Re-industrializing America sounds bold. Necessary. Inevitable.

But on factory floors across the country, automation keeps stalling before it ever delivers real value.

Robots sit unused. Projects drag on for years. Leaders know automation is essential, yet decisions stall, risks get avoided, and the same problems repeat. This episode goes straight to the heart of why.

Jan Griffiths is joined by Søren Peters, CEO of HowToRobot, a global marketplace helping manufacturers source and implement robotics more effectively. Søren has spent decades leading digital transformation and operational change, giving him a front-row seat to why automation struggles inside real plants, not PowerPoint decks.

This conversation moves past hype. It tackles the real blockers: fear-based leadership, siloed decision-making, short-term contracts, poor education, and a complete lack of ownership once robots hit the shop floor. Automation doesn’t fail because the technology isn’t ready. It fails because organizations aren’t.

Søren challenges leaders to rethink how they assess risk, train their workforce, and take responsibility for change. Buying a robot isn’t a technology decision. It’s a leadership decision. And without courage, clarity, and accountability, even the smartest automation strategy will collapse.

If the automotive industry is serious about rebuilding manufacturing capacity, closing labor gaps, and preparing for an AI-enabled future, leaders must stop waiting for certainty and start owning the change.

Themes Discussed

1. Why automation failures are leadership failures, not technology failures
2. The risk-avoidance mindset is slowing manufacturing transformation
3. How siloed decision-making kills automation on the shop floor
4. Why education matters beyond engineers and integrators
5. The hidden impact of short-term supplier contracts on ROI
6. What successful automation leaders do differently
7. Why ownership and courage matter more than tool

Watch the full video on YouTube - click here

This episode is sponsored by Lockton, click here to learn more

Featured Guest

Søren Peters is the CEO of HowToRobot, a global industrial robot marketplace that helps manufacturers find, evaluate, and implement automation solutions more effectively. He has spent over two decades leading companies through digital transformation, outsourcing, and large-scale operational change across Europe and the United States. Søren brings a pragmatic, leadership-first perspective to automation, grounded in what actually works inside manufacturing plants.

About Your Host – Jan Griffiths

Jan Griffiths is a champion for culture change and the host of the Automotive Leaders Podcast. A former automotive executive with a rebellious spirit, Jan is known for challenging outdated norms and inspiring leaders to ditch command and control. She is the author of AutoCulture 2.0 and the co-host of the Auto Supply Chain Prophets podcast. Jan brings honesty, energy, and courage to every conversation, proving that authentic, human-centered leadership is the future of the automotive industry.

Mentioned in this Episode

1. HowToRobot
2. UHY RFQ white paper

Episode Highlights

[02:55] Re-industrialization sounds great until automation decisions stall for years

[04:12] Why factories don’t need humanoids, they need basics that work

[06:35] The real reason companies delay buying robots for a decade

[09:10] Fear, risk, and leadership paralysis inside manufacturing

[12:58] Why training only engineers guarantees automation failure

[14:41] Robots are workers, and leaders must manage them as such

[18:04] Short-term contracts destroy long-term automation ROI

[19:52] Financing, trust, and the reality of buying unfamiliar technology

[21:21] What the DNA of a successful automation leader really looks like

Top Quotes

[11:20] Soren Peters: “I think it’s leadership. And I think those who want to be the one who takes the torch and says, I will take the risk. I will bear the burden.”

[14:52] Soren Peters: “A robot is a worker in a sense, and it comes with different ROIs, it comes with different behaviors.”

[15:15] Soren Peters: “And a robot also has a sick day. But we are also saying to everybody, a robot never gets sick — and it’s not, well, but it does.”

[25:48] Jan Griffiths: “The tech mindset is let’s get this technology and play with it. Let’s break it. Let’s break it. Let’s iterate it.”

If this episode resonated, share it with a fellow automotive leader and subscribe to The Automotive Leaders Podcast, where we’re shaping the future of authentic leadership in the automotive industry.

This podcast episode is also available on YouTube. Check out our YouTube channel at Jangriffithsautomotiveleaders

Send us your feedback or questions — email Jan at Jan@Gravitasdetroit.com.

Welcome to the Automotive Leaders Podcast, where we help you

prepare for the future by sharing stories, insights, and skills from leading voices

in the automotive world with a mission to transform this industry together.

