All posts by Robotics4EU

Robotics solutions and technologies are rapidly changing society and transforming the way we live and work – with both positive improvements and unforeseen consequences.

In Robotics4EU we wish to ensure that citizens have a say when it comes to these new technologies and how they affect everyday life. Therefore, we have gathered robots which are being developed right now or have just entered the market. We have set these up in a survey style consultation.

TAKE THE CITIZENS’ AUDIT HERE

By answering the survey, you get the opportunity to have an influence on these robotics solutions, as your answers will be given directly to the companies behind the robots, who will use your feedback in the further development of the robots.

The solutions to give feedback to are various: from a robot that gives throat swabs, to a humanoid that assists medical personnel and even a solution that aims to protect farmers’ crops.

Have you ever seen a bridge collapse on TV? We only care about inspection and maintenance if it does not work. However, robotics are changing the inspection & maintenance landscape, and significant societal and political implications follow the magnitude of innovation. To pay due attention to these developments, the communication on innovation in robotics for inspection & maintenance has to play a role in informing and influencing the target groups for the successful adoption of robotics technologies.

The question on what role communications play in forming the perception of innovative technology was discussed in the workshop “Communicating innovation: What can we do better?” on May 25th, 2022. Experts explained how the innovation uptake should be supported by effective communication of innovations: explaining the benefits, tackling risks and fears of the audiences, and taking innovation closer to the general public.

Innovation & communication experts Marta Palau Franco and Juan Antonio Pavón Losada presented these topics in depth. Also, the recipe for successful innovation communication in robotics in inspection and maintenance was presented by Carlos Matilla Codesal, CEO of FuVeX.

Marta Palau Franco, project officer at euRobotics, working on digital innovation, presented how social context and perception can affect the way we communicate innovative technologies. For example, mentioning the word “drone” in 2014 and in 2022 may not bring the same images to mind to a person. This is due to changes in context and perception around the technology over the years, going from a more military-surveillance use to others such as logistics (e.g. Amazon shipping), entertainment (e.g. drone lights, filming, drone races, etc.), inspection & maintenance, agriculture, etc.

This example emphasizes that intentional engagement with the audience requires a good understanding of the different communication contexts (i.e. social, physical, cultural) and their perception or future expectations of the technology. How can we change someone‘s perception or expectations? We can do that by changing their current references or their interpretation of their prior references.

The people’s perception of innovation might not necessarily correlate with the technological level of innovation. Marta introduced how good and bad communication can create different impressions on the technology. She presented 4 scenarios depending on the level of technological innovation and perception of being innovative (by people) (see the picture below).

The Balanced scenario is where the company’s technological innovation is high and the company is perceived as such. When there is a high level of technological innovation, but the company is not perceived as innovative, we are in the scenario of the Bad communicator. Companies that find themselves in this group should review their communications and marketing strategy and plan. The scenario of the Illusionists presents a company with low technological innovation, but with strong communication and marketing skills.The company manages to raise audience’s expectations, but risks losing the audience’s trust if the technological innovation is not delivered.

To escape the trap of a bad communicator, whose message does not come across to the audience, Marta offered some advice:

• Be aware of your communication context(s).
• Do you know what people’s perception of your company and technology is? If the perception is negative, try to change it.
• Communicate strategically at different stages of technology development. Be flexible and adapt your communication strategy/plan when necessary. If you are in silence for a prolonged period, you are losing attention. Others will be filling in this gap.
• Listen to feedback provided by your audience and value other perspectives. (e.g., surveys). Burst your bubble, and let in the external input.
• Look for professional marketing and communications advice when needed. Take it seriously.
• By communicating about your innovative technology, you are changing the social and cultural context, contributing to smoother (and safer) adoption of your technology.
• Failure is part of the learning process.

The advice on building trust with stakeholders and communicating in a crisis was suggested by Juan Antonio Pavón Losada, a Project Manager Assistant at PRISMA Lab in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology at the University of Naples Federico II. Juan is working on the internal and external design and management of European projects’ communication and dissemination.

Juan presented what symptoms define inefficient communication. Firstly, the communication misses the point if it is not consistent and relies on minimal efforts, i.e., “checking the boxes”. In addition, the lack of a defined value proposition (communicating features and activities instead of value) and strategic positioning for the different audiences drives the communication astray from its goal.

