# Human-Robot Collaboration: How Teams Come to Accept Robots as Colleagues

Author: Marin Niehues, Niehues Consulting · Published: 2024-06-17 · AI Adoption & Operations
Source: https://www.niehuesconsulting.de/en/blog/human-robot-collaboration/

Teams accept robots as colleagues when they are involved early, experience the benefit in their own work and can follow how the cell is kept safe. The technology of human-robot collaboration is described by standards, whereas acceptance emerges during rollout: in the involvement of employees, in how tasks are divided and in an operation with clear responsibility from day one.

This article describes the four modes of collaboration under the safety standards, an acceptance model in four stages and a checklist for rollout. It does not replace the safety assessment of a cell, which belongs to qualified machine safety specialists. This article provides an overview and does not constitute legal advice.

**A robot counts as a colleague in the team once it takes over work that nobody enjoys and behaves predictably while doing so. Both can be planned before purchase.**

## What does human-robot collaboration mean?

Human-robot collaboration means employees and robots working directly together in the same workspace, without separating safety fences. It differs from classic industrial robotics, in which the robot works behind a barrier and humans enter only to load or maintain. The ISO 10218 series sets out safety requirements for industrial robots, and the technical specification ISO/TS 15066 of 2016 covers collaborative robots.

The standards distinguish four modes of collaboration. In safety-rated monitored stop, the robot halts as soon as a person enters the shared space and resumes after the person leaves. In hand guiding, the person moves the robot by hand, for example to teach a path. In speed and separation monitoring, the robot slows down the closer a person comes. In power and force limiting, the robot is designed so that contact with a person stays below defined limit values.

Which robots suit which task is covered in the article on [cobots, collaborative robots alongside people](/en/blog/cobots-collaborative-robots/). For this article the question is how employees respond.

## Why do teams not accept robots by themselves?

Teams do not accept robots by themselves because employees attach three questions to a robot: will my work lose value? Am I safe next to the cell? Who is responsible if something goes wrong? As long as one of these questions stays open, scepticism remains, and in operation scepticism shows as workarounds: the robot is not loaded, safety functions are switched off, faults are reported late.

Fred Davis's technology acceptance model of 1989 offers a proven explanation. It traces the use of a technology to two assessments: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Applied to robots, this means employees use the cell when they sense that it improves their work and when they can operate it without fear. Both can be influenced by how the rollout is designed.

Starting points differ across industry. The International Federation of Robotics reports 415 industrial robots per 10,000 employees in German manufacturing, against a global average of 151 (World Robotics 2023). Plants with many robots have experience of working alongside them. In the Mittelstand, covered in the article on [robotics in the Mittelstand](/en/blog/robotics-mid-sized-companies-economic-case/), the first robot is often the workforce's first contact with the technology.

## How does rollout succeed in the team? An acceptance model in four stages

Rollout succeeds in four stages: inform, involve, trial as well as take ownership. Each stage has a goal, a measure and a question the team can answer at the end. The model assumes that acceptance grows with experience.

**Acceptance model in four stages**
Criterion | 1 Inform | 2 Involve | 3 Trial | 4 Take ownership
Goal | Understand aim and limits of the deployment | Co-design tasks and workflows | Experience the robot in the real workflow | Take over operation and improvement
Measure | Information before procurement, talks with employee representatives | Workshop with future users on task split and placement | Pilot with a fixed period and feedback | Named owners, training, improvement round
Team's question | What changes in my work? | What stays with me, what goes to the robot? | Do I feel safe next to the cell? | Who deals with faults and changes?
Evidence | Participants know the plan | Task split is documented | Feedback is evaluated | The 90-day metric is available

The first stage takes place before procurement. Employees and their representatives learn which problem the robot solves, which tasks it takes over and which it leaves. Anyone who explains this only at delivery has missed the chance to use questions as input to planning.

The second stage is the core of acceptance. Future users help decide which activities the robot receives. It is natural for employees to name first the tasks that strain them: heavy lifting, monotonous repetition, work in awkward postures. The robot becomes a tool the employees asked for themselves. The task split follows the principle that people contribute judgement, experience as well as flexibility, and the robot contributes endurance and repeatability.

In the third stage employees experience the robot in the real workflow. A pilot with a fixed period, say four to eight weeks, and regular feedback exposes faults early and gives employees the sense of being taken seriously. The fourth stage transfers responsibility: a named person owns operation, a team knows the procedures for faults and an improvement round collects requests for change.

## What role does safety play in acceptance?

Safety is the precondition of acceptance, and employees must be able to see and follow it. The risk assessment of the whole cell, not just of the robot, is mandatory and a task for qualified specialists. The statutory accident insurance in Germany provides information on collaborative robot systems. A robot designed for collaboration according to its data sheet, combined with a sharp tool or a heavy workpiece, is not yet a safe application.

