Dr. Liepert, the topic of HRC has been discussed for some time now and was also omnipresent at the Automatica trade fair in Munich - but implementation in companies seems to be quite slow. Why do you think that is?
■ You're right, the topic was very present at Automatica. Unfortunately, however, only in individual technical solutions - I saw very few holistic approaches. And that's one reason why companies are slow to implement them.
In order to implement HRC in a meaningful way, the entire production process must be considered. And there are still major gaps here. It's great if you can buy a safe industrial robot, and it's great that there are safe grippers. But who can explain to system integrators and manufacturers how and where it makes sense to use them? Hardly anyone today!

I see another point in the area of ROI calculation. The classic view does not consider the human factor. As a rule, the calculation is that an employee is replaced by automation and not - as we see it - that the workforce is supported by automation and can therefore remain active and healthy for longer.

At present, the showcase applications repeatedly cited by the promoters of HRC with the new generations of robots, which are able to work shoulder to shoulder with the worker without a safety cage, can still be found in the automotive industry or at large manufacturers of washing machines or dishwashers, for example! Why are SMEs in particular still so reluctant?
■ A medium-sized company has to operate differently to large corporations. SMEs in particular need holistic production solutions that are tried and tested on the market. They don't invest in flagship applications. And as already mentioned, holistic HRC solutions are not yet readily available.
You also need to take a closer look at the technology available today.

Plug-and-play is not yet available for industrial solutions to the extent that it pays off for a medium-sized company. In other words, commissioning and retrofitting is unfortunately not yet as 'easy to use' as we would all like it to be.

HRC is always interpreted in different ways - some speak of collaboration, others of cooperation - isn't there a need for a clear definition that can be clearly interpreted by everyone?
■ The VDMA has clearly defined the term in its position paper 'Safety in human-robot collaboration', including the four different, fundamental safety principles of HRC. Between purely manual workstations and fully automated production lines, there is a whole range of activities for HRC use. This ranges from the coexistence of humans and machines in a shared workspace, in which there is no direct interaction, to collaboration, i.e. direct interaction between humans and robots, in which the worker guides the robot, for example, and shows it which steps are to be carried out next by demonstrating. In my view, that's a bit of a mouthful. Whether cooperation or collaboration - the important thing is that a new type of production serves and supports people!

Many critics of HRC argue that HRC without separating protective devices only works or is only accepted by the responsible institutions if the handling weights are extremely limited and the speeds or the acting forces are reduced to such an extent that productivity is ultimately no longer guaranteed.
■ That is the current view. Today, there are regulations and standards and also the understanding that an industrial robot is 'dangerous'. In the past, a person with a bell used to go in front of a car because it wasn't yet established and was scary. I see it the same way with the development of industrial robots towards intelligent assistance systems without a cage.

Apart from the investment costs, many companies still seem to have strong reservations about the 'new colleague robot' in the truest sense of the word. Which worker wants to collide with a robot - regardless of the pain thresholds defined in TS 15066! Can you understand that?
■ Is it really the case that workers are afraid of contact? Sure, nobody wants to be bumped, whether by a robot or another colleague. Our experience and studies have painted a very positive picture. If the workers are involved in the introduction process and are allowed to 'play' with it, it has been shown that they accept the 'robot colleague' very well. We humans are always afraid of change and new things at first. However, once a new situation or thing is understood, this fear is usually quickly overcome.

The safety concepts of the LBR iiwa are based on a collision with the worker. Will Kuka continue to develop its concepts and robots to prevent collisions in the first place?
■ That's right, collision avoidance is the next step in many areas of application. For further development in this direction, you can't just look at the individual product. In other words: I don't see a concept here that is limited to just the robot and one technology. We need to take an overall view of the solution and the process and use technologies that are tailored to this.

Where do you still see a need for action when it comes to HRC?
■ On the one hand, I see a need for action in the concepts. Simply putting a safe robot with a safe gripper into operation is of no benefit to the user. As I have already mentioned, you have to take a holistic view of a production concept.
Something definitely needs to be done in terms of standards. It is also important to create an international or at least European standard. When people in China or the USA talk about safety technology in automation today, they often have a different understanding than in Europe. As globalization progresses, there is a need for coordination and harmonization.

In May, the European Parliament launched an initiative for a uniform European legal framework for robotics and autonomous systems. The proposals include ideas such as introducing a robot register, creating the status of an 'electronic person' or imposing social security contributions on robots. What do you think?
■ Robots are and will remain machines - hopefully more intelligent in the future, but still machines! Robots play an important role in dealing with megatrends such as the 'ageing society' and, in this context, are becoming reliable partners for humans in all areas of life, especially in industry. Nevertheless, robots should not be personalized too much.