Recurring welding jobs, long lead times and rising outsourcing costs can be good reasons to integrate laser welding into your own production. An in-house solution can also pay off for small and medium-sized production runs. The key factors are the entire process chain and a level of automation suited to the application.
Manufacturing components, packing them, shipping them to a laser welding service provider, waiting for processing and then returning them to your own production flow: this is part of everyday manufacturing for companies that outsource welding.
Working with a specialist service provider gives you access to laser technology without investing in equipment and process development yourself. For recurring orders, however, it is worth taking a closer look at the total cost. Additional handling steps, transport and waiting times separate the ready-to-ship part from the returned assembly.
An in-house laser welding system can shorten this process chain, simplify planning and reduce the cost per component. Actual operating data can help determine whether the investment makes economic sense.
The price on the service provider’s invoice represents only part of the total cost. For a reliable comparison, companies should record all costs associated with outsourced processing:
– Welding costs, including any setup charges and minimum order fees
– Packaging materials and labour for packing and unpacking
– Outbound and return transport, including any express surcharges
– Order processing, scheduling and goods receipt
– Additional inspections and handling steps
– Time spent on queries, modifications or complaints
Shipment costs can be particularly significant for small batches. Transport costs are spread across only a few components, while order processing and packaging are still required.
The decisive comparison is the total cost per usable assembly, at the same level of quality and delivery reliability.
Costs must also be allocated correctly: inspections that remain necessary for in-house production cannot be counted in full as savings.
The welding operation itself may be brief. The time between dispatch and return delivery also includes transport, scheduling at the service provider, possible queries and return shipping.
If this lead time does not fit your production cycle, larger batches, additional safety stock or short-notice special deliveries may be necessary. Component modifications require further coordination, and a missing part cannot be immediately remanufactured on site.
With an in-house system, welding can move closer to assembly, inspection and dispatch. Recurring components can be scheduled according to actual demand. Additional external transport and its associated packaging and freight costs can be eliminated.
This requires sufficient internal capacity, qualified employees and a stable process. An in-house system also needs realistic scheduling and a plan for maintenance and downtime.
Shorter lead times therefore have an operational value of their own. Only demonstrable savings should be included in the financial assessment.
There is no universally applicable minimum production volume. Economic viability depends on which external costs can be avoided and which costs arise internally.
An assessment is particularly worthwhile when several of the following conditions apply:
– Components or component families are ordered regularly.
– Annual outsourcing costs are consistently significant.
– Transport and order processing create appreciable additional work.
– Delivery times complicate production planning.
– Fixtures and welding programs can be reused.
– Several suitable applications can share the same system.
A single small production run does not have to justify the investment on its own. Several recurring applications can together provide an economical level of utilisation. Changeover times, different fixtures and potential scheduling conflicts must also be considered.
In-house production can start with a manual workstation or selectively automate recurring processes. The right solution depends on the component, the mix of variants and the production workflow.
| Production solution | Particularly suitable for assessment in | Key requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Manual laser welding | Individual parts, repairs and frequently changing tasks | Suitably qualified operators and a manageable manual process |
| Semi-automated laser welding | Recurring weld seams with manual loading and unloading | Repeatable fixturing and positioning |
| Robot-assisted laser welding | Recurring component families and multiple welding positions in three dimensions | Consistent joint conditions, suitable fixtures and efficient program changes |
For automated processes, it is important to distinguish machine running time from operator involvement. An automatic welding program only saves the corresponding labour time if employees can actually perform other tasks while it runs.
With the RoboHAWK, Vision offers a robot-assisted laser welding solution. The appropriate configuration and level of automation should be determined from the specific application.
The following example illustrates the principle of a cost comparison.
All amounts are freely chosen assumptions for this model. They are not market prices, an equipment quotation or a documented customer case.
Only the additional welding process is compared; manufacturing the initial parts is excluded.
Assume that a company requires 6,000 welded assemblies per year, processed in 120 batches of 50 units each.
VISION LASERTECHNIK
Annual comparison of outsourcing and in-house production
6,000 assemblies – 120 batches per year
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Outsourcing: €68,400
In-house production: €28,800
Before investment and financing. This is not a payback calculation.
| Cost item | Annual amount |
|---|---|
| Outsourcing | |
| Welding | €60,000 |
| Packaging and round-trip transport | €4,800 |
| Additional internal order processing | €3,600 |
| In-house production | |
| Labour, energy, consumables and inspection | €18,000 |
| Setup and material preparation | €4,800 |
| Additional operating costs, e.g. maintenance and floor space | €6,000 |
ILLUSTRATIVE CALCULATION – freely chosen assumptions, not market prices or customer data.
Assumes equal quality and delivery reliability. Initial components are excluded. Investment, implementation and financing must be assessed separately. Freed-up staff time does not automatically represent cash savings.
Under these assumptions, the difference is €39,600 per year before investment and financing.
This must be weighed against the cost of acquiring and introducing in-house production. In addition to the system itself, the full investment includes fixtures, process development, installation, necessary protective measures, training and, where applicable, inspection equipment.
A simplified static payback calculation is:
Total initial investment ÷ annual net cash savings = payback period in years
The comparison costs must be assessed accordingly: freed-up staff time only becomes a cash saving if expenditure is actually eliminated. Otherwise, it initially creates additional usable capacity.
It is equally important to calculate a scenario with lower utilisation. If both the quantity and the number of batches are halved, the annual cost difference in this model falls to €16,800 because the assumed fixed operating costs remain. A sound decision should therefore also be justifiable at conservatively estimated volumes.
Specialist laser welding service providers remain a sensible option for occasional applications, individual prototypes, special material combinations or peaks in demand.
A combined approach can also make economic sense: recurring, predictable components are welded in-house, while special tasks or capacity peaks are outsourced.
The transition can be gradual. Welding trials and process development can be carried out first. Once quality, processing time and repeatability have been demonstrated, in-house production can be planned on a sound basis.
To assess an in-house laser welding solution, companies should bring together technical and commercial information:
– Drawings, materials and representative original components
– Requirements for the weld seam, strength, leak tightness and surface finish
– Annual demand, batch sizes and variants
– Existing welding, transport and order processing costs
– Actual delivery and production lead times
– Planned inspections and documentation
– Available personnel, floor space and production hours
Welding trials then establish whether the required joint can be produced consistently. Joint gap, tolerances, accessibility and fixturing are among the key technical factors to check. Our guide to introducing laser welding explains further fundamentals.
This provides a basis for determining processing time, staffing, capacity and the full scope of investment.
Do you regularly outsource laser welding and want to reduce costs, transport or lead times?
Send us your component drawing, planned batch sizes and a brief description of your current process. Together, we can assess whether an in-house laser welding solution makes technical and economic sense for your application – and which level of automation is appropriate.
