Machinery Equals/Not Equals to Productivity 2

Continuing from the previous entry, the Husqvarna 430X takes about 22 hours a day, 7 days a week to mow 3/4 acre. It would mow for about 2 and half hours, then recharge for an hour, then mow for 2 and half hours and charge for an hour, cycling continuously rain or shine. The end result is that the lawn would be more lush and always look manicured, and since the clippings are returned to the soil, little application of fertiliser was required. As compared to, I suppose, a rotary mower used twice a month on the lawn, sweeping away the clippings, and perhaps applying fertiliser afterwards. In the shoes of a landscape worker, I would welcome such a widget that needs little to no "supervision" while I could spend more time and attention on pruning shrubs.

I think it was about 5 years ago that CUGE started a programme to rent machinery out to landscape companies in order to encourage them to use more machines or even purchase some of their own after trying the rentals out. Amongst the mechanical wonders were a backhoe, skid-steer + trench digger combo, wood chipper, and get this - a soil potting machine. I don't think the rental programme lasted for 2 years.

 A backhoe that has to be repositioned after digging was done at one spot.

A skid-steer that required the operator to stand. More suitable to dig trenches (on flat ground), as the brand name suggested.

This photo was taken from an area accessible to the public after the rental programme had closed. A soil potting machine out in the open with a tarp draped over it, which was breaking down due to being exposed to the elements.

Slightly more than a year ago, NParks released S$3 million for the Landscape Productivity Grant (LPG) to contribute towards the purchase of machinery by landscape companies and plant nurseries. The grant subsidised half of the machine price, and the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme subsidised 60% of the other half. The company would pay for the remaining, which is 20% of the machine price. NParks reported that a previous tranche of the LPG saw companies achieving the following improvements to their productivity through mechanisation.
- 77% savings in man-hours as a result of using wood chippers
- 60% savings in man-hours after switching to the use of ride-on mowers
- 50% savings in man-hours using tractor-mounted hedge-trimmers
- 80% savings in man-hours as a result of deploying a wireless remote mower

A tractor-mounted hedge-trimmer being utilised along an expressway. Not seen in this photo was the media posse in front of the tractor.

 One whole lane have to be closed just for this machinery to be used. I have not seen this on the roads myself.

 A similar attachment mounted on an Avant loader chasis. This machine was not used in the park ever again after photo taking.

 A stump grinder that I have not seen after taking this photo on Aug 2013.

Do we still have the same amount of productivity improvements despite of all these machines being put out of action? I think the answer would be resounding. The way these "x0% savings in man-hours" was derived is by demarcating a set amount of work - 1 km of shrubs, 1 acre of lawn, 1 lorryload of branches, etc. - and have the machine tackle the work, and have an appropriate number of human workers carry out the same work. The man-hours put into each set of work would be compared against one another. Outside these trials, landscape works were often back to square one. I heard that a company that owned a remote controlled mower used it rarely. When they have hordes of workers using backpack mowers, it was but a logical development. Of course not all landscape work are deprived of mechanisation. For example, in arboriculture.

Other than lifting workers up into the tree crowns and hauling trunks, apparently the crane could be used to grub out stumps. 

UPDATE

 Saw this stump grinder outside CCK Lot 1 on 3 Feb 2018.

Machinery Equals/Not Equals to Productivity

I was checking out Gebiz as usual in my down time and came across a tender for a "robotic mower", which I thought would be one of these remote controlled mowers featured along with the Landscape Productivity Grant (more on that later). But it turned out to be something less controlled and more automated.

Nah, not this type.

 

So. Refined.

Here goes the boring Gebiz details:

INVITATION TO QUOTE FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROBOTIC MOWER UNIT AND THE OPTION TO PURCHASE SPARE PARTS AND ENGAGE TROUBLE-SHOOTING SERVICES

Quotation No.: NPB000ETQ17000133
Agency: National Parks Board

ITEMS TO RESPOND
1. Robotic mower unit
2. Blade
3. OTHER ITEM OF WORK AND/OR SERVICE NOT INCLUDED IN ITEMS ABOVE BUT WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE FULL AND SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE WORKS.
4. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Battery, Rechargeable (12 months warranty against manufacturer's defect upon acceptance of item).
5. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Sealing Strip (for control panel) or equivalent.
6. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Sealing Strip (for main unit body) or equivalent.
7. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Wheel Snap Function (for wheel) or equivalent.
8. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Motor Assy or equivalent (at least 3 months warranty against manufacturer's defect upon acceptance of item).
9. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Motor Assy Height Motor or equivalent (at least 3 months warranty against manufacturer's defect upon acceptance of item).
10. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Joystick Kit Rear or equivalent.
11. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Joystick Kit Rear ( for column kit ) or equivalent.
12. OPTIONAL ITEM - Supply and replacement of Motor Kit Drive Wheel or equivalent (at least 3 months warranty against manufacturer's defect upon acceptance of item).
13. OPTIONAL ITEM - Transportation & on-site inspection/service charge (Per trip).
14. OTHER ITEM OF WORK AND/OR SERVICE NOT INCLUDED IN ITEMS ABOVE BUT WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE FULL AND SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE WORKS.

[Edit: Seemed like items 3 and 14 are repeated. Below are the excerpts of the response of two companies that participated in the ITQ.]

Company A (Awarded)

1. $3980 - HUSQVARNA (SWEDEN) AUTOMOWER - MODEL 430X (PN 967 62 25-03)
GPS Assisted Navigation/ 0.8 Acre Working Area Capacity
2. $71.55 - Husqvarna Automower Blades
3. $1500 - Installation Package includes 2 x complimentary follow-up service/loop wire reset with 3 months from installation
4. $214.50 - Husqvarna Automower 430X Replacement Li-Ion Battery
14. $1105.30 - Additional Automower Ad-Hoc Replacement / Service Parts & Accessories

Company B

1. $7500 - Robotic mower unit
2. $2160 - Blade
3. $4500 - Labour $1500 Wire Laying/ Trenching / Material $4500
4. $850 - Replacement battery
14. $1500 - Labour

The awardee was a lot more competitive in pricing as compared to the latter, and even so they could have profited quite a bit.

This bundle, costing approx SGD 2900, includes an install kit that comes with guide wires (250 metres), which sets the boundary for the robot mower (see below).

 The yellow line around the property represents the guide wires that tells the robot mower not to go past. The dotted lines are its mowing path I suppose.

The guide wires were installed a few inches below ground, so I have no idea why the second tenderer have to go and cost in $1500 for laying it and $4500 in materials (which I guess are the guide wires and staples). Assuming the lawn that this mower was used on was exactly 0.8 acres (3237.5m2), and the guide wires were laid just around the boundary, then only 227.6m of it was needed. The install kit comes with slightly more than that length of guide wires.