"How much responsibility for quality should be held by the operator and how much should be held by the tool?"
Once you've answered this question you can get on to the issue of balancing assembly requirements and cost of the assembly system. Another way to think about it is that your assembly system IS the error proofing system.
Assembly (error proofing) systems can be simple to extremely complex. They can have very high levels of control to almost no level of control. Costs are reflected in the amount of control the system provides. Typically the greater control the greater the cost.
Flexibility is another important aspect of any assembly/error proofing system. In most systems, a greater level of control usually means sacrificing flexibility.
A robot with a DC nut runner gives you ultimate control. Asking that robot to do something outside its design scope and your already high costs exponentially skyrocket.
Whether you have high control over the assembly sequence and the quality, or you have no control over the same, you do have 100% accountability to get the job done right.
We were there at the start of the torque error proofing industry. That was in 1924 when Walter P. Chrysler licensed Paul Sturtevant to manufacture and sell the deflecting beam torque wrench Chrysler had invented. Since then we have systematically approached error proofing in ways that no one else has done. Our systems let you determine how much control and flexibility you want over parameters, sequence, and process. We also ensure that there is always 100% accountability for the work.
Take a look a look at our unique, systematic approach to error proofing:
Take a look at six error proofing scenarios and see where the balance between worker and/or tool have responsibility for the assembly and quality.
Sturtevant Richmont tools are proudly made by highly capable union hands.