How can we solve these mistakes and create efficient communication for inspection and maintenance? Juan has elaborated on the key concepts that are especially relevant in the field of inspection & maintenance. First, the goal of communication is to build relationships, not explain things. Trust, reliability and good reputation are the key goals. In the worst-case scenario, even when an accident happens, if the relationship with stakeholders is firm it will endure the crisis. The trust will absorb the impact of the issue. Also, sufficient attention to communication includes preparation for crisis – identifying who is eligible to speak? What would be the best channel to communicate? What should be the outputs: press release? Press conference? What would be the messages and possible consequences of the messages? Such preparation would help to react quicker and mitigate the crisis.

But, to build trust you need time. That means that the communication about your innovative solution has to be consistent and start early in the process. Apart from this, Juan proposed other tips for effective communication of innovation:

• To be an engaged listener, know the domain and stakeholders, and learn the domain-specific language.
• Express yourself clearly & constantly. Communication is like any relationship – don’t expect people to be there to hear you when you have time. Make some time and show up more than once each 6 months.
• Connect your content to the events happening in the world simultaneously.
• Get communication professionals to do the work and develop high-quality material.
• Engage in new collaborations & break the bubble of your organization to receive new inputs.
• Make intentional language choices and find a balance between technical language and superficial claims without evidence (see the picture below).

Even though robotics in inspection & maintenance seems to be a rather technical and hardly engaging field for the general audience, Juan encouraged the audience to pay substantial attention to communication in their projects. The due attention converts to allocated budget, planning efforts, strategic positioning, and consistency. However, the main idea for the communication in this field revolves around the TRUST, which is built among stakeholders, whether they are tech providers, projects, institutions, developers, politicians, citizens, etc.

FuVex is a practical example of the successful communication of innovative robotics solutions in inspection & maintenance. FuVeX is a start-up whose mission is to replace manned helicopters with long-range drones in power line inspection and other aerial data capture operations. Carlos Matilla Codesal, CEO and co-founder of FuVeX, highlighted the importance of the intent behind the communication – every word must serve to reach the goal, whether it is to raise awareness, attract investment or find clients. In addition, instead of talking about technical details, which might be the most exhilarating on earth for the developers and engineers, the communication must revolve around the problem you solve. In robotics, this problem is not obviously and easily relatable to the general public (compared to, for example, problems in medicine). However, the responsibility to identify this value proposition and story is not on the audience but the one delivering the message. Vanity is not a strategy. Do not get into the trap of doing things because it feels great but is not valuable for the company. If you are communicating to an audience that is neither your customer nor your investor, but it feels great at the end of the day, you are wasting the resources on the things that matter just to your ego.

The next workshop “Policy issues in Robotics for Infrastructure & Maintenance” will be held during the European Robotics Forum in Rotterdam. If you happen to participate in the Forum, you are welcome to join the workshop on June 29th, at 9.50am (CEST). The experts will discuss how AI regulation affects the domain of Robotics for Infrastructure and Maintenance, what direction the policy is moving to and what are the issues in the pan-European legislation.

One of the essential factors for widespread robotics adoption, especially in the inspection and maintenance area, is the regulatory landscape. Regulatory and legal issues should be addressed to establish effective robotics deployment legal frameworks. Common goals of boosting the widespread adoption of robotics can only be achieved by creating networks between the robotics community and regulators.

On the 23rd of March, Maarit Sandelin, Peter Voorhans and Dr Carlos Cuevas Garcia were invited by Robotics4EU and RIMA network to discuss how cooperation among regulators and the robotics community can be fostered and what are the most pressing legal challenges for the inspection & maintenance application area of robotics.

Maarit Sandelin and Peter Voorhans from Robotic Innovation Department in SPRINT Robotics have opened the workshop with the question of why robotics are important in inspection and maintenance? Speakers highlighted three main aspects: safety, efficiency and costs. Firstly, robotic solutions allow for reducing the fatalities and risks of accidents in the environments of heights, confined spaces or under-water. Secondly, the preparation work for inspection and maintenance (shutting down the facilities, clearing and cleaning the spaces, air sampling, getting the permits) is not required for inspection and maintenance done by a robot. The bureaucracy – applying and waiting for permits – is reduced as well.

