## 6 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Conf.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Minimum** \\ **Distance** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Robot** \\ **Speed** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Logistic Spaces**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Impact on** \\ **Space** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **HRC** \\ **Relevance** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cost**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SMART**} \\ \hline
1 & 500 & 0.25 & Same side & 16.72 & 91.35 & 175.16 & 3000 & 87.76 \\
2 & 500 & 0.25 & Consecutive side & 17.30 & 90.87 & 176.08 & 3000 & 84.59 \\
3 & 500 & 0.25 & Opposite side & 23.74 & 90.20 & 177.39 & 3000 & 54.30 \\
4 & 500 & 0.5 & Same side & 16.90 & 83.97 & 95.28 & 3000 & 90.44 \\
5 & 500 & 0.5 & Consecutive side & 17.43 & 83.16 & 96.19 & 3000 & 87.26 \\
6 & 500 & 0.5 & Opposite side & 23.98 & 82.04 & 97.51 & 3000 & 56.08 \\
7 & 500 & 0.75 & Same side & 17.10 & 77.58 & 68.75 & 3000 & 87.63 \\
8 & 500 & 0.75 & Consecutive side & 17.64 & 76.56 & 69.66 & 3000 & 84.22 \\
9 & 500 & 0.75 & Opposite side & 24.26 & 75.14 & 70.98 & 3000 & 52.54 \\
10 & 700 & 0.25 & Same side & 18.12 & 91.27 & 175.31 & 3000 & 81.21 \\
11 & 700 & 0.25 & Consecutive side & 18.62 & 90.72 & 176.36 & 3000 & 78.39 \\
12 & 700 & 0.25 & Opposite side & 24.10 & 90.20 & 177.39 & 3000 & 52.65 \\
13 & 700 & 0.5 & Same side & 18.34 & 83.83 & 95.43 & 3000 & 83.68 \\
14 & 700 & 0.5 & Consecutive side & 18.78 & 82.92 & 96.48 & 3000 & 80.83 \\
15 & 700 & 0.5 & Opposite side & 24.33 & 82.04 & 97.51 & 3000 & 54.48 \\
16 & 700 & 0.75 & Same side & 18.54 & 77.41 & 68.90 & 3000 & 80.83 \\
17 & 700 & 0.75 & Consecutive side & 19.02 & 76.25 & 69.95 & 3000 & 77.60 \\
18 & 700 & 0.75 & Opposite side & 24.59 & 75.14 & 70.98 & 3000 & 50.98 \\
19 & 900 & 0.25 & Same side & 19.45 & 91.19 & 175.47 & 3000 & 75.04 \\
20 & 900 & 0.25 & Consecutive side & 20.08 & 90.58 & 176.63 & 3000 & 71.50 \\
21 & 900 & 0.25 & Opposite side & 24.38 & 90.20 & 177.39 & 3000 & 51.33 \\
22 & 900 & 0.5 & Same side & 19.70 & 83.70 & 95.58 & 3000 & 77.28 \\
23 & 900 & 0.5 & Consecutive side & 20.29 & 82.69 & 96.75 & 3000 & 73.65 \\
24 & 900 & 0.5 & Opposite side & 24.61 & 82.04 & 97.51 & 3000 & 53.20 \\
25 & 900 & 0.75 & Same side & 19.92 & 77.23 & 69.05 & 3000 & 74.32 \\
26 & 900 & 0.75 & Consecutive side & 20.52 & 75.95 & 70.22 & 3000 & 70.44 \\
27 & 900 & 0.75 & Opposite side & 24.86 & 75.14 & 70.98 & 3000 & 49.74 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Design of Experiment and resulting function values calculated as explained in Table 6.  
Figure 10: Three different workplace configurations obtained by changing the position of the logistic spaces: (**a**) infeed and outfeed spaces are placed on the same side; (**b**) infeed and outfeed spaces are placed on consecutive sides; (**c**) infeed and outfeed spaces are placed on opposite sides. According to the SMART, it emerged that the best configuration is the no. 4, characterized by:  
* Minimum distance: 500 mm;
* Robot speed: 0.5 m/s;
* Logistic spaces: the same side. On another hand, other configurations are considered the best according to the other KPIs. Configuration no. 1 is the one that has the best score for _impact on space_ and the _HRC relevance_, whereas configuration no. 7 is the one that minimizes the _time._ Furthermore, the _cost_ is not considered because it provides the same value for all the configurations since the same resources are adopted in all the configurations. Therefore, looking at the best configurations to select, a preliminary assessment leads to the following consideration:  
1. The minimum distance to consider among the resources should be as less as possible. Indeed a minimum distance of 500 mm is the best according all the evaluation functions and the utility value. 2. The logistic spaces are located at the same side for all the winning configurations. 3. The robot speed presents a different result.