Technology assessment approach to human-robot interactions in work environments

António Moniz [1], Bettina-Johanna Krings [2]

Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Karlsruhe, Germany [1] antonio.moniz@kit.edu, [2] bettina-johanna.krings@kit.edu

Abstract— Due to (ongoing) technical processes with regard

to applications of robotics one may analyse the organizational

effects this technology has in two sectors: 1) Manufacturing:

where industrial robotics has a long tradition and the human-

machine interaction is organized basically by Tayloristic working

structure (division of labour, changes of qualification and skills,

speeding up processes, high economic efficiency). Through new

innovative applications in robotics this sector is actually facing

new challenges of this interaction with regard to new issues i.e.

safety, complexity of work environment etc. 2) Health: the

application of assistive robot systems in surgery operations is still

very recent, but has already created specific pattern of working

environment which show significant similarities to

manufacturing. In both sectors the impact of robotics on the

organizational working environment is widely unknown. This

paper explores scientific knowledge about the impact of robotics

on working environment in both sectors based on different

methods of Technology Assessment.

Keywords—assessment; work organisation; robotics; safety;

manufacturing; surgery

I. INTRODUCTION

The early robots built in the 1960s stemmed from the confluence of two technologies: the numerical control machine-tools for precise manufacturing, and tele-operators for remote radioactive material handling. Furthermore, the rapid development of integrated circuits, digital computers and miniaturized components enabled computer-controlled robots to be designed and programmed. The later decades were also considered for the increase of automation in almost all fields of manufacturing industries. Exactly with such technical developments, robots applications were implemented outside the factories, basically in areas such as agriculture, search and rescue, underwater and others. Since the 1980s introduction of robotics have been implemented even in health sector, where the number of application is still increasing [1], [2]. Thus, historically robotics has become an extremely successful technology in terms of innovation processes as well as in terms of economic growth.

However, innovations in robotics are basically related with applications in manufacturing sector [3]. Here, during long historic processes working tasks with this technology became much more complex in respect to organization of work. Specifically in recent decades technological density increased

significantly from traditional systems where an operator was responsible for one single machine [4]. Now, we commonly identify workplaces where an operator is taking charge of multiple machines as well as is taking charge of multiple processes. In literature there are discussed different models of work organization. These models are roughly described as follows [5], [6], [7]:

• The traditional Tayloristic model envisioned the increase of productivity with a rational labour process where a single operator belongs to specific equipment. Here the “principles of scientific management” [8] implies four central implications [9]: (a) the segmentation of working routines; (b) clear selection of personnel as well as clear selection of “best way work routines”; (c) Motivation of personnel based on bonus systems, basically social recognition and economic impulses; (d) development of a normative relationship between entrepreneur and employee which is focused on the idea of “objectivity” of labour with respect to economic growth.

• Based on fundamental technical changes after 1945 in Western societies there were established organizational forms which focus strongly on the increase of the division of labour. The discourse of the “mechanized production” [10] describes the organization of mechanized work as monotone and repetitive work and demands strongly institutional efforts with regard to qualification. The “thesis of qualification” in technical working environment nevertheless is a striking position which has been discussed and analysed intensively [11].

• The introduction of Computer-Integrated-Manufacturing (CIM) in the 1980s had fundamental effects on the organizational level of work. The digitalization of work processes on the one side creates vision about the complete automation of factories without personnel basically by the engineers. On the other side the high level of technical standards also creates a discourse about rising scope of actions within working processes. The idea of “restrictive” working organization disappears in favour of the support of qualified and responsible employees which should be actively involved into the production processes. The participation of the employees into

978-1-4799-4714-0/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 282

these processes should, therefore, imply the introduction of tacit knowledge, planning and operation, group work, as well as decision making processes [12], [13], [14], [15].

• Due to technical innovations (information and communication technologies - ICT, robotics, and logistics) in the 1990s new (global) production concepts have raised with significant effects on work organization [16]. Processes of codification, commodification, standardization and fragmentation, and its related decrease of transaction costs have changed working processes significantly. The diversification of products and services induces the multiplication of tasks and skills and results in organizational complexity that can no longer be combined efficiently with mass production. In the constant dynamics of restructuring processes specialization and standardization are taking place. The complexity of organizational pattern also reflects the complexity of work. Requalification of work, but also segmentation and an increase of an (global) division of labour go hand in hand. On the work place level complex technical environments are linked with markets as a co-ordination mechanism for transaction to the detriment of bureaucratic organizations [17]. Thus “network organizations are often assumed to have the capacity to tap into different forms of advantage: in expertise and experience, in markets and hierarchies, in control mechanism and work design. Factors that offer opportunities for learning developing, skills and transferring knowledge” [18].