For acceptance it matters that employees understand the protective functions. A briefing at the real robot, where they see how it reacts to approach and contact, works better than any presentation. Part of this is a clear signal of its state, for instance lights showing whether the robot is working, waiting or stopped. When the robot behaves predictably, fear falls, and with it the temptation to bypass protective functions.

## How do you keep the economics in view?

The economics stay in view when the business case includes acceptance and downtime and is measured against a metric after start. A robot that stands idle because of scepticism misses the calculated payback. The calculation of investment and floor space is covered in the article on planning [robot cells](/en/blog/planning-robot-cells-investment-payback-space/). Suitable metrics are availability per shift, supplemented by user feedback on faults and improvements.

## How do teams react to fear of job loss?

Teams react to fear of job loss with scepticism for as long as the company makes no clear statement on which tasks the robot takes over and how employees' roles change. An open statement before procurement works better than reassuring generalities. The article on [automation against skills shortages](/en/blog/automation-skilled-labour-shortage-robots/) describes where robots close gaps that staffing could not fill anyway. Where that applies, the deployment can credibly be presented as relief. Where the company wants to save headcount, openness about it is the precondition for any further rollout.

**Checklist: Is the team ready for the robot?**
- Do employees know before procurement which tasks the robot takes over?
- Have future users helped shape the task split?
- Is there a risk assessment of the whole cell by qualified specialists?
- Has there been a briefing at the real robot?
- Does the cell show its state unambiguously?
- Is a person named who owns operation from day one?
- Is there a pilot period with feedback and a metric after 90 days?

## Introducing robots with Niehues Consulting

[Niehues Consulting](/en/) is a consultancy for AI management and organisation design from a delivery perspective, based in Düsseldorf. Founder Marin Niehues builds organisations that deliver and brings new capabilities into operations, in projects ranging from VC-funded scale-ups to DAX 40 corporations and in over 20 countries on six continents. Niehues Consulting supports the organisational side of rollout. The work lies where rollouts succeed or fail: in the business case, in roles and decision paths as well as in the delivery management of the rollout.

The approach follows the Niehues Delivery Model. Three of its review questions matter for introducing robots: who decides, who delivers, who uses? Are users enabled and workflows adapted? And: which metric shows after 90 days that the solution is landing? Scope and terms of an engagement are discussed in the free initial consultation, which you can arrange via the [contact page](/en/#kontakt).

**Conclusion**
Acceptance emerges during rollout. The four stages inform, involve, trial as well as take ownership give teams the chance to experience the robot before they rely on it. Safety that employees can follow and an operation with named responsibility turn the cell into a colleague the team can rely on.

**Sources**
- International Organization for Standardization: ISO 10218-1 and ISO 10218-2, robotics, safety requirements for industrial robots, 2011
- International Organization for Standardization: ISO/TS 15066, robots and robotic devices, collaborative robots, 2016
- International Federation of Robotics: World Robotics 2023, press release on robot density, January 2024
- Davis: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly, 1989

## Frequently asked questions

### What is human-robot collaboration?

Human-robot collaboration is employees and robots working directly together in the same workspace without separating safety fences. It rests on safety standards that distinguish four collaboration modes. The technology permits collaboration, and the rollout shows whether it works in daily practice.

### What types of human-robot collaboration exist?

ISO 10218 and ISO/TS 15066 describe four: safety-rated monitored stop, hand guiding, speed and separation monitoring as well as power and force limiting. The risk assessment determines which mode suits the application. Several modes are often combined in one cell.

### How do you build acceptance of robots in a team?

You build acceptance through early information, involvement in the task split, a pilot with feedback and named owners in operation. Letting employees help choose the tasks for the robot makes it a tool they asked for themselves. The four-stage model in this article sets out the sequence.

### Is a cobot without a safety fence automatically safe?

No, a cobot is only one part of the cell, and only the risk assessment of the whole application decides on safety. Tool, workpiece as well as motion path determine whether protective measures are needed. Qualified machine safety specialists carry out the assessment.

### Do robots take away jobs?

The company's aim decides, and it should be stated openly. Robots take over strenuous or hard-to-staff tasks, and employees' roles often shift towards operation, monitoring as well as improvement. A clear statement before procurement is the best basis for acceptance.

### How long does it take to get used to working with a robot?

A pilot of four to eight weeks with regular feedback shows whether the team is getting used to the cell. The 90-day metric shows whether the cell lands in operation. Early involvement of employees eases the settling-in period.

### Who is responsible for the robot in operation?

A named person owns operation from day one, usually a shift leader or a trained maintenance technician. This person knows the procedures for faults and collects requests for change. Without this responsibility faults stay unresolved and the team's trust falls.