POSTED: 09 Oct, 2025

Written by Katia Bourahmoune, UTS & Acting Co-Lead Quality Assurance and Compliance program

Heidegger describes an equipment as ready-to-hand when it disappears into practice, when its use is so seamlessly integrated that it ceases to be an object of thought and becomes instead a transparent extension of action. A hammer is not noticed as a hammer when it drives a nail effectively; it is only when it splinters or slips that it becomes it becomes an object of scrutiny, unready-to-hand, with its use questioned. In modern manufacturing, collaborative robots (cobots) occupy an uneasy position between these two states. They promise repeatability, precision, and tireless monitoring, yet they are undeniably still machines to be supervised, audited, and monitored. In compliance and quality assurance, this human oversight of machines is necessary. Afterall, compliance remains the most human part of the hyper-mechanised modern manufacturing process. This is particularly evident in heavily regulated industries like medical device manufacturing, aviation and defence, where errors are measured not only in costs but in lives and national security.

For cobots to become ready-to-hand, they must be genuinely collaborative: partners in the task rather than peripheral machinery. While collaboration in the context of human-robot interaction is hard to define and evolves as the field advances, it is useful to frame it within the level on interaction between a human and a robot. These levels range from co-existence (shared space, individual actions) to co-operation (shared space, human-guided actions), to collaboration (shared space, joint bi-directional actions). Collaboration through this lens implies shared situational awareness, legible intent, and adaptive action: the robot exposes what it “perceives” (vision, force,…), why it is acting (constraints, goals,…), and how humans can adapt, override, or teach. Such interfaces must preserve human agency and skilled technique while reducing ergonomic and cognitive load. In practice, this means adaptive assistance that yields to expert touch, explanations of proposed actions, and workflows that keep responsibility distributed rather than displaced. When collaboration works this way, it does more than improve throughput; it establishes the preconditions for assurance to be intrinsic rather than supervisory. On this foundation, compliance becomes by design: assurance embedded in action, rather than appended after it. Cobots can inspect as they assemble, verify as they position, and generate audit-grade evidence as a by-product of normal operation. Cobots can extend human judgment through continuous monitoring, allowing human inspectors to concentrate on exceptions, interpretation, and continuous improvement.

This human-robot collaboration fundamentally hinges on trust. In production, workers must believe that a cobot will act predictably and safely; in quality assurance, they must also believe that the cobot’s monitoring and record-keeping are accurate and transparent. Research on automation psychology shows the dangers of both extremes: over-trust leads to blind reliance, while under-trust leads to redundancy and disuse. The literature points to several ways for calibrated trust including reliable and predictable performance, timely feedback, options for human override, transparent explanations of decisions, and auditable records tied to actions, and here we emphasise the compliance-critical elements of legibility, traceability, and contestability. Trust, then, is not an abstract sentiment but a design commitment: when cobots make their intentions legible and their decisions contestable, human operators retain meaningful agency in the loop. This keeps human judgment engaged precisely where it adds the most value. In regulated settings, this turns assurance into a shared practice rather than a supervisory afterthought, and it reorients collaboration toward preserving and amplifying human skill rather than displacing it.

Concerns are often raised that automation “deskills” human labour, relegating workers to passive supervision. Cobots designed for compliance offer the opposite prospect. By taking on repetitive inspection tasks, cobots free human expertise for higher-order judgment: interpreting anomalies, adapting processes, and innovating in response to unforeseen conditions. The skill does not vanish; it is re-centred where it matters most. In this way, cobots not only maintain but actively sustain skill, ensuring that human judgment remains the decisive element in compliance.

The Compliance and Quality Assurance program at the Australian Cobotics Centre aims to develop practical tools that specify, monitor and evaluate human–robot collaboration using multi-modality sensing and AI for assessing compliance.

When cobots are truly ready-to-hand, i.e. useful, trustworthy, and engineered for compliance-by-design, they cease to be mere machines and become true collaborators that elevate human skill while making quality an intrinsic property of every human–robot action.

 

Further reading:  

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. In J. Macquarrie, & E. Robinson, (Trans.), New York, NY: Harper & Row. 

Guertler, M., Tomidei, L., Sick, N., Carmichael, M., Paul, G., Wambsganss, A., … & Hussain, S. (2023). When is a robot a cobot? Moving beyond manufacturing and arm-based cobot manipulators. Proceedings of the Design Society, 3, 3889-3898. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.390  

Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., & Schaefer, K. E. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254  

Carmichael, M. (2023). Can we Unlock the Potential of Collaborative Robots?. Australian Cobotics Centre. https://www.australiancobotics.org/articles/can-we-unlock-the-potential-of-collaborative-robots/