During the 1970s and 1980s, the controversies were clearly connected with the problems of work organization and working conditions in order to improve the productivity level through the working live components. In other words, the competitiveness of firms should be achieved through the improvement of working conditions and better labour relations. Actually, in recent debates the emphasis more and more lay on management and business processes as well as on the technological platforms to support competitive strategies of the firms [17]. The focus on the shop floor, respectively on quality of work as well as on working team building seems, hereby, less clear. With regard to socio-technical concepts within the field of robotics it seems that there is a significant gap of knowledge about the relation between increased automation and complexity in job contents and changes on time and space in the work sphere [19], [20], [21].

II. FROM MACRO- TO MICRO-LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

The functional understanding of robotics reflects the perspectives mentioned above: the application with robots is embedded into complex organizational socio-technical structure, which hasn’t been analysed yet in detail. Experiences show, however, that robotics application not necessarily replaces operational tasks, but also may improve human competence in working environments. Following recent organizational strategies in this field expectations towards this technology are very high. According to these

discourses applications with robots may enable productivity, may enable better use of the installed equipment as well as may provide production flexibility. These objectives should be actually achieved by using innovative technical features and human characteristics like intuition, imagination, individual and collective know-how, skills and specific working methods. These features, however, are representing the technical side of specific branches and sectors and are still not identified with regard to its effects on the working environment.

The diversity of modes of work organization reaches different levels: the perspective of the macro-level (societal trends and changes, market dynamics etc.) offers to reflect the diversity of different sectors and policies. Taking this perspective into account meso-level analysis provide deep insight into a broad range of technical innovation processes. For instance, the manufacturing sector integrates robotics within different environments, like the more sophisticated metal engineering branch or micro-electronics to the large settings presented by the chemical installations where robots are mostly used for monitoring or surveillance procedures. In between, one can find work environments for large batch productions in clothing or food industries with highly standardized procedures, or medium batches in some factories of automotive industry. The same type of environments can be found in other sectors like healthcare, agriculture, construction, and so forth [22], [23].

With regard to socio-technical environments the health sector seems of interest because of its still high human-human interaction. The idea to introduce service robots in elderly healthcare, or the application of surgery robots in clinics and hospitals show, however, the social intention to create more efficiency in replacing repetitive and qualitative tasks by technology. Both sectors - manufacturing and health – reflect to a high degree the complexity of organizational pattern in harmonizing technological innovations with working environments. In both sectors, one may identify trends to apply increased sophistication and new human-robot interaction (HRI) for distant manufacturing operations. These trends seem true for health sector whereas robotics becomes a significant technology in specific surgery applications. However, similar to manufacturing the socio-technical concepts within these working environments still seem underestimated. The identification of new job profiles, new qualification demands or new task contents is still an open research field. And - vice versa – from the perspective of engineering knowledge about working environments would offer constructive tools for design of this technology.

This is also reflected in a prominent European report which actually focuses on the main aspects of Working Conditions [24]. The authors assumed that there are two dimensions of employee involvement in technical environments: a) task discretion or the influence that employees could exercise over their immediate work tasks; b) organisational participation or the influence that employees can have over work organisation.

The level of control that employees could exercise over their immediate work tasks for the 27 European Union countries as a whole in 2010 was found to vary depending on the aspect of

283

the work task. Taking the workforce as a whole, it was lowest with respect to the ability to make choices over the order of tasks and greatest with respect to work pace [24]. There are considered four broad organizational types with different employee involvement or participation mode: a) high involvement organization (high task discretion and high organizational participation); b) discretionary organization (high task discretion but low organizational participation); c) consultative organization (high organizational participation but low task discretion); d) low involvement organization (low on both dimensions).Specific human abilities are related to the capacity to manage unexpected events, besides that, they are reliable on information that cannot be formalized and standardized [25].

Taking these considerations into account work organization in technically complex work environments (CWE) should be designed according to socio-technical principles which should involve levels of control as well as levels of human creativity. Experiences in production sector show that when achieving such aims there is a need to involve the integration of systems design and execution, by the integration of planning, programming, processing and maintenance tasks in highly automated areas. This integration has necessarily to be structured in work groups with a high level of autonomy and self-control of the single groups. The work group activity is focused on the main type of product, or on a small group of related products. The group tasks include planning and allocation of work: loading, setting, unloading the machines; programming, maintenance, quality and performance control. Various skills are required and job rotation among group members is used. Specifically the introduction and application of robotics in changing working structure show numerous side effects for the whole production process. The increase of (economic) productivity, hereby, seems significant for technical changes [26]. Nevertheless the development of socio-technical concepts in order to challenge and to improve working conditions and human-machine interfaces should be a significant goal when creating CWE. As these experiences show, in the field of robotics these concepts seem still underestimated [27], [28].