I'm your host, Jan Griffiths.

That passionate, rebellious farmer's daughter from Wales with over 35 years of

experience in our beloved auto industry and a commitment to empowering fellow

leaders to be their best authentic selves.

Stay true to yourself, be you and lead with gravitas, the

hallmark of authentic leadership.

Let's dive in.

This episode is brought to you by Lockton.

Rising benefit costs aren't inevitable for you or your employees when

you break through the status quo.

Independence matters, it means Lockton can bring you creative,

tailored solutions that truly serve your business and your people.

At Lockton, clients, associates, and communities come first,

not margins and not mediocrity.

Meet the moment with Lockton.

Re-industrialize America.

Wow.

That's a term that we're using a lot these days.

Across the US factories are waking back up and companies want to bring production

home, but they're hitting a wall.

There's some problems: labor shortages, skill gaps, rising

costs, tariffs, you name it and there's a growing need to automate.

We're starting to pay a lot more attention to automation now, but even as the

demand for robotics explodes, many plants still buy robots that don't get used.

I've been in many plants in my lifetime where it, the advanced

manufacturing group is all excited.

They bring in the robot, they put it in a plant and a southern state where

they can't get the skilled labor, and what happens, the plant manager gives

up, throws a top over it and says, I'll just hire a couple of extra people.

So, what are we gonna do about this?

Today's episode tackles a critical question.

If automation is essential to rebuilding American manufacturing, why are so

many companies still failing at it?

And what has to change before we move forward into a truly automated

and then AI-enabled future.

Well, to answer that question and a whole lot more, I am thrilled to

bring on the show today, Soren Peters.

He is the CEO of How to Robot, a global marketplace helping manufacturer source

automation and robotics more easily.

Soren has spent his career leading companies through digital

transformation, technology adoption, and large-scale operational change.

His vantage point puts him right at the center of one of the biggest

shifts in modern manufacturing.

The urgent need for automation as production moves back to the US.

Soren, welcome to the show.

Thank you.

I'm glad you'd have me here.

It is great to have you.

I saw you on stage at a UHY conference and your message was so powerful, so real,

and so needed in the world we're in today.

So Soren set the stage for us.

What's happening in the world of automation right now?

That's a big question.

I wish I could answer that.

I think it comes in layers and I think we sometimes have the tendency of

maybe only seeing the most exciting one, from a technology perspective

sometimes, but it feels like some of the other layers might be the ones

that are missing the most right now.

And I think I've been saying that for the last many years.

If you ask me, at least, I think we're all fascinated by AI and AI enabled

robots and any kind that rhymes with AI or autonomous or whatever.

And I am too, I think it's hard not to whether it's a dog or

a humanoid or whatever it is.

I think the more realistic or more broken part of it is maybe that if you go out

and see a shop floor, they are maybe not so much in need of humanoids right now.

Well, definitely in need of humans but it still feels like a

conveyor or a palletizer is the more appropriate fit for a lot of

these things to get things moving.

I still feel it's the ongoing discussion of, is robots gonna take

the workforce out and blah, blah, blah.

But I think that we are still at, nope, it's not, the people aren't there, so

it's not gonna take a job that isn't occupied right now, but maybe we can

move some of these guys to a different position where they feel more valued

and, as we've been saying for 30 years, that the robot can do the dirty

jobs and all those kinds of things.

And I still feel that the backbone of what we're still need to push is

that while we're developing humanoids and other things but I do feel that,

we always have a tendency to see that shining thing in front of us.

I had a colleague once that his thing was Monday morning around 10.

He always wrote an email to everybody saying, thank God it's it's weekend soon.

And my point with that is he, let's look past the weekend right on to Sunday roast.

Whereas the reality is we will have both Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday

that we have to fight through.

I think that's what we see.

We're still at Tuesday.

Yeah, that's a good point.

We hear this number Sorin that there's 500,000 manufacturing

jobs open in the US right now.

That seems to be a number that people are using a lot these days.

Then we've got this other news headline that says, oh my gosh, the robots

are coming, the robots are coming it, and they're gonna take all our jobs.

Well, both are true sort of, but automation is definitely part of a

manufacturing plant's plan, whether it's to reduce labor cost or whether

it's because they can't get the labor.

