Market Study on European Service Robotics

Transcription

1 eurobotics The European Robotics Coordination Action Grant Agreement Number: Instrument: Coordination and Support Action (CSA) Market Study on European Service Robotics Martin Hägele Deliverable D3.3.1 Lead contractor for this deliverable: Fraunhofer IPA Due date of deliverable: Dec 31, 2012 Actual submission date: February 6, 2012 Dissemination level: Public Revision: 1.0

2 Executive summary The almost 100,000 service robot systems (SRSs) currently in use in commercial applications around the world bear testimony to the technical feasibility and economic profitability of automating a wide range of service activities. Despite this fact, penetration of the service sector market by service robots is progressing slowly both with regard to the breadth of application and also in terms of the numbers in use. According to forecasts, it will be 2020 to 2025 before service robots have reached a global market volume equivalent to that of today s industrial robots, which currently stands at over $20bn (~ 15bn). In eurobotics, the deliverable Market study on European Service Robotics reports of initiating a European robotics survey as an extension to the well-established World Robotics yearbook. Furthermore, the deliverable contains topical case studies on service robotics profitability for identifying key decisional factors affecting the market success and diffusion of robots. For three scenarios in robotics (rehabilitation, care-giving, medical and robot assistant in manufacturing) cost analysis, return on invest calculations, further quantitative and qualitative factors which affect the investment decision for a (service) robot, are elaborated. Statistically, the situation with regard to commercial service robotics can be drawn as follows: The number of service robots in use in both commercial applications and domestic/private applications is on the rise (average growth of over 10% per year since 2003). Service robots for professional applications are specialized systems produced in small numbers (often no more than a few thousand) for widely divergent target markets. These robots are already having a significant impact in areas such as agriculture, surgery, logistics and underwater applications and are growing in economic and social importance. Such service robots employ not only similar technologies and components, but also similar development, production and, in some cases, sales processes to those for novel industrial robots or autonomously guided vehicles. This fact contributes to the strong position of European suppliers in this field. The supplier structure is heterogeneous: manufacturers of industrial robots offer solutions for surgical and therapeutic applications, while mechanical engineering companies use robot technologies to increase the degree of automation of their products (e.g. concrete booms, cleaning robots, milking robots, sewer inspection robots, etc.) There are start-up enterprises offering novel products for niche applications, such as robotic studio cameras or DIY store information systems. Even small start-ups distribute on a Europewide or even worldwide basis in order to maximize the sales volume of their products and services in the latest niche markets. At present, the robotics market for domestic/private applications is extensively confined to robotic vacuum-cleaners, lawnmowers and toys. Product appeal is based to a large extent on fascination and curiosity. This market is currently dominated by Asian suppliers. In the topical case studies on service robotics for evaluating the market potential and decisional factors of purchase for the considered service robot solutions the following core messages have been identified: Lowering of the acquisition costs will not normally be the principal lever for improved profitability of a service robot concept. For the applications examined in the present study, economies-of-scale effects, which are frequently cited in this connection as the road to improved profitability, are of secondary importance as compared with a reduction in operation and/or maintenance costs. Furthermore, none of the investigated target markets provides evidence that added qualitative benefits will be of major decision-making relevance in cases where a service robot concept is clearly unprofitable. This means that qualitative factors will not normally be able to make up for an absence of economic profitability. Finally, economic profitability does not necessarily go hand in hand with a high rate of exploitation of market potential. In some markets, it is a lack of suitable financing possibilities that seems to act as a significant obstacle despite a sometimes highly positive assessment of profitability. This situation can perhaps be addressed by new business models (such as leasing schemes) on the part of suppliers. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 2 of 32

3 Content Content Introduction European Service robotics statistics development Statistical method Statistics and forecasts 2010 and Service robots for professional applications: Statistics and forecast Service robots for personal and domestic use: Statistics and forecast Service robot forecasts for 2012 to Methodology: Cost-benefit-considerations in a nutshell Digression: A brief remark on unit costs Remarks on cost-benefit considerations Remarks on benefit factors Remarks on market analysis Remarks on general economic aspects for professional service robots Scenarios Assistants in manufacturing Rehabilitation/care-giving ( provisioning of care utensils ) Acceptance of service robotics solution in care giving Medical robots Diagnostic systems Robot-assisted surgery and therapy Rehabilitation systems References eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 3 of 32

4 Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Introduction The objective of this deliverable is to sum up the past work on the efforts which had been generated out of eurobotics towards promoting market studies and forecasts of service robots on a European level. In addition opportunities and major constraints on further diffusion of service robotics in three example product categories (rehabilitation/care-giving, medical, and robot assistants in manufacturing) are analyzed where particular attention is paid to the exploration of a possible market introduction of possible lead products. In 1999, service robots were assessed statistically for the first time through a joint publication by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE). Prior to this effort a suitable classification scheme for the heterogeneous domain of service robots and a data collection scheme have been worked out and adapted to the market developments ever since. Today, the World Robotics yearbook on Service Robotics has established itself as the reference publication in statistics, market forecasts, and product overview. Robot suppliers, media, government bodies, financial analysts and technology scouts are among its readers. In eurobotics first steps were initiated towards extending the world-wide World Robotics report by a European robotics survey. European service robotic surveys were distributed annually via euron-dist that included statistics, forecasts, and a list of robot manufacturers and their categorization regarding their core product profiles [1]. Fraunhofer IPA has assumed the lead in this long-term venture to adapt statistical schemes, support market studies (worldwide service robotics activities), forecasts and assessments regarding critical service robot product categories. Despite its widely acknowledged market potential ( a robot in every household ), service robotics is still challenged by providing attractive cost-for-value solutions. The conventional approach in robotics research and development towards improving the cost side of robots has been to adapt low-cost mass-market components (mainly sensors and drives) in order to exploit their performance for key robotic functions such as mobile navigation or the recognition of objects, environments or persons. In order to understand the challenges and obstacles of service robot innovation, three critical markets (rehabilitation/care-giving, medical, and robot assistants in manufacturing) will be analyzed on a caseby-case basis. Particular attention is paid to the simulation of the market introduction of a lead product (product that opens the market) with regard to economical decisions by the end-user to invest into such an innovation. Typical lead products will be identified for the above mentioned markets and the market environments. Also important are decisional factors such as cost, standards, regulations, and policies relating to the specific (service)-robot product will be systematized and cost analysis, return on invest and further factors which potentially effect the product s market success will be worked out and discussed. 2. European Service robotics statistics development 2.1 Statistical method Currently there are some 250 companies worldwide involved into the development, manufacturing, sales and distribution of service robot systems and related components. The data base of companies is continuously expanded. Basis for new contacts are news services, blogs, trade fairs and publications. These contacts are collected by Fraunhofer IPA and made available to IFR and EUnited Robotics for further data inquiries. It is estimated that today close to 300 product ideas, demonstrators, prototypes and products in service robotics are documented for almost any kind of (physical) tasks. These service robot types are systematized into a service robot classification scheme which has been under development since the year For personal/domestic robots (see chapter 2.2.1) and professional service robots (chapter 2.2.2), the 2012 classification scheme of service robot according to application areas and types is shown in the following table: eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 4 of 32

