ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2022) 000–000
Available online atonline
Available www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia CIRP 00 (2022) 000–000
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 106 (2022) 51–57
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
9th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technology and Systems

9th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technology and Systems

Examining the Role of Safety in the Low Adoption Rate of Collaborative
Examining the Role28th CIRP of Safety Robots
in the
Design Conference, Low MayAdoption
2018, Nantes,Rate Franceof Collaborative
Nicole Berxa,c,*, Wilm Robots
Decréb,c, Liliane Pintelona
A new methodology to analyze the functional and physical architecture of
existing products forRobotics,
Nicole anBerx assembly
a,c,
*, Wilm
Centre for Industrial Management/Traffic
oriented
Decréb,c product
, Liliane
and Infrastructure,
family
Pintelon identification
KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven,a Belgium
a

Division Automation and Mechatronics,

b
KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
Core Lab ROB, Flanders Make@KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 300, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium.
c
Centre for Industrial Management/Traffic and Infrastructure, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
a
b
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
Division Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
c
Core Lab
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-16-322 ROB,
567. Flanders
E-mail Make@KU
address: Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 300, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium.
nicole.berx@kuleuven.be
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-16-322 567. E-mail address: nicole.berx@kuleuven.be
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Abstract

Collaborative
Abstract robots (cobots) are important accelerators of industrial growth. Their potential is undisputed, yet cobot adoption remains low.
Safety is one of the factors that influence cobot adoption. This paper examines safety in particular as an adoption factor and argues that the
Abstract
system-wide
Collaborativenaturerobotsof(cobots)
safety for
arecobots results
important in a paradoxical
accelerators tension.
of industrial This tension
growth. leads to confusing
Their potential and conflicting
is undisputed, signals toremains
yet cobot adoption practitioners
low.
contributing
Safety is one toofthe
thelow adoption
factors that rate of cobots.
influence cobot Suggestions
adoption. to lessen
This paper this tensionsafety
examines and lower
in safety asasa barrier
particular an for adoption
adoption factor are argues
and proposed.
thatThis
the
In today’s business environment, the trend towards more product variety and customization is unbroken. Due to this development, the need of
paper helps tonature
system-wide betterofunderstand
safety forthe comprehensive
cobots results in a role of safetytension.
paradoxical in collaborative
This robotics.
tension leads to confusing andToconflicting
agile and reconfigurable production systems emerged to cope with various products and product families. design andsignals to practitioners
optimize production
contributing
systems to the
as well as tolow adoption
choose the rate of cobots.
optimal productSuggestions to lessen
matches, product this tension
analysis methodsand are
lower safetyIndeed,
needed. as a barrier
mostfor
of adoption
the known aremethods
proposed.aimThis
to
© 2022
paper ThetoAuthors.
helps better Published
understand the by Elsevier Ltd.
comprehensive role of safety in collaborative robotics.
analyze a product or one product family on the physical level. Different product families, however, may differ largely in terms of the number and
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
nature
© 2022 ofThe
components. This fact by
Authors. Published impedes
ElsevieranLtd.
efficient comparison and choice of appropriate product family combinations for the production
Selection
© 2022
This is A
andAuthors.
anThe
open
peer-review underby
Published
access article
responsibility
the Elsevier Ltd.of the scientific committee of the 9th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technology
system. new methodology isunder
proposed CC BY-NC-ND
to analyze license
existing (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
products in view of their functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
and
This Systems
is
Peer-reviewan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 ) of future reconfigurable
these productsunderin newresponsibility of the scientific
assembly oriented productcommittee
families forof the
the optimization
9 th CIRP Conference
of existingonassembly
AssemblylinesTechnology
and theand Systems
creation
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th CIRP
assembly systems. Based on Datum Flow Chain, the physical structure of the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies Conference on Assembly Technology
are identified, and
Keywords:
and Systems industrial collaborative robots; adoption; safety; barrier
a functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
Keywords: industrial collaborative robots; adoption; safety; barrier
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. Anoperator
1. Introduction industrial from
case study
heavy,on two product families
dangerous, of steering
or repetitive work.columns
Cobot of
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of the proposed approach.
characteristics also promote new applications and services, by
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction
In today’s Industry 4.0 manufacturing environment deploying
operator from new heavy,
technologies such asoraugmented
dangerous, repetitive reality
work. and the
Cobot
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.
advanced digitalization is omnipresent. Digital technologies use of smart glasses
characteristics [7], [11],new
also promote [12].applications
Another argument to deploy
and services, by
are Inconsidered
today’s to be
Industrythe main
4.0 driver for
manufacturing
Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification the manufacturing
environment cobots
deployingrathernew than conventional
technologies such industrial
as robots
augmented is that
reality cobots
and the
industry going
advanced forward [1].
digitalization Industrial collaborative
is omnipresent. robots are
Digital technologies enable flexible,
use of smart glasses close to the
[7], [11], [12].market
Anotherproduction,
argument to reducing
deploy
one considered
are of these digital
to be technologies
the main driver [2]–[4] and manufacturing
for the are important delivery timesthan
cobots rather and conventional
contributing to the trendrobots
industrial withinisIndustry 4.0
that cobots
accelerators
industry going forforward
industrial innovationcollaborative
[1]. Industrial and growthrobots [5], [6].
are towards mass customization
enable flexible, close to the[7].market In conclusion,
production,collaborative
reducing
1.Despite
Introduction
one their potential,
of these the deployment
digital technologies [2]–[4]of cobots
and areis important
still very of the product
robots
deliveryaretimes range
considered
and and characteristics
a defining
contributing topillar manufactured
of Industry
the trend within 4.0 and/or
[13].
Industry 4.0
limited and has
accelerators forremained
industrialbelow expectations
innovation [7]–[9]. [5],
and growth Demand[6]. assembled
Contrarily
towards in this
mass to system. In this
conventional
customization context,
industrial
[7]. the mainwhere
robots,
In conclusion, challenge
robots
collaborative in
forDue
Despite to the
industrial
their robots faston the
potential, development
the other hand has
deployment in the substantially
risen
of cobots domain of
is still very modelling
and humans
robots and are
are consideredanalysis is now
separated
a defining to not only
ensure
pillar to copecollaborative
safety,
of Industry with
4.0 single
[13].
communication
since
limited 2010
and [10]. and an ongoing
has remained trend of digitization
below expectations [7]–[9]. Demand and products,
robotic a limited
systems
Contrarily to are product
meant range
conventional or existing
to industrial
interact with product
human
robots, families,
operators,
where robots
digitalization,
forCompared manufacturing
to conventional
industrial robots enterprises
on the other industrial
hand has arerobots,
facing
risen important
the latest
substantially but
andalso to becontrol
built-in
humans able
are toseparated
analyze and
systems and to compare
to sensors
ensure are products
used
safety, to to define
both avoid
collaborative
challenges
generation
since 2010 ofin
[10].today’s
robots market environments:
collaborates directly with human a continuing
operators new
and product
reduce
robotic families.
the
systems impact It can
are meant be interact
observed
of collisions
to andthat
with classical
inherently
human existing
enhance
operators,
tendencycan towards
andCompared reduction