III. ROBOT APPLICATIONS IN TWO SECTORS: MANUFACTURING

AND HEALTH

In terms of visions of future technologies, robotics and its technical developments are, again, prominently reflected within the European Strategic Research Agenda with the following goals: “[…] robotics technology will become dominant in the coming decade. It will influence every aspect of work and home. Robotics has the potential to transform lives and work practices, raise efficiency and safety levels, provide enhanced levels of service and create jobs” [29]. The optimism, expressed here, is already based on empirical evidence. As in [30] the authors mention also that the HRI is a rapidly advancing area of research, and as such there is a growing need for strong experimental designs and methods of evaluation.

As described above since the 1980s the introduction of robotics in manufacturing and computer-assisted surgery are offering new possibilities of work practices in both sectors. In health sector the specific characteristic of robotics has been implemented in manifold medical applications which have led to the vision that the health sector can offer a higher growth rate of robotic technologies in the nearest future [31]. Although service robots in general seem to be a growing market, however, the rate is still not very high due to the high costs involved. According to International Federation of Robotics (IFR) the total number of professional service robots sold in 2012 (at the world level) rose by a relatively low 2% compared to 2011 to 16,067 units up from 15,776 in 2011. Sales of medical robots increased by 20% compared to 2011 to 1,308 units in 2012, accounting for a share of 8% of the total unit sales of professional service robots. The most important applications are robot assisted surgery and therapy with 1,053 units sold in 2012, 6% more than in 2011. The total value of sales of medical robots increased to US$ 1,495 million, accounting for 44% of the total sales value of the professional service robots. Medical robots are the most valuable service robots with an average unit price of about US$ 1.5 million, including accessories and services [32], [33].

Although there is slight increase in health sector, industrial robotics have still the market lead in terms of type of robots sold and in operation: this type of robot sales slightly decreased in 2012 by 4% to 159,346 units, the second highest level ever recorded for one year. From 2014 to 2016, robot installations are estimated to increase by 6% on average per year. In 2012, Japan was again the biggest robot market in the world. In this country robot sales continued to increase slightly to 28,700 units. About 41,200 industrial robots were sold in Europe in this same year. The real dimension of this market can be understood when the total worldwide stock of operational industrial robots at the end of 2012 was in the range of 1,235,000 and 1.5 million units [33]. Far different from the professional service robots market, but this one offers an immense growth potential for the next years. As described above systems integration is one of major challenges for robotics in CWE in both sectors. The more this has been evident in the last decades for manufacturing settings, the more relevant it seems for the application to surgery settings. Medical robots may be classified in many ways: by manipulator design, by level of autonomy, by targeted anatomy or technique or intended operating environment [34].

With these characteristics, medical robots more and more become part of modern high-tech medicine, which basically includes pre-surgical planning, intra-operative execution, logistics, rehabilitation and postoperative assessment and follow-up. This happens at the same time when new developments occur on bionics, on micro- and nano-robotics, on new vision recognition and tracking, on haptic, grasping and manipulation, on tele-robotics, networking and swarm systems, on autonomous agents.

Based on these application experiences as well as from the engineer’s point of view robotic surgery seem to have many advantages with regard to the existing open surgery and minimally invasive surgery techniques. In the meanwhile the application of robotic surgery varies and performs a growing

284

number of complex urological, gynaecological, cardiothoracic and general surgical procedures, for example. These technology-based procedures are steadily increasing and have already changed the view on surgery practices. Based on achievements from the applications in advanced manufacturing systems, the surgery case seems also changing dramatically economic strategies in health sector that have been identified basically in industry. Once tasks have been systematized and codified, their results become quantifiable. And once they become quantified, activities can be carried out on a remote side or by other actors. Cost of these processes and values, which are added by these procedures are generally no longer subsumed under a general overhead. In contrary they can split off [17].

