You won’t hurt RUTH the robot’s feelings if you disagree with her, but it will be difficult to prove your point, given that her opinions are backed by mathematical evidence.
ADVERTISEMENT |
For example, the robotized unit for tactility and haptics (RUTH), which arrived in North America earlier this year, has assured Ford Motor Co. that its 2013 Fusion has an interior that customers want. The RUTH robot is a giant arm with six joints, programmed to poke the trims, turn the knobs, push the buttons, and interact with many of the vehicle’s interior areas in the same way a person would.
Quality can be difficult to express, yet when customers sit in a high-end car, they know by the feel of the trim and the touch of the buttons that the car is special. The sense of touch and the intuitive understanding of quality are innately human characteristics, but how do you measure them? The answer: Use a RUTH.
RUTH allows engineers to quantify vehicle characteristics such as softness, roughness, temperature, hardness, and comfort. This allows Ford to tailor each vehicle interior to exactly what a customer group wants.
…
Comments
A question
Thanks for an interesting article.
I have one important question however, on what do you base RUTH and it's success? Any studies or data to back this up?
Your statement of success of RUTH seems to be based upon your statement that "Ford has high quality interior, coming close to that or equaling luxury cars" (I'm paraphrasing)
Because I personally disagree with the statement that Ford has this high quality interior (and I think many people in Europe with me), I would like to know upon which you base this conclusion.
I ask this, because of your statement about Fords Quality cannot be 'proven', then your basis of calling RUTH successful is also no longer there?
Thanks for your reply!
Add new comment