work toautonomously.
conventional of product development
Collaborative
industrial robotstimes
robots, the and
(cobots)
latest product
safety families
[12].
and built-in are regrouped
Collaborative
control in sensors
systemsrobotics
and function of
is aare clients
fast to or features.
developing
used both and
avoid
shortened
generation product
have important of robots lifecycles.
assets: they In
collaboratesareaddition,
directly therehuman
more flexible,
with is can
an increasing
be easier
operators However,
complex
and reduce assembly
new thedomain,oriented
impact where product
the safety
of collisions families
rules
and are
forhardly to find.
conventional
inherently enhance
demand
and canofwork
reprogrammed customization,
for new tasks,
autonomously. beingareatmobile,
the same
Collaborative andtime in cost
often
robots a(cobots)
global
less On the
industrial
safety [12].product
robots nofamily
longerlevel,
Collaborative apply products
robotics is a differ
to cobots. mainly in two
fast developing and
competition
than withassets:
have conventional
important competitors
robots.they all more
over the
Additionally,
are world.
they
flexible, cancan This
be trend,
alleviate the
easier main characteristics:
complex new domain, (i)where
the number
the safetyof components and (ii) the
rules for conventional
which is inducing
reprogrammed for new the tasks,
development fromand
are mobile, macrooftentocostmicro
less type of components
industrial robots no (e.g.
longer mechanical,
apply to cobots.electrical, electronical).
markets, results in robots.
than conventional diminished lot sizesthey
Additionally, duecan to alleviate
augmenting the Classical methodologies considering mainly single products
product
2212-8271 varieties
© 2022 The(high-volume to low-volume
Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. production) [1]. or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
Thiscope
To is an open
withaccess article under thevariety
this augmenting CC BY-NC-ND
as welllicense
as to(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technology and Systems
identify
2212-8271 possible
© 2022 The optimization
Authors. Publishedpotentials in the existing
by Elsevier Ltd. causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
This is an open
production access article
system, under the CCtoBY-NC-ND
it is important license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technology and Systems
2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of the
of the scientific
scientific committee
committee of28th
of the the CIRP
9 th CIRP
DesignConference
Conferenceon2018.
Assembly Technology and Systems
10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.154
52 Nicole Berx et al. / Procedia CIRP 106 (2022) 51–57
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of safety publications were kept for full analysis. The full analysis
in the low adoption rate of cobots and to offer a starting point revealed that ten papers (Table 1) very specifically discuss
for understanding the reasons for this. And subsequently, adoption factors of industrial collaborative robots. Although
suggestions for next steps are proposed. The literature review the literature search was performed over the past decade, the
shows that the role of safety as an adoption factor for cobots final resulting 35 publications for full analysis, showed that the
has been underexposed. This paper further argues that the oldest publications only date back to 2016, pointing to the
changed context for cobots reveals a system-wide nature of recentness of the topic under investigation in the present paper.
cobot safety. This system-wide nature results in a paradoxical
tension for cobot safety. This tension contributes to the low 2.2 Adoption of new technologies
adoption rate by sending conflicting and confusing signals to
practitioners. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been There is no straightforward understanding and consistent
an effort yet to specifically understand the comprehensive role use of the word ‘adoption’ throughout the reviewed literature.
of safety in the adoption of cobots. Increasing the knowledge The words adoption, acquisition, deployment, and uptake are
on safety early on in the decision process is one of the used interchangeably. This paper uses the word ‘adoption’ to
suggested solutions to clarify the conflicting signals and lessen describe the act of deciding to implement a collaborative robot.
the tension. This analysis contributes to the understanding of Adoption of innovation and new technologies is a research
cobot acquisition and deployment decisions that so far was only domain that has received a lot of attention in the past decades
given little attention [11]. [17]. An example of a model for the adoption of new
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the technologies by an individual is the technology acceptance
method used. The next section presents the results of the model (TAM), typified by the determinants of perceived
literature review on adoption factors for cobots in general and usefulness and perceived ease of use, and extensively described
safety as an adoption factor in particular. In Section 4 a starting and discussed by Venkatesh and Bala [18], this model was first
point for understanding the role of safety as an adoption factor applied to cobots by [19]. Other influential theories regarding
is discussed. Section 5 introduces and discusses the safety the adoption of new technologies by an organization are for
issues of cobots and the ensuing paradoxical tension. An instance Rogers’s The Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory
agenda for future research to address the challenges for safety [17] and the technology-organization-environment (TOE)
and contribute to solving the paradox is presented in Section 6. framework [20]. Simões et al. combined DOI, TOE, and the
The conclusions are presented in Section 7. Institutional Theory (INT) to characterize the factors that
influence managers in their intention to adopt cobots in
2. Method manufacturing organizations and to classify them [21]. Since
the resulting classification framework is soundly based on
2.1 Literature review innovation adoption models, this framework was chosen to be
used to analyze the literature review (Section 3).
The scientific literature was consulted regarding the way to
measure the degree of robotization. The most commonly cited 2.3 Paradoxical tension as theoretical contribution of this
source for assessing the level of industry robotization is the paper
statistics issued by the International Federation of Robotics
(IFR) [14], [15]. Demand for industrial robots has risen The notion of paradox can be used to generate a theoretical
substantially since 2010, illustrated by an increase of 9% on contribution to an investigative reflection. According to De
average worldwide each year from 2015 to 2020 [10]. The Keyser et al., an important feature of a paradox is that it denotes
deployment of cobots on the other hand is still very limited and a contradiction, or a state of being oppositional to one another
has remained below expectations [7]–[9]. Based on worldwide [22]. The same authors identify three ways of using paradox to
figures of the International Federation of Robotics, Statista generate theoretical contributions (i) as a means to theorize, (ii)
reports that the share of collaborative robots in the total as a means to understand or advance insight, or (iii) as a way to
industrial robot installations, whilst yearly increasing since verbalize something surprising. In this last category, scholars
2017, amounted to 4,8 % in 2019 [16]. use paradox to sharpen the contribution they propose by the
The scientific literature of the past decade was studied to description of paradoxical tensions being present in a particular
understand the adoption of Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) field of inquiry [22]. This paper combines the second and third
in general and the role of safety in HRC adoption in particular. options to better understand the role of safety as an adoption
A broad initial search was done on the Web of Science (WoS) factor for cobots and to deepen the understanding of cobot
and Scopus databases for publications in English of the past deployment decisions that so far was only given little attention
decade (2011- June 2021), containing and ‘collaborative’ and (Cohen et al., 2021).
‘industrial’ and ‘robot’ in title, abstract, or keywords. Within
this selection, only papers that contain any of the following 3. Results of the literature review
words were retained: adoption, uptake, challenge, barrier,
driver, safety. This process ended up in 77 publications from 3.1 Factors influencing collaborative robot adoption
WoS and 46 from Scopus. Finally, 12 handpicked publications
were added resulting in 135 titles in total. After deduplication, The presented results are based on the analysis of the ten
reading the abstract, and scanning the results section, 35 publications listed in Table 1. Four studies are based on
 Nicole Berx et al. / Procedia CIRP 106 (2022) 51–57 53
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 3

