New research from Monash University provides insights for employers on how to smooth transition to using collaborative robots
Automation, including cobots, is predicted to increase annual productivity growth in Australia by 50 per cent to 150 per cent.
These technologies have the potential to add a further $170–600 billion per year to GDP by 2030, according to the National Robotics Strategy.
But the growing use of collaborative robots in the workplace may pose significant psychosocial risks to workers' mental health and their job security, according to research from the Monash University Business School.
The good news? There are ways for organisations to smooth the transition, said professor Herman Tse.
“Most of the time when new systems are introduced, we look at the physical hazards and psychological hazards, such as mistrust and anxiety – but psychosocial hazards include how [change] affects job security and brings on fear of redundancy,” he said.
“When faced with losing control of part of their job and uncertainty about how that job is structured, more and more people will fear being replaced by robots. This uncertainty and stress is a psychosocial risk.”
Workers who can draw on an internal well of intrinsic motivation stand a better chance of coping with big step-changes at work, Tse said. The employee who gains a sense of fulfillment and meaning in their job, and sees they have made an impact, will cope better than most.
“An organisation has to do its part to create a supportive culture and provide the resources and mechanisms so employees can feel good in general,” he said. “But, on the other hand, employees need to have a positive mindset.”
Every role includes non-preferred tasks, be they repetitive or challenging to the brain or body. A cobot that can take on that part of a job will allow its human colleague to pursue a higher level of meaningful work, Tse said.
He provides an example every desk worker can identify with: managing emails. Let’s say a technology existed that halved the time spent checking and replying to emails.
“How will a worker use that time? Maybe they can mentor other colleagues, try to build relationships with peers. Then they feel more engaged, more satisfied and respected, more valued. They are more committed to the organisation.”
To Tse, the positives of automation outweigh the negatives.
“That message is missing in the mainstream of thinking right now,” he said. “They talk about the negative side. They are missing another part, which is how the implementation of new technologies can help employees to have better well-being and help the organisations engage people.”
Automation is embedded in global manufacturing hubs, especially China, with the US catching up, Tse said. The “5G AI” digital production platform can increase productivity and cut waste.
“I believe in five, 10 or even 20 years’ time the way humans interact, work with and live with robots will be a major topic.”
Unlike robots used in manufacturing, which work in isolated, highly controlled environments, cobots come with sensors.
“They’re able to ensure safe, dynamic interaction with people,” Tse said. “It’s a closer relationship and proximity.”
Cobots are deployed in food processing and the health sector, for example, along with the automated and electronics industries. Humans work with cobots in Amazon warehouses and on the BMW production line, he said.
“The questions are: Will the human feel safe? What emotions will they experience when a machine is moving with them, in their physical space?”
Tse recently completed research which found risk assessment measures will play a big part in the integration of automation. He had this advice for managers.
“The first step is a task analysis, to look at how the human works and what will be the required physical space, to assess physical proximity and safety distance,” he said. “Then, they must design and test safety features, with sensors that detect the human working, so they can automatically slow down or stop.”
But Tse isn’t declaring a single approach will suit all applications. Organisations must consider a “human-centric framework” that draws on all the parties involved, including HR managers, engineers, frontline employees and unions.
“Try to have a common understanding about the robot first and let [all stakeholders] be heard in respectful consultation. Then, employees will be less fearful the company is going to take their jobs away – but will actually work with them.”
Cybersecurity will become even more important, with the sci-fi scenario of robot workers turning on their human colleagues. Tse suggested data encryption to ensure separation of cobot and general IT systems.
“If the main system is hacked, then the robot system will not be hacked,” he said.
Organisations that are lax about cybersecurity will induce a lot of resistance, he said. “They will create more trouble and more resentment from the workers.”
Tse’s research was funded by WorkSafe Victoria via the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research, a joint initiative with Monash University.