But automation is part of their plan.

But we're not very good at making that decision, are we?

Why does it take companies so long to make a decision to buy

automation, to buy a robot?

I think I saw another podcast host, by the way,

once post one of those, who are?

Manufacturers?

What are we gonna do?

Buy robots.

When do we want them?

Tomorrow?

Are they needed?

Yes.

When are we gonna issue the P.O?

Probably sometimes in the next 10 years.

And I think that's easier.

I think that's the point in all its simplicity.

This is a very US focused public podcast, but a very similar scenarios

playing the UK for a second.

How long have they known that Brexit was a thing?

I mean, years.

Yes.

We are seeing, I'm not saying they haven't realized that the

Brexit is happening, but we are now seeing a steady inflow of projects from the UK

realizing that they are down in workforce.

But that can't come as a surprise really?

I'm sure it doesn't but it feels like the time it took to pull the trigger

on realizing no, you're not gonna get temporary labors from out other places in

Europe to, I don't know, pick your apples or your strawberries or whatever it is.

It's not gonna happen.

And they knew this three years ago.

Of course they did.

Why are they pulling the trigger now?

And the same thing in the us That's not Brexit, but it's other things.

There is an immigration policy saying that we are a little bit more restrictive at

the border and a little bit is probably, differs but, so it will impact that.

And it's been an agenda for years.

I'm born in Europe as well, it's has been an agenda, the Arab Spring

and everybody panted a little bit.

What's that gonna mean for fugitives and so on.

Long story short, we know that this is impacting us and still,

we're still thinking about it.

You know that there's issues with people buying

robots and implementing robots.

You formed an entire company around it to help people do it.

Yes.

But what's right at the core of why companies can't

seem to get their head around this?

But I think they can, if you divide it up for a second, I think

when we started working with this in 1718 on the whole platform idea at that

time was just, there was still a lot of like, why should we use automation like

seminars, podcasts like this, would be all about why is robots a great idea?

Let's be honest, that's hopefully not the agenda at any podcast anymore.

But the why or actually, try to advertise how to robot and we are still stuck there.

So a few examples.

I think there's still a fear and a balance.

The last five years been incredibly changing for a lot of things, and

very omnidirectional in the sense that every arrow has pointed in every

direction at any given point in time.

And I think, if I were a decision maker and a large manufacturer in the last

five years, there would've been times where I've probably thought that what's

the old game where you just turn the bottle and it pointed at someone might

be the right way to take a decision because what's gonna happen next?

It's tariffs, for and against but there is tariffs.

There's been a number of wars we hadn't foreseen.

The former East has suddenly changed their views on a whole lot

of things and so on and so forth.

Political winds have changed a lot.

And as you said, leading into this, there is suddenly an enormous, I don't

wanna say deglobalization view, but something that is a little bit like

that and put all those things together.

How are you gonna navigate that?

And then still coming out of COVID, people were realizing, we could

have damned some of the effects of COVID if we had robot workers.

But still, they didn't pull the trigger until 22, 23.

I mean, we can see that from the sales.

I think there is conservatism.

I think it's difficult to calculate the outcome and let's say that you are a plant

manager in a factory, in a country with a maybe a little bit shorter payback time

on hours could be anywhere south of the US for example, and so the management,

for example, in the US have given you very, very strict orders on what to

produce, how to produce it and when.

But at the same time, the management knows that it's also

difficult to get workers there.

So on one hand you're asking a guy whom you're fenced in pretty good

on KPIs to think out of the box and change the way he produces things.

Likewise, on the production floor, how do we get factory workers?

Well, mostly it's the guy who's been there 10 years.

He gets the new guy.

The new guy learns from the guy who's been there 10 years.

And you're expecting them to adopt robots, right there.

I don't think that's gonna happen.

So in all thing, it's leadership and I think who want to be the one that takes

the torch and say, I will take the risk.

I will bear the burden and I will let myself crucify if necessary,

if this fails, and if I were brave enough to say that, then the next

thing is, and who helps me with that?

I think that's a very big part of it.

And we might not say it that loud because then we will be one of the

ones saying, yeah, I'm maybe not so fascinated about all these things.