literature review, four on empirical research, and four use a understanding of safety in general (v) understanding and lack
mixed method or descriptive analysis. The empirical research of safety legislation, unclarity of safety standards and metrics
is of a qualitative or explorative nature and based on a limited (vi) risk (re-)assessment and (vii) ease of deployment.
number of observations. The topic of cobot adoption has so far Introducing cobots as a solution for the shortage of qualified
not been studied in depth yet. workers is advanced in favor of robot adoption [11]. The role
of Human Resource Management in the change process is
Table 1. Analyzed papers addressing cobot adoption promoters & barriers identified as an adoption factor [26]. Ergonomics are also
considered as a potential barrier by Cohen et al., this was
Authors, year Type of study recognized by their earlier work [27] but could not be
(P1) Aaltonen et al., 2019 Empirical unequivocally distinguished in the Simões et al. 2020
classification. The same is the case for important external
(P2) Cohen Y. et al., 2021 Literature review
factors additionally identified: the role of legislation and
(P3) Grahn S. et al., 2017 Descriptive analysis regulation, certification, and standardization [7], [24]. Finally,
(P4) Kildal J. et al., 2018 Empirical some additional technological considerations were mentioned
(P5) Libert K. et al., 2020 Literature Review for which the lack of engineering tools for analyzing cobot
(P6) Matheson E. et al., 2019 Literature review applications was seen as one of the two most important barriers
(P7) Saenz J et al., 2018 Review for cobot adoption [9].
(P8) Simões A.C. et al., 2020 Empirical
3.2 Safety as a factor in cobot adoption in the reviewed
(P9) Vanderborght B., 2019 Mixed method
literature
(P10) Whiting T. et al., 2021 Empirical