Besides qualitative aspects of robotic surgery quantitative issues seems crucial when analysing the practical experiences of these technologies. Through robotically-assisted surgery the amount of surgical procedures has been increased significantly. Due to automation processes as well as to improved ergonomics, surgeries can be organized much more frequent than general surgical procedures. Thus, robotic surgery can be considered as an emerging technical field in health sector, which is slowly embedded into normative standards of high-tech-medicine. The cultural framework of this technological field as well as new standards of industrial applications should be taken into account when analysing social changes of robotic surgery. It seems that there is high social acceptance with regard to the application of robotics. In the future, the operating room can be envisioned differently, were much of the medical staff may be removed from room and replaced during surgery, in part by hardware in the form of supportive electromechanical devices and in part by software for documentation, assistance, and assessing the operation [35].

IV. THE HUMAN-MACHINE INTERFACES IN CHANGING SOCIO-TECHNICAL CONCEPTS

Whereas socio-technical concepts in manufacturing have been mainly evaluated with regard to (economic) efficiency, in health the focus of new socio-technical concepts lays actually on the improvement of surgical precision. In scientific debates another aspect focuses also on the new quality of human-machine interface, where robotics becomes a mediated function between patient and surgeon. Because of recent trends in health, however, changes of human-machine interface through surgery robotics are still not studied to a large extend. But as the historic perspective of the introduction of robotics in surgery shows, the structure of manufacturing was the basic idea for these applications [1]. These applications have been introduced into a different and a specific working environment. Although there are considerations about successful outcomes, there is less knowledge about the side effects surgery robots have on work organization as well as on job profiles. However, and this is the hypothesis of the following proposal, these changes are based on the structure of manufacturing applications which should be developed on the long run a specific socio-technical concept in this field. In order to understand the socio-technical concept in health, socio-technical concepts of robotics in

manufacturing also should be taken into consideration with regard to new robotic systems. This expectation would imply that process management is becoming central also in the field of advanced technologies in health sector. Here, it seems important to analyse in depth which normative perspective are leading robotic applications in manufacturing. Such processes have been developed in manufacturing environments as previously said, with processes of increased codification, commodification, standardization and fragmentation. These processes contributed to change the working processes in the manufacturing industry. Whether and how all these processes will be transmitted into health should be discussed intensively,

Furthermore, planning, coordination and speeding processes become critical for the success of robotic surgery [36]. Time management, quality standards and costs become relevant indicators in health activities. How and in which way these indicators also influence both the working relations as well as the human-machine interface should be considered as central questions to be analysed with an empirical basis.

In comparison to manufacturing it seems that both, working relations and human-machine interface, also will change significantly. Apart from social and ethical questions in medicine experiences show already that technology more and more gets in a mediation position between surgeon and patient. In this position, technology seems to be not any longer an operating tool but as a more complex system with spatial displacement of surgeon and patient. With the application of robotics in surgery, the robot has an interface to the surgeon and another to the patient in different places. Some authors refer to it as tele-surgery [31].

The interface with the surgeon is based on 2D or 3D image and simulation tools, and the relation with the patient is done indirectly through the robot arms and wrists that use the operation tools. This work process, however, is not common in manufacturing, where robot operators and programmers have to anticipate and plan the tasks to be accomplished by the robot(s). But there are possibilities that some manufacturing tasks can be also done in similar way as in surgery. Examples can be found in some learning tasks to be programmed, or with very large of very small dimensions of objects to be manipulated that would need displacement of operator and robot in real-time activity. In robotic surgery complex communication and information management is controlling the system, and the surgeon is not performing the surgery alone. A surgical team has also allocated tasks and their activities have also more complex contents. The decision process has several levels of determination, and unexpected events can have higher risk effects. The same can happen in the mentioned cases in manufacturing [37], [38].

In conventional open surgery, surgeon interacts directly with the patient tissues using his hands or some surgical instruments means. On the other hand, in robotic surgery the only time that the surgeon actually is in direct contact with the patient is in the begging of the surgery, when the ports have to be inserted into the patient body. After that, the surgeon does not touch in the patient at all. In robot-assisted surgery, the surgeon performs the surgery from a controller and does not stand next to the patient. As such, all forms of robot-assisted

285

surgery can be understood as a kind of “remote” surgery when compared to open surgery or minimally invasive surgery: the use of surgical robots increases the distance between the surgeon and the rest of the operating room team and the patient [36]. The operating room team is no longer collocated but distributed. As the surgeon is moved further away from the patient, the medium introduced between him/her and the patient becomes more complex and places more constraints into the audio, visual, and physical communication/interaction channels between the surgeon and patient [35]. Visions to introduce robots in health environment, often, strengthen very much technical progress in modern medicine. This has been the case of surgery and tele-medicine. Similar to manufacturing sector, technological shifts in medicine create working environments, which implies new organizational forms of work. In this specific context these technical and organizational changes goes hand in hand with speeding up processes, with new specific forms of labour divisions as well as with new human-machine-interfaces (surgeon & patient).

