Big Changes in Robotic Manufacturing

2011 is a pivotal year for industrial and service robots. In fact, we may see the marriage of industrial with service robots to be used as assistants in manufacturing. The recent launches in Europe of pi4-robotics' workerbot and Japan's Motoman's two-armed headless robot, and the anticipated 2011 launch in the U.S. of Heartland Robotics' factory assistant robot are examples of this trend.

Henrik Christensen (Director Robotics and Intelligent Machines, Georgia Institute of Technology) said in a recent ROBOTICA Forum:

In manufacturing only through use of automation can we reduce the need to out-source. Our workers are not going to be more effective in doing manual labor, but with the right tools they can be more effective and the motivation to outsource less pronounced. Companies are starting to realize that once you start an out-sourcing process it may result in all of the process going off-shore. That happened in textiles and apparel and the poster child in the IT industry is the IBM ThinkPad transformation to Lenovo laptops. Also the disk drive industry had a similar move to Singapore.

To be effective, robots have to be lower cost and higher dexterity. We are starting to see this - and the cost of integration is also coming down.

The recently released 2010 robotics industry reports from the International Federation of Robotics said:

Dramatic advances in robotics and automation technologies are even more critical with the next generation of high-value products that rely on embedded computers, advanced sensors and microelectronics requiring micro- and nano-scale assembly, for which labor-intensive manufacturing with [low-skilled] human workers is no longer a viable option.

Here are some quotes from the Heartland Robotics website that are more real than hyperbole:

Today's manufacturing robots are big and stiff, unsafe for people to be around, engineered to be precise and repeatable, not adaptable. Normal workers can't touch them.

Our robots will be intuitive to use, intelligent and highly flexible.  They'll be easy to buy, train, and deploy and will be unbelievably inexpensive.

Similar wording can be found on the pi4-robotics website and Motoman's.

Today's industrial robots are truly expert systems

Lest we forget, industrial robots encapsulate years of translating the skills of craftsmen to the mechanical capabilities of robots.  There's no other way that robots could have replaced their human counterparts were it not for the fact that the robot can do the same task equal to or better than the human.

Industrial robots in car factory

The know-how, where robots mimic human actions in the various aspects of the auto industry, represents decades of accumulated knowledge transfer by veteran craftsmen.

In welding, for example, the finish of welding varies, depending on the kind of metal used, its thickness and the power voltage. Craftsmen adjust the speed of welding by observing how sparks fly to get the best finish. From a story in Asahi:

About 10 years ago, Yasakawa (Motoman) started filming its craftsmen at work, using a high-speed camera to record their hand movements. The accumulated data was programmed into robots to enable them to perform tasks from several thousand options of welding that craftsmen had established over the years.

Because Yaskawa makes and uses robots at its main factory, it enables the company to pass along technical expertise from elders to their juniors.

"You can copy a robot, but not control technology that craftsmen created," said Junji Tsuda, president of Yaskawa. "(Exporting robots) is like shipping the craftsmen themselves."

"Chinese and South Korean makers are less likely to come up with such technology because they are more inclined to want results in the short term," said Akira Yoshino, the engineer-inventor of the lithium-ion battery.

Presently, robots in manufacturing are, except for the auto industry and welding apps, mostly involved in post processing and packaging rather than in the manufacturing process. [This latter point is not to be minimized - in fact, it is a booming area of robotics: picking, packing, packaging, processing, sorting and warehousing.]

But not general manufacturing!

The near-term future will see the gradual appearance of multi-purpose, flexible, easily trainable robots. We are likely to see the bridging between the expert systems of the past and these flexible systems of the future - in manufacturing in 2011.

I see three issues involved:

1. Robotics for Small and Medium-sized manufacturers and factories (SME's)
2. National strategies to solve important issues
3. Training and retraining people for the future

SME's are the life-blood of the middle class and the area of greatest jobs growth.  SME's create new jobs, contribute to the community, and produce needed products.

Yaskawa Motoman
Two-armed Factory Robot

A few years ago, in Europe, the EU recognized the need to support SME businesses with improved robotics - robotics that were easily trainable, safe to work alongside, relatively inexpensive and flexible enough to handle all sorts of ad hoc tasks in any quantity. The EU invested in the development of SME robots because they felt that without their investment production efficiencies couldn't be maintained and more and more manufacturing would move offshore. The SME project ended early in 2009 and the consortium members quickly brought products to market that address the needs of SME's. These include two-armed robots, safety sensors and train-by-example programming. The EU also invested in the PiSa Project which had a similar goal.  The pi4-robotics "workerbot" mentioned above is the result of that effort. Motoman's two-armed robot is an outgrowth of the SME project and is presently replacing older robots in the Mercedes factories.

America doesn't have a national robotics agenda (roadmap) just yet even though there is effort in that direction. Congress was presented with a roadmap in May, 2009. There has been some movement from the Obama Administration's Office of Science and Technology Policy including some SBA funding and some targeted areas of robotic development funding opportunities from five different government agencies. But robotics are not yet on the national agenda - there's no U.S. Robotics Initiative as there is for other areas of development.