Six papers address safety specifically as a barrier for cobot

Simões et al. conducted an extensive investigation of cobot adoption (Table 2.). Safety was recognized as one of the two
adoption factors based on 13 interviews carried out in 2018 and most important barriers to cobot adoption in the empirical study
a literature review for which the period time is not specified by Kildal et al [23] and the review by Saenz [9]. The authors of
[21]. The same authors proposed a classification into three the latter review attribute this to strict safety requirements for
categories: internal, external, and technological. The additional cobots.
papers in this review were matched with this classification. It
is noteworthy that only the paper by Kildal et al. [23] is also Table 2. Safety seen as a barrier for the adoption of cobots
referenced in the Simões et al. review. Two other authors in the Author
review have also classified adoption factors. Kildal et al. group
The generic lack of knowledge, linked to lack of
the adoption factors in safety, lack of knowledge, workers (P1) Aaltonen et al., 2019 safety knowledge as one of the most significant
acceptance, cost, legislation, training, and others [23]. barriers (fig 5).
Aaltonen et al. propose a ranking of barriers with as most The adoption rate of cobots is linked with the
(P3) Grahn S. et al., 2017
important the lack of knowledge, followed by other ranked operator safety perception.
barriers including cobot’s technical properties, legislation, lack (P4) Kildal J. et al., 2018
Safety is the 2nd most important barrier after
lack of knowledge
of integrators, safety, inability to meet human skills, and costs Safety is a challenge that needs to be solved for
[24]. (P6) Matheson E. et al., 2019
industrial uptake of cobots.
Safety as an adoption factor in the reviewed literature is The high safety requirements are a main barrier
(P7) Saenz J et al., 2018
presented and discussed separately (Section 3.2) since the for uptake.
Simões et al. classification does not mention ‘Safety’ Important enablers for cobot adoption linked
specifically as an adoption factor. with safety: (uncertain) liability and norms could
(P9) Vanderborght B., 2019 act as a significant disincentive; certification and
The identified adoption factors in the nine reviewed papers (safety) standards seen as a promoter for the
next to the Simões et al. paper, on the one hand, confirm the adoption of new technologies
Simões et al. classification, and on the other hand, propose
additional factors. The corresponding factors mentioned in at A vision report commissioned by the European Commission
least two papers in the Internal class are acceptance by the user explicitly addresses enablers for cobot adoption. The following
and, receptiveness and readiness of the organization. In the three factors are linked directly with safety [7]. (1) Standards
External class, single authors also refer to the role of business are deemed not advanced enough to allow certification of the
partners and industry pressure as an adoption factor. Cost- system. (2) Since third-party robot safety certification is rapidly
benefit analysis is mentioned as an adoption factor by five becoming a prerequisite for market entry this could also play a
papers and complexity by one. role in the adoption. (3) Legal liability for accidents as a result
The following factors influencing the adoption of cobots of open-source principles might create more uncertainty
were identified in addition to the Simões et al. classification. In scenarios than closed robotics and could act as an important
the Internal class lack of knowledge is identified by three disincentive for robot investments [7]. A perceived unsafe
authors [23]–[25]. Aaltonen et al. consider this the most feeling of operators towards cobots, is considered to be slowing
significant barrier, detailed as the lack of knowledge of: (i) down the adoption rate, implying that manufacturers will need
cobots and the technology in general (ii) potential applications to give a lot of consideration to safety and ensure that operators
and ways of using cobots (iii) reference cases (iv) feel comfortable and even enjoy working with cobots [28].
 54 Nicole Berx et al. / Procedia CIRP 106 (2022) 51–57
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

