum, commissioning duration, service contract, or vendor selection scorecard. It documents an adoption that began with the first cobot and resulted in a 2-cobot palletizing installation.

• Move manual box placement into a collaborative robot cell.
• Stage 2 pallets so production can continue through pallet replacement.
• Program repeatable handling for consistent operation across shifts.
• Retain the ability to redeploy the cobots to different applications.

Recovered time became measurable OEE

With 2 pallets available simultaneously, pallet replacement no longer required the documented line stop. The resulting time saving was 30 minutes per shift, and the plant reported a 5% OEE improvement attributed to the recovered pallet-replacement time.

The ergonomic result was equally consequential. By transferring repetitive pallet loading from operators to the cobots, the plant reported complete elimination of the documented high ergonomic risk associated with manual end-of-line handling.

The gains came from cell architecture as much as robotic motion. Continuous pallet availability protected production flow, while programmable operation reduced sensitivity to shift changes and lengthy application setups.

The cell around the robot determines the gain

For US manufacturers, the lesson is not merely that a cobot can lift boxes. The 5% OEE improvement came from redesigning pallet exchange so the line could keep moving, which means an end of line automation assessment must examine staging, product flow, operator access, and changeovers as a connected operating system.

Service Robot Co. brings that systems view as a vendor neutral robot integrator. We select the robot that fits the floor, arrange collaborative robot arm rental or monthly payment programs, perform robot deployment and integration, train operators, and service each unit through a nationwide US engineer network.

A cobot rental for manufacturing, palletizing robot rental, financed deployment, or purchase should not fragment responsibility among separate vendors. Service Robot Co. gives customers one partner and one number across selection, financing, deployment, integration, training, and ongoing service.