In manufacturing, however, an increase of integration of service robotic technology is widely expected and through the deployment of robots into novel areas of manufacturing [9]. Modern applications of robots in CWE can imply a human interaction with different machines (robots and other ICT equipment), and also an autonomous interaction between robots which implies robot to robot interaction. The complexity of manufacturing equipment is revealed, in particular, by the need of programming or re-programming (off- or on-line), and by their increased multi-functionality. For instance, new programming methods can enable the automation of small lot sizes or even single work pieces, hand drawings made with a digital pen can be transferred into robot programs automatically, or robot trajectories can be defined by guiding the robot using tactile feedback. Such flexibility can improve the task performance, with direct effects on quality, safety and productivity. But this flexibility can be improved adopting such concepts of work teams, decentralizing the procedures for decision making [40].

Some robot manufacturers are developing new cell production assembly system, in which physical and information supports are provided to the human operators, reinforcing the safe cooperation with the robot while providing instructions on the operations to be performed [41]. The safety management for the cooperation is new from the viewpoint that industrial robots can cooperate with human operators in automatic operation without stopping, which can achieve higher productivity [42].

Thus, in such micro-level of analysis some new hypothesis can also be reached to understand the changing relationship of human-machine interfaces in manufacturing. In manufacturing industry, the integrative tasks in advanced automated systems can be taken by human workers. The same applies to the control tasks. Humans are better at dealing with unexpected events to keep production lines running. Interaction of humans with robots increases the importance of such aspects. Intuitive programming, augmented reality and programming by demonstration are interesting concepts that deal directly with safety, control and participation in the decision process. But another element can be also the evolution from some surgery

robotics applications, and the displacement of the human-robot interaction from the interaction with the product, or material.

At the decisional autonomy level it can be possible an increase of the level of responsibility in the control processes of the production system. The resulting autonomy is focused on reducing energy consumption, increasing throughput, and providing context aware task control in the interaction with operators [39]. This can imply the online rescheduling of tasks in HRI scenarios based on task, ergonomic and safety information, and de-centralised production knowledge and decision-making instances to augment robustness of manufacturing task. While most robots operate in industrial settings where they perform different tasks (assembly, welding, painting, drilling, etc.) the direct interaction implies basically a risk assessment in terms of safety [43]. This refers not only to the ergonomic dimension, but it clearly strengthens organisational issues (social implications) where different options are available. Widening the perspective with respect to the social implications within the intuitive interaction between humans and robot systems is a motivation for further research [44]. Hereby the different technical options of intuitive interaction will be analysed and assessed with regard to increasing decisional options for the human operators.

According to the EUROP vision, “in the short term robots and humans will work beside each other and, in some cases, interact directly. In the mid-term robots and humans will cooperate and share space with each other, both at work and at home. Robots will perform more complex tasks without constant supervision. Only in the long term will humans and robots become more integrated and will the sophistication of the interaction increase” [29]. Such vision encapsulates several common sense ideas and some wide spread concepts. However, they may be taken into account, but explorative research is needed to improve the knowledge around such expectations.

As mentioned in the Multi-Annual Roadmap “in the context of manufacturing, the greatest potential is for functions which contribute to a reduction of programming and configuration requirements in deployed systems. There are formulated clear benefits for small lot size systems in reducing the time and skill needed to reconfigure an adapt systems to new processes” [39]. Examples, hereby, can be used from “man-robot interaction with open-end learning process, robot apprentice learning from experience, from various workers, abstraction, etc.” that will be found in several case studies. The ability levels for human interaction that are relevant will be from the level 5 (Social interaction), but a special focus will be found for levels 6 (Complex social interaction) and 7 (Intuitive Interaction). From a technical side these descriptions seem already comprehensible, from a social and organizational side, however, these descriptions seem open in its applications.

V. CONCLUSIONS

Due to the ongoing innovation process of robotics in manufacturing as well as due to the introduction of robotics in health sector the overall question is to understand how far and

286

how intensive the development of HRI in both sectors is occurring. What are the side-effects of new technical features in the field of robotics in both sectors? Which organizational changes are taking place? Which organizational challenges have to be taken into account when thinking in socio-technical concepts as described above? From a methodological point of view the comparative method seems specifically relevant because of the recent introduction of robotics in health sector. Thus, the technical and organizational analysis of these effects provides a deep insight about changes of the working environment as a whole. The introduction of robotics in health is considered as an example of technology transfer from manufacturing to health sector which also implies specific transfer of functional and organizational applications of this technology [1]. Thus, experiences with robotics in manufacturing may offer methodical knowledge when exploring application with robotics in health sector. Although the social contexts are considered as highly different one of the main question of the empirical research will focus on the functionality of this technology in order to find similarities and differences of organizing both working environments [45].

