Sorting Efficiency Analysis based on worksheet default values

1. Cost Efficiency

• Automated sorting is more cost-effective than human sorting.
• Human sorting can sort approximately 69 objects per dollar, while automated sorting can sort approximately 204 objects per dollar.
• This means automated sorting is nearly three times as efficient in terms of cost per object sorted.

2. Time Efficiency

• Human sorting takes 20 hours per month, equivalent to 2.5 days for an 8-hour workday.
• Automated sorting takes 70 hours per month, which translates to 2.92 full 24-hour days or 8.75 days for an 8-hour workday.
• Although automated sorting takes longer in total hours, it operates continuously and does not require breaks, making it potentially more consistent and scalable.

3. Initial Investment Recovery

• The amount of time to recover the initial investment in automated sorting is about 23 months.
• This means that within just under two years, the cost savings and efficiency gains from automated sorting will offset the initial investment cost.
• The amount of time to recover the initial investment goes down as the amount of sorting goes up

4. Scalability and Productivity

• Automated sorting can handle a higher volume of objects with greater efficiency, making it suitable for scaling up operations without a proportional increase in labor costs.
• Over the long term, automated sorting is likely to be more sustainable for large-scale operations.

5. Operational Considerations

• The decision to invest in automated sorting should consider the initial high cost but with the understanding that it will lead to significant cost savings and productivity improvements over time.
• Human sorting may still be useful for smaller operations or where the initial investment for automation cannot be justified.

Overall, if the budget allows for the initial investment, automated sorting is a superior choice due to its higher cost efficiency, scalability, and long-term savings, despite the longer operational hours required.