However, the integration of robots faces barriers in two main dimensions: differences in cross-border standards and acceptance of robotics by inspectors. Speaking of regulatory challenges, Peter Voorhans identified the main problems:

• The regulatory framework for acceptance in robotics is disastrous at the global level
• Robotic inspections are not always allowed based on regulations or interpretation of the regulation
• A different interpretation of regulations causes issues for service and technical providers

To move further with the integration of robots into Inspection and maintenance, the Europe-wide acceptance and legislation of robots are needed. First, the acceptance of robotics (for example, remote visual techniques) by notified bodies would be a big step further. Also, the training of inspectors should involve robotics training, so the inspectors would understand the advantages and consequences of the integration of robotics and could advocate themselves for the uptake of robotics.

Different legislation and regulations across borders mean that in each country, inspection has to be performed by local certified inspectors. For example, a Dutch company is performing an in-service inspection in France. Due to differences in legislation, a certified inspector from the Netherlands is not allowed to perform the remote visual inspection in France. A local notified body needs to be involved.

Leaving aside the national & cross-border legislation issues, Peter Voornhans has drawn attention to the company-level of policies. As an example, the internal policies in DOW, chemical and plastics manufacturer, defined that people will not be allowed in confined spaces starting from 2025. This leadership position gave a strong incentive to introduce robotics and convince inspectors to use them. The internal programme ensured the recognition and celebration of robotic use cases and best practices, ensuring higher levels of robotics acceptance overall.

Dr Carlos Cuevas Garcia, a postdoctoral researcher at the Innovation, Society and Public Policy Research Group at the Munich Center for Technology in Society (MCTS), Technical University Munich, has shared his experience in following the EU-funded projects for uptake of robotics in I&M. Dr Garcia has evaluated the policy goals and results, following the cycle of the projects, as policy instruments.

From the sociology of technology perspective, robotics in I&M plays at the unique intersection of innovation and maintenance. Innovation is done by heroic people, entrepreneurs, it is celebrated, and covered in news. Maintenance is done by invisible people, it is usually overlooked. However, such projects as RIMA, bring the two dimensions together. As innovation aims at improving maintenance, what can innovation learn from maintenance? How can maintenance improve innovation?

Speaking of the policy role in this intersection, Dr Garcia has presented the innovation policy landscape from the instrument’s perspective.

In order to improve this landscape, he identified two ways forward:

1. Examine the effects of individual policy instruments on the field of I&M robotics
2. Examine the dynamics of different instruments together, and how they enable (and constrain!) the continuity of projects

The examination could be implemented considering the vulnerabilities in the policy instruments. Drawing from the experience in observing and analysing the EU-funded projects, as instruments to achieve policy goals, Carlos identified several vulnerabilities:

• The confusion between the role of the “public end-user” and the role of the subcontractor. In the case of the observed projects, the subcontractors’ input was not formally involved, even though the maintenance is actually done by the subcontractor.
• The interest of the “public end-user” and subcontractor to purchase or keep funding the technologies of the solution after the project was not sufficient
• The “public end-user” didn’t want to directly fund a technology considered risky for workers’ jobs.
• The particular policy instrument observed (Public end user-Driven Technological Innovation) was too rigid to respond to the complexities of the situation, yet too weak to provide further directions

.

Speaking of ways to improve the policy process, Carlos identified that besides technical progress (for example, going beyond technological readiness level from 2 to 5), instruments should consider other metrics of success, e.g.:

• How well do roboticists’ teams and maintainers work together?
• How do robots empower maintainers?
• How does the team co-create a vision of the whole inspection process (service logistics, transporting, unloading, fixing robots, etc.)?

Dr Carlos concluded by suggesting a couple of policy recommendations:

• We must explore the learning trajectories of different types of stakeholders involved in sequences of I&M robotics projects;
• We have to learn how to provide maintenance to innovation networks and repair innovation policy instruments by better identifying their contradictions, fragilities and vulnerabilities;
• This requires close and durable engagement between I&M experts, roboticists, project coordinators, policymakers, regulators, and sociologists of technology.

Finally, the session was concluded with a panel discussion thematizing previous presentations, and engaging the audience. As a final conclusion, the experts suggested beginning with industry-led insights to change the paradigm of policy framework on a larger scale.