This research perspective seems specifically relevant because recent applications of robotics in surgery allow studying organizational changes in this working fields as well as possible technical side effects on the work place level. On the other side robotics application in surgery may provide the question vice versa: are there experiences, which have an influence for new and advanced applications in manufacturing? Are there new organizational models which may enrich the debates on working environment in production? Examples can be referring to operation processes in real-time with 3D simulation or with micro- and nano-products and other new materials. In both cases, the HRI elements gain relevance in developing scientific knowledge on CWE [21], [44], [46].

In a first step the analysis of robotics both in production and in health will identify problems, limits and potentials according to different models of organization under CWE. The description of technical options as well as technical limits will be based on specific methods and concepts of TA approaches [47]. In contrast to sociology of organization, this perspective focus specifically on technical features in the field of robotics while at the same time CWE will be strengthened. Hereby the side effects of technical applications will be comprehensively explored with regard to both social and organizational environments. Furthermore, TA methods imply interdisciplinary approaches and, thus, based on this scientific approach technical dimensions will be evaluated within their social (working) environments. This approach will be applied in a research project introducing the expertise from different scientific fields.

In a second step, this research should – basically based on scenarios - identify new developments in health where technical achievements in surgery (3D, augmented reality, haptics, micro- and nano-manipulation) can be applied back to manufacturing [27], [46]. The comparative method of both working environments (manufacturing and health) will,

hereby, offer important measures of the technical applications robot systems.

The use of 3D images becomes standard in surgeries with robots. Neurosurgery, for example, is using advanced approaches on imaging and precision tooling. Those achievements can be also applied to certain manufacturing developments. For example, this happens in electronics or precision metal engineering. At [48] is mentioned that “dependability of complex robot systems in anthropic domains during normal operations is threatened by different kinds of potential failures or un-modelled aspects of sensors, control/actuation systems, and software architecture, which may result in undesirable behaviours”. Other authors stress that “safety is not only an engineering issue but also a management project” [49] when they discuss about surgery robotics. But this assumption can also be applied to any other type of robot.

In fact, HRI usually considers several issues as autonomy, the level of shared interaction, availability of sensors and sensor fusion, the task content, the presence ration of robots among human work groups. But the safety is not considered in physical interaction.

From the interrelation between sectors with similar rationalized procedures we possibly may recognize that the importance of design of the HRI can be intertwined with the organization strategy for the division of labour in most organizations. And that applies possibly in these advanced sectors that can be studied in detail. Assessment as a scientific practice will analyse these processes in interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, it implies the integration of scientific and technical knowledge of professionals on the one side as well as experts and practitioners on the other side [50], [51].

In order to understand both, changes in the working environment as well as changes in the human-machine interfaces both research perspectives should be developed: (a) technology as a tool in working environment for workers and engineers and other employees; (b) technology as a medium in the relationship between health professionals and patients, and between operators and materials to be processed and transformed. In both perspectives the specific focus lies on the changing working relations when the analytic approach is covering robotic applications. Such applications imply a work environment more complex where the operator much anticipate the robot movements and actions, and must prepare the elements for its action.

Differences in the organizational model has as consequence that in some cases the operator is asked to be a passive action controller, and in other cases he/she can become an active one, with higher levels of responsibility in his/her tasks. Robots are working tools demanding higher levels of human expert interaction and that can imply significant changes in the work relations. In many cases, robot operators in the shop-floor or robot surgeons become highly skilled operators, with a large spectrum of autonomy action in their tasks (regularly, surgeons more than the shop-floor operators, due to their position in the hierarchical structures). And this qualification differentiation with the other colleagues

287

gives them further capacity for negotiation and autonomy. The differentiation of time and space within the work system introduces new qualitative and quantitative elements in the work process. For example, risk management and safety becomes an important issue and should be taken into account when introducing new technical innovations [20], [21], [40].

This paper strengthens an interdisciplinary approach to the organizational effects of robotics applications with comprehensive perspectives. These perspectives should contribute to a socio-technical concept of robotics, which includes on the one hand technical, organizational and ethical issues in order to contribute to the objectives of European strategies. These strategies must harmonize technical innovation with job involvement and job quality. On the other hand the socio-technical concept of robotics should contribute to develop new future perspectives of robotics grounded in robust empirical research [25], [46], [52].