5 Chapter 2 European Service robotics statistics development Types of service robots I Service robots of personal/domestic use 1-6 Robots for domestic tasks 1 Robot companions/assistants/humanoids 2 Vacuuming, floor cleaning* 3 Lawn mowing* 4 Pool cleaning 5 Window cleaning 6 Others 7-9 Entertainment robots 7 Toy/hobby robots** 8 Multimedia robots 9 Education and research** Elderly and handicap assistance 11 Robotized wheelchairs 12 Personal aids and assistive devices 13 Other assistance functions 14 Personal transportation (AGV for persons) 15 Home security & surveillance 16 Other Personal / domestic robots II Professional service robots Field robotics 17 Agriculture 18 Milking robots 19 other robots for livestock farming 20 Forestry and silviculture 21 Mining robots 22 Space robots 23 Others Professional cleaning 24 Floor cleaning 25 Window and wall cleaning (including wall climbing robots) 26 Tank, tube and pipe cleaning 27 Hull cleaning (aircraft, vehicles etc.) 28 Other cleaning tasks (pool cleaning) Inspection and maintenance systems 29 Facilities, plants 30 Tank, tubes, pipes and sewer 31 Other inspection and maintenance systems Construction and demolition 32 Nuclear demolition & dismantling 33 Building construction 34 Robots for heavy/civil construction 35 Other construction and demolition systems Logistic systems 36 Courier/Mail systems** 37 Factory logistics (incl. AGVs for factories)** 38 Cargo handling, outdoor logistics 39 Other logistics Medical robotics 40 Diagnostic systems 41 Robot assisted surgery or therapy 42 Rehabilitation systems 43 Other medical robots Rescue und security applications 44 Fire and disaster fighting robots** 45 Surveillance/security robots 46 other rescue and defense robots Defense applications 47 Demining robots 48 Unmanned aerial vehicles 49 Unmanned ground based vehicles (e.g. bomb fighting)** 50 other defense applications 51 Underwater systems** eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 5 of 32

6 Chapter 2 European Service robotics statistics development 52 Powered Human Exoskeletons 53 Mobile Platforms in general use Public relation robots and joy rides 54 Hotel and restaurant robots 55 Mobile guidance, information robots 56 Robots in marketing 57 Robot joy rides* 58 Others (i.e. library robots)** 59 Other professional service robots not specified above A questionnaire is sent out to the mentioned 250 service robot companies worldwide. It is based on the above given categories and collects past sales and a collective four year forecast both in units and in values. Currently, the statistics are differentiated for Europe, Americas (North America, Canada) and Asia. Only those numbers which are reported or can be retrieved with confidence (from company news, annual/quarterly reports) make it into the statistics. Therefore, the given statistics are a conservative estiamate. This is particularly evident in the categories of defense related applications where company response rates are weak. 2.2 Statistics and forecasts 2010 and 2011 Europe has developed a globally successful robotics industry, particularly in industrial robotics, with a market share of around 30%. Robot systems are aimed at empowering European citizens in key areas of activities: Industrial robots constitute an essential part of Europe s industrial manufacturing backbone. Without the use of robotics in these industries, cost-effective and high-quality production would be impossible because of Europe s high labour costs. The competitive position of Europe s industrial robotics industry remains strong, although Asian robot manufacturers are quickly catching up (Figure 1). Industrial robot installations have fallen short of expectations particularly in general (non-automotive) industries due to weak growth in EU manufacturing. There are significant application opportunities for service robotics with an impact on everyday life, in both a professional and a domestic setting. Service robots for professional applications are already having a significant impact in areas such as agriculture, surgery, logistics and underwater applications and are growing in economic and social importance. Such service robots employ not only similar technologies and components, but also similar development, production and, in some cases, sales processes to those for novel industrial robots or autonomously guided vehicles. This fact contributes to the relatively strong position of European suppliers in this field and the turnover generated (see Figure 2). Robotics in personal and domestic applications has experienced strong global growth with a few mass-market products: floor cleaning robots, robo-mowers and robots for edutainment. This market is currently dominated by Asian suppliers. Future product visions point to domestic robots of higher sophistication, capability and value, such as assistive robots for supporting the elderly, for helping out with household chores and for entertainment. Driven by constantly evolving security threats, there is a growing need to monitor everyday environments, which results in increased and difficult-to-manage workloads and data flows. To help meet this need, robots will play an ever greater role in the security market. The use of robots is vital in space exploration; it is inconceivable that future manned missions, either in Earth s orbit or interplanetary, will not be preceded or augmented by the use of robots. The role of robots in unmanned exploratory missions is set to take on even greater importance. In Europe, some 250 universities and research institutes are conducting research into various fields of robotics-related technologies. A key reason for Europe s world-class position in robotics education and research is attributable to effective research funding by the EC and to national initiatives as well as to the well-established culture and spirit of collaboration within the robotics research community. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 6 of 32

7 Chapter 2 European Service robotics statistics development Sales 120 [units] US$8.5bn Robot market Asia EU Americas ~US$26bn Robot automation market size 2% Automotive Manufacturing industry all other industries 0 0 Annual supply in units of industrial robots; anticipated growth in European industrial robot projected at 2% Robot density (expressed in number of robots per persons employed) for 2011 Figure 1: Annual sales and status of industrial robotics (source IFR World Robotics, IPA) Europe Americas Asia/ Australia Annual sales in units for professional service robots by region of origin (source: IFR, IPA) Figure 2: Annual sales figures in service robotics by region of origin 0 Europe Americas Asia/ Australia Annual sales in 1,000 numbers for domestic service robots (robo-cleaner, lawn mower, entertainment) Service robots for professional applications: Statistics and forecast The following material had been mostly distributed in news-letters (euron-dist) among the European Robotics community and been presented at the occasion of the EU competitiveness week. The total number of professional service robots sold in 2011 rose by 9% compared to 2010 to 16,408 units up from 15,027 in The sales value increased by 6% to US$ 3.6 billion. Since 1998, a total of more than 110,000 service robots for professional use have been counted in these statistics. It is not possible to estimate how many of these robots are still in operation because of the diversity of these products. Some e.g. underwater robots might be more than 20 years in operation. Figure 3 sums up the most important market figures. Others like defense robots may only be for a short time in operation. With 6,570 units, service robots in defense applications accounted for 40% of the total number of service robots for professional use sold in Thereof, unmanned aerial vehicles seem to be the most important application as their sales increased by 11% to 5,053 units. The total number of field robots mainly milking robots - sold in 2011 was about 5,000 units, accounting for a share of 31% of the total unit supply of professional service robots. The sales value of field robots increased by 18% to US $879 million, accounting for about 25% of the total value of professional service robot sales. The continued considerable increase of sales demonstrates that milking robots are well established. Sales of medical robots increased by 13% compared to 2010 to 1,051 units in 2011, accounting for a share of 6% of the total unit sales of professional service robots. The most important applications are robot assisted surgery and therapy with 994 units sold in 2011, 14% more than in The total value of sales of medical robots slightly decreased to US$ 1,347 million, accounting for 38% of the total sales value of the professional service robots. Medical robots are the most valuable service eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 7 of 32