The lack of knowledge, including lack of safety knowledge Next to new technological factors (e.g. cyber risk) also risk
is seen as an adoption barrier both by Aaltonen et al. and by factors related to the human (e.g. psychosocial), the
Kildal et al. [23], [24]. collaborative workspace (e.g. entry control ), the enterprise
(e.g. safety strategy, ethics), and external (e.g. regulation). The
4. Discussion of the role of Safety as an adoption factor: a role of safety in the adoption of cobots is wide-angled and the
starting point for understanding sheer complexity in itself can be regarded as a barrier.
Returning to the literature review, it can be noted that the
The literature review shows that a limited number of studies classification proposed by Simões et al. (internal, external, and
investigate and discuss safety as an adoption factor for cobots. technology) in a sense already reflects the system-wide nature.
Even if safety is directly considered as an adoption factor, none Yet, safety is not specifically mentioned as an adoption factor,
of the reviewed papers discusses the role of safety in detail or whereas an earlier paper did state that safety aspects were
offers a deeper understanding. In the remainder of this section, reflected as concerns by the participants of the study [27]. An
a starting point for understanding is offered. explanation for this can be found in the fact that safety is an
emergent system property determined only in the context of the
4.1 Conventional safety rules do not apply to cobots whole [38], [39]. Safety for cobots cannot be isolated as a
stand-alone factor but reflects many, often related, risk factors
When robots and humans start working together a as proposed in the Berx et al. analysis. Where safety is
fundamental change takes place. Franklin et al. state, a mentioned as an adoption factor in the other reviewed papers,
paradigm shift happens from the traditional methods of keeping it can be argued that this is either done in very general terms
workers safe by separating them physically to the collaborative (P1, P4, and P6) or very specific (P3, P7, and P9) by for
method without fences, where contact between robots and instance referring to regulation. Further, the
humans is allowed [29]. Collaborative industrial robots are comprehensiveness of the risk factors for cobots requires more
designed to allow physical interaction between the operator and knowledge, beyond technological, which is clearly seen as an
the cobot. Prevailing safety standards and directives allow them issue since two studies recognize that lack of knowledge is a
to minimize collisions and thus increase safety [25], [30]. major barrier.
However, the close presence of a robot and the interaction
between humans and cobots also creates an additional layer of 5. The safety issue of collaborative robots: less safe,
concern for safety [31]. A collaborative robot is part of a inherently safe, or too safe?
complex system that can be used for several different industrial
applications. A cobot system consists of several pieces of Collaborative robots are often labeled as inherently safe.
hardware, extensions (grippers), vision (sensors) connected This is mainly related to the inherently safe design of
with different software applications feeding data from collaborative robot systems, where intended or unintended
different, distributed data sources. Risk assessment for cobot contact may occur between humans and cobot. In this case, the
application is mandatory. Hazard checklists for identifying control system is specifically designed to perform collaborative
potential risk sources are suggested in ISO 15066 and ISO operations within power and force threshold values [40] and
10218 but standardized hazard checklists are non-exhaustive cobots can improve safety by minimizing collisions [25].
often ignoring additional risk factors [32]. Safety in cobots can be further enhanced by the application of
advanced sensors, such as skin sensors, innovative grippers,
4.2 Safety for cobots is a system-wide property and new technologies such as haptics [13].
Yet there is no absolute safe design, as it is the application
Safety for cobots, has been mainly focused on the (not just the robot arm but also the end effector and payload)
technological aspects related to physical design safeguards that must operate safely in all situations. Additionally as
(avoiding unintended contact and governing accessibility of the discussed in 4.1 cobots may create new risks due to the
workspace) as covered extensively in the ISO 15066 [33]. This closeness with humans and as it was argued in 4.2 there are
is a narrow view on physical human-robot interaction safety other risk factors at play in collaborative robots beyond
where also safety standards focus on techno-centric design technological. An inherently safe cobot workplace does not
safeguards [34], [35]. necessarily mean the prevention of physical and mental health
The need to take a broader perspective beyond technical and risks [41]. This ‘inherently safe’ label can thus create a
physical safeguards is defended by looking at cobots from a deceptive sense of safety. As a result, it can be argued that
system-wide perspective. A system-wide perspective is offered cobots are less safe due to the need to regard cobot safety from
by socio-technical systems (STS) thinking. STS theory adds the a system-wide perspective.
social dimension to the technical dimension and strives for joint On the other hand, some believe that cobots are too safe.
optimization and proper cooperation of the technical and the From a producer perspective, Esben Østergaard, co-founder of
social system [36]. This means that there are additional factors Universal Robots, believes that safety rules are too strict and
that need to be taken into consideration when designing safe the safety standards take a very conservative approach
collaborative workspaces to cope with the emerging risks regarding the acceptable forces that a cobot can inflict [42]. A
associated with complex systems such as cobots. Berx et al. 2021 exploratory research as part of a Master’s thesis surveyed
identified cobot risk factors based on a review of the literature 74 respondents (users of cobots in manufacturing, academic
of the past decade and classified them into five classes [37]. experts, and consultants) recruited via a LinkedIn campaign
 Nicole Berx et al. / Procedia CIRP 106 (2022) 51–57 55
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 5

