When a new mobile robot is implemented, it rarely goes unnoticed.
People watch with curiosity as it moves through the production facility for the first time. Employees stop, follow its movements and talk about it during their lunch break.
What can it actually do?
Can it see me?
How close can you get to it?
This curiosity is natural. It shows that employees are trying to understand a new technology that will soon become part of their working day.
But curiosity should not be left to rumours, assumptions and chance observations.
A mobile robot can be correctly installed, safety approved and technically ready for operation. Yet the implementation can still fail to meet expectations.
Not because the technology fails, but because employees never become fully comfortable working alongside it.
A robot changes more than transportation
When an AMR or AGV is introduced into a production facility or warehouse, the visible purpose is often simple.
Materials need to be transported automatically from A to B.
But for employees, the solution changes far more than transportation alone. It affects traffic patterns, routines, the distribution of tasks and the small decisions made every day.
Before implementation, employees may have had established ways of moving through the area. They know when a forklift usually comes around the corner, where congestion occurs and which aisles are often used as temporary storage areas.
Much of this knowledge has never been documented. It has developed through experience and become a natural part of everyday operations.
A mobile robot does not necessarily follow the same informal rules.
It responds to obstacles, scans safety zones and selects routes based on the rules built into the solution. Its behaviour may be logical and safe, yet still feel unpredictable to an employee who does not understand why it acts the way it does.
Implementation is therefore not only about teaching the robot how to move through the facility.
It is also about teaching the organisation how to move around the robot.
Uncertainty affects performance
Employee acceptance is often regarded as a soft issue.
Something related to communication, well-being and the general attitude towards a project.
But acceptance also has a direct impact on the solution’s performance.
An employee who is uncertain about the robot’s movements may keep an unnecessarily large distance or stop even when there is no need to do so. Another employee may move too close to the robot and activate its safety functions. A third may place materials in an aisle because it was never previously a problem.
Each individual situation may seem insignificant.
But when repeated throughout the working day, it can affect the robot’s capacity, throughput times and availability.
At the same time, a negative cycle can develop.
Employees expect the robot to cause problems, so they change their behaviour around it. This changed behaviour results in more stops, which are then used as evidence that the robot is not working properly.
Employee acceptance should therefore not only be assessed through conversations and questionnaires. It should also be considered in relation to actual operating conditions.
How often does the robot stop because of people or objects?
How often is manual intervention required?
Do problems occur particularly at certain times or in specific areas?
Are automated transport tasks still being performed manually?
These types of observations can be just as valuable as the robot’s technical data.
Make the robot less unfamiliar
A presentation, manual or information meeting can explain a great deal.
But genuine understanding often develops only when employees experience the solution in practice.
It can therefore be beneficial to let employees interact with the robot under controlled conditions. This gives them an opportunity to observe and test the situations that will later become part of their everyday work.
When employees see how the robot reacts, its behaviour becomes more predictable.
This does more than create confidence. It also reduces the risk of misunderstandings and unnecessary interruptions to operations.
From observers to participants
In many implementation projects, employees only become actively involved once the solution is almost ready.
They may have been told that a robot is coming, but received no further information.
This can turn them into observers of a change that directly affects their working day.
Early involvement does not mean that every employee needs to participate in technical decisions. However, the employees who work in the area every day may have valuable knowledge about how operations actually work.
They know where bottlenecks typically occur. They know when traffic is at its busiest. They know which pallets are often placed outside the designated areas and which tasks are performed differently when production is under pressure.
Voluntary or mandatory training?
Practical training can be offered to employees who show an interest in the robots.
This can be a good place to start.
Curious employees often become comfortable with the technology quickly and can act as local ambassadors. They can help colleagues with questions and contribute to a more positive and constructive approach to the new solution.
But voluntary participation also has its limitations.
The employees who are most sceptical or uncertain are not necessarily the first to sign up. As a result, the company risks primarily training the people who are already positive about the technology.
If an employee works close to the robots’ routes, a basic practical introduction should therefore be considered a mandatory part of their training.
It does not need to be an extensive course.
A short, focused introduction to speed, safety distances, signals and route selection may be enough to remove much of the uncertainty that might otherwise arise.
Acceptance is part of the solution
The solution’s results are not determined solely by the robot’s capacity, navigation and technical stability. They also depend on how well the organisation is prepared to work alongside the technology.
Employee acceptance should therefore be treated in the same way as safety, uptime and capacity.
The technical implementation is not complete simply because the robot can follow its route.
It is only complete when employees understand how to work alongside it.