Nor is there a real training and retraining mechanism for keeping up with the changing technological landscape. Instead, we fear losing jobs rather than understanding that we will instead change the mix of workers (as is generally the case when robots enter the picture).  Yes we have FIRST programs, and interesting robo-competitions all oriented to interest students in STEM education. But we are very lax in our science education overall and really don't have a national reeducation program for our workforce.

What America has is an entrepreneurial system of funding (which I described back in January ("Financing the Strawberry Project")) supplemented by irregular special purposes like national defense (DARPA), homeland security and space exploration. If an inventor/business has a good enough idea to get past the angel investors and on to the real VCs, he/she will get enough money to get it off the ground.  It's part salesmanship, part product, and timing, rather than an outgrowth of a national agenda to help society.

It's great to wish Heartland Robotics well but it isn't right that they are America's only knight in shining armor (if it turns out that they really are). Also, if they are successful they will be contributing to the jobs issue by changing the mix of workers from low-skilled to highly skilled. Without a retraining program in place, there will likely be serious repercussions, a lot of bad press, and slowdowns.

Bill Gates, Samsung, the government of South Korea, Toyota, Ray Kurzweil and many others are predicting that there will be a robot in our homes, companies and cars in this decade.  It truly is a political issue - one of technological complexity, national importance and economic strategy - to make sure that we don't derail ourselves with pettiness, greed, apathy and inaction.

Robotics stocks in Korea, Japan and the EU are outperforming US stocks. Why?

Robo-Stox™, a compilation of worldwide publicly traded stocks in the robotics industry and exclusively presented on The Robot Report, clearly show that America is losing the race in robotics except in two areas: medical/surgical and defense/security. Click chart to enlarge.

PPIP’s. Public, Private Investment Partnerships focused on robotic growth where it will do the most good are, in my opinion, the reason why Korea, Japan and the EU are surpassing America in robotics development.

• Korea is two years into an aggressive plan to invest $1 billion in order to be #1 in the worldwide robotics industry by 2018 and they’re spending $100 million each year in that pursuit.


• Japan has many PPIPs focused on enabling the elderly to remain independent as long as possible thereby reducing healthcare cost and providing a better life for its citizens with robotics.


• Europe has many PPIPs. One, which just concluded, focused on the robotic needs of small and medium-sized manufacturers.

When American educators from the major US tech universities presented their roadmap for our robotics industry before Congress last month, their suggestions for manufacturing had already been researched and reflected in the EU’s SME Robot Initiative. We are that far behind!

Worse, to date there’s been just one story about the presentation before Congress, and not a single published quote on the subject from any of the members of the Robotics Caucus. It's an interesting and illuminating read and I invite you download the PDF file and read it.

Led by Japan, Korea, and the European Union, the rest of the world has recognized the irrefutable need to advance robotics technology and have made research investment commitments totaling over $1 billion; the U.S. investment in robotics technology, outside unmanned systems for defense purposes, remains practically non-existing. [from A Roadmap for US Robotics]

Robotics, in all its interdisciplinary forms, will be everywhere very soon. In our homes, cars and appliances. At the hospital and in the workplace. Protecting us from near and afar. It's happening fast but not like in the movies. In America and Europe, it'll be in advanced embedded interactive systems like adaptive cruise control that now includes lane boundary awareness and will soon handle trucks and busses un-manned in controlled lanes; or in Kiva-style warehouses (no fixed shelving; few pick and pack people; heavy computer control, autonomous robots interacting with one another); or in smaller and smaller interactive medical and sensing devices.

In Japan and Korea, more humanoid-looking robots will be used for personal and factory assistants and we'll all be using exoskeletons of one type or another such as the ones being used for Japan's seniors to help them garden or Honda's factory workers who need to squat, climb and lift to do their jobs.

It's truly amazing and just beginning to get into stride. Worldwide defense spending is paying for the R&D and smart guys like Rodney Brooks are commercializing that R&D into household products.

Part of why America's robotics industry is lagging is that it is quite fragmented with all the R&D being at the behest of DARPA, NASA and the DoD and none in the commercial sector. Other than in medical robotics (which were originated by NASA), our robotic companies are integrators, engineers, software developers and resellers; not manufacturers. Even Ugobe's adorable Pleo dinosaur robot was contract-manufactured in Hong Kong!

Robotics technology – at it’s present level of technological progress - offers a rare opportunity to strategically invest to create new jobs, increase productivity, and increase worker safety in the short run, and to address long term fundamental issues associated with economic growth in an era of significant aging of the general population and securing services for such a population. Public/private investment partnerships take actions that, to date, at least here in America, have not yet begun to happen.

But that’s where we are today, not where we can be tomorrow unless we start making some decisions today!

Let’s take stock of what we do have. First, we have an established, albeit fragmented, robotics industry comprised of some of the most innovative people in the field, if not the most accomplished at this moment. Second, we have already invested in a Robotics culture at the secondary school level with Robotics Clubs proliferating and a lot of groundwork already having been done by both our competitors and the pop culture. Third, and most important, we have a history of leadership in the development and domination of new technologies once we get going in earnest; computers, microchips, pharmaceuticals, medical devices… the list is long.