and included interviews with two prominent cobot practitioners to better understand all the risk factors at play and
manufacturers [43]. This research concluded that because of to provide an accessible tool assessing safety readiness already
strict safety limits, cobots may be slower and payload may be in the consideration phase of a cobot acquisition. A readiness
lower, leading to lower productivity. According to the assessment can evaluate the preparedness of an organization’s
producers of cobots, this is the main reason why cobots will not safety capabilities towards the deployment of a cobot [47]. A
replace conventional industrial robots, but rather complement methodological starting point to build the readiness assessment
them. The conservative approach, slowing the cobot down tool can be found in the principles of Capability Maturity
when a human is nearby sacrifices productivity for the sake of Models (CMM) that allow teams and organizations to focus on
safety [44]. Safety can be seen as a constraint and even be developing the skills and capabilities needed in dynamically
considered counter-productive [45]. changing environments [48]. CMM is one of the many types of
There is a paradoxical tension in the safety of a cobot maturity models that have been applied in a number of
application on a sliding scale from cobots being less safe over academic fields and that have been used to assess the maturity
inherently safe to too safe. Cobots are inherently safe when the or readiness state of processes, projects, and organizations [49],
safety vision is focused on the technical features of the cobot [50]. The typical architecture of a maturity model consists of a
system (machine safety). When the vision is oriented towards number of dimensions or areas that define the subject of
operations management, cobots can become too safe when investigation (in our case cobot safety) and several structured
productivity is hampered. From a human-centered vision maturity levels, that specify the capabilities a company has at
perspective, including other dimensions beyond technological, each level [1], [51]. Preparedness or readiness models can have
cobots are less safe because of newly introduced risks. This a descriptive purpose to determine and evaluate the current
paradoxical tension is illustrated in Figure 1 and shows how it state of readiness of dimensions and sub-dimensions of the
can both promote and impede cobot applications or adoption. model according to the appropriate readiness level.
Consequently, the practitioner is confronted with a tension- Typically in maturity models, there is a notion of ‘end state’,
based body of information and an apparent contradiction about in other words, a desirable finite-state (of excellence or
safety for cobots. The ensuing confusion combined with a lack compliance or …) to achieve. This notion of end state is not
of knowledge about how to safely operate collaborative robots well suited for safety since ‘absolute safety’ does not exist.
is believed to contribute to the understanding of why cobot Therefore, assessing the state of proficiency or readiness of the
adoption is relatively low. capabilities or dimensions that promote safety for cobots seems
appropriate.

7. Conclusion

This paper examines the role of safety in the low adoption

rate of cobots and offers a starting point for understanding the
reasons for this. The literature review shows that safety is one
of the important adoption factors for cobots, however,
Fig. 1. Cobot Safety Tension Scale
examination of safety’s role has been underexposed. The
changed context for cobots, moving freely around the factory
6. Suggested path forward floor and directly interacting with humans, reveals a system-
wide nature of cobot safety, resulting in paradoxical tension.
An important step towards lessening the confusion for This tension is the result of the apparent contradiction between
practitioners and reducing the paradoxical tension is to provide cobots being too safe and less safe at the same time which leads
more safety knowledge early on in the cobot acquisition and to confusing and conflicting signals to practitioners. Together
adoption process. Lack of knowledge was advanced a with the lack of knowledge about how to safely operate
significant adoption barrier in the empirical research of Kildal collaborative robots, this tension in cobot safety is believed to
et al. [23] and Aaltonen et al [24]. Moreover the latter research contribute to the low adoption rate of cobots. Addressing the
related this with a lack of understanding of safety in general, of safety component early on in the decision process by
safety legislation, of safety standards and metrics, and of risk supporting practitioners to better understand all the risk factors
(re)-assessment [24]. Additionally, the increased complexity of at play and providing an accessible tool assessing safety
collaborative systems results in a lack of confidence and readiness is proposed as an important step to alleviate the
knowledge by the deploying organizations of how to ensure paradoxical tension. A methodological starting point for a
safety [46]. The existing standards do not provide readiness assessment tool can be found in the principles of
comprehensive guidance as the design safeguards suggested in Capability Maturity Models.
the current standards for robot safety do not integrate
psychosocial factors of operators working with robots [34] nor Acknowledgements
new risks such as cyber risk or safety risk related to the
application of artificial intelligence. Therefore, to allow The authors would like to thank Anita Brescia and Rhea
collaborative robotics to achieve their full potential in Aqmarina, students of the University of Calabria, for the data
industrial applications, there is a need to address the safety collection and analysis of the exploratory study mentioned in
component early on in the decision process by supporting Section 5. The data is related to a Master’s thesis that was co-
56 Nicole Berx et al. / Procedia CIRP 106 (2022) 51–57
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