By Jovita Tautkevičiūtė

Robotics4EU is a 3-years-long EU-funded project which advocates for the wider adoption of AI-based robots in 4 sectors: healthcare, inspection and maintenance of infrastructure, agri-food, and agile production. Thus, one of the ways in which Robotics4EU raises awareness about non-technological aspects in robotics is delivering a series of workshops to involve the research community, industry representatives and citizens.

The workshop “Boosting innovations and maximising societal impact. Role of Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) in I&M Robotics” which took place on the 23rd of February, 2022 analysed the role and contribution of Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) to the widespread adoption of robotics in society. How can they enhance the implementation of robotics by SMEs and startups into their daily operations? How can they help to close the knowledge gap of non-technological issues of robotics in Inspection & Maintenance (I&M)?

These questions were analysed by five experts: Ebert von Vonderen, Ladislav Vargovcik, Maria Roca, Roi Rodriguez de Bernardo and Christophe Leroux, during the presentations and panel discussions of the workshop.

Digital Innovation Hubs

What is Digital Innovation Hub (DIH) and what role does it play? Ebert van Vonderen & Ladislav Vargovcik from DIH Robotics Hub Košice explained what DIH is and how it works with various stakeholders: universities, DIH network, SMEs. In general, DIH serves as a bridge between research organizations and industry – technology and services providers, end-users and SMEs. In the case of DIH Robotics Hub Košice, technical faculties of Košice University, Prototyping and Innovation Center established the DIH.

A DIH serves as a one-stop-shop for SMEs to bring their questions. DIHs need to ensure that SMEs have easy access to technology innovation, are provided with relevant services and training for technology adoption. Thanks to the efforts of the RIMA network, DIHs are spread over Europe and interact for I&M possibilities, competencies, and share the available opportunities across Europe.

Why are Robotics DIHs important for SMEs? They tackle many challenges that arise for companies, aiming to boost innovation, enhance and contribute to robotics implementation. Some of the challenges mentioned by Ebert van Vonderen:

• High technology levels needed, complex tasks in I&M
• High Investments needed
• Competition, profitability, ROI (profitability is in many cases a problem)
• Ecosystem maturity, differences across Europe
• Resistances from communities
• Creation of sustainable solutions

An example of DIH Robotics Hub Košice’s cooperation with INETEC, high tech company that specialises in robotics, instruments and software was presented. Magic Lancer II – a robot for nuclear inspection, was developed under the cooperation of DIH Robotics Hub Košice.

How to enhance the uptake of technology?

Christophe Leroux, representing RIMA (Robotics for Inspection & Maintainance) Network explained that RIMA Network connects and inspires key stakeholders in I&M robotics and aims to accelerate innovation and uptake of robotics between these stakeholders. Its main purpose is to help digitalise European Industry. Even though the market is estimated with a huge potential for innovation (450 bn EUR/year), the bottleneck is the adoption of robotics to market – no real connection between industry and research organisations.

RIMA Network directs its efforts to establish a network of DIHs (currently, it connects 13 DIHs), focussing on robotics in I&M, fund SEMs to support experimentation, set up courses to facilitate the uptake of technologies and develop new skills, and inform people of funding opportunities for business development.

RIMA network supports SMEs by organising open calls. 15 innovative solutions were supported, with the aim to have a social-economic impact win EU with new products, services, business, established jobs, along with the reduction of costs and risks. RIMA Network provides the following services to SMEs and research organisations:

• Advising (on finances, technology)
• Proof of Concept
• Support for tech transfer
• Support for testing
• Access to Incubator’s
• Access to value chain actors
• Training and coaching
• The market study, providing information to network partners

ICT innovation for manufacturing SMEs

Maria Roca, I4MS Project Manager, presented I4MS (ICT Innovation for Manufacturing SMEs). It is the initiative promoted by the European Commission to foster the digital innovation of manufacturing SMEs in Europe in order to boost their competitiveness in the digital era. The I4MS goal is to contribute to the adaptation of European SMEs to the current digital transformation challenges by funding & mentorship, training and access to physical and virtual technology platforms. I4MS connects a community of 1700 members, 42% of them – SMEs. According to Maria Roca, the organisation has identified that geographical coverage of Europe is uneven and Eastern European countries need to be represented better in the network. Also, there is a gap in SMEs ’ understanding of technology advantages and network ability to consider SMEs’ interests.

