Matching Occupational Exoskeletons With The Right Work Task

Forbes

a day ago

Regardless of whether one thinks of industrial exoskeletons as personal protective equipment (PPE), an engineering solution, or something in between, these wearable devices are still an ergonomic solution that needs to be applied to the correct problem. In the decade that this technology has started to see an ever-growing adoption at work sites, the responsibility of matching the exoskeleton with a job task continues to fall on the end user or buyer. This is a persistent hurdle towards mass adoption, with several solutions on the horizon.
How it started:
Like any new technology, exoskeleton startups had no choice but to sell their products directly. This meant that if a company wanted to select and compare devices, it had to discover each one and establish unique communication channels. This process can be slow and laborious, and the lessons learned by one buyer are often not shared with others. One exception that exists in the public domain is 'The implementation of cobotics and exoskeletal devices for the Australia red meat processing industry,' a 91-page report published by AMPC comparing 19 industrial exoskeletons.
Ten years later, the landscape has gone through some dramatic changes. Multiple standards bodies have looked into classifying and evaluating occupational exoskeletons. Fraunhofer IPA, a leading German research institute, has created a series of parcours to evaluate occupational exoskeletons as product families grouping results by task. Another change is the emergence of distributors, which could either be dedicated to one supplier or carry multiple products from different developers.
As a quick note, choosing the correct exoskeleton solution (or deciding if a wearable is even the correct solution) for a repetitive work task is just one piece of the puzzle for a successful implementation. Still, it is often the first step in the process, and an error there will cascade down through pilots and long-term adoption efforts (and will most certainly negatively impact any return business).
Even with all these changes, the majority of occupational exoskeletons are still sold directly by their producers, with some alternative acquisition and comparison pathways emerging:
First, several dedicated consulting companies have sprouted in North America and Europe, which can provide support in choosing the right exoskeleton system for a fee. Second, some distributors carry devices from multiple developers, and their sales team is becoming more experienced with the strengths of each one. Third, some companies go beyond the role of a distributor and have become closer to an integrator that goes on a journey with the end user and buyers, helping them through the entire process of selection, comparison, and setting up a pilot. Last but not least, in the age of AI and digital tools, there have been multiple systems proposed that can collect data from repetitive work tasks, and some are designed specifically for wearables. The challenge with this digital solution is data collection, which can range from cell phone videos to motion tracking or even full EMG studies, but that is not all, because in addition to data collection, data interpretation with these systems is not trivial and requires effort before it can be condensed and summarized into a digestible report.
How could things shape up in the future?
There are a few likely scenarios on how the complexity of selecting an occupational exoskeleton could be reduced while creating a more positive and streamlined experience for decision makers and buyers.
The car dealership route - developers of occupational exoskeletons could continue to consolidate so that each one has a full portfolio. This would be similar to shopping for a car, where car company A would offer sedans through trucks and everything in between, and the dealership next to it would offer the same range of vehicle classes from a different maker.
An alternative to that would be an increase in multi-vendor distributors that already carry competing brands. Some examples of this happening right now would be Stanley Handling and FoxInnovation in Europe, The Exoskeleton Store and ExxoVantage in the Americas and Oceania. With this model, buyers have to visit fewer places and can also leverage the experience of the multi-vendor distributors to assist with selection.
The final version could be an investment and improvement in digital tools. This could include online comparison tools, such as those found on car or camera equipment websites, or something more custom that can collect and interpret data from job sites and compare it against the known capabilities of different types and brands of industrial exoskeletons.
All this work will lead to the formation of a marketplace, allowing buyers and end users to compare and evaluate industrial wearable solutions against data or prior knowledge. This would simplify the buying process considerably and lower the entry barrier for professionals and companies interested in becoming early adopters of wearable devices that provide direct physical support for their jobs.