supervised by Professor Giuseppe Carbone and Professor [20] J. Baker, “The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework,” in
Giovanni Mirabelli of the University of Calabria and Professor Information Systems Theory, vol. 28, Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, and S.
L. Schneberger, Eds. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2012, p. 461.
Liliane Pintelon of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. [21] A. C. Simões, A. L. Soares, and A. C. Barros, “Factors influencing the
This work is supported by the Paradigms 4.0 project (grant intention of managers to adopt collaborative robots (cobots) in
S006018N) of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). manufacturing organizations,” J. Eng. Technol. Manag., vol. 57, p.
101574, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101574.
References [22] B. De Keyser, A. Guiette, and K. Vandenbempt, “On the Use of Paradox
for Generating Theoretical Contributions in Management and
Organization Research,” Int. J. Manag. Rev., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 143–161,
[1] A. De Carolis, M. Macchi, E. Negri, and S. Terzi, “A Maturity Model for
2019, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12201.
Assessing the Digital Readiness of Manufacturing Companies,” in IFIP
[23] J. Kildal, A. Tellaeche, I. Fernández, and I. Maurtua, “Potential users’ key
Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 513, 2017,
concerns and expectations for the adoption of cobots,” Procedia CIRP,
pp. 13–20.
vol. 72, pp. 21–26, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.104.
[2] B. Bajic, A. Rikalovic, N. Suzic, and V. Piuri, “Industry 4.0
[24] I. Aaltonen and T. Salmi, “Experiences and expectations of collaborative
Implementation Challenges and Opportunities: A Managerial
robots in industry and academia: barriers and development needs,”
Perspective,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 546–559, Mar. 2021, doi:
Procedia Manuf., vol. 38, no. 2019, pp. 1151–1158, 2019, doi:
10.1109/JSYST.2020.3023041.
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.204.
[3] S. S. Kamble, A. Gunasekaran, and S. A. Gawankar, “Sustainable Industry
[25] E. Matheson, R. Minto, E. G. G. Zampieri, M. Faccio, and G. Rosati,
4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current
“Human–Robot Collaboration in Manufacturing Applications: A
trends and future perspectives,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 117, pp.
Review,” Robotics, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 100, Dec. 2019, doi:
408–425, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009.
10.3390/robotics8040100.
[4] L. Gualtieri, I. Palomba, E. J. Wehrle, and R. Vidoni, “The Opportunities
[26] K. Libert, E. Mosconi, and N. Cadieux, “Human-Machine Interaction and
and Challenges of SME Manufacturing Automation: Safety and
Human Resource Management Perspective for Collaborative Robotics
Ergonomics in Human–Robot Collaboration,” in Industry 4.0 for SMEs,
Implementation and Adoption,” in Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii
Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 105–144.
International Conference on System Sciences, 2020, vol. 2020–Janua, no.
[5] Z. Cséfalvay, “Robotization in Central and Eastern Europe: catching up or
January, pp. 533–542, doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2020.066.
dependence?,” Eur. Plan. Stud., vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1534–1553, Aug. 2020,
[27] A. C. Simões, A. L. Soares, and A. C. Barros, “Drivers Impacting Cobots
doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1694647.
Adoption in Manufacturing Context: A Qualitative Study,” in Lecture
[6] euRobotics SPARC, “Robotics 2020 Multi-Annual Roadmap For Robotics
Notes in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 1, 2019, pp. 203–212.
in Europe,” 2016.
[28] S. Grahn, K. Johansson, and Y. Eriksson, “Safety Assessment Strategy for
[7] B. Vanderborght, “Unlocking the potential of industrial human-robot
Collaborative Robot Installations,” in Robots Operating in Hazardous
collaboration for economy and society,” Brussels, 2019.
Environments, InTech, 2017.
[8] International Federation of Robotics, “Editorial World Robotics 2020,”
[29] C. S. Franklin, E. G. Dominguez, J. D. Fryman, and M. L. Lewandowski,
World Robot. Rep., pp. 5–9, 2020.
“Collaborative robotics: New era of human–robot cooperation in the
[9] J. Saenz, N. Elkmann, O. Gibaru, and P. Neto, “Survey of methods for
workplace,” J. Safety Res., vol. 74, pp. 153–160, Sep. 2020, doi:
design of collaborative robotics applications- Why safety is a barrier to
10.1016/j.jsr.2020.06.013.
more widespread robotics uptake,” ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser., vol.
[30] L. Wang et al., “Symbiotic human-robot collaborative assembly,” CIRP
Part F1376, pp. 95–101, 2018, doi: 10.1145/3191477.3191507.
Ann., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 701–726, Jan. 2019, doi:
[10] International Federation of Robotics, “Executive Summary World
10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.002.
Robotics 2021 Industrial Robots,” World Robot. Rep., pp. 15–24, 2021.
[31] M. Faccio, M. Bottin, and G. Rosati, “Collaborative and traditional robotic
[11] Y. Cohen, S. Shoval, M. Faccio, and R. Minto, “Deploying cobots in
assembly: a comparison model,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 102, no.
collaborative systems: major considerations and productivity analysis,”
5–8, pp. 1355–1372, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00170-018-03247-z.
Int. J. Prod. Res., no. January, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2021, doi:
[32] P. Chemweno, L. Pintelon, and W. Decre, “Orienting safety assurance
10.1080/00207543.2020.1870758.
with outcomes of hazard analysis and risk assessment: A review of the ISO
[12] G. Pang et al., “CoboSkin: Soft Robot Skin With Variable Stiffness for
15066 standard for collaborative robot systems,” Saf. Sci., vol. 129, no.
Safer Human–Robot Collaboration,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 68,
February, p. 104832, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104832.
no. 4, pp. 3303–3314, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2020.2978728. [33] ISO, “TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION ISO / TS 15066 Robots and
[13] A. Grau, M. Indri, L. Lo Bello, and T. Sauter, “Robots in Industry: The robotic devices —Collaborative robots,” vol. 2016. 2016.
Past, Present, and Future of a Growing Collaboration With Humans,”
[34] A. Martinetti, P. K. Chemweno, K. Nizamis, and E. Fosch-Villaronga,
IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 50–61, Mar. 2021, doi: “Redefining Safety in Light of Human-Robot Interaction: A Critical
10.1109/MIE.2020.3008136. Review of Current Standards and Regulations,” Front. Chem. Eng., vol. 3,
[14] E. Fernández-Macías, D. Klenert, and J.-I. Antón, “Not so disruptive yet?
no. July, pp. 1–12, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fceng.2021.666237.
Characteristics, distribution and determinants of robots in Europe,” Struct. [35] A. Adriaensen, F. Costantino, G. Di Gravio, and R. Patriarca, “Teaming
Chang. Econ. Dyn., vol. 58, pp. 76–89, Sep. 2021, doi: with industrial cobots: A socio‐technical perspective on safety analysis,”
10.1016/j.strueco.2021.03.010.
Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind., no. October 2020, pp. 1–26, Sep.
[15] R. D. Atkinson, “Which Nations Really Lead in Industrial Robot 2021, doi: 10.1002/hfm.20939.
Adoption?,” Inf. Technol. Innov. Found., no. November, pp. 1–10, 2018. [36] L. Klemsdal, J. E. Ravn, N. Amble, and H. Finne, “The Organization
[16] Statista, “Collaborative robots’ share of the global industrial robot market
Theories of the Industrial Democracy Experiments Meet Contemporary
| Statista.” [Online]. Available: https://www-statista-com.kuleuven.e- Organizational Realities,” Nord. J. Work. Life Stud., vol. 7, no. S2, pp. 1–
bronnen.be/statistics/897655/cobot-industrial-robot-market-share/. 15, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.18291/njwls.v7iS2.96687.
[Accessed: 10-Aug-2021].
[37] N. Berx, W. Decré, I. Morag, P. Chemweno, and L. Pintelon,
[17] E. T. Straub, “Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future “Identification and classification of risk factors for human-robot
Directions for Informal Learning,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 625– collaboration from a system-wide perspective,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol.
649, Jun. 2009, doi: 10.3102/0034654308325896.
163, p. 107827, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107827.
[18] V. Venkatesh and H. Bala, “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a [38] N. G. Leveson, Engineering A Safer World Systems Thinking Applied to
Research Agenda on Interventions,” Decis. Sci., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 273– Safety. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2011.
315, May 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
[39] A. Adriaensen, W. Decré, and L. Pintelon, “Can Complexity-Thinking
[19] C. Bröhl, J. Nelles, C. Brandl, A. Mertens, and C. M. Schlick, “TAM Methods Contribute to Improving Occupational Safety in Industry 4.0? A
Reloaded: A Technology Acceptance Model for Human-Robot Review of Safety Analysis Methods and Their Concepts,” Safety, vol. 5,
Cooperation in Production Systems,” in Communications in Computer and
no. 4, p. 65, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.3390/safety5040065.
Information Science, vol. 617, Springer Verlag, 2016, pp. 97–103.
 Nicole Berx et al. / Procedia CIRP 106 (2022) 51–57 57
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 7