8 Chapter 2 European Service robotics statistics development robots with an average unit price of about US$ 1.5 million, including accessories and services. Therefore, suppliers of medical robots increasingly provide leasing contracts for their robots. Due to more companies reporting their data and thus better information coverage, the data for logistics systems were revised. 2,141 logistic systems (courier and mailing factory logistic systems, which were mainly automated guided vehicles for factories) were installed in 2011, 3% less than in 2010, accounting for 13% of the total sales of professional service robots. 1,616 were supplied as well as 515 factory logistic systems which were mainly automated guided vehicles AGVs for factories. Other professional service robots with lower units sales are construction and demolition systems, robots for professional cleaning, inspection and maintenance systems, rescue and security robots, mobile robot platforms and underwater systems. Underwater systems are among the most valuable professional service robots with a unit price of about US$850,000. In 2011, about 2.5 million service robots for personal and domestic use were sold, 15% more than in The value of sales increased by 19% to some US$636 million. Annual sales [units sold] Main application Annual sales [units sold] Other application categories Annual sales [ * US$1000] Defense not shown Average unit cost: US$1.3m Milking robots units (EU) Average unit cost: ~US$1.1m Less act ivity than expected Accumulated sales 2011: US$3.57bn, +9.2% 2010: US$3.35bn Sales 2011 Sales 2010 Little activity due to lacking economics Figure 3: Sales numbers of professional service robots in 2010 and 2011 worldwide. Please observe the scales of units in the figure above. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 8 of 32

9 Chapter 2 European Service robotics statistics development Service robots for personal and domestic use: Statistics and forecast Service robots for personal and domestic use are recorded separately, as their unit value is generally only a fraction of that of many types of service robots for professional use. They are also produced for a mass market with completely different pricing and marketing channels. So far, service robots for personal and domestic use are mainly in the areas of domestic (household) robots, which include vacuum and floor cleaning, lawn-mowing robots, and entertainment and leisure robots, including toy robots, hobby systems, education and research. A brief survey in terms of 2010 and 2011 figures is given in Figure 4. Handicap assistance robots have not taken off to the anticipated degree in the past few years. In 2011 however, this market seemed to start up. 156 robots were sold, up from 46 in This is still quite a low number but the prospects are promising. A lot of national research projects in many countries concentrate on this huge future market for service robots. In contrast to the household and entertainment robots, these robots are high-tech products. The market of robots for personal transportation as well as home security and surveillance robots will gain importance in the future. In 2011, it was estimated that 1.7 million domestic robots, including all types, were sold. The actual number might, however, be significantly higher, as the statistical survey is far from having full coverage in this domain. The value was about US$ 454 million. As for entertainment robots, about 841,000 units were counted in 2011, 12% more than in Numerous companies, especially Asian ones, offer low-priced toy robots. But among those mass products there are increasingly more sophisticated products for the home entertainment market. Since many years, the LEGO Mindstorms programme has belonged to the more high quality products. The total value of the 2011 sales of entertainment robots amounted to US$ 166 million. Annual sales [in Mio. US$] Forecast (accumulat ed) Tot al sales 2011: 2.5m units, US$0.64bn US$250/unit Photo Sources: Samsung neato xv Aldebaran NAO Festo Robotino Friendly Robotics 0 Household robots Entertainment, leisure robots Figure 4: Worldwide sales in value 2011 and 2011 in personal/domestic service robots 2.3 Service robot forecasts for 2012 to 2015 Turning to the projections for the period , sales forecast indicate an increase to about 93,800 units with a value of US$ 16.3 billion. Thereof, about 28,000 robots for defence applications will be sold in the period They are followed by milking robots with about 25,800 units. This is probably a rather conservative estimate. These two service robot groups make up 57% of the total forecast of service robots. Figure 5 gives a brief overview of the market forecast. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 9 of 32

10 It is projected that sales of all types of robots for domestic tasks (vacuum cleaning, lawn-mowing, window cleaning and other types) could reach almost 11 million units in the period , with an estimated value of US$ 4.8 billion. Sales of all types of entertainment and leisure robots are projected at about 4.7 million units, with a value of about US$ 1.1 billion (see respective table and figures). Sales of robots for elderly and handicap assistance will be about 4,600 units in the period of This market will increase substantially within the next 20 years. Annual sales [in Mio. US$] Accumulat ed f orecast s: US$16.3bn units Accumulat ed sales [unit s] Value Units Figure 5: Statistics of service robotics in professional applications 2012 to 2015 in accumulated sales (units and values) 3. Numerous companies are currently engaged in development or economic activity in the various robotics sectors, however growth in the service robotics market has so far failed to live up to expectations. Significant challenges are a lack of or insufficient maturity of the required technologies and knowledge, combined with difficulties in relation to integration into complex yet dependable mechatronic systems. Also, there are problems in developing new and potentially complex markets while ensuring the safety of complex systems that must inherently interact with humans, as well as problems in meeting requirements with regard to autonomy and robustness in real-world applications. 3.1 Methodology: Cost-benefit-considerations in a nutshell Cost-benefit-analyses in general deal with the question if a project is worthwhile investing time and money (or other resources) into it. Cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) does not stand for one specific evaluation technique: it is rather a collective term for a variety of approaches to assess the intrinsic value of a project or project alternatives. Two well-established methods highlighting the cost side are Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). These well-established methods are related since they try to unveil all costs pertinent to investments. 1 This is done by examining the entire time of utilization of the object of investigation. 1 Norris, G. A. (2001): Integrating Life Cycle Cost Analysis and LCA. In: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 6 (2), pp eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 10 of 32