I actually just need things to work.

And that is not as cool as being, an evangelist or saying human

robot or humanoids or whatever, so.

I think there's leadership, there's definitely leadership.

There's risk and to dare.

So you know why not?

Well, I don't think they made it to many parts of the US

yet that risk taking ability.

Yeah, and I think a lot of it too goes back to the silo

mentality and silo thinking that we have, particularly in the auto industry.

So you see advanced manufacturing engineers or manufacturing

engineering group that may be in a corporate office somewhere.

They are working on the robot and they come up with a robot

and they work with the supplier.

And sometimes, and I've heard you talk about this, sometimes they can

be talking different languages because maybe these are mechanical engineers.

They don't exactly speak the same language as the robot manufacturer.

So there's perhaps a little bit of a disconnect there.

But then this thing arrives at the plant and maybe you got some purchasing

person that decided to cut the training module out because they wanted to save

some money, that can happen, but it arrives and then like you say, the

poor guy in the plant is like, what?

What?

So give us some examples of where you've seen that play out and what people

do to prevent that from happening.

I think there's two levels of education here, or maybe even three.

I think the most common layer is that if you're a robot vendor, as in other words

an integrator or whatever you are, that are the ones that got the order are now

installing the robot, I think it's in their genes and it's in their contracts.

As a rarely we see a contract where it isn't in that they

educate the present factory engineer in what they've installed.

At least to the, so that he can get it moving again.

What we see more rarely or more is that do they also educate the rest

of the workforce because those of are gonna be the ones going near the thing

and might also get the responsibility for that specific line where that

creature from hell is now standing.

And you know, be honest, we've hired advisors.

Automation advisors even coming from the automotive industry.

And when we sent them out to a plant that did whatever, food and

beverage or something like that in the middle of nowhere, they

literally called me and said, oh my God, I didn't know it was like this.

And so I think there's the other part which is are we aligned on what

the state of automation is really?

Because that would also define the level of education that

we have to bring to the table.

So very often we actually see the vendor, the integrator, whatever, deliver one

kind of education, but then actually the factory themselves or others take

the more broad education into look what we've done and so on and so forth.

And not only the technical education.

And lastly, a robot is a worker in a sense, and it comes with different

ROIs, it comes with different behaviors.

And now you also need to train the management.

What does that mean?

You definitely hired a different kind of workforce that comes with other

problems or other greatnesses than the guys we normally use that's they come

with unions or they need the first sick day of a child or whatever it is.

And a robot also have a sick day.

But we are also saying to everybody, a robot never gets sick

and it's not, well, but it does.

It's a piece of machinery and so.

Long story short, it's back to education on a few levels and

not just the technical education.

It's back to when we buy something, we don't buy it for the sake of

technology, we buy it because it will change my ability to pack fish or

whatever I'm packing from 2 to 5,000.

And honestly, it could be a robot, but it could also be a giraffe technically,

if that could solve the problem.

And that was the same with IT, it took 20 years, 25 years before we went from,

the greatness of technology to that the normal manager of a division in some

kind of company actually knew how to set forth specific functional demands

to whatever system he was buying because if he bought the system, some C-level

dude will come and kick his behind if he didn't deliver on the purchase.

So there is still that technology to functionality conversion in our purchases.

Understanding and so on and so forth that we are seeing is still

a roadblock or a challenging part that shows up later, which says

no, but it, it does it packed fish?

Yes, it does, but it only packs 2100 and we were so much hoping for 5,000.

Oh, didn't we say that?

Or I think we said that, but you didn't hear it, or it's so classic.

And anyone can get us all.

Of course we said that, or the Venus can say, of course, we heard that.

Reality is that's what we see.

This episode is sponsored by UHY.

Did you know suppliers now spend 157 hours on an average RFQ and still face

the same roadblocks as 20 years ago?

UHY and the Center for Automotive Research, break it all down

in their new white paper.

Get the insights and see what's really changed in 2025.

Download your copy.

There's a link in the show notes.

Listening to you talk, it takes me right back to my career and my time on the shop

floor, and not specifically with robots, but I remember buying capital equipment

and it's exactly like you described.

The equipment manufacturer will spend most of the time educating one or two engineer.

Maybe a set guy and a maintenance guy, and these guys then are the like

the gods of that piece of equipment.

