On the role of human operators in the design process of cobotic systems

Abstract

Industrial cobotics is presented as a way of business competitiveness by combining human skills and decision making with robotic advantages. The place and safety of humans in cobotic (collaborative robotic) systems are the subjects of much discussion. This article provides a qualitative overview of the main multidisciplinary fields related to the place of human operators during the design process of humans-robots' systems and discusses paths for effective consideration of the human challenge during this kind of design projects. The added value of this article is its multidisciplinary aspect. Readers will find in this article a technological overview of cobotics, different methodologies and design models focused on final users, interesting examples of evaluation indicators potentially adapted to an effective consideration of humans during the design process of cobotic systems (economic, technical, and human) and guidelines seeking to support cobotic system designers to succeed considering final users during the design process.

Promises of industry 4.0 under the magnifying glass of interdisciplinarity: revealing operators and managers work and challenging collaborative robot design

“…In this field and in relation with the need to analyse human/work/ environment and to set up new project management approaches, we choose to focus not only on fine-grain possible collaborations between workers and robots, but also on the understanding of how socio-technical transformation are managed in SMEs and on the development of a work-centred participatory design approach (Barcellini et al 2014 ; Bounouar et al 2022 ) to support global change including an intention of implementation of an ad hoc cobotic technology. So, we were not interested in implementation of general solutions as provided by robotics integrators or already existing worker-cobot systems.…”

“…To do so, the work of finishing operators and the project involving the cobotisation of their workstation was considered through an approach combining: an ergonomics analysis of work, based on Activity-Centred Ergonomics proposals (Daniellou 2005 ), which allows us to consider professional gestures in all their dimensions (Lémonie and Chassaing 2014 ), and an approach to the cobotisation project management that hybridises the proposals of Activity-Centred Ergonomics regarding industrial project management (e.g. Daniellou and Garrigou 1992 ; Garrigou et al 1995 ) and those of industrial engineering (see Bounouar et al 2022 for more details). More specifically on the characterisation of professional gesture, which conceptualisation goes beyond the simple biomechanical and physical dimension of movement and incorporates the mobilisation of: cognitive – i.e.…”

“…To go further on the co-construction of a technical assistance scenario in order to prevent MSDs (see Bounouar et al 2022 ; Bounouar 2021 ) and explore its relevance and feasibility, the understanding of dimensions at stake in professional gestures is not sufficient and one need to better understand the dynamics of the gesture and to identify the actions that may have an impacts of MSDs occurrence (see 2.4).…”

Exploring the status of the human operator in Industry 4.0: A systematic review

“…From this point of view, some authors underlined new technologies, principally exoskeletons (body-worn assistive devices) and cobots, have the potential to improve productivity and occupational health (e.g., prevention of musculoskeletal disorders by reducing the load on the muscular system) (Cimini et al, 2020 ; Ranavolo et al, 2021 ). Still, implementing such technologies does not assure, per se , that the risk of musculoskeletal issues will be reduced, as Cockburn ( 2021 ) and Bounouar et al ( 2022 ) have recently stressed. Additionally, a few authors have claimed that, by relieving workers from repetitive and monotonous tasks, technology could support them in improving their skills, particularly related to the supervision of the work system.…”

“…By concentrating on technological push-factors to achieve new levels of productivity and health, decision-makers tend to focus on the potential of technology and end up sidelining the social dimension of the I4.0 workplace (Moniz and Krings, 2016 ; Neumann et al, 2021 ; Pacaux-Lemoine et al, 2022 ). This includes working conditions, new models of work organization, the ways workers interact with technology, the new sources of constraints and resources introduced by technology, the changing skill requirements, opportunities for learning, or the emerging risks that could threaten workers' health and wellbeing (Barcellini, 2019 ; Bounouar et al, 2022 ). As reflected by Moniz and Krings ( 2016 ), these issues tend to be viewed only from the perspective of technical improvements and safety (in terms of the interaction between the worker and technology).…”