Roi Rodriguez de Bernardo, Program Manager at FundingBox presented the AI4EU platform and funding opportunities for SMEs. AI4EU is a collaborative H2020 Project that aims to:

• mobilize the entire European AI community to make AI promises real for the European Society and Economy, and
• create a leading collaborative AI European Platform to nurture economic growth.

AI4EU aims to be a catalyst between research and industry. The platform presents available funding opportunities and various tools (research, education, ethics, services).

Speaking of the funding opportunities, Roi set the scene by capturing Europe’s position in the global AI market. The AI Business market is emerging worldwide with an estimated growth of the AI market from 40,2% CAGR from 2021 to 2028. The growing focus on AI is also evident in the EU strategy. AI strategy, set by EC offers yearly 1bn EUR funding for a period of 2021-2028, expecting to leverage 20bn EUR investments. The funding is focused on SMEs adopting AI with some cases of funding for startups or technology providers developing AI solutions that could be adopted by SMEs.

Panel discussion

The discussion started with the question of whether the EU can be a powerhouse of robotics in I&M and lead the way in the race with the USA and China, also adhering to our values? It was identified that record-high investment in the industry in 2021 shows that it is possible. Even though the USA and China did not take into account the ethical aspects EU holds, they are starting to develop regulation as well. It seems that the path set by the EU is followed now by other big markets.

Considering ethical or socio-economic aspects of most importance in the field, Maria Roca identified the management of data for SMEs as a bottleneck. The difficulty lies in the hindrances to sharing data with other companies. Further, in the case of AI, ethical aspects are evaluated in all EU funded projects. From the perspective of DIH’s provided services, RIMA’s representative Christophe Leroux explained that ethical and safety aspects are taken into account in facilitated experimentation. In practice, ethical assessment is conducted for each experimentation, involving experts in the field of ethics. On a daily basis, RIMA’s work includes mentorship on ethical issues and guidelines.

The ways of enlarging the networks were also discussed. Maria Roca identified training as a main tool to attract members and showcase what they can achieve in collaboration and participation in their open calls. Networking, as a core business of DIHs, also covers the organisation of local events with experts. Also, collaboration with social scientists was emphasised as crucial in the field of AI. Annelli Rose, representative of the Robotics4EU project noted that interdisciplinary collaboration is in line with the EU priorities, where the change is foreseen to have a breeding ground.

Zooming in to the topic of robotics in I&M the social aspect of adoption was analysed. Christophe Leroux explained that there is attractiveness for robotics adoption to support certain operations because there is not much fear of losing jobs. Robots are seen as supporting their work, for example as deploying robotics in explosive, dangerous and hazardous environments. Robots are not taking away jobs, but taking away the danger. Christophe Leroux also emphasised that there is a growth in the domain of AI robotics in I&M and the main issues are related to trust and safety.

Upcoming workshop

The upcoming workshop on the 23rd of March 2022, 11-14 CET “How to make sure regulation helps and not hinders I&M robotics? Policy issues in Robotics for Inspection & Maintenance”. We will discuss how cooperation among regulators and the robotics community can be fostered and what are the most pressing legal challenges for the I&M application area of robotics. We will be investigating how to ensure the accessibility of objective information and enhance the capacity of regulators to comprehend technical aspects, risks and opportunities of robotics in I&M. We hope to leave the workshop with industry insights and specific areas for improvement for the future, which as a project we will continue to explore in our activities. Register here.

By Anastasiia Nestrogaeva (Junior Consultant at the International Projects Team, Civitta)

Robotics4EU is a 3-years-long EU-funded project which advocates for a wider adoption for AI-based robots in 4 sectors: healthcare, inspection and maintenance of infrastructure, agri-food, and agile production. Thus, Robotics4EU raises awareness about non-technological aspects in robotics through delivering a series of workshops to involve the research community, industry representatives and citizens.

The workshop “Robots: Friends and Enemies? Social impact of Robotics in Inspection and Maintenance” which took place on the 26th of January, 2022 tackled the problem of interactions between robots and humans. How to evaluate the real impact of robotics on our society? How to decide if robots are hazardous and may complicate human lives? To what extent does society accept rapidly progressing robotic technologies? All these issues were brought up during the fruitful discussion at the workshop. Around 30 people attended the workshop, with 65% of them belonging to the research community and 10% to industry representatives. About 25% comprised the general public. The participants represented 23 different countries, mostly European ones.