Yes.

Nobody else knows what to do with it.

I mean, they might have gone through some operator training, some

basic stuff, but very, very basic.

But those two people are the only ones that really know how to use that

machine, and that is a huge problem.

You are exactly right, and I've seen it play out time and time again.

So that's a huge area of opportunity.

, Soren Peters: In any country, I guess, the majority of companies that need

to adopt automation are not Ford size.

They are 50 to 400 workers.

But they're also the upstream suppliers, for example, to the automotive industry.

Now, you're hoping that these guys will invest in environmental, environmentally

great things, ESG and all that.

You're hoping that they'll adapt future technologies such as AI and whatever.

You're even hoping they have a year P system, and you're definitely hoping

they'll bring on robots because that would give you, in many cases, a more robust

production in terms of quality and so on.

So we all know that, but the problem is the deal they can get with the guy

they deliver to, is a year at a time.

And then byebye ROI again, because if you can only invest a year or two it

isn't very many solutions that will have a payback of a year and a half.

There will be some, but then we are all with those ones, and then it becomes a

little bit more strategic, and if your supply deal with whatever automotive

major company is on a two year basis.

Of course, we all know that your company had that deal the last

31 years, and you're probably also gonna get it next year.

But if I am a somewhat sane CEO or CFO, I will tell my board yes, it'll have

a payback in three and a half years.

Yes, it's strategic investment and no, our contract with whatever is only 18 months

left under you know, on the clock there.

And yes, you're right technically, and hopefully, we get it again, but as some

would say, hope is for Sundays at 10.

Yeah.

Depending on where your church time is.

So yet another roadblock.

It's just you have to liquidity the situation.

As you know, we've been lifting the financial as partners where

we lift it that you can finance a robot so you don't pay until the

thing is on the factory floor.

A lot of companies are now looking to do that and so on.

Why?

Because that's the other thing.

You're buying a robot with 80% down technically from a guy you made

at a trade show three months ago.

You're buying a thing you never bought before.

A thing you don't really understand, but you're putting all your hopes in.

But still, you're giving that guy $400,000 before you've even seen the thing.

I mean, there's still so many basic factors.

Yeah.

And if you add them up, of course it's preventive.

Of course it is.

So yeah, I mean, am I fascinated by robots that can weed fields?

Yes.

Tremendously.

Do I still say see a ton of hesitation in buying those things?

Yes.

They don't get it.

I mean, they get the idea of it, but there's other roadblocks that I think.

The robot industry see, but maybe not see clearly enough or maybe

they do but don't know how to solve.

So honestly, I think this goes in many levels.

I think if you're an automotive superpower, whatever name that could be

there, you have a task here to look at your contract and say, look, Jan, for the

next four years, this contract is yours.

The trade off is, that you promised me that you would automate your

production to a certain degree because then you won't get the contract

after the four years if you don't.

I feel that automotive manufacturing companies supply

base particularly, have got to get their arms around this in quickly.

We've talked a lot about the problems.

I want to switch you now to, go into the mindset of a leader who really

gets it, understands it, and is likely to be successful, and in selecting,

purchasing and implementing robots.

What's the DNA of that leader look like?

Tell me, I wanna know about their leadership style, how they make decisions.

What's that look like?

I think for some years, I think some of us thought

that age was a big part of this.

Like if you were older than X, then your likelihood of investing

in newer technology would be less.

It's funny enough, not always the case.

I think there's a few factors here.

I think one of the determined factors is.

Can I find a way to experiment and not get crucified in the sense of, can I

find a way or can I buy myself a way to set myself free enough to to at least

change things and give myself a little leeway to both change, but then also fix.

I mean, none of this can change lanes without a little bit of after

polishing and so on and so forth.

And so, if you're not able to buy yourself that leeway, you're highly

likely gonna fail at one of the first attempts of trying this.

So I think there is some shoulder width and an organization that are able to

sustain that you're actually doing this.

Give the guy the leeway.

No, we are not talking about standing out in your backyard burning a hundred

dollars bills, but we are talking about that there is a little bit of like

the day he said he would fix this.

Don't stand there and threaten him.

Give him those extra 15%.

Yeah, it's like a trial.

