Robotization of Industrial Processes: Motivational Differences between Companies with and without Existing Robotic Processes

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS

Our survey of 100 manufacturing facilities revealed statistically significant differences among company types in their perceptions of cost savings, productivity gains, and safety improvements as benefits of robotic implementation. Regardless of company type or size, indications of presence of cumulative, incidental, and static postural hazards were identified as primary perceived factors for injury potential. More than half of the surveyed companies reported being unaware of general safety standards utilized within their facilities, and most (70%) robotic companies were unaware of any robotic-specific standards utilized at their company. Our results indicate the importance of accounting for varying perspectives between company types regarding motivation for and safety impacts of robotics. With the advancement of technology and robotization of the manufacturing industry, there are also pressing needs for advancing robotic safety standards, implementing training programs, and continuous promotion of the general safety awareness.

TECHNICAL ABSTRACT

Background: Introducing robotics to industrial processes is generally thought to lead to increased productivity, decreased costs, and improved occupational health and safety. These expected benefits are assumed to drive the motivation of companies to robotize their manufacturing processes.

Purpose: Robotics presumably pose different hazards than manual labor, illustrating their potential to positively alter company safety outcomes. However, our literature review identified minimal research showcasing driving factors for why companies choose to utilize industrial robotics. Moreover, the question of how motivational factors differ between companies based on their type or size, has not been fully explored.

Methods: We investigated the differentiation in motivation for robotization with an emphasis on safety related issues for companies that already have robotic processes (robotic companies) and companies without current robotic installations (non-robotic). For the latter, a finer distinction was made between those planning on obtaining robots in the future and those not planning to do so. A custom designed and validated survey was distributed, and data were collected from 100 companies in the general manufacturing sector (52 of which currently utilize robotics).

Results: We found statistically significant differences in motivational factors among robotic companies, companies planning to obtain robotics, and companies not planning on obtaining robotics. Economic aspects were the biggest justification factor for all company types. Perceived safety hazards and differences in injury types between robotic and non-robotic companies were identified. Robotics showcase the potential to reduce certain hazard types, but also to pose harm to employees if not properly implemented.

Conclusions: Regardless of their size or geographic location, companies with and without existing robotic processes differ in their perspectives on motivation and safety impacts of robotization of industrial processes.

Keywords:

• Occupational safety
• robotic automation
• motivation
• robotics
• automation

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.