The Social Impact of a Robot Co-Worker in Industrial Settings

CHI, pp. 3613-3622, 2015.

Cited by: 80|Bibtex|Views32|Links
EI
Keywords:
design guidelinesgroup and organization interfacessocialityhuman-robot collaborationtechnology adoptionMore(4+)
Weibo:
The introduction of collaborative robots into manufacturing organizations is poised to revolutionize how work is done in industrial settings and how workers adapt to and interact with a robot “co-worker.” To better understand these changes and guide the future design of these tec...

Abstract:

Across history and cultures, robots have been envisioned as assistants working alongside people. Following this vision, an emerging family of products-collaborative manufacturing robots-is enabling human and robot workers to work side by side as collaborators in manufacturing tasks. Their introduction presents an opportunity to better und...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • While robots have long been envisioned as ubiquitous assistants that work in day-to-day human environments, the primary use of robotic technologies have been in factories and field settings for automating repetitive work or performing tasks that are inaccessible or dangerous for humans [19].
  • Collaborative robots in manufacturing settings follow a long trend of technologies—from desktop computers to virtual agents—that are perceived by human users as having social qualities.
  • These robots represent a shift from the traditional use of robots in manufacturing settings for safe and efficient industrial automation.
  • Even computers that minimally follow this metaphor elicit attributions of gender, ethnicity, personality, and expertise to them, displays of politeness and reciprocity toward them, and disclosure of information when they divulge information first [15, 18]
Highlights
  • While robots have long been envisioned as ubiquitous assistants that work in day-to-day human environments, the primary use of robotic technologies have been in factories and field settings for automating repetitive work or performing tasks that are inaccessible or dangerous for humans [19]
  • IMPLICATIONS The themes that emerged from our analysis suggest two key implications for the design of collaborative robots: the importance of designing for sociality and the need to support a diverse set of relationships between the robot and different stakeholders
  • The introduction of collaborative robots into manufacturing organizations is poised to revolutionize how work is done in industrial settings and how workers adapt to and interact with a robot “co-worker.” To better understand these changes and guide the future design of these technologies, we conducted an ethnographic study at three manufacturing sites located in the continental United States that were early adopters of a particular type of collaborative robot
  • Our Grounded Theory analysis found four main themes of interest: (1) the close, social relationship that operators built with the robot, (2) attributions of positive and negative humanlike characteristics to the robot, (3) the wide range of social interactions that workers had with the robot for troubleshooting and coordinating work, and (4) worker responses to the morphological and behavioral characteristics of the robot’s design
  • We recommended that future designs augment the social capabilities of collaborative robots, to support the coordination necessary to perform manufacturing work and to enrich the social environment in the workplace
  • The findings of this study contribute to our broader understanding of interactions with robotic products in real-world settings, and these recommendations offer designers concrete guidelines for better supporting work and improving user experience in these settings
Methods
  • During the course of the study, the authors collected data on a number of different facets of the integration of the robot into the manufacturing environment, including motivations for purchasing a collaborative robot, the process of integrating it to the existing manufacturing workflow, organizational changes to accommodate the use of the robot, and worker perceptions of and interactions with the robot.
  • While Company 3 had a collaborative robot that had previously been deployed at an assembly line, they had decided to re-train the robot in a separate area for a new task.
  • While the authors did observe that the robot was located in a separate area for retraining at Company 3, the authors did not have the opportunity to see the robot being trained.
  • At Company 3, data collection included observations of the setup of the human-operated work-cells and interviews about how the robot was or would be integrated into these tasks
Results
  • The authors present the main findings from the analysis that provide insight into the experiences of various stakeholders with the robot.
  • Figure 3 provides a visual summary of the four themes that emerged from the analysis.
  • The authors support each theme with observations or quotes from interviews where applicable, indicate stakeholder perspectives with labels “MG” for “Management,” “MT” for “Maintenance,” and “OP” for
Conclusion
  • DISCUSSION AND DESIGN

    IMPLICATIONS The themes that emerged from the analysis suggest two key implications for the design of collaborative robots: the importance of designing for sociality and the need to support a diverse set of relationships between the robot and different stakeholders.
  • The authors suggested that future designs accommodate the expectations and needs of different stakeholders, such as improving the social capabilities of the robot not only for immediate collaborators, but for workers who have less frequent and different types of interactions with the robot
  • These improvements will help manufacturing organizations to more smoothly integrate collaborative robots into their work practices and the social environment.
  • The findings of this study contribute to the broader understanding of interactions with robotic products in real-world settings, and these recommendations offer designers concrete guidelines for better supporting work and improving user experience in these settings
Summary
  • Introduction:

    While robots have long been envisioned as ubiquitous assistants that work in day-to-day human environments, the primary use of robotic technologies have been in factories and field settings for automating repetitive work or performing tasks that are inaccessible or dangerous for humans [19].
  • Collaborative robots in manufacturing settings follow a long trend of technologies—from desktop computers to virtual agents—that are perceived by human users as having social qualities.
  • These robots represent a shift from the traditional use of robots in manufacturing settings for safe and efficient industrial automation.
  • Even computers that minimally follow this metaphor elicit attributions of gender, ethnicity, personality, and expertise to them, displays of politeness and reciprocity toward them, and disclosure of information when they divulge information first [15, 18]
  • Methods:

    During the course of the study, the authors collected data on a number of different facets of the integration of the robot into the manufacturing environment, including motivations for purchasing a collaborative robot, the process of integrating it to the existing manufacturing workflow, organizational changes to accommodate the use of the robot, and worker perceptions of and interactions with the robot.
  • While Company 3 had a collaborative robot that had previously been deployed at an assembly line, they had decided to re-train the robot in a separate area for a new task.
  • While the authors did observe that the robot was located in a separate area for retraining at Company 3, the authors did not have the opportunity to see the robot being trained.
  • At Company 3, data collection included observations of the setup of the human-operated work-cells and interviews about how the robot was or would be integrated into these tasks
  • Results:

    The authors present the main findings from the analysis that provide insight into the experiences of various stakeholders with the robot.
  • Figure 3 provides a visual summary of the four themes that emerged from the analysis.
  • The authors support each theme with observations or quotes from interviews where applicable, indicate stakeholder perspectives with labels “MG” for “Management,” “MT” for “Maintenance,” and “OP” for
  • Conclusion:

    DISCUSSION AND DESIGN

    IMPLICATIONS The themes that emerged from the analysis suggest two key implications for the design of collaborative robots: the importance of designing for sociality and the need to support a diverse set of relationships between the robot and different stakeholders.
  • The authors suggested that future designs accommodate the expectations and needs of different stakeholders, such as improving the social capabilities of the robot not only for immediate collaborators, but for workers who have less frequent and different types of interactions with the robot
  • These improvements will help manufacturing organizations to more smoothly integrate collaborative robots into their work practices and the social environment.
  • The findings of this study contribute to the broader understanding of interactions with robotic products in real-world settings, and these recommendations offer designers concrete guidelines for better supporting work and improving user experience in these settings
Funding
  • We would like to thank our contacts at the study sites for their cooperation, Brandi Hefty, Jieni Peng, Marley Crews-Hill, Chris Ward, and Catherine Steffel for their contributions to data analysis and writing, and National Science Foundation awards 1149970 and 1426824 for financial support
Reference
  • Bickmore, T., and Cassell, J. Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. In Advances in natural multimodal dialogue systems. Springer, 2005, 23–54.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Breazeal, C. Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int J Hum-Comput St 59, 1 (2003), 119–155.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Brogardh, T. Present and future robot control development—an industrial perspective. Annu Rev Control 31, 1 (2007), 69–79.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Fogg, B. J. Persuasive computers: Perspectives and research directions. In Proc. CHI ’98 (1998), 225–232.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Forlizzi, J. How robotic products become social products: An ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In Proc. HRI ’07 (2007), 129–136.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Forlizzi, J., and DiSalvo, C. Service robots in the domestic environment: A study of the Roomba vacuum in the home. In Proc. HRI ’06 (2006), 258–265.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., and Strutzel, E. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Nurs Res 17, 4 (1968), 364.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., and Powers, A. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In Proc. ROMAN ’03 (2003), 55–60.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Hirschfeld, R., Aghazadeh, F., and Chapleski, R. Survey of robot safety in industry. Int J Hum Factor Man 3, 4 (1993), 369–379.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Kock, S., Vittor, T., Matthias, B., Jerregard, H., Kallman, M., Lundberg, I., Mellander, R., and Hedelind, M. Robot concept for scalable, flexible assembly automation: A technology study on a harmless dual-armed robot. In Proc. of ISAM (2011), 1–5.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Kopp, S., Gesellensetter, L., Kramer, N. C., and Wachsmuth, I. A conversational agent as museum guide–design and evaluation of a real-world application. In Proc. IVA ’05 (2005), 329–343.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., Forlizzi, J., and Rybski, P. Ripple effects of an embedded social agent: A field study of a social robot in the workplace. In Proc. CHI ’12 (2012), 695–704.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ljungblad, S., Kotrbova, J., Jacobsson, M., Cramer, H., and Niechwiadowicz, K. Hospital robot at work: Something alien or an intelligent colleague? In Proc. CSCW ’12 (2012), 177–186.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Matthias, B., Kock, S., Jerregard, H., Kallman, M., Lundberg, I., and Mellander, R. Safety of collaborative industrial robots: Certification possibilities for a collaborative assembly robot concept. In Proc. ISAM ’11 (2011), 1–6.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Moon, Y. Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. J Consum Res 26, 4 (2000), 323–339.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Mutlu, B., and Forlizzi, J. Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Proc. HRI ’08 (2008), 287–294.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Nass, C., and Lee, K. M. Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity-attraction. In Proc. CHI ’00 (2000), 329–336.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Nass, C., and Moon, Y. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56, 1 (2000), 81–103.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Shibata, T. An overview of human interactive robots for psychological enrichment. In Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 92 (2004), 1749–1758.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Siino, R., and Hinds, P. J. Robots, gender & sensemaking: Sex segregation’s impact on workers making sense of a mobile autonomous robot. In Proc. ICRA ’05, vol. 3 (2005), 2773.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Sung, J.-Y., Christensen, H. I., and Grinter, R. E. Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use. In Proc. HRI ’09 (2009), 45–52.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Sung, J.-Y., Grinter, R. E., Christensen, H. I., and Guo, L. Housewives or technophiles?: Understanding domestic robot owners. In Proc. HRI ’08 (2008), 129–136.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Sung, J.-Y., Guo, L., Grinter, R., and Christensen, H. “My Roomba is Rambo:” Intimate home appliances. In Proc. UbiComp ’07 (2007), 145–162.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Vertesi, J. Seeing like a rover: Embodied experience on the mars exploration rover mission. In Proc. CHI ’08 Extended Abstracts (2008), 2523–2532.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2015
Tags
Comments