You need to build in some time to play

Yes,

familiar

But not endless.

And that's the thing.

We have this terrible idea of either we say, did you make it on time?

Or it is like a total hippie we'll see and maybe ridden in the stars.

There is a middle ground, and the middle ground might be

give the guy the time plus 20%.

And tell him that that's what he's getting and help him do that.

We have seen many times that a big company have a division or a group

that are very focused on changing automation team or whatever is

advanced manufacturing team, whatever.

But there is also a plant manager with responsibility day to day that has to

go hand in hand, and they need to give him the leeway to adopt this but also

help him like put on the new suit.

And so leadership wise, I think there is daring.

I think there's definitely daring and maybe also a little bit of,

I'll ask for permission afterwards.

Which is a cultural difficult thing for some.

I think there is a certain kind of firmness decision

wise that needs to be there.

It's like, this is what we do and lagging up.

And you know, where I come from, we say you have to point with the whole hand.

So literally be firm about this direction we're taking.

You are all on board.

Because I think changing things like this is hard if you're also wobbly.

So if you take the decision of introducing AGVs or Palletizers or

whatever it is, it is a firm thing we do, and of course we're all gonna

contribute to the this is gonna work.

As they say in church, speak now or forever hold your peace.

I think that's a very, very big factor.

If you allow too much let's sit in a circle and play guitar and so on.

I think it's okay for the 20% where we try to figure out how do we get

the people to adopt this, you know, we're humans, but I think when you

point and say, this is what we do, that's where you have to be super firm.

You are right though, but it's a balance, right?

Because so often we see companies that might decide to say, okay.

We're gonna introduce robots for material handling for this new project.

So now you've got a brand new project going into the plant, and you're going to

introduce automation for the first time.

And now you're on a timeline.

And now your customer came in and shortened the timeline, right?

So the chance of that succeeding is slim to none.

New technology, new program launch, but yet we do it because we're driven.

We're driven.

We've got numbers, we've got KPIs, we've got financials that we have

to meet, and that's how we operate.

And that's very much automotive mindset.

More of the tech mindset is let's get this technology and play with it.

Let's break it.

Let's break it.

Let's iterate it.

Let's work with it.

Work with it in our process until we can figure out how to truly optimize it.

Yeah.

This that kind of playing in the sandbox with it mentality.

What I hear you say is you need to allow room for that, but not forever.

There's gotta be some kind of guardrail around that.

I think if I were a plant manager or whatever, I would do two

things that would make me sleep at night.

I would, one, buy me a little leeway from my boss saying, we

might have a 20% hiccup here.

Don't worry I will ensure it is 20% and not 600.

And so I will control this, but you need to allow me hiccup and

then I'll tell my guys, under me, I would say, this has to work.

And I probably would not tell them 20%.

I would probably find the balance of giving myself a little leeway

to navigate knowing that this is something I haven't tried before,

but also looking firm on the outside.

I've played in a band for many years and funny enough, I rarely get nervous talking

on a stage or whatever, where it's only me, but it, I feel like I can control me.

Now, rarely you'll find a factory where, where the only worker is me.

So there is a band and funny enough, when we play out in concerts and whatever,

I feel I'm much more nervous because there's a whole band dependent on me,

and if I screw up, I drag everybody down.

And we all look like idiots.

So I actually feel a greater responsibility for them than I do

for the audience, funny enough.

So I think what I learned to conquer my insecurity was, and obviously

I've never said this and I know we're recording this, but screw the audience.

As long as I get leeway with my band members, as long as I know

that if I screw up whatever, they're okay, they'll continue playing,

and 'cause they'll screw up, five minutes later and I'll carry them.

But outside we just plow on.

We just play that.

Yes, the bass player might be an idiot for the next 20 seconds 'cause

he's fumbling, but the band keeps on.

That's really good.

'Cause the bass player is very much a supporting role, pulling it all together.

It is a rhythm group, funny enough, right?

Bass and drums.

But, so it will be noticed if I fall.

But it'll be definitely be noticed if the whole band stops and looks

at me and think, what the hell, that will be noticed and that that's

the situation I'm nervous about.

So, but if the band carries on, we won't fall all at the same time.