11 A complete set of methods for determining a service robot s technical and economic feasibility has been recently developed and systematically verified on a set of scenarios. This study EFFIROB (in German), including an Excel-based LCC-tool is free for download. 2 The methods focus on practical engineering and business-management techniques especially Axiomatic Design (AD) as well as Life Cycle Costing (LCC) analysis. The combination of these methods guarantees an evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of the service robot scenarios from the user's viewpoint. The central idea of LCC is that products usually generate costs over different phases, ranging from their development over acquisition and use to disposal. A LCC analysis can be executed from the producer s perspective or from the end-user s point of view. The TCO approach does not explicitly discriminate between phases, the focus is rather on the dichotomy of direct and indirect costs. Direct costs arise from acquisition, maintenance, support and also administration. Indirect costs are caused by non-productive or inefficient use of the respective asset. Other than the LCC, the TCO analysis focuses only on the end-user s (the owner's) perspective. Both approaches are not standardized which might be owed to the heterogeneity of goods. Thus, it is vital to identify the primary cost drivers of the industry where the analysis is to be applied. In the service robot industry, the major cost pools for the end-user stem from: Acquisition Installation Operation and maintenance Quality measures (prevention, appraisal and handling of failures) Education and training of personnel Digression: A brief remark on unit costs Notwithstanding the fact that unit production costs are only part of the whole cost structure, manufacturers and investors very often demand an estimate of the unit costs for a certain robot system in very early phases of its development process. Whereas assigning direct costs (e.g. person hours per unit, used materials etc.) is a straightforward process, calculating and imposing the fraction of the total unit costs caused by indirect costs and special production costs poses a challenge which is subject of on-going debates in costing and controlling. Common practice is to use burden rates relying on experience values in order to assign indirect costs to produced units, using the direct cost as a base to be multiplied with a percentage ratio for each of the indirect cost types. The problem of this method is that it can breach the causality principle, i.e. costs are burdened on units which did not cause these costs and thus distort the true costs of the production of one unit. On the other hand, neglecting costs that are difficult to allot directly to production probably will drive any enterprise into bankruptcy. The dilemma becomes evident with special production costs costs that are obviously tied to the product but only occur once, no matter how many units are produced. Creating software for robotics is an instance of this cost type which grows increasingly significant for the complete service robot product. Especially in circumstances where it is hard to estimate the total turnover for a robot system, difficulties arise concerning the correct repartitioning of the software development costs. This paragraph cannot offer a solution to this predicament but just aims at raising conscience that: Solely regarding unit costs equals denying the importance of other costs (e.g. operating costs for the user) and Figuring out the unit costs of a specific service robot is subject to the respective accounting philosophy, i.e. there is not one 'true' solution Remarks on cost-benefit considerations One setback of these methods is their sole concern for the cost side, neglecting benefits. Thus, they should always be employed in conjunction with other approaches scrutinizing the returns in order to 1 2 Ellram, L. M. and Siferd, S. P. (1993): Purchasing: The Cornerstone of the Total Cost of Ownership Concept. In: Journal of Business Logistics, 14 (1), pp Hägele, M.; Blümlein, N.; Kleine, O.: Economic analysis of new service robot applications and their relevance for robotics development (EFFIROB). (in German); English edition end of eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 11 of 32

12 reveal the profitability of an investment. The standard method for this is to analyze the ratio of money (or resources) gained or lost on an investment relative to the amount of money (resources) invested, the so-called Return On Investment (ROI). The amount of money invested is calculated as the net present value of all pertinent assets, i.e. capital pertinent to the ownership and use of the asset invested. However, some effects are at least difficult to express in pecuniary terms (e.g. saving a human s life). In that case the Cost-Utility-Analysis (CUA) might be the more meaningful tool. 3 The CUA tries to consider non-monetary effects with the objective to point out the best among several alternatives. The simple CUA achieves this by first assigning weights to each criterion, then allotting a degree of performance to each item of each alternative and finally aggregating the products of each criterion weight and parameter value. This procedure yields an ordered list of preferred alternatives, the one with the highest overall score being considered the best. 4 The CBAs presented here tend towards the qualitative CUA-style as they do not attempt to measure correct quantities, but rather compare the degree of performance of the particular robotic solution in relation to the existing (non-robotic) technology Remarks on benefit factors Table 3.1 shows the most relevant benefit factors, their consequences for domestic and professional user where applicable. They are ordered from hard to soft, keeping in mind that such an ordering can only be a rough approximation. Factors Higher work quality and productivity Domestic user -n/a- Potential consequences for: Professional user higher product quality less material waste/less rejects Reduction of manual work more leisure time less salary payments Benefits Increased safety, risk avoidance Increased operational availability, temporal flexibility higher quality of life -n/a- lower salaries for dangerous professions less work accidents causing non-productive time higher output/higher throughput lower energy costs New, previously unavailable service higher quality of life unlocking/developing new markets Status, PR effect higher quality of life image of an innovative enterprise increase of public awareness Table 3.1: Benefit factors for using service robots Remarks on market analysis In order to estimate the potential demand for a service robot concept, it is necessary, alongside an evaluation of the economic profitability of the concept, to undertake a detailed analysis of the structure of the relevant target market. The main focus of this analysis is the investment behaviour of the particular target group. Key parameters in this connection include: The size of the market. The number of enterprises with potential demand in a given market constitutes a first important metric for characterizing the size of the market for a service robot use case. 3 4 Keeney, R. L.; Raiffa, H. (1976): Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley. Under the premise of certain conditions being fulfilled e.g. transitivity and completeness of preferences. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 12 of 32

13 The size structure and concentration of the target market. Investment in service robots will normally place great demands on the ability of the relevant enterprise to finance such an investment. Such demands relate, in particular, to the absolute level of funding available to the enterprise for investment which tends to increase in line with the enterprise s propensity to innovate and with growing size of enterprise. It is also important to take into consideration the degree of concentration in the potential market. The economic situation. The economic situation of those enterprises or organizations that make up the market is a further parameter that must be taken into consideration in the use case scenarios. If the returns achieved by potential customers are poor and their markets are shrinking, experience suggests that innovative products from suppliers of service robots will meet with less demand than in markets that are flourishing. The investment quota. The investment quota among potential customers in a market for service robotics represents another important piece of market data that needs to be taken into consideration in a use case scenario. If potential customers have a low propensity to invest, it will be more difficult to develop a market for a service robotics use case. Innovation behaviour. The innovation culture of a market, is equally significant as an attribute for characterizing a market for service robotics applications. In markets with a low propensity to innovate, it will be considerably more difficult to sell innovative products. Based on the thus defined market structure analysis, the next step consists in estimating the respective market potential using both a top-down and also a bottom-up process, with reference to the total funding available in the respective market for investment (capital expenditure). Figure 6 outlines this process: Defining the basic population. A service robot concept will normally be relevant only for a section of the total market. That target market is defined using a top-down process by estimating the number of relevant enterprises. This estimate is based on statistical data as well as on pertinent studies. Estimating the total capital expenditure. Based on the thus defined target group, a bottomup estimate is made of the total funding available to those enterprises for capital expenditure. This is done by extrapolating the average capital expenditure per enterprise (or based on an alternative suitable reference parameter) to the target group as a whole. The principal starting point for this estimate is the previously mentioned market structure analysis. Estimating the maximum market potential. Next, total capital expenditure is broken down to reveal the funding available for investment in service robots. This is done by estimating the capital expenditure on service robots as a share of the gross capital expenditure on plant and equipment. As there are usually no suitable statistical data or studies available for this purpose, this estimate is made on the basis of evidence from experts. Estimating a realistic exploitation of market potential. Having been thus identified, the market potential must finally be narrowed down to a realistic degree of market potential exploitation. This is done based on the results of the Economic analysis and also using suitable plausibility checks. Such checks are frequently omitted under real-world conditions. As the process is predicated on top-down estimates, the calculated market potential should always be viewed against the background of the characteristics of the relevant target group (market structure analysis). eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 13 of 32

