IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2020 - 174

relevant existing standards and standardization activities and 2) to assess
project results and analyze them for
potentials to be transposed into standards or to be used as input into alreadyexisting standardization activities.
These will contribute to filling the gaps
among existing standards in the field
of HRC.
In addition to repercussions based on
ergonomic standards, the use of collaborative technologies must also be evaluated for its impact on physiological and
thermal workers' response. In fact,
although such technologies are seen as a
promising option in biomechanical risk
reduction [47] in several occupational
sectors, their use requires considerations
about their suitability, costs, effectiveness, and impact on the occupational
safety and health of workers. One of the
most important open issues is, without a
doubt, the long-term effects of their use
on human physiology. Objective measurements should be supported by subjective measurements aimed at testing
user acceptance of collaborative technologies through questionnaires or interviews to investigate physical demand,
constraints, perceived usefulness, ease of
use, intention to use, performance, and
comfort or discomfort.
HRC Productivity
From an economic point of view, HRC
systems have a great potential to
increase productivity in flexible manufacturing systems. In many modern factories, the limitations of full automation
have already been reached. Large industrial robot cells, autonomous conveying
technologies, advanced sensor systems
for visual control and guidance, and so
forth are state of the art. Today, the production of passenger cars, for example,
is widely automated (approximately
90-95%) until the car reaches the
assembly shop. At this final stage of production, manual human work still
dominates with a degree of automation
of not more than 10-20%. This is
because, compared to all prior parts of
the manufacturing process (e.g., press
shop, body shop, and paint shop), the
variety of tasks and the finesse required
are much higher and therefore demand
174

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

JUNE 2020

higher skills and more flexibility from
workers. It is either very complicated to
fully automate such tasks (leading to
high risks for downtime), or it is not
cost-efficient because the available technological solutions are too expensive to
reach a reasonable return on investment. Hence, cobot systems with
reduced complexity and lower costs
may provide a potential solution for
increasing productivity in such work
systems by supporting some of the
ergonomically heavy work of humans
in an efficient way. This may reduce the
number of workers needed for completing all of the assembly operations
(which equals a direct effect on productivity), but it is also beneficial for the
remaining workers' health because it
prevents musculoskeletal disorders and
increases production quality (which
equals an indirect effect on productivity) [48]. In any case, however, as highlighted previously, HRC systems must
be designed according to basic ergonomic and safety principles and have to
consider the needs of human operators
to solve issues instead of creating new
ones, increase efficiency, and truly help
workers and companies.
Conclusions
Cobots have demonstrated a high
potential for addressing the flexibility
needs of the increasingly competitive
manufacturing industry. They can
simultaneously increase productivity and
reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders, which represent the single largest
category of work-related disease in
industrial countries. This can contribute
to economic growth and the creation of
better, healthier, and more attractive
working environments for the future
workforce. Because of this unique potential, the cobot market grows, on average,
approximately 50% each year [5]. It is
important to note that traditional industrial robots are not in danger of extinction; they will continue to play an
important role in manufacturing, mainly
as fully automated systems. Their primary purpose is to make high volumes
of goods quickly and cheaply, which,
however, comes at the price of reduced
flexibility and costly redeployment.

Acknowledgments
The research presented in this article
was carried out as part of the SOPHIA
project, which received funding from
the European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation program under
grant 871237.
References
[1] "Employment by A*10 industry breakdowns,"
Eurostat, Brussels, Belgium. Accessed on: Feb. 25, 2020.
[Online]. Available: ttps://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10_a10_e&lang=en
[2] D. M. West and C. Lansang, "Global manufacturing scorecard: How the US compares to 18
other nations," Brookings, Washington, D.C., July
10, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.brookings
.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard
-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/
[3] "Unlocking the potential of industrial human-
robot collaboration," European Commission,
Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/unlocking
-potential-industrial-human-robot-collaboration_en
[4] "'A stronger European industry for growth and
economic recovery' industrial policy communication update COM(2012) 582 final," European
Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, Belgium.
Accessed on: Feb. 25, 2020. [Online]. Available:
ht t ps://w w w.e e s c .eu ropa .eu /en /ou r-work /
opinions-information-reports/opinions/stronger
-european-industry-growth-and-economic-recovery
-i ndu st r ia l-pol ic y- com mu n ic at ion-upd ate
-com2012-582-final
[5] "Collaborative robot (cobot) market," MarketsandMarkets, Northbrook, IL. Accessed on:
Feb. 25, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www
.ma rketsa nd ma rkets.com /Ma rket-Repor ts/
collaborative-robot-market-194541294.html
[6] A. Ajoudani, A. M. Zanchettin, S. Ivaldi, A.
Albu-Schäffer, K. Kosuge, and O. Khatib, "Progress and prospects of the human-robot collaboration," Auton. Robot., vol. 42, pp. 957-975, June
2018. doi: 10.1007/s10514-017-9677-2.
[7] S. Bevan, T. Quadrello, R. McGee, M. Mahdon,
A. Vavrovsky, and L. Barham, "Fit for work?
Musculoskeletal disorders in the European
workforce," The Work Foundation, London,
UK, 2009.
[8] R. Alberto, F. Draicchio, T. Varrecchia, A. Silvetti, and S. Iavicoli, "Wearable monitoring
devices for biomechanical risk assessment at
work: Current status and future challenges-a systematic review," Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health,
vol. 15, no. 9, p. E2001, 2018. doi: 10.3390/
ijerph15092001.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/ https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/unlocking-potential-industrial-human-robot-collaboration_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/unlocking-potential-industrial-human-robot-collaboration_en https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/collaborative-robot-market-194541294.html https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/collaborative-robot-market-194541294.html https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/collaborative-robot-market-194541294.html

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2020