So if the band carries on, I can climb up using them and then they later fall

and they can climb up and look in any concert anywhere I've ever played, we've

screwed up any one of us, at a number of times 'cause this is not my full-time job.

The good thing is at most parties, people are dumb ass drunk anyway.

So they're not gonna notice.

It's only if you record it and afterwards you think, oh my god.

Yes.

But that's the beauty of it.

Whereas if the whole band stopped.

It will be very, very visible.

So my point is the factory has to move on that you need to promise your boss.

Yeah.

But I need leeway 'cause I am human and I'm now

doing a thing that I don't do very often in this case, automation.

So please bear with me just a little bit.

I will still make sure the band plays on.

Yeah.

That's a great way to describe it.

Now, Soren, in closing, I want you to talk to our listening audience.

Give them one piece of advice, one step, maybe step one.

Maybe they're starting to think about automation.

They're just starting to think about it.

Give them a couple of pointers.

What do they need to do?

Let's see if I can say this without advertising, but we build

how robot with literally two focuses.

'Cause we only meet two kind of clients.

We meet the guy that know he has to do something, had no idea why or when.

So not why, but when and how technically.

And then we meet the guy that know why and he also know kind of where but not whom.

And so, you know, if we built what we did to ensure that if you know

where, like I need palletizing, this is where I'm bleeding out.

You don't have to buy it tomorrow, but very quickly you sit with

knowledge because that's what we need that the point is the knowledge

part is where I feel more secure.

I feel more, firm in my decisions.

So if I very quickly get ideas of what this is gonna cost

and a concept and all this.

Again, get this very, very quickly so it doesn't drag out for nine months.

I can be more firm in my decision saying that's what we're gonna do.

Yeah.

So that's for the guy who probably knows where,

but just need to figure out how.

Yep.

And even if it's just a comparison to what he already knows,

and maybe he'll pick his own, you know, local guy to do that, that's fine.

But if the market says this is a $250,000 solution.

Great, you know that now you can have a much more educated

discussion with your local vendor.

Yeah.

The, the other guy is the guy, who had no idea what, and we

try to solve some of it with what we call a feasibility assessment, which

is technically a robot capable person that uses two days on the factory floor

saying, look, you can do 20 things.

But two of them is where I would start and let me tell you why,

and then get it on the platform.

Get some, some quotes, but the other thing we've seen is that

if you enable people to get the knowledge that they're lacking fast.

Yeah.

So what has been highly successful SaaS?

SaaS is extremely like software service is extremely successful because a dumb

ass like me can think, oh, I wish we had some kind of solutions for all the

receipts that my traveling sales guys have and on a Sunday, I can literally

log in and get a $10 tryout of a system online that can screen those receipts

Yep.

And give me an no.

Now, if you can do the same with robots and not make it a nine months engineering

wise process, but literally allow them to like, within a week or two, get some

indications of how difficult is this?

Yeah.

I think you'll start to see that suddenly you feel educated because

neither you nor me have problems buying a car because your dad and your parents

and them before them, knew how to do this.

So we're okay with buying a car.

We feel educated enough to do so, but a robot, not so much.

So if we can raise the knowledge level, and I don't mean long webinars.

I literally mean, oh, you're trying to pickle bee route.

Great.

Here's the six vendors that do that.

It'll cost you between 200, $300,000.

Okay, let me think about that for a couple of months and then I'll

get back, but that makes sense.

Let me look at my factory now and see how I can make that work.

But the current solution is that you.

Take one of your own engineers.

He uses nine month looking at how this might be achievable,

knowing that he's not the market and he's never done this before.

Then he comes back and say, this might be a million dollars.

Oh yeah,

You see what I mean?

yeah.

And then it dies right there.

Yeah.

Fascinating, fascinating approach.

What I mean?

I do.

Well, there's a lot to think about and automotive manufacturers are getting

their heads around this right now.

And the timeline, the clock is ticking.

So, Soren, thank you so much for joining us today.

We've learned a lot and hopefully our listeners have too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening to the Automotive Leaders Podcast.

Click the listen link in the show notes to subscribe for free on your platform of

choice, and don't forget to download the 21 Traits of Authentic Leadership PDF by

clicking on the link below and remember.

Stay true to yourself, be you, and lead with gravitas, the

hallmark of authentic leadership.