14 Identify basic population Businesses Estimation of funds available for SR e.g. TEUR p.a. Whole market Part market Target market of application Bottom-Up Total investment Technical equipment Maximum contingent for SR Realistic contingent for SR % % % 1. Identify basic population (Top-Down) 2. Estimate total investment (Bottom-Up) 3. Estimate maximum market potential (Top-Down) 4. Estimate realistic exploitation of market potential Figure 6: Exemplary estimation of market potential based on funding available for service robot (SR) capital expenditure in a respective market Remarks on general economic aspects for professional service robots On the basis of the various, systematically analysed scenarios in the EFFIROB-study and the scenarios given in the sequel the following core messages can be summarized as follows [2]: Reducing the initial costs of acquisition may not the overriding factor for increasing the economic efficiency of a service robot concept. Only in a few service robot scenarios are the initial costs of acquisition the key cost driver they usually account for less than 33% of total life cycle costs. Conversely, it follows that reducing the activity costs may offer an easier means of achieving greater economic efficiency, e.g. by means of a more robust, technical solution with lower maintenance and upkeep costs. There is no evidence that additional qualitative benefits are of decision-making relevance in cases where economic efficiency is poor. In all markets, economic efficiency is the primary decision-making criterion. Consequently, qualitative factors cannot outweigh poor economic efficiency. There might be exceptions in heavily regulated markets, such as the long-term care market, where additional costs might be absorbed, for example, by health/long-term care insurance institutions. High economic efficiency does not necessarily mean high exploitation of possible market potential. The conducted numerous market structure analyses suggest that, in many of the target markets, despite a positive micro-economic assessment, the macro-economic financing options might represent a constraint with regard to fast market penetration by the service robot application. Normally, either equity financing or debt financing of a service robot application will enter into consideration only for large companies. This is where new business models from robot manufacturers could offer an alternative especially business models that focus on the performance of the product (pay per service, pay for availability, flat rate). This might help overcome the previously mentioned financing obstacles and thus increase the identified exploitation of market potential. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 14 of 32

15 3.2 Scenarios According to the eurobotics DoW (Task 3.3) for three scenarios in robotics (rehabilitation, care-giving, medical and robot assistant in manufacturing) cost analysis, return on invest calculations, further quantitative and qualitative factors which affect the investment decision for a (service) robot, will be elaborated as part of the case studies on the profitability and use of service robots. Parts of the material has been re-used in other publications (EFFIROB, World Robotics) Assistants in manufacturing a. Short description of use case The current status of robotics in automobile manufacturing includes the large-scale use of industrial robots in body-shell construction as well as their less frequent application on the assembly line. The production assistance robot is conceived as an autonomous assembly worker to cooperate closely with a human worker in carrying out assembly operations in the vehicle interior. Typical activities include attachment of the roof lining, routing of wiring in wiring ducts, installation of accessories, such as sliding sunroofs, and clipping-in of trim panels. Figure 7: Scenraio assistants in manufacturing : design and use of the robot assistant and integration into a manufacturing scenario To carry out these activities, the production assistance robot requires a manipulator arm with a plug & work connector for tools force/torque sensors in all moving arm and gripping joints for collision detection; an integral power supply; an integral control computer; sensors to detect the robot s own position as well as for safety functions; a sensor in the robot arm for component identification; a quickrelease base connector for simple installation of the robot inside the vehicle; an acoustic interface for control and interaction with the human worker and a wireless connection to the local wireless network eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 15 of 32

16 to enable the robot to receive the assembly data for the current vehicle and to send information on executed operations. For assembly of vehicle interiors at a motor vehicle production plant, the assembly line is in the form of a meandering assembly line. There are a number of assembly stations (see Pos. 2 to Pos. 6), at each of which one worker installs a component, such as a sliding sunroof, roof lining or trim panel, in the vehicle. There is a store of available components at each assembly station (M2 to M6). Between Pos. 1 (right) and Pos. 2, a worker installs an autonomous service robot system with battery pack in the centre of the vehicle using a manual lifting device, e.g. a balancer, and secures the system in place by means of a locking lever. This service robot system is carried along in the vehicle from Pos. 2 to Pos. 6 and assists the worker at each assembly station to install the respective components. The service robot system is equipped with a lightweight robot arm, which fixes the components in place while at the same time checking that they have been correctly installed and documenting this for purposes of quality control. Each worker is differently assisted by the robot arm. At the end of the meander between Pos. 6 and Pos. 7, the locking lever of the service robot system is released and the service robot is returned by a worker using a manual lifting device to the charging station, where the battery pack in the service robot system is recharged and the cycle starts over. b. Robot design and system concept The production assistance robot is conceived as an autonomous assembly worker. It is designed to cooperate closely with a human worker in carrying out assembly operations in the vehicle interior. Typical activities include attachment of the roof lining, routing of wiring in wiring ducts, installation of accessories, such as sliding sunroofs, and clipping-in of trim panels. To carry out these activities, the production assistance robot requires a manipulator arm with a plug & work connector for tools force/torque sensors in all moving arm and gripping joints for collision detection; an integral power supply; an integral control computer; sensors to detect the robot s own position as well as for safety functions; a sensor in the robot arm for component identification; a quick-release base connector for simple installation of the robot inside the vehicle; an acoustic interface for control and interaction with the human worker and a wireless connection to the local wireless network to enable the robot to receive the assembly data for the current vehicle and to send information on executed operations. c. Life-Cycle Costs for the manufacturing assistant scenario The following describes the calculations in with reference to service robot (SR) variant A, i.e. for the other alternatives, the following makes reference to differences only where they are relevant for purposes of calculation. Basic data: the described use case is based on year-round use of the service robots (300 days in action, rest of time plant is shut down). Six service robots (one per station plus backup) are assumed to be used in a two-shift model of eight hours per shift with five human workers (one per station). Availability of the robot is assumed at 90% (technical outage), with the result that the effective productive time is 4,320 h/a. The system must be capable of handling an assembly rate of approx. five cars/h (80 cars/day; 21,600 cars/a). Manual alternative requires nine workers per shift (average of 1.8 workers per station). Availability of the system is assumed at 95%, with the result that the effective productive time is correspondingly increased (4,560 h/a; 22,800 cars/a). Investment costs: A comparison of the life cycle costs of the different alternatives hinges exclusively on the additional costs of the robots the other peripherals/infrastructure are identical for all alternatives. The price of the system results from the sum of the component costs (assumed 204.4K per robot). There is also a 30% profit mark-up on the part of the system integrator. Installation costs: An external manpower requirement of 20 person-days (160 person-hours) is estimated for planning and (first-time) setup of the system. An external manpower requirement of five person-days (40 person-hours) is estimated for training of personnel. These services are provided by the system integrator ( 100/person-hour). Activity costs: The personnel costs for the workers at the assembly stations are estimated at 34/h (more highly qualified personnel; 220 working days, 8 hours, labour costs 40K + 50% non-wage labour costs). Energy consumption is kw per robot (total 7,041.6 kwh/a). Energy costs are estimated at 0.14/kWh. Additional robot support costs: activities such as checking of sensors, eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 16 of 32