Based on this approach, the research focus described above provides knowledge about the different configurations of robotics in manufacturing and in health. The implementation and the use of robots may introduce new common features with regard to human-machine interfaces in both sectors. In order to improve the working conditions with robots as well as to reflect the side-effects of this technology, the technical logic but also the human intention should be reflected comprehensively in this field.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors want to thank the suggestions and observations made by several colleagues in process of development of this paper, namely, Lars Dalgaard, Tomislav Stipancic, Shirley Elprama, Maria J. Maia, José Barata, Luis Ribeiro, Mahshid Soutodeh, Duska Rosenberg, Aladdin Ayesh, among others that contribute with their views and experiences.

REFERENCES

[1] C. C. da Rosa, Operationsroboter in Aktion. Kontroverse Innovationen in der Medizintechnik. Bielefeld, 2013

[2] R.H. Taylor (Ed.): Computer-integrated surgery, technology and clinical application. Cambridge, 1996.

[3] A.B. Moniz, Anthropocentric-based robotic and autonomous systems: Assessment for new organisational options. In: Decker, M.; Gutmann, M. (Org.): Robo- und Informationethics: Some Fundamentals. Zürich, Berlin, 2012, pp. 123-157

[4] R.L. Anderson and W.B. Gartner, “When robots and people work together”, Robotics, No. 1, 1985, pp. 69-76.

[5] P. Brödner, “Technocentric-anthropocentric approaches: towards skill-based manufacturing”, in: M. Warner, W. Wobbe, P. Brödner, (eds.): New Technology and Manufacturing Management, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1990.

[6] Ch. Clegg, M. Corbett, “Research and Development into 'Humanizing' Advanced Manufacturing Technology”, in Wall; Clegg; Kemp (eds.): The Human Side of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1987

[7] F. Emery & E. L. Trist, Socio-technical systems, in: Churchman, C. W. & Verhulst, M. (eds.): Management science. Models and techniques. Vol. 2, London, Pergamon, 1960

[8] F.W. Taylor, The principles of Scientific Management. New York, 1911

[9] M. Moldaschl, Organisierung und Organisation von Arbeit. In: Böhle, F.; Voß, G.G.; Wachtler, G. (Ed.) (2010): Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. Wiesbaden, 2010, pp. 263-299

[10] G. Friedmann, Der Mensch in der mechanisierten Produktion. Köln, 1952

[11] H. Kern and M. Schumann, Industriearbeit und Arbeiterbewusstsein, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main, 1970

[12] P. Brödner, Fabrik 2000. Alternative Entwicklungspfade in die Zukunft der Fabrik. Berlin, 1985

[13] J. Krüger, T. K. Lien, A. Verl, Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 2009, 58, 628-646.

[14] B. Lutz, Das Ende des Technikdeterminismus und die Folgen. In: Lutz, B. (Ed.): Technik und sozialer Wandel. Verhandlungen des 23. Deutschen Soziologentages, Frankfurt a.M., New York, 1987. pp. 34-57

[15] R. Schmiede, Rationalisierung und reelle Subsumption. In: Leviathan, 8 (4), 1980, pp. 472-497

[16] A.B. Moniz, “The Collaborative Work Concept and the Information Systems Support Perspectives for and from Manufacturing Industry”, Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, Vol. 16(2), 2007, pp. 49-57.

[17] U. Huws (Ed.), The transformation of work in a global knowledge economy: towards a conceptional framework. Leuven, WORKS, 2006

[18] I.V. Grugulois, Changing boundaries, shaping skills: the fragmental organizational form and employee skills. In: Marchington, M. et al. (2005): Fragmentation work, Blurring organizational boundaries and disordering hierarchies. Oxford, 2005, pp. 199-216

[19] B.-J. Krings, Global restructuring and its effects on occupations: towards a new division of labor? In: Anderl, R.; Arich-Gerz, B.; Schmiede, R. (Ed.): Technologies of globalization. Proc Int Conf DFG Graduate School "Topology of Technology", Darmstadt, 2008, p. 117-129

[20] P. Kidd, Organisation, people and technology in European manufacturing. CEC - FAST, Final Report, Brussels, 1992

[21] A.B. Moniz, Robots and humans as co-workers? The human-centred perspective of work with autonomous systems, IET Working Papers Series 03/2013, 21 pp.

[22] M. Hägele, N. Blümlein, and O. Kleine, Wirtschaftlichkeitsanalysen neuartiger Servicerobotik-Anwendungen und ihre Bedeutung für die Robotik-Entwicklung, München, IPA Fraunhofer, 2011, 371 pp.