How to access trustworthy AI?

The workshop initiated with the presentation of the project and a brainwriting session at better involvement of participants into discussion, then four speakers shared their expertise with the participants. The first speaker was Roberto Zicari who is an affiliated professor at the Arcada University of Applied Sciences in Helsinki and an adjunct professor at the Seoul National University. Also, Roberto leads a team of international experts who defined an assessment process for Trustworthy AI, called Z-Inspection®. The speaker enlisted 4 main fundamental principles which lie down in the EU Framework: respect for human autonomy, prevention of harm, fairness, and explicability. Also, there are 7 main requirements of the EU towards the trustworthy AI: accountability; societal and environmental well-being; diversity, non-discrimination and fairness; transparency, privacy and data governance, technical robustness and safety.

Despite the existing requirements, the EU Framework does not take into account the evolving nature of the technologies and is not contextualised according to various domain peculiarities. That is why, as Roberto stressed, Z-inspection used a holistic approach and created the orchestration process which helps teams of experts access the ethical, legal, technical and domain specific implications for the use of AI products or services. This process can be employed during the whole AI lifecycle and uses socio-technical scenarios to identify issues. Then, the team of experts map to trustworthy AI (onto the ethical categories established by the EU´s Guidelines for Trustworthy AI), execute and resolve (give recommendations to stakeholders).

Embracing our future digital colleagues

Second speech was delivered by Maarit Sandelin who works as the European Network Manager in SPRINT Robotics focusing on Robotic Innovation. Maarit explained that SPRINT Robotics is an industry-driven initiative that promotes the development, availability and application of Inspection & Maintenance Robotics around the world. There are 4 focuses which include safety improvement, cost avoidance and reduction, environmental performance improvement, and general performance improvement. Maarit explained that SPRINT Robotics is an industry-driven initiative that promotes the development, availability and application of Inspection & Maintenance Robotics around the world. There are 4 focuses which include safety improvement, cost avoidance and reduction, environmental performance improvement, and general performance improvement.

Maarit stressed that COVID-19 definitely has been increasing the interest of business in robotic solutions. A total of 88% of businesses worldwide plan on adopting robotic automation into their infrastructure to increase efficiency and safety. Also, there will be a 12% increase in shipment of robots worldwide and collaborative robots (cobots) will constitute 34% of all robot sales by 2025. The speaker noticed that many dangerous inspection and maintenance activities can be done by robots and efficiency is reached mainly through the preparation stage. However, the main barriers for integrating the robotics solution into operations are regulations. In some countries, the usage of robotics is not allowed by the legislature or its interpretations which, in turn, cause issues for service and technical providers. Maarit strongly believes that the policy changes are needed to contribute to the adoption of robots.

There are also other barriers of a wide-spread adoption. Companies would need to reduce the workforce, to modify the location where a company operates, or even to modify the whole value chain. Also, the skills gaps in the local labour markets is also seen as a potential risk which would require proper training. Talking about displacement of jobs, Maarit stated that it will continue and 85 million jobs will be displaced by 2025, but 97 jobs may appear due to new division of work between humans and machines. Maarit said there is a need to show employees that robotics is not black-and-one, and reskilling may help to save a job.

BugWright2 Project

The second half of the workshop featured the BugWright2 Project which does autonomous robotic inspection and maintenance on ship hulls and storage tanks. Alberto Ortiz Rodrigez, who works as a Professor at University of the Balearic Islands, gave the information about the goals and main activities of the project. The project has the 5-steps approach: multi robot task allocation; mission planning; autonomous inspection; data post processing and actionable data generation; and maintenance which include hull cleaning, augmented reality, defect marking. Alberto showed a few examples of robots which perform different tasks. Lasly, the speaker stressed the importance of the project, enlisting 4 potential impacts. First, it demonstrates how the automated multi-robot technologies can be deployed into a large-scale industrial problem. Second, such technologies lead to cost efficiency: fuel saving, lower service costs, no immobilisation costs. Third, it brings a positive environmental impact, as it makes the ships and tanks safer, contributes to lower fuel consumption and smaller need for antifouling. Lastly, these autonomous inspections are regulated by the World Maritime Organisation (UN).

