Most "collaborative robots" on real production floors aren't actually collaborating moment-to-moment — they're coexisting in the same space. The ISO 10218 and ISO/TS 15066 standards that govern cobot safety, and why removing the cage doesn't automatically make a robot collaborative.
Most “collaborative robots” on real production floors today aren’t
actually collaborating with a person in the moment-to-moment sense —
they’re coexisting in the same space, or working in sequence with a
human, not truly working side-by-side at the same time. The
International Federation of Robotics defines four distinct levels, and
the two most advanced ones are still mostly aspirational in practice.
Two standards govern collaborative robot safety specifically: ISO
10218 (Parts 1 and 2), which sets safety requirements for industrial
robots generally including collaborative features, and ISO/TS
15066:2016, a technical specification written specifically for
collaborative robot applications. Both rely on the risk-assessment
methodology laid out in ISO 12100 — you can’t correctly apply either
standard without first doing a genuine, documented risk assessment of
the specific application, not just the robot in isolation.
| Level | What it looks like | How common today |
|---|---|---|
| Coexistence | Human and robot share a workspace but don’t share a task at the same time | Dominant in current practice |
| Sequential collaboration | Human and robot work on the same task, but take turns rather than acting simultaneously | Dominant in current practice |
| Cooperation | Human and robot work on the same task at the same time, in the same space | Still largely aspirational |
| Responsive collaboration | The robot actively adapts its behavior in real time to the human’s movements | Still largely aspirational |
The word “cobot” gets used loosely to mean any robot without a
physical safety cage, but ISO/TS 15066 defines specific collaborative
operation methods — safety-rated monitored stop, hand guiding, speed and
separation monitoring, and power and force limiting — and an
installation has to actually implement one of these correctly, not just
remove the fence and call it collaborative. A robot with cage-level
speed and force but no fence is not a compliant cobot installation; it’s
an unguarded industrial robot.
Power and force limiting — the method most people picture when they
think “cobot” — requires the robot to be designed and tuned so that
even direct contact with a human doesn’t exceed biomechanical injury
thresholds defined in the standard. This isn’t a setting you flip on;
it requires validating the actual robot, end effector, and payload
combination against those thresholds for the specific application, since
a heavier payload or a sharper end-of-arm tool can push contact forces
past the safe limit even on a robot marketed as inherently
collaborative.
SCMEP offers Introduction to
Cobots and Introduction to Collaborative Robots as part of our
Automation and Robotics training. As a NIST
Manufacturing Extension Partnership affiliate serving South Carolina
manufacturers since 1989, our focus is making sure teams understand
the specific safety requirements behind a cobot installation, not just
the general concept of a robot without a cage.
Cobot adoption decisions connect directly to our broader robotics
guidance — see our related article on
manufacturing robotics
training for how to weigh cobots against traditional industrial
robots for a specific application.
If your plant is evaluating a cobot installation, you can
browse the Automation and Robotics
training catalog or email the training team.
ISO/TS 15066’s power and force limiting requirements apply to the robot arm itself; the end-of-arm tooling is evaluated separately. See our related guide on end-of-arm tooling for why a gripper’s pinch points need their own risk assessment.
ISO 10218 (Parts 1 and 2) sets safety requirements for industrial robots generally, including collaborative features. ISO/TS 15066:2016 is a technical specification written specifically for collaborative robot applications. Both depend on the risk-assessment approach in ISO 12100.
Coexistence, sequential collaboration, cooperation, and responsive collaboration, as defined by the International Federation of Robotics. Coexistence and sequential collaboration are dominant in current practice; cooperation and responsive collaboration remain largely aspirational.
No. ISO/TS 15066 defines specific collaborative operation methods — like power and force limiting or speed and separation monitoring — that must be correctly implemented and validated. Simply removing a fence without meeting one of these methods is not a compliant collaborative installation.
A collaborative operation method requiring the robot to be designed and tuned so contact with a human doesn’t exceed biomechanical injury thresholds. It must be validated for the specific robot, end effector, and payload combination, not assumed from the robot’s general marketing.
