Intro Video Analysis

(1) Side-by-side videos showing the ORA robotic arm completing the same simulated manufacturing process:

• One video highlights multiple instances of inefficient motion
• Another video shows an optimized workflow

(2) Observe the videos, taking notes in the engineering notebook comparing motions, timing, and efficiencies.

Lecturette: Motion Efficiency

(1) Provides definitions and examples of common types of inefficient robotic motions that can occur in process automation:

• Unnecessary Rotations - extraneous rotational movements of the arm base or joints that do not contribute to positioning. (Example: Repeatedly twisting wrist joint back and forth while moving between steps)
• Indirect Pathing - taking a longer route in moving between process steps. (Example: Lifting the arm up high arching between places instead of direct line)
• Imprecise Alignment - lack of accuracy resulting in overcorrection movements. (Example: Repeatedly overshooting target then adjusting back)
• Excessive Accel/Decel - starting or stopping movements abruptly rather than gradually. (Example: Instantly speeding joint to top RPM then halting suddenly)
• Redundant Actions - performing identical or duplicative motions multiple times. (Example: Double-gripping component with no benefit)

(2) In the engineer notebooks, students add details on characteristics and examples for each inefficient motion type.

(3) In teams, students discuss other examples of inefficient motion types.

Collaborative Code Analysis

(1) Teams examine the complete process control code from the comparison video to identify which inefficient motion types occur.

• Teams are provided with a printed copy of the complete process control code.
• Highlight and Comment - When an inefficient motion is identified, highlight code block(s) and add descriptive comment (e.g., "# Excessive wrist rotation here").
• Mark with a Star - Sections of code with inefficient motions that significantly impact workflow gets marked with a star.

(2) Teams present 1-2 examples of inefficient code they flagged and quantify potential time savings/smoother operation if optimized.

• As examples are shared, students add details to individual engineering notebooks for reference.

Walkthrough: Eliminate a Motion Inefficiency

(1) Walk through the process of how to eliminate an instance of inefficiency.

• Identify or have students identify an instance of "excessive starts & stops."
• As a class, collaboratively create the pseudocode to eliminate the excessive starts and stops by consolidating motions.
• Require students to justify the proposed pseudocode and explain the efficiency gain.

(2) Make revisions to the code in the ORA Editor in response to student feedback.

(3) Execute the code, observe the arm’s movements, and analyze the efficiency gain.

Programming Activity

(1) Provide students with another printed sample process control code.

(2) Independently, students identify one inefficient motion example to remove from the process code through modifications.

• Identify and highlight an inefficient motion.
• Add a descriptive comment.
• Propose modifications via pseudocode.
• Explain potential efficiency gain

(3) Independently, students complete the revisions in the ORA Editor, adding comments explaining changes.

(4) Invite 2-3 students to execute their code and have the class observe the effects on the arm's efficiency.

Peer Code Review

(1) Teams gather to exchange code excerpts and Motion Efficiency reports detailing their outlined optimizations.

(2) Divide into pairs to critique code modifications, provide feedback on functionality maintenance, and help quantify efficiency gain.

(3) Independently, students complete a second round of revisions in the ORA Editor, adding comments that reflect peer feedback.

(4) Invite another 2-3 students to execute their code. This time, have the student describe the robotic arm’s movements in realtime, noting the improved motion and efficiency gain.

Independent Reflection & Shared Learning

(1) Students will reflect on the steps they took to identify an inefficient motion and note what they looked for each time in their engineering notebook.

(2) Pairs of students will share their reflections and notes, sharing an insight they may have learned from their partner's process and strategy.

(3) Independently, students complete a 3-2-1 written reflection:

• 3x common inefficient motions they have observed in past project code
• 2x inefficient motions they struggle eliminating
• 1x success they experienced during the lesson