Human-Robot-Collaboration: perspectives from work and organisational psychology

The last speech was delivered by Thomas Ellwart who works as a Professor at the University of Trier. He touched the topic of the interactions between robots and humans. While bringing up the main topic of the workshop “Are robots friends or enemies?”, the speaker noticed that there is a need to define a criteria of terms “friends” and “enemies” or, in other words, criteria of functional / dysfunctional human-robot-interactions (HRC). For psychologists, the main important issue to evaluate among the HRC is a very specific task of employees on the ship. Thomas is convinced that there is a need to reflect abstract models of robotic solutions from on-site user perspective. Talking about criteria of functional HRC, they should:

• Facilitate the proper execution of the tasks
• Protect health and increase safety
• Promote individual well-being
• Develop skills and human abilities
• Avoid under/overload demands, isolated works, task hindrances, etc.

However, a high robot autonomy causes some dysfunctional effects of high robot autonomy such as exclusion of humans for safety reasons, reduced possibilities to apply and train skills, responsibilities to react in case of failures or disturbances, and low quality residual tasks. This way, humans are excluded from the task performance, but they are still in charge of system malfunctioning. This way, a high autonomy creates the high interdependence between human tasks and robots – if a robot breaks, a task is under danger, which may postpone the accomplishment of these tasks. Also, Thomas stressed that acceptance is also a double-faced matter: overtrust is as dangerous as mistrust.

To reflect all the criteria, the psychologists look at specific tasks, asking what level of autonomy the robot has and what subtasks it performs. Is it making decisions or just monitoring and implementing action? Thus, from the user perspective, there are critical factors which should be taken into account:

• Taks (low effectiveness, high costs, hindrances)
• Technology (reliability, accuracy, maintenance needs)
• Human (e.g. trust, control, cognitive load: how many robots can be overlooked by a human)
• Organisation (e.g. different stakeholders, roles)

As one the aims of Robotics4EU is to develop the Responsible Robotics Assessment Model, a main coordinator of the project, Anneli Roose, talked about social readiness of robots. Thus, in order to determine this, it is important to figure out to what extent a robot meets a) ethical values, b) socio-economic needs, c) data issues, d) education and management issues, e) legal concerns. It does not cover any legal or regulatory requirements. The foundation to build the Robotics4EU Assessment Model is the Societal Readiness Levels, while the used tools are surveys, interviews, debates, workshops, and stakeholder forums involving the robotics research community, policy makers, and citizens.

Panel discussion

Lastly, the workshop finished with the panel discussion which brought up very controversial topics.

How to design a self-assessment model or self-assessment tool in a way it would be valid in 2-3 years. Is it possible or even relevant?

Thomas Ellwart stressed that this is a quite difficult question, as it requires to involve the users and the market. Another matter is whether the automated system will be sustainable and adaptable to the changing environment and reliable over the time which is actually a question to the developers and engineers. Roberto Zicari notices that the Maturity Assessment Model should be domain specific, as a robot assisting the healthcare is very different from the robot replacing mine workers. Thus, it is quite difficult to transfer knowledge obtained in the healthcare sector to the Inspection and Maintenance. He stressed that it would be very interesting to create an interdisciplinary working group focused on several domains and try to assess societal readiness level.

Are the regulatory barriers significant? Are these barriers in the EU regulations or/and national regulations?

Thomas Ellwart states that there are 2 difficult matters: safety and data protection, which come together if we are talking about the regulation on AI. Roberto Zicari mentioned that the EU proposed the first AI Regulation Act, aimed at regulating any AI-based systems and solutions which is based on the risk assessment approach. This proposed act looks at AI mainly as a software, opposite to the classical definition. However, which exact composition of hardware and AI poses high risk and low risk? Thus, Roberto stressed that there is a need for discussions among researchers, law community and industry experts. Some participants also noticed that the regulatory framework would need to be adapted to the cultural differences all around the world.

Upcoming Workshop

The upcoming workshop on the 23rd of February 2022, 11-14 CET “Boosting Innovations and Maximising Societal Impact. Role of Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) in Robotics for Inspection & Maintenance”. We will look at digital innovation hubs as a way to connect institutions and SMEs, helping to close the knowledge gap of non-technological issues of robotics in Inspection & Maintenance. We will focus on opportunities which bring SMEs and tech startups together and how they can potentially boost their innovations in the respected area. The workshop will feature representatives from digital innovation hubs, as well as industry experts.