17 preparation or tools, etc. are carried out at non-productive times by qualified technicians and are charged accordingly (1 h/shift; 34/h). Maintenance costs: Maintenance is carried out at non- productive times and is estimated at five person-days (40 person-hours) per year. It is performed by external personnel. An hourly rate of 100/h is estimated. Non-personnel costs (e.g.as a result of replacement of power packs, manipulators, etc.) are estimated at 10% of the investment costs per year. Key data SR variant A SR variant B Manual alternative Basic data of use case Service life (a) No. of robots (system) Eff. productive time (h/a) Staff hours (h/a) Activity units (m/a) Total LCC ( K) Investment costs Installation costs Activity costs Maintenance costs Other 9 638,8 100% 1 594,3 16,5% 20,0 0,2% 6 717,0 69,7% 1 307,5 13,6% ,1 100% 1149,7 13,0% 20,0 0,2% 6 724,2 76% 958,2 10,8% ,8 100% 0,0 0,0% 0,0 0,0% ,8 100,0% 0,0 0,0% - - DCF (@10%, K) ,5-6292, ,9 Software costs ( K) 4 422, ,0 - Activity unit costs ( /m) 55,78 51,23 64,59 d. Assessment The present service robot use case relates to an automation solution in which, in comparison with the manual alternative, the number of required workers is reduced from nine to five. It is assumed that all the alternatives operate at the same nominal assembly rate and that the system is always utilized to full capacity. Cost structure: Also in the service robot scenarios, activity costs account for around 70% of the life cycle costs, this being attributable almost exclusively to the wage costs of the remaining human workers. Profitability: The two service robot variants (A and B) have significantly lower costs than the manual alternative both with regard to the (relevant) unit costs ( and 51.23/ car vs /car) and also from a financial viewpoint based on the DCF (- 6,965.5K and - 6,292.9K vs. - 7,856.9)2 this is despite the lower availability of the SR variants. With regard to running costs, compared with the manual alternative, service robot variants A and B lead to savings of 3,137.2K and 3,479.3K, respectively, which means that, assuming a service life of eight years, an investment in service robot variant A or B can theoretically be amortized after around four years or after significantly less than three years, respectively. Sensitivity: On the basis of the cost structure and the given constraints, the only relevant parameter for a sensitivity analysis is the availability of the system (all the other parameters of the scenarios vary similarly and proportionally or are irrelevant in terms of the activity costs). From this viewpoint, the result appears robust: o as, even in the case of a reduced availability of 80%, the unit costs of SR variants A and B, at and 57.62/ car, respectively, are lower than those of the manual alternative. o Also, it would be possible to increase the availability by installing additional service robots as a backup. If, for example, one additional service robot was installed as a backup (i.e. a total of seven service robots), thereby increasing the availability to 95%, the unit costs, at and 50.31/car, respectively, would be even lower than those of the here calculated SR variants. e. Conclusion The LCC analysis has clearly demonstrated that, in terms of economic profitability, the service robot variants represent a serious alternative to the manual method of task execution. Firstly, they have clearly lower unit costs than the manual alternative. Secondly, the four-year amortization period might well be perfectly acceptable to an automobile manufacturer. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 17 of 32

18 Against this background, a high market acceptance of the service robot solutions can be expected. The only remaining risk relates to the assumption that the service robot variants will actually be capable of achieving a nominal working rate comparable with that of the manual alternative. A further concern is that the here calculated total market potential of up to 1,344 service robots per year (for the German market alone) would require considerable resources to finance such capital expenditure, which would thus greatly restrict the customer s ability to finance other important projects. The market potential must, therefore, be seen over the long term Rehabilitation/care-giving ( provisioning of care utensils ) a. Short description of use case provisioning of care utensils The care of residents in care homes has to date been an entirely manual activity. The carer normally wheels a mobile medical cart containing all the utensils required for attending to the needs of the residents. These are mostly products that are available for all residents. The medical cart typically contains: o Disposable articles (disinfectant wipes, gloves, dressing materials, plasters, incontinence pads of different sizes) o Measuring instruments, such as blood sugar and blood pressure meters o Waste bins o Clean bed linen, containers for dirty linen o Drinks for residents, rack for empty bottles A total of up to 50 different articles are transported on the cart. Number of medical carts per care unit: 1 2, with around 20 residents per care unit. Cost of a commercially available, unstocked medical cart: from around 800. Individually prescribed dressing materials are kept in the rooms (varies depending on health insurance fund; may also include incontinence pads, which are also kept on the cart for other residents). Drugs are kept in the care staff s duty room and are administered with meals. The typical use case of such a care-giving scenario is as follows: If any items are missing from the medical cart (such as incontinence articles of the appropriate size), they must be fetched separately, which means an additional loss of time (up to one hour per shift, caused in particular by the long distance to the store room). Resident-/patient-specific consumables are stored in cabinets in the rooms, while general consumables are kept on the cart. This has the consequence that the carer has to laboriously gather together the required utensils. Frequent interruptions to scheduled regular activities, e.g. because of an emergency. This gives rise to further loss of time; sometimes, the care utensils required for an emergency are not available on the cart, or the cart has not been taken to the room. Hygiene standards/measures are regarded as a nuisance: regular disinfection of both cart and hands after removal of a utensil from the cart, etc. Documentation (of care activity and utensils that were removed from medical cart in the course of the care activity) is regarded as a nuisance or is sometimes omitted, this frequently leading to insufficient restocking of the cart. Impact of high stress levels on care staff: Patient care staff (nurses): average of 25 days off per year through illness (second-highest figure of all professions). Three most frequently cited reasons for illness: muscular and skeletal complaints, respiratory disorders and mental illnesses. Additional worsening of the situation due to demographic change among the workforce, catchword aging workforce. The careers of care staff are characterized by frequent interruptions in work; with advancing age, there is a rise not only in average periods of employment, but also in periods of interruption. Consumables and eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 18 of 32

