So drag&bot can be used to control the supported robots and end-of-arm tools as comprehensively as with the manufacturers' solutions?
Yes, we often develop a special interface for the hardware together with the hardware suppliers in so-called integration projects in order to make all functions intuitively available to the operator. We even know some hardware manufacturers who use drag&bot internally in quality assurance to carry out functional tests on their hardware. Since drag&bot is executed on an external industrial PC, the limits are mainly robot applications that require very fast, deterministic reactions from the robot, such as conveyor tracking. Due to the speed, these should be executed directly on the robot controller and in the robot's programming language. Such systems will also be implemented by system integrators in the future.

Do you see a trend towards standardization in robot control? Do you perhaps want to take the initiative in this area yourself?
Of course we also wanted to give a practical impetus to standardization in robotics with drag&bot, but I think we should also remain realistic. Our primary motivation for drag&bot is to make robotics and its peripherals as simple as possible for everyone in order to counteract the shortage of skilled workers and to automate even small quantities and processes with a high degree of flexibility.

Standardization: Although there are repeated initiatives for standardization in various sectors and all players are aware of the added value for manufacturers and users, examples such as charging cables for cell phones or electric cars show how difficult it is for the industry to agree on standards itself. In automation, too, attempts are being made to create a uniform protocol between machines with OPC UA, for example, although Profibus and Ethercat are still used much more frequently in practice. During our time at the Fraunhofer Institute for Production and Automation (IPA), I myself was involved in the committee for standardization in robotics and learned how difficult it is to reach an agreement. Ultimately, I believe it is legal requirements or global companies such as Google or Apple that not only publish standards, but can also enforce them on the market.

When you look at your customers, do they tend to be experienced users or do companies that are completely new to robotics also come to you?
Companies that are just starting out with robotics are usually very open to innovations such as drag&bot. They often see it as the greatest advantage to be able to build up robotics expertise themselves with existing employees and thus achieve greater acceptance among employees and greater flexibility in automation.

Ultimately, I think it is legal requirements or global companies like Google or Apple that not only publish standards, but can also enforce them on the market.

Companies with their own experts for programming robots already have established processes for their systems. The robots are often from one manufacturer and the programs are always set up in the same way so that the expert can quickly find their way around when changes are made. There is often little motivation to change the status quo and we have to do more to convince them, for example by using test systems to make the added value of drag&bot a live experience. It is important to make it clear here that drag&bot cannot replace all processes, but to highlight the applications in which the added value of drag&bot comes into play, for example through frequent, independent interactions between robots and the operator.

In which area is the use of robots currently growing the most?
Manual workstations with assembly and handling tasks, whether in the metal, electrical or plastics processing industries, currently have the greatest growth potential for flexible robotics.

On the subject of cobots: What special requirements does the direct cooperation between humans and robots place on programming?
Compared to offline programmed industrial robots, the programming of cobots is characterized by the interaction between robot and programming. For example, during teach-in in the cobot's manual guidance mode, the points of the trajectory should be taken over directly by the robot or entire motion sequences should be able to be recorded live. It is also practical, for example, if the gripper can be controlled and programmed using buttons on the gripper. For hardware that offers these functionalities, we also support them in drag&bot.

During the execution of cobot applications, it is important for the operator to have a clear display of the current process and to be able to quickly make appropriate entries and adjustments on this control unit.

Another important trend in recent years is the individualization of production. What approaches are you pursuing to make the use of robots in assembly more profitable, even for batch size 1?
In addition to the plug & play approach for the various hardware, we work primarily with so-called guides and wizards for the individualization of production processes. Guides are step-by-step instructions for creating new variants of production processes. With wizards, we use graphical explanations to help users define the relevant parameters quickly and without errors. Furthermore, the operator can view the most important parameters of the programs at any time during execution and quickly adjust them in the event of changes to the production process. dsc