IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v204y2024ics0040162524002026.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting decision-making of collaborative robot (cobot) adoption: The development of a framework

Author

Listed:
  • Silva, Andreia
  • Correia Simões, Ana
  • Blanc, Renata

Abstract

Collaborative robots (cobots) are emerging in manufacturing as a response to the current mass customization production paradigm and the fifth industrial revolution. Before adopting this technology in production processes and benefiting from its advantages, manufacturers need to analyze the investment. Therefore, this study aims to develop a decision-making framework for cobot adoption, incorporating a comprehensive set of quantitative and qualitative criteria, to be used by decision-makers in manufacturing companies. To achieve that objective, a qualitative study was conducted by collecting data through interviews with key actors in the cobot (or advanced manufacturing technologies) adoption decision process in manufacturing companies. The main findings of this study include, firstly, an extensive list of decision criteria, as well as some indicators to be used by decision-makers, some of which are new to the literature. Secondly, a decision-making framework for cobot adoption is proposed, as well as a set of guidelines to use it. The framework is based on a weighted scoring method and can be customizable by the manufacturing company depending on its specific context, needs, and resources. The main contribution of this study consists in assisting decision-makers of manufacturing companies in performing more complete and sustained decision analyses regarding cobots adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Silva, Andreia & Correia Simões, Ana & Blanc, Renata, 2024. "Supporting decision-making of collaborative robot (cobot) adoption: The development of a framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:204:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524002026
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162524002026
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123406?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Datta, Vinay & Sambasivarao, K. V. & Kodali, Rambabu & Deshmukh, S. G., 1992. "Multi-attribute decision model using the analytic hierarchy process for the justification of manufacturing systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 227-234, November.
    2. Ertugrul Karsak, E. & Tolga, Ethem, 2001. "Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for evaluating advanced manufacturing system investments," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 49-64, January.
    3. Lilian Adriana Borges & Kim Hua Tan, 2017. "Incorporating human factors into the AAMT selection: a framework and process," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(5), pages 1459-1470, March.
    4. Kahraman, Cengiz & Tolga, Ethem & Ulukan, Ziya, 2000. "Justification of manufacturing technologies using fuzzy benefit/cost ratio analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 45-52, June.
    5. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    6. Talluri, Srinivas & Whiteside, Mary M. & Seipel, Scott J., 2000. "A nonparametric stochastic procedure for FMS evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 529-538, August.
    7. Bai, Chunguang & Sarkis, Joseph, 2017. "Improving green flexibility through advanced manufacturing technology investment: Modeling the decision process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 86-104.
    8. Kakati, M., 1997. "Strategic evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 141-156, November.
    9. Small, Michael H. & Chen, Injazz J., 1997. "Economic and strategic justification of AMT inferences from industrial practices," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 65-75, March.
    10. Teixeira, Josélia Elvira & Tavares-Lehmann, Ana Teresa C.P., 2022. "Industry 4.0 in the European union: Policies and national strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    11. Chiadamrong, N. & O'Brien, C., 1999. "Decision support tool for justifying alternative manufacturing and production control systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 177-186, April.
    12. Junfei Chu & Jie Wu & Chengbin Chu & Ming Liu, 2020. "A new DEA common-weight multi-criteria decision-making approach for technology selection," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(12), pages 3686-3700, June.
    13. Hua Tan, Kim & Peng Lim, Chee & Platts, Ken & Shen Koay, Hooi, 2006. "An intelligent decision support system for manufacturing technology investments," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 179-190, November.
    14. Karsak, E. Ertugrul & Kuzgunkaya, Onur, 2002. "A fuzzy multiple objective programming approach for the selection of a flexible manufacturing system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 101-111, September.
    15. Talluri, Srinivas & Paul Yoon, K., 2000. "A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 119-129, June.
    16. Surajit Nath & Bijan Sarkar, 2018. "Decision system framework for performance evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology under fuzzy environment," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 55(3), pages 703-720, November.
    17. Mohanty, R. P. & Deshmukh, S. G., 1998. "Advanced manufacturing technology selection:A strategic model for learning and evaluation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 295-307, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Surajit Nath & Bijan Sarkar, 2018. "Decision system framework for performance evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology under fuzzy environment," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 55(3), pages 703-720, November.
    2. Kulak, Osman & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2005. "Multi-attribute comparison of advanced manufacturing systems using fuzzy vs. crisp axiomatic design approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 415-424, March.
    3. Cheng, Yang & Matthiesen, Rikke & Farooq, Sami & Johansen, John & Hu, Haibo & Ma, Lei, 2018. "The evolution of investment patterns on advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) in manufacturing operations: A longitudinal analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 239-253.
    4. Zhou, Honggeng & Keong Leong, G. & Jonsson, Patrik & Sum, Chee-Chuong, 2009. "A comparative study of advanced manufacturing technology and manufacturing infrastructure investments in Singapore and Sweden," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 42-53, July.
    5. Vicente Javier Clemente-Suárez & Eduardo Navarro-Jiménez & Pablo Ruisoto & Athanasios A. Dalamitros & Ana Isabel Beltran-Velasco & Alberto Hormeño-Holgado & Carmen Cecilia Laborde-Cárdenas & Jose Fran, 2021. "Performance of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Emergency System in COVID-19 Pandemic. An Extensive Narrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-12, May.
    6. Tim Lu, 2021. "A Fuzzy Network DEA Approach to the Selection of Advanced Manufacturing Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Chang, Ping-Teng, 2005. "Fuzzy strategic replacement analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 532-559, January.
    8. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Including management and security of supply constraints for designing stand-alone electrification systems in developing countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 359-369.
    9. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    11. Pin Li & Jinsuo Zhang, 2019. "Is China’s Energy Supply Sustainable? New Research Model Based on the Exponential Smoothing and GM(1,1) Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-30, January.
    12. P. Giovani Palafox-Alcantar & Dexter V. L. Hunt & Chris D. F. Rogers, 2020. "A Hybrid Methodology to Study Stakeholder Cooperation in Circular Economy Waste Management of Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-30, April.
    13. Wang, Jiangjiang & Zhai, Zhiqiang (John) & Jing, Youyin & Zhang, Chunfa, 2010. "Optimization design of BCHP system to maximize to save energy and reduce environmental impact," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 3388-3398.
    14. Ba, Birome Holo & Prins, Christian & Prodhon, Caroline, 2016. "Models for optimization and performance evaluation of biomass supply chains: An Operations Research perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(P2), pages 977-989.
    15. Georgiadou, Maria Christina & Hacking, Theophilus & Guthrie, Peter, 2012. "A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 145-155.
    16. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "South Korean energy scenarios show how nuclear power can reduce future energy and environmental costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 569-578.
    17. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    18. Michael O. Ukoba & Ogheneruona E. Diemuodeke & Mohammed Alghassab & Henry I. Njoku & Muhammad Imran & Zafar A. Khan, 2020. "Composite Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Optimization of Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems for Geopolitical Zones in Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-27, July.
    19. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    20. Hong, Sanghyun & Kim, Eunsung & Jeong, Saerok, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of the hydrogen economy using multi-criteria decision-making analysis in Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 485-492.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:204:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524002026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.