After the 2014 Kansai Mechanical Components & Materials Technology Expo

The three-day exhibition has come to a successful conclusion. Thank you to everyone who visited our booth.

Honestly, I thought, "Maybe we'll go a little more bang for the buck?" But there were issues of name recognition, the way it was presented, and its location,
I feel that people didn't notice it.

We feel that it was generally well received by those who noticed and took the time to look at it.
In particular, those who have known us for some time have commented with surprise, "You've come this far!" I was surprised by their comments.

This was the first time for us to exhibit in the Kansai region, instead of the "usual" Yokohama.

I had hoped that the "current situation" that I heard from everyone would change as things change,
However, it was almost the same. It is "the same as ever.

However, I have heard that some efforts to "review visual inspection standards" have begun.
I am very happy to hear that.

I have been in this industry for over 10 years and have given it a lot of thought.
I already have some answers in my mind and am in the process of backing them up.

Most troubling is that many of the current "visual inspection standards" are,
developed based on "interviews with trained inspectors," and
It doesn't matter if it is a functional problem or not, or if it will result in a complaint or not,
It seems to me that the standards are based on the principle that "if you see something, even a little bit, it's an NG.

Therefore, even if you try to automate the process, it will not work nearly as well in a situation where the walls are too high.

However, in the field where it can be introduced and operated, even if it lacks some detection capability,
Even if the detection capability is a little insufficient, it will be "stable" and "all inspections" will be performed "with a reasonable detection capability" compared to visual inspections,
This is the reason for the effectiveness.

Complaints are drastically reduced because heavy defects do not leak out.
Because inspections are more relaxed, the percentage of good products increases compared to visual inspections.

The problem is that it takes "skill" to operate, and many cases are thrown out.
When they stop operating, they are left with only the result of failure.
And they will not be able to take on the next challenge.

But no one can probably say "lower the wall" from the beginning.

The only way to do this is to create a cycle to verify how far the inspection equipment can detect the problem and whether it is acceptable.

If you look at it through those eyes, I think you will see the essence of FlexInspector-ROBO.