[23] Sotoudeh, M. (2005) Links between sustainability and technology development. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24 (1), pp. 9-14

[24] Gallie, D. and Zhou, Y. (2013): Work organization and employee involvement in Europe, Dublin, European Foundation for Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

[25] B.-J. Krings (Ed.), Brain Drain or Brain Gain? Changes of Work in Knowledge-based Societies. Berlin, Sigma, 2011

[26] International Federation of Robotics-IFR and Metra MARTECH (2011), Positive impact of industrial robots on employment, IFR/MetraMARTECH, London, 66 pp.

[27] H.-J. Bullinger, V. Korndörfer, G. Salvendy, “Human Aspects of Robotic Systems”, in: G. Salvendy (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors, New York: John Wiley, 1987, pp. 1657–1693

[28] S. Pieskä, J. Kaarela and O. Saukko, Towards easier human-robot interaction to help inexperiences operators in SMEs, Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference pn Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom2012), Kosice, pp. 333- 338

[29] EUROP 2009. Robotic Visions to 2020 and beyond – The Strategic Research Agenda for robotics in Europe, 07/2009

[30] C. Bethel and R. R. Murphy, “Review of Human Studies Methods in HRI and Recommendations”, International Journal of Social Robots, vol. 2, 2010, pp. 247-359.

[31] S.A. Elprama et al., “Identifying barriers in telesurgery by studying current team practices in robot-assisted surgery” In 7th Int Conf on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, 5-8 May, 2013

[32] International Federation of Robotics (2011), World Robotics 2011, IFR

[33] International Federation of Robotics (2013), World Robotics 2013, IFR

288

[34] Siciliano, Bruno and Khatib, Oussama, Eds. (2008), Springer Handbook of Robotics, Berlin, Springer, 1628 pp.

[35] J. Speich and J. Rosen, “Medical Robotics,” in G. Wnek and G. Bowlin, eds., Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2004, pp. 983-993.

[36] P. Duysburgh, S.A. Elprama, A. Jacobs, “Exploring the social-technological gap in telesurgery: collaboration within distributed or teams”. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1537–1548), 2014.

[37] Bernstein, Crowley and Nourbakhsh, “Working with a robot: Exploring relationship potential in human–robot systems,” Interaction Studies 8:3, 2007, 465–482

[38] L. Dalgaard, Rational System-level Design Methodology for Autonomous Robotic Systems. PhD thesis, Danish Technological Institute, Centre for Robot Technology and University of Southern Denmark, Maersk Institute, 2011.

[39] EU Robotics (2014): Robotics 2020 Multi-Annual Roadmap for Robotics in Europe, Brussels

[40] M.S. Prewett et al., Managing workload in human-robot interaction: A review of empirical studies, Computers in Human Behavior, No. 26, 2010pp. 840-856.

[41] M. Lewis et al., Process and performance in human-robot teams, Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, Vol. 5 (2), June, 2011, pp. 186-208.

[42] S.S. Morioka, A new cell production assembly system with human–robot cooperation, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 59 (2010) 9–12

[43] ECS, Robots and robotic devices – safety requirements for industrial robots (EN ISO 10218:2011), European committee for standardization, 2011.

[44] Ribeiro, L.; Barata, J. (2006), New Shop Floor Control Approaches for Virtual Enterprises, Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, No. 2 (November),

[45] F. Wallhoff et al., A skill-based approach towards hybrid assembly, Advanced Engineering Informatics, No. 24, 2010, pp. 329-339

[46] Stipancic T., Jerbic B., Curkovic P., Context-Aware System Applied in Industrial Assembly Environment, International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 9, 234, pp. 1-10, 2012.

[47] Grunwald, A. (2010): Technikfolgenabschätzung - Eine Einführung.. Berlin

[48] De Santis et al., An Atlas of Physical Human-Robot Interaction. Mechanism and Machine Theory 43, 2008, pp. 253–270

[49] B. Fei et al., The safety issues of medical robotics, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 73, 2001, pp. 183-192.

[50] G. Bechmann, M. Decker, U. Fiedeler, B.-J. Krings, “Technology Assessment in a complex world,” International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 3(2007) 1, 2007, pp. 6-27

[51] Grunwald, A. (2011): Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research, Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, No 7, pp. 9-31.

[52] Krings, B.-J. (2013): Arbeit und Technik. In: Grunwald, A. (Org.): Handbuch Technikethik. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler, pp. 217-222

289

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)