It's unacceptable that, with all the stimulus money and new technology rhetoric floating around, we are not strategically investing in an industry that has the likelihood of becoming "the next big thing."

President Obama. When will you choose our new CTO?

President Obama, when will you choose our new Chief Technology Officer?

You promised to stimulate the economy with investments in roads, schools - and technology. Robotics is the next transformational technology comparable to the introduction of the personal computer. Inroads in robotics are happening at an ever-accelerating rate in every area of the industry. Yet not one single reference to robotics (except within NASA) appears in any of the stimulus bills.

How can that be?

Robotic-related public/private initiatives are prevalent in Europe, Korea and Japan. These partnerships address important social issues (senior healthcare in Japan and Europe; increased productivity in many parts of Europe; etc.). And these initiatives are making progress. But not here in the U.S.

Again, how can that be? How can we be losing at a field we invented? The first manufacturer of robots was here in the U.S. It has since moved to Japan. In the service sector, robotics is on the threshold of amazing breakthroughs in healthcare, all manner of personal and home assistance, unmanned surveillance (aerial, underwater, on-land), space, defense and security, and in social therapies (physical, emotional, training, etc.). In the industrial sector, they are moving to lower costs, make the devices easier to train, enable more autonomy, and cover more aspects of manufacturing, logistics and process control.

Yet not one single reference to robotics appears in any of the stimulus bills.

We need a new CTO and we need him now.

Thank you for your time and consideration and for all that you've done thus far.

An Open Letter to the Obama Committee Selecting the new U.S. Chief of Technology

The new stimulus bills will only help the American economy long-term if they help create domestic job-creating industries. Unfortunately, thus far, there is not one dollar in these bills to support what could be a high-growth, high-income, high-job creation industry vital to America's future: robotics. And the 20 members of the Congressional Robotics Caucus have not produced a single news item for anything robotic in the past 120 days.

Society is experiencing significant aging which impacts industry, healthcare and our daily lives. Robotics facilitates a higher degree of personal autonomy, new methods for manufacturing closer to the customer, an entirely new industry in terms of services, and new technologies for security and defense. Robots and robotics are loaded words implying replacing workers in the workforce. In fact, the opposite is true. If the U.S. were to seize the lead in this innovative industry, it could be a source of not only national income, but hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The auto industry and its ancillary businesses could almost immediately yield benefits from strategic investments in improved robotic technologies to aid their industries. Improving manufacturing productivity, after all, is one of the keys to saving the U.S. auto industry - and the millions of jobs that depend upon it.

The healthcare industry is at a similar crossroads. The current application of robotics technology to provide tele-operated surgical solutions represents the tip of the iceberg. Robotics technology holds enormous potential to help control costs, empower healthcare workers, and enable aging citizens to live in their homes longer by the use of patient monitoring robots, robotized motor-coordination, intelligent prosthetics, robot-assisted physical, cognitive and social therapy, and robotized surgery. Yet they remain unviable alternatives as these procedures are not covered by insurance.

Revolutionary technologies are available now to increase worker productivity and revitalize manufacturing, particularly in small businesses. Small scale (micro) manufacturing can utilize these new technologies to accelerate the transition of manufacturing back to America. It will take investment dollars to spur this on - to be the driving force. Yet not a dollar has thus far been earmarked for anything robotic. Nowhere! Not in any of these stimulus or bailout bills!

Robotic-related public/private initiatives are prevalent in Europe, Korea and Japan. These partnerships address important regional social issues (senior healthcare in Japan and Europe; increased productivity in many parts of Europe; etc.). But not here in the U.S. [with the exception of military, defense, NASA and security projects].

I was so outraged by these facts that I rechecked the research -- with the same result. Not a single reference to anything robotic in the House Bill, the Senate Bill or the final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. And not a peep from the Caucus. Nor from any of the Chief Technology Officer candidates.

How can that be?

Robotics is the next transformational technology comparable to the introduction of the personal computer, yet since the days when it was first established in America, almost all of the robot manufacturers have moved away from the US. Most robots are built in Europe or Japan. CMU, MIT, Stanford and a few other research centers have clusters of innovative regional robotic providers mostly funded by NASA, DoD and DARPA research.

I'm frustrated! It's hard to be hopeful under these conditions. But I do hope that you – the people on the selection committee for the new CTO – will take notice and select someone who is robot friendly, supporting his interest with strategic investments and public/private initiatives initially focused on small businesses, the auto industry and healthcare.

Perhaps Rodney Brooks (MIT, iRobots, Heartland Robotics) could be persuaded to take the job.


NOTE: This piece came from my participation in a robotics conference (International Expert Days) last week in Germany. It became clear to me that America was and is at an unfair advantage in the area of robotics because of the public/private initiatives prevalent in Europe and Asia -- and the lack of any similar partnerships here in the U.S. Hence, this article.