19 One of the biggest problems in care homes is known to be the high physical and psychological stress on the care staff. The causes of this are the shortage of staff, the consequent pressure of time in caring for the residents/patients and the growing lack of qualified personnel. Demand for professional care staff is forecast to triple by 2050, accompanied by a simultaneous decrease in the working population. The loss of community service helpers will further exacerbate the situation. b. The need Use of robotics technologies for provisioning of care utensils has the capacity to automate both delivery of utensils to the care staff and also restocking of the medical cart. Automated delivery of care utensils opens up the following possibilities: Full documentation of the removed articles provides the basis for thorough restocking of the cart Connection of the internal control computer to the patient management system ensures that all the care utensils needed for the patients on a care unit are known. Choice between manual restocking based on a list (displayed on the cart) of care utensils that have run out or are about to run out and automated restocking. Clear association between care utensils and patients also allows resident-/patient-specific articles to be kept on the cart (requirement: measures against theft/mal-operation, sufficient space on cart). Benefits in relation to hygiene: required care utensils are directly within reach. This minimizes the carer s contact with the cart, which reduces the need for inconvenient disinfection procedures. Automated restocking of medical carts means: Full complement of care utensils is assured at all times Saving of time for care staff, because care articles no longer need to be gathered together manually Saving of space (store room on each care unit no longer required, can perhaps be used as additional patient s room). Life-Cycle Costs for the manufacturing assistant scenario The residential care of the elderly sector is characterized in particular by current and predicted demographic trends. Current trends o Percentage of population over 80 years of age is set to almost treble by o At the same time, the proportion of people of working age will fall; by 2060, there will be almost twice as many people of pension age for every 100 people of working age compared with today. o People in need of care as a percentage of the total population: 2.6% today; rising to 3.6% by 2020 and to 4.4% by o Owing to a shortage of family-member carers, long-term care in an old people s home will in the near future become the most common form of care and will account for almost half of all care cases. o Alternatively: new forms of care that enable people to live at home longer. For example: apartment-sharing communities, multi-generation living, urban development. There are different organizational forms of care facilities, which means that there are also different decision-making entities with regard to capital expenditure and also different budgets. Care facilities differ greatly in size; the average old people s home has residents. The biggest cost driver is staff costs (approx. 70%); higher percentage for day care (> 90%), lower percentage in hospitals. Non-labour costs make up approx. 20% of costs in residential care homes. c. Robot design and system concept The service robot, which is, in this use case, a so-called partially autonomous medical cart, performs the following tasks, Figure 8: eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 19 of 32

20 At appropriate times when cart is not needed: autonomous travel to central store and collection of care utensils required for the patients on a care unit, and of those care utensils that have run out. Autonomous travel to care unit or to a specified room. Mechanical and hygienic delivery of the required care utensils in the required place and recording of removal of consumables. Figure 8: Manual and robot assisted scenario of provisioning of care utensils Important: It must always remain possible for care utensils to be removed manually and for the cart to be controlled manually, e.g. in case of power failure. The use of a partially autonomous medical cart makes it possible to dispense with a store room on each care unit and reduces the workload on the staff (transport of care utensils to care unit). Additional work is involved, however, in making sure that the care utensils are ordered in a structured manner in the central store; this is necessary for collection of utensils by the service robot. On the care units, there are shorter walking distances for the care staff, because availability of the required care utensils on the cart is assured and, in an emergency, the cart can be simply called to the carer. The assumed service robot design is based on existing medical carts. A motorized base platform holds the magazine for the care articles. The magazine can be easily accessed via a delivery mechanism. For automatic restocking, the service robot is equipped with a robot arm and suitable detection sensors. The key components for independent restocking of the medical cart are the motors on the wheels, the robot arm and the sensors required for safe navigation and secure manipulation. Similar solutions already exist for autonomous navigation, for example in hospitals. More critical is the design and positioning of the manipulator as well as the positioning of the detection sensors. This is because of the broad variety of different objects to be manipulated (around 50 different articles between 10 and 50 cm in size; some articles are non-solid, such as bed linen, cleaning cloths etc.) and the wide distribution of objects to be gripped within the room (shelves up to approx. 180 cm off the ground) and the consequent variation in viewing and gripping directions. As far as on-site support of the individual carer is concerned, key importance is attached to the delivery mechanism, which must be as simple as possible to operate. This applies in particular to the graphical user interface and underlying intelligence, which can, if required, even without prompting, deliver the utensils that are needed for the upcoming activities. Integration into the local environment eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 20 of 32

