Collaborative robots (cobots) burst onto the manufacturing scene promising automation that could work safely alongside humans. Plug-and-play simplicity for existing factories or smaller operations, without the need for expensive guarding or supervision. While cobots certainly have their place, success ultimately depends on understanding the specific application.
While there are many effective cobots in action, some early adopters are discovering that their ‘independent’ cobots demand a lot of supervising when deployed for the wrong application. Instead of the collaborative colleague they expected, some manufacturers find themselves babysitting temperamental machines that stop working in imperfect conditions.
“There’s been significant hype around cobots, and that’s fed into some wishful thinking,” observes Andrew Hambly, Solutions General Manager at Applied Robotics. “Bullish optimism from integrators wanting to deploy new technology, and from manufacturers hoping for fast and simple solutions to complex automation challenges.
” This optimism has created an expectations gap. Cobots are often sold as the answer to cramped factory spaces, repetitive manual tasks and expensive safety infrastructure. The reality can involve more complexity, downtime and additional equipment than anticipated.
While smaller players in the industrial robotics space have led the charge into large collaborative models, it’s a telling sign that major robot manufacturers have been notably slower to release larger cobots.
“The market was, and is, justifiably excited about cobots because they have the potential to solve multiple problems at once,” explains Hambly. “No guarding requirements, smaller footprint, human-robot collaboration – it seemed like the future of accessible automation.”
The problem isn’t that cobots don’t work – it’s that the hype tends to oversell their capabilities while understating their limitations when used in certain applications.
While eliminating costly and bulky physical guarding infrastructure is a key selling point of cobot technology, the savings can be offset by other compensation needs.
If cobots can’t deliver on all their core promises, manufacturers find themselves adding equipment to compensate:
As with any automated process, safety is a critical factor. Any gripper handling real-world materials typically includes powerful pneumatic cylinders that open and close, creating potential pinch points regardless of the robot’s gentle nature.
“The safety standards around cobots are surprisingly grey,” notes Hambly. “You might think you’re getting a collaborative solution, but once you add any gripper with moving parts, you’re potentially back to needing safety guarding anyway.”
“When we evaluated one recent project, we calculated that guarding savings would be offset by actuating columns, pallet rotators and additional equipment to compensate for the cobot’s limitations,” reflects Hambly. “We recommended an industrial robot instead – better reach, speed and payload made it the simpler and more cost-effective solution.”
Cobots are not inherently problematic. They excel in high-volume electronics assembly, pharmaceutical handling and precision tasks with lightweight components in controlled environments. This is ideal cobot territory, but the issue is treating them as universal solutions rather than specialised tools. The key is to evaluate each solution based on measurable outcomes and total cost of ownership.
“We watch what operators are doing, sometimes recording videos in slow motion to understand the task complexity,” explains Hambly. “Then we determine which technology can best replicate and improve upon human capabilities.”
Sometimes that’s a cobot. Sometimes it’s an industrial robot with appropriate safety systems. Often it’s a hybrid approach that combines the best of both technologies.
While cobots have captured attention, parallel advances in safety technology are quietly transforming the entire landscape.
LIDAR-based systems enable the creation of programmable safety zones with minimal hardware requirements. Advanced radar offers sophisticated monitoring. Used effectively, these innovations can make industrial robots as collaborative as any torque-sensitive cobot, without the performance constraints.
The most intriguing development is watching the convergence of two approaches from opposite directions. Industrial robots are gaining collaborative capabilities through intelligent safety systems, while larger cobots are increasingly facing traditional robot challenges.
“Maybe the real question isn’t whether to choose cobots or industrial robots, but whether this distinction will even matter in a few years,” reflects Hambly. “As safety technology advances, collaboration might be less about the robot’s inherent sensitivity and more about how intelligent we make the workspace.”
The future of collaborative automation may depend less on teaching robots to be gentle and more on creating intelligent workspaces where humans and machines coexist in harmony.
To explore how the right automation approach can transform your manufacturing operations, contact our expert team for a discussion.
