Industry Evolution
The event-driven process created production bottlenecks at each stage, mainly at the manual chop and radial arm saws used to create the truss setups, The result was an average of 25 trusses per eight-hour shift. That changed dramatically with the advent of computer-controlled saws in the mid-1980s, but also created another bottleneck at the truss-building table as cut material backed up behind it.
Enter the roller gantry, computer-controlled sorter/selectors, jigs, routers, and laser projection setups that streamlined the component-building process in the mid-1990s and reduced the number of workers to a relative skeleton crew. “Data-driven equipment reduced labor by 70% compared to a traditional plant,” says Swanson.
That was enough cost efficiency to keep established, well-heeled LBM-affiliated operations interested and investing, especially in wall-panel manufacturing equipment, which most independent truss makers have been slow to adopt. “We see lumber dealers adding that capability,” says Swanson. “They want to add value-driven products and become one-stop shops for builders and contractors.”
The latest equipment is also modular, meaning dealers can invest in a basic setup to meet demand and add capability and capacity when it’s warranted, often without more manpower.
Dealers that add or upgrade a wall- panel shop also may preserve the often-delicate competitive balance they have with their roof and floor truss suppliers. “If a dealer takes on a line [e.g., building wall panels] that a local truss supplier doesn’t have, it probably won’t erode their business relationship because they aren’t selling competitive products,” says Swanson.
And the equipment continues to evolve, lately with automated, independently controlled jigging pucks (the disks that hold the cut pieces of a truss in place on the table for the metal plate connectors) that enable complex designs, and extrusion-action assembly tables that automatically move the truss or panel through the fastening and finishing processes, so a steady flow of product and smaller tables can do the job. “It’s not rocket science to run a truss plant anymore,” says Carlson.
The Next Generation
Yet despite technology that promises to reduce a truss shop’s overall labor burden, the number of structural component industry employees, according to WTCA, is up 39% since 2000–even accounting for a 17% increase in manufacturing facilities during the same period. “The technological advancements in this industry have made the manual process easier,” says TCT’s Johnson, “But they haven’t truly fixed the problem and taken manual labor completely out of the process.”
Robotics, he says, is the giant leap toward that end. Adapted to wood-truss making from robotic technology that Japanese home building factories have used for decades, the TCT system automates the entire process, including culling and feeding lumber into a pair of saws working simultaneously on chord and web materials, respectively, and producing setups in built order instead of in batches.
Robotic arms move, check, and position raw and cut material, and the system is programmed to account for and fix imperfections in the wood on the fly. It also automatically stacks and loads finished materials for shipping. “We’re actually asking the robotics to do simpler tasks [in a wood truss plant] than they perform in other industries,” such as in automotive plants, says Johnson.
Reducing a truss maker’s labor burden by another 80% on top of what manufacturing technology purports to save is just one selling point Johnson uses to market his product to independent manufacturers and LBM dealers. “It also lets you build a smaller footprint than a traditional truss plant” with the same capacity, he says, lowering a dealer’s upfront costs for a startup or auxiliary facility. “With fewer employees doing light-duty jobs, the burden of employment costs for insurance, worker’s comp, and safety go down.”
The labor savings also are evident when demand ebbs and flows, chiefly per overall housing production. With far fewer floor-level employees per shift, says Johnson, finding qualified labor in the local pool is much easier (and faster and cheaper) than trying to hire a whole shift of 25 workers to boost capacity. With robotics, “an operation would be able to ramp up and down more quickly,” Johnson says.
That benefit will serve Pro-Build’s new plant well, as it is scheduled to start producing trusses during a housing downturn but then be in position to serve the market as it recovers. The new facility’s as-yet determined location in the southeastern United States puts it near leading housing markets in Atlanta and throughout Florida, not to mention Gulf Coast areas rebuilding from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. “It is a region of high-growth housing markets in the long term,” says Walstad. The new facility also will be close to TCT’s headquarters for any troubleshooting needs. “Adding manufacturing capacity is essential to support our growth and ability to grow,” says Walstad.
Taking the Leap
Despite a price tag of $3.5 million for one of its full-scale robotic wood truss setups, and apparently stagnant interest in any sort of truss or wall-panel plans among LBM dealers, TCT has that segment in its sights. “When we started, we had lumber dealers in mind,” says Johnson. “You don’t have to be truss experts to do it or go through the obstacles of traditional manufacturing.”
To date, however, efforts by TCT and other advanced equipment suppliers to infiltrate the dealer market, besides the Pro-Build sale, have met with resistance. “Even when we show them an attractive return on investment, the downturn keeps them sitting on their pocketbooks,” says Swanson. “When they find the bottom [of the housing market], I think we’ll see a lot of companies make the move.”
LBM dealers also put up more bureaucratic barriers. “They’re interested, but they also tend to have more advanced corporate structures than independent truss or panel manufacturers,” says Swanson, putting a nice spin on the red tape and fragmentation of the LBM supply chain, especially among its largest and publicly held players. “There are lots of levels to negotiate and locations to consider.”
Larger truss manufacturers, however, are attracted to the labor benefits that robotics appear to afford, says Johnson. “They like that they can maintain profitability and competitiveness with fewer workers and better safety,” he says.
Carlson, who has been advocating robotics for the components industry for years since visiting factory-built housing facilities in Japan and Europe since the 1980s, sees that vision becoming clearer. “We need to start building houses like we build cars,” he says, including the integration of steel building materials instead of wood. “It’s not too remote to integrate these new technologies and materials into the industry, because you’re saving 10% to 30% compared to on-site framing in materials use, waste, labor, delays, and field adjustments that easily pay for the investment.”
–Rich Binsacca is a contributing editor to ProSales.