21 takes the form of data transfer to/from the computer on the care unit. In addition, all doors should be automated and connection to the elevator control system should be made possible. d. Life-Cycle Costs for the manufacturing assistant scenario key data SR variant a SR variant b Manual alternative (not applicable) Basic data of use case Service life (a) No. of robots (system) Eff. productive time (h/a) Staff hours (h/a) Workload reduction (h/a)1 (non-productive work) ,570 17, ,570 17, ,520 0 Total LCC ( K) Investment costs Installation costs Activity costs Maintenance costs Other 3, % % % 3, % % - - 3, % % % 3, % % - - 3, % % % 3, % % - - DCF (@10%, K) -2, , ,790.6 Software costs ( K) 6, ,450.0 (SR) 5,746.0 (store) Activity unit costs ( /h) Basic data: The here described service robot use case is based on year-round use of the system (365 days). Only one care unit is considered (20 residents per unit). The system is used in a three-shift model with eight hours per shift. An average of two persons is required for operation on each shift. The staff spend approximately one hour per shift on non-productive work, such as documentation and restocking of medical carts. Availability of the system is assumed at 75% (technical outage; no provision in scenario for replacement robot ), with the result that the effective productive time is 6,570 h/a. Use of the robot reduces the staff s time spent on non-productive work by 50%, resulting in a total workload reduction of h/a (this has no effect on productivity). Investment costs: The price of the system results from the sum of the component costs ( 117.2K per service robot). There is also a 30% profit mark-up on the part of the system integrator. SR variant B: Owing to the technically modified configuration, the sum of the component costs is lower than for SR variant A ( 29.2K per robot). However, there are the additional costs of the necessary system infrastructure (common central store for three care units: 83K. As this scenario considers only one unit, only one-third of the associated costs is included). There is also a 30% profit mark-up on the part of the system integrator. Installation costs: An external manpower requirement of 15 person-days (120 person-hours) is estimated for planning and (first-time) setup of the system, and five person-days (40 person-hours) for training ( 100/person-hour). These services are provided by the system integrator. SR variant B: Getting the system up and running requires an additional 20 person-days (160 person-hours) for planning and (first-time) setup of the system. These services, too, are provided by the system integrator. Activity costs: The cost of care staff is estimated at 15/h ( 10/h minimum wage + 50% non-wage labour costs). Energy consumption is 0.5 kw/h per robot (3,285 kwh/a). Energy costs are estimated at 0.14/kWh. Maintenance costs: Maintenance is carried out at non-productive times and is estimated at five person-days (40 h) per year. It is performed by external personnel. An hourly rate of 100/h is estimated. Non-personnel costs are estimated at 5% of the investment costs per year. e. Assessment The present service robot application is not a 100% automation activity carried out by the staff. It is assumed that the system is utilized to full capacity. Performance is based on the maximum available patient care time (= working time of carer derived from the shift model) (in this case: 8,760 h/a). - eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 21 of 32

22 Cost structure: Also in the service robot scenarios, activity costs account for over 90% of the life cycle costs, this being attributable exclusively to the wage costs of the staff. Profitability: From a profitability viewpoint, it is impossible for the SR variants to have lower costs than the manual alternative, because this use case scenario is predicated exclusively on the availability time of the care staff, which is not changed by the use of a service robot (purely a workload-reducing activity that does not lead to any assumed increase in productivity). Accordingly, the activity unit costs for the SR variants are and 31.93/h as compared with 30.00/h for the manual alternative. Also from a financial viewpoint based on the DCF, the SR variants are significantly less competitive on cost (- 2,041.0K/ 1,951.8K vs. - 1,790.6K). Sensitivity: As this use case scenario is concerned with a purely workload-reducing activity, a sensitivity analysis is not appropriate. Utility value: The care staff is freed up to focus more strongly on attending to the residents, which gives rise to an improvement in the quality of care and, therefore, in the quality of life of the residents. Also, the high levels of stress on care staff are lowered, which makes their occupation more attractive. Furthermore: Full documentation and total hygiene in interaction with patients are automatically assured. f. Conclusion On the basis of the here considered service robot use case scenario, it is not possible for either of the SR variants to have lower costs than the manual alternative. The scenario concerns only a support function for a non-productive activity of the care staff and does not lead to any increase in productivity: The LCC analysis, however, clearly demonstrates that, in terms of process costs, the anticipated workload reduction of around 800 h/a (approx. 0.5 employee/a) is achieved at an additional cost of just 10%. To achieve a similar workload reduction through extra staff, an additional 0.5 employee/a would be required (approx. 13,000). This should count as a saving when the SR variants are brought into the comparison and would allow a service robot to be amortized in the course of its 12-year service life or even considerably sooner if labour costs continue to rise. Especially in the long-term care sector, investment in service robots must be viewed also from a different perspective on account of a worsening situation on more than one front: on the one hand, demographic change will lead to a further increase in the required volume of long-term care provision, while, on the other hand, the existing labour shortage can be expected to grow worse. Physical and psychological stress on staff will increasingly become a problem particularly if that stress results in deterioration in the quality of care. The here proposed service robot solutions can significantly reduce the workload on staff while possibly thereby contributing to an improvement in the quality of care. Against this background, although there is a theoretically high market potential, this would be a possibility only if: the labour shortage, compounded by growth in the required volume of care provision, means that service robots represent the only possibility of a gain in productivity; the additional costs can be passed on to those organizations responsible for health care; finance is forthcoming from those organizations responsible for funding the care homes; this might be a problem especially for public or municipal authorities. On account of the small cost gap, a medium exploitation of market potential is anticipated, although a high exploitation of market potential is considered probable in the long term. 3.3 Acceptance of service robotics solution in care giving In order to get an updated picture of the market situation in Germany, nearly 700 nursing homes and homes for the aged generation were examined in an online survey. The European situation may be very comparable. Proposed were two scenarios of robot assistants in care facilities: Provisioning of care utensils (scenario given in chapter) Lifting and moving of persons eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 22 of 32

23 Sensor for person detection locaization Distance sensors at middle finger Interfaces at arms Fingers glide/rotate in arms. Fingers stretch the mat for lifting and transforming persons into a seating position Omni-directional, foldable drives (mobile platform) Figure 9: Lifting and moving of persons by a semi-autonomous multifunctional lifter: existing scenario and robotized concept 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 88% 10% 1% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 47% bis 20 20% 23% bis 40 bis 60 2% 5% 3% bis 80 bis 100 über 100 Figure 10: Handling of care-utensils: Accepted cost of care-cart (see 3.2.2): Accepted costs (in per unit) and time saved daily by a care worker in minutes/day (average 35 min) eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 23 of 32

24 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 87% 11% 2% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 42% 24% 22% 3% 5% 3% 0% bis 20 bis 40 bis 60 bis 80 bis 100 über 100 Figure 11: Semi-autonomous multifunctional lifter: Accepted costs (in per unit) and time saved daily by a care worker in minutes/day (average 31 min) 80% 60% 38% 62% 80% 60% 55% 45% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% ja nein 0% ja nein Figure 12: General interest of purchase of semi-autonomous care-cart (left) and semiautonomous multi-functional lifter (right) From the charts it can be deduced that an overall acceptance of the robots by care workers and residents is expected. Research shows implementing the multi-functional lifter would save 20 minutes per nurse per day but incurring a total cost of 25,000, which is considered too high for the customer to find a receptive market. This is partly due to the fact that the multi-function lifter currently represents a solution to current problems in care environment. Economics There is significant interest of purchase. However, lowest suggested price of 25+k is an investment still far above what care homes expect or are used to deal with. It is expected that early adopters will try the technology at about double the price (i.e. 50T ). Depending on the robustness and dependability of the technology other users are expected to follow suit. New cost and financing models may promote the introduction of that kind of technology in care facilities From the survey there seems to be highest interest in multifunctional lifter despite lowest time savings (probably due to high physical load connected with lifting tasks) Main reasons for rejection: high costs, care workers not used to complex technology, risk of reducing human contact. eurobotics Deliverable D3.3.1 Page 24 of 32