The cobot controversy part 2

The new robots arrive, the humans remain

This post is a personal reflection about a statement of German Labor Union “IG Metall” posted on the union’s Website https://www.igmetall.de/robotik-tagung-2015-17975.htm titled “The new robots arrive, the humans remain(Published November 26th, 2015 and still online June 2017).

From the original article, in short

The article opens on this statement: “A new generation of lightweight robots comes into the factories. IG Metall sees more opportunities than threats. Provided that the human being plays the leading role in the cooperation with the new robots, IG Metall chairman Jörg Hofmann emphasized at the robotics conference in Berlin. The new robots come: smaller, lighter and closer to humans (collaborative robots, i.e. cobots). IG Metall wants to take advantage of the opportunities created by the increasing use of lightweight robots and new forms of cooperation between man and machine in industry.”

The tone is set. The union is not opposed to see increasingly installing robots near humans, neither the idea of collaboration between humans and cobots, provided the human keeps the upper hand.

The union recognizes the opportunities the robots bring in: reduction of human exposure to monotone or health-endangering work and creation of new, qualified activities. It mentions nothing about extending the employability of aging workers though, like other authors highlight as an additional benefit.

In order to develop a new kind of cooperation between man and machine, new forms of work have to be encouraged with expanded job profiles and possibilities for action for the employees. For this, other qualifications are certainly necessary than today” explained Hofmann on the occasion of the meeting before works councils and representatives from science and politics.

At the same time, however, it is necessary to prevent people from being marginalized in the “ballet of lightweight robots“.

Ballet, I assume, is to be understood here as the choreography of man and cobot working together. For example: the cobots grabs a part, moves and present it to the worker and while the cobot is holding it, the worker can work on it. Once the human cycle done, the cobot will take the part away and grab a new one for a new cycle.

“Under the assumption that the exploitation potentials of the new robot generation are actually exhausted and the human robot collaboration is co-designed by works councils and trade unions”.

I am not sure about the meaning of the “assumption” but it is clear that the union wants to have a say about the future human-robot collaboration.

The article goes on with a warning:  in future, manless factories are not an option. While the worker teaches the robot, literally guiding him by hand thanks to ease of use, makes it possible to give the employees a new role.

The use of the new robots also offers opportunities to improve competitiveness and secure employment,” says the IG Metall chairman. It is a matter of intelligently combining the use of people and machines, which means that labor costs are, in sum, lower, while qualification and ergonomics are at a higher level. Added value creation and employment can therefore remain in Germany.

Article analysis: understanding the vantage point

In order to fully get the (underlying) messages of the speech, some premises should be reminded:

  • Labor unions in Germany are reputed as consensus-driven as compared to the traditional French unions which are more hard-liners, opponents and politically-ideologically driven
  • The hype around robot, automation, big data, machine learning and so on is not likely to fade soon
  • The rise of the robot in manufacturing, in whatever shape and size they’ll come, is an accepted fact
  • Beyond a government supported program, Germany developed a brand: Industrie 4.0
  • If Germany would refrain developing and using robots, cobots, etc. for the sake of safekeeping human jobs, another competing nation would take advantage of it
  • The development of those technologies and Germany’s leadership is key to ensure a future for German high-tech manufacturing equipment makers
  • Labor unions are primarily seeking to protect and improve workers’ conditions and benefits
  • Labor union’s existence makes sense as long as there is (human) labor and the union’s power is a function of their members count
  • The speech was delivered during a meeting before works councils and representatives from science and politics (not business)
  • The speech is a mixture of showing openness and ambition to play a key role in defining rules and use cases altogether. In order to maintain the union’s acceptance about robots, some (limiting) conditions must be accepted by the robots promoters / employers: the human workers keep the upper hand, should not be driven out (maneless factories) neither marginalized by automation.

It is suggested that all the automation frees the human worker from dangerous and mundane tasks, improves ergonomics (working conditions at large) and provides opportunities to enrich the job content and raise workers’ qualifications.

Beyond the stance, wishful thinking?

Let’s switch to investors’ and industrial engineers’ point of view. There is no point in systematically letting the humans have the upper hand when it comes to automation. It probably will not give an organization a competitive advantage nor systematically improve the process.

In some cases, unmanned factories are an option from the point of view of optimal investment and operations, so why should it be a taboo?

Why should investors and engineers agree to let the (probable) weakest link in the process (humans) have the upper hand? And why, if not because of threat, would they let works councils and trade unions co-design new processes?

Accepting those limitations while competition will probably not is accepting to join a race with self-inflicted handicaps.

It makes sense in politically correct parlance and for trying to avoid new luddites smashing the expensive new technology in anger.

Personal conclusion

My personal conclusion is that unions see the threat of losing their power as the number of workers will plummet, thanks to new technologies. On the other hand, fighting against new technology would endanger Germany’s leadership in the machine-tool and manufacturing equipment, right during the Industrie 4.0 hype.

Losing the leadership to foreign makers could also lead to lose jobs, hence weaken the unions’ importance.

Unions need to show their subscribers that they care to protect their interest in this uncertain working future and no one would benefit from a new luddites uprising.

I assume the German union goes the Realpolitik way and tries to find an acceptable compromise.

Comments welcome.

You may also like: The cobot controversy – part 1

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

 

Advertisements

Reading between the lines: Safran puts Cobots at the Forefