Standardising Industrial Robotics: Moving Beyond Market-Driven Fragmentation

In industrial robotics, we often hear the same rhetoric: innovate, compete, and outpace the market. This narrative is relentlessly pushed by capitalism, which sells the idea that every business must strive for competitiveness. Yet, for those of us who have spent significant time in this industry, the truth is painfully evident: there is surprisingly little worth competing over.

Why Industry Falls Short of Real Innovation

As engineers and robotics professionals, we often hear about innovation within the industry, but the truth is that most so-called "innovations" are just slight variations on established solutions. Companies pride themselves on developing software for end-of-arm tooling (EOAT), configuring networks and I/O, and setting up safety protocols. While these tasks are critical for building functional robotic systems, they are hardly ground-breaking.

The problem however, is not the technical complexity, but the repetition. Every project, regardless of scale, requires a similar process: selecting hardware, customising software, configuring safety parameters, and setting up communication protocols. For example, an engineer may spend weeks setting up a robot to pick and place objects using a gripper. During this time, they must write custom code to control the gripper, establish communication between the robot and peripheral devices, and create safeguards to ensure safe operation. When a similar project arises with a different robot, the entire process must be repeated due to the lack of standardisation.

This repetitive cycle arises because each robotic manufacturer insists on offering proprietary software, unique interfaces, and distinct communication standards. Engineers often find themselves re-solving problems, such as integrating different hardware components, programming robots using diverse and incompatible software, and establishing communication between machines. It’s a treadmill of slight variations that fails to drive true progress.

The lack of standardisation also has profound implications for safety. Setting up safety protocols, whether it’s emergency stop configurations, sensor interlocks and so on, varies between systems. Existing safety standards, such as ISO 10218 for industrial robots, ISO 13849 for safety-related parts of control systems, and various UK directives like the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations, provide guidelines that manufacturers and integrators are expected to follow. However, these standards are often implemented differently depending on the proprietary systems in use. As a result, engineers are left to design bespoke safety solutions for each implementation, a process that consumes time and introduces risk. Despite its vital importance, even safety is treated as an area where companies must "compete," leading to inconsistencies and gaps that could be easily avoided if standard protocols were universally adopted and integrated directly into a single, unified system. This approach would ensure safety compliance is built into every robotic installation, rather than retrofitted as an afterthought.

Custom Solutions as a Market Myth

Companies in industrial robotics frequently advertise their ability to provide “custom solutions” as if each new implementation is a ground-breaking engineering feat. However, beneath the marketing language, these so-called "custom solutions" are often nothing more than slight modifications of existing templates. A robot arm configured for welding in one factory might be reprogrammed for a pick-and-place operation in another, yet both tasks involve adjusting similar parameters, end-effector positioning, speed, and safety zones etc.

This myth of customisation has led to an industry where companies spend significant resources building proprietary ecosystems rather than contributing to a shared foundation. The result is a fragmented market saturated with robotic arms, EOATs, and control systems that do not speak the same language. Each new piece of hardware, regardless of how advanced it claims to be, cannot be easily integrated into existing systems, forcing engineers into exhaustive loops of customisation. This inefficiency serves no one, neither the companies implementing these systems nor the engineers trying to make them work.

A Single Standardised Robotic System: The Path to True Efficiency

Imagine a world where a single, universal robotic system exists, a system that all manufacturers adopt as the baseline for their hardware and software. This system would feature a standardised software interface that supports common programming languages, universal communication protocols compatible with any hardware, and uniform safety and I/O configurations. In this environment, installing a new robotic system in a factory would be as simple as plugging it in, with immediate and seamless integration into existing processes.

For example, instead of spending weeks writing custom software for a robotic gripper, engineers could select from a library of pre-defined functions built on universal standards. Likewise, networking new robots into a factory's communication system would no longer require intricate custom configurations but could be achieved using standard protocols understood by all devices. This would not only reduce installation times and costs but also minimise the risk of errors.

Such a system would revolutionise industrial robotics. Engineers could focus their efforts on genuine innovation, developing advanced algorithms for adaptive control, experimenting with new materials, or optimising production processes, instead of constantly configuring basic functions. Companies could divert resources from endless customisation to research and development, exploring areas like machine learning integration, autonomous decision-making, and sustainable manufacturing techniques.

The Flaw in Market-Driven Approaches

The current market-driven approach to robotics encourages companies to create proprietary systems as a means of standing out, but this competition creates fragmentation rather than advancement. Capitalism argues that competition drives progress; however, in industrial robotics, it leads to a landscape where nothing works seamlessly together. Each new “innovation” merely becomes another incompatible piece in a puzzle that is already far too complex.

The lack of standardisation increases costs, as every installation requires customisation. It introduces unnecessary risk, as unique safety solutions must be designed for every system. It delays production, as new hardware cannot be simply dropped into place and connected. Rather than fostering innovation, the market-based approach results in the continual reinvention of the wheel, where true advancements are buried beneath repetitive, mundane tasks.

Towards a Centrally Managed and Distributed Industry

For the industry to evolve, we must abandon the idea that robotics should be driven by market forces. A centrally managed, distributed model is required where the focus is on meeting the industry’s needs as a whole rather than maximising profits. This would involve establishing universal standards for robotic hardware and software, managed by a central body responsible for maintaining and distributing these standards.

In this model, a universal software interface would allow all robotic hardware to operate on a common platform. Communication protocols would be agreed upon and adopted universally, enabling any device to connect and communicate efficiently. Safety configurations would follow global standards, removing the need for custom solutions and enhancing overall system safety.

This centralisation would not stifle innovation; it would enable it. By eliminating the time-consuming tasks of configuration and integration, engineers could devote their expertise to solving new problems and exploring the true potential of robotics. Factories could implement new systems with ease, reducing costs and improving operational efficiency across the board.

Rejecting the Market: Embracing Standardisation

The most forward-thinking engineers and companies must now reject the market-based narrative that prioritises competition and customisation over efficiency and progress. The future of industrial robotics lies in universal standards, collaboration, and centralised management. Only then can we break free from the cycle of endlessly reinventing basic solutions and focus on the real innovations that will define the future of manufacturing.

By shifting towards a standardised, centrally managed system, we can streamline the industry, reduce costs, improve safety, and finally allow engineers to apply their creativity to the challenges that truly matter. The goal is not to stifle competition, but to provide a common foundation that empowers everyone to build upon, moving the entire industry forward.

Fragmentation in the Humanoid Robot Race: A Flawed Ideological Pursuit

This issue of fragmentation and lack of standardisation has also becoming increasingly evident in the emerging humanoid robot industry. In recent years, multiple companies have rushed out of the starting gates, each creating their own version of a humanoid robot. While companies claim these robots might have different applications, ranging from manufacturing assistants to healthcare aides, the reality is far more straightforward. Humans only move in specific ways, constrained by our anatomy. Consequently, the fundamental design principles of humanoid robots will inevitably converge around a similar set of capabilities: walking, grasping, manipulating objects, and navigating environments built for human use. So why are we witnessing this fragmented race to build "different" versions of what is, functionally, the same entity?

A single unified platform would make far more sense. Is this proliferation of "unique" humanoid robots truly a sign of competition, or is it more an ideological consequence of capitalism? The drive to create different versions of essentially the same thing is less about fulfilling distinct market needs and more about asserting brand dominance in an artificially segmented market. It reflects a fundamental flaw in capitalist ideology, which compels companies to create perceived differences rather than focusing on real, collaborative progress. These market dynamics promote incoherence over standardisation, leading to a disjointed industry where innovation is stifled by the need to compete rather than cooperate. By resisting a unified platform, we are not fostering diversity; we are perpetuating inefficiency and limiting the true potential of humanoid robotics.

#GlobalManufacturingStandards #AutomationSimplified #FactoryAutomation #IndustryStandardisation #EfficientManufacturing #IndustrialRevolution #AutomationForAll #EngineeringStandards #FutureOfManufacturing #CollaborativeEngineering #IndustrialCollaboration #SimplifiedIntegration #RoboticsInnovation #SmartManufacturing #AutomationStrategy