[40] G. Michalos et al., “Seamless human robot collaborative assembly – An Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering,
automotive case study,” Mechatronics, vol. 55, no. August, pp. 194–211, vol. 81, M. I. Aldinhas Ferreira and S. R. Fletcher, Eds. Cham: Springer
Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.08.006. International Publishing, 2022, pp. 173–189.
[41] C. Mühlemeyer, “Assessment and Design of Employees-Cobot- [47] S. Mittal, M. A. Khan, D. Romero, and T. Wuest, “Building Blocks for
Interaction,” in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1018, Adopting Smart Manufacturing,” Procedia Manuf., vol. 34, pp. 978–985,
Springer Verlag, 2020, pp. 771–776. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.098.
[42] A. Owen-Hill, “Are Cobots Too Safe? Samuel Bouchard and Esben [48] N. Forsgren, J. Humble, and G. Kim, Accelerate: The Science of Lean
Ostergaard Discuss,” Blog Robotiq, 2019. [Online]. Available: Software and DevOps. Portland, OR: ITRevolution., 2018.
https://blog.robotiq.com/are-cobots-too-safe-samuel-bouchard-and- [49] M. Mullaly, “Longitudinal Analysis of Project Management Maturity,”
esben-ostergaard-discuss. [Accessed: 10-Nov-2021]. Proj. Manag. J., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 62–73, Aug. 2006, doi:
[43] A. Brescia, R. Aqmarina, G. Carbone, G. Mirabelli, and L. Pintelon, 10.1177/875697280603700307.
“Stakeholders in Human-Robot Collaboration ( HRC ) System : A [50] A. M. Maier, J. Moultrie, and P. J. Clarkson, “Assessing Organizational
perspective towards safety,” University of Calabria, 2021. Capabilities: Reviewing and Guiding the Development of Maturity Grids,”
[44] C. Liu and M. Tomizuka, “Designing the Robot Behavior for Safe IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 138–159, Feb. 2012, doi:
Human–Robot Interactions,” in Trends in Control and Decision-Making 10.1109/TEM.2010.2077289.
for Human-Robot Collaboration Systems, Y. Wang and F. Zhang, Eds. [51] M. Zoubek and M. Simon, “A Framework for a Logistics 4.0 Maturity
Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 1–418. Model with a Specification for Internal Logistics,” MM Sci. J., vol. 2021,
[45] D. Tihay and N. Perrin, “Human-robot coactivity: need’s analysis,” in no. 1, pp. 4264–4274, Mar. 2021, doi:
Procedia Manufacturing, 2017, vol. 7, pp. vii–viii, doi: 10.1016/S2351- 10.17973/MMSJ.2021_03_2020073.
9789(17)30003-3.
[46] E. Dominguez, “Engineering a Safe Collaborative Application,” in The
21st Century Industrial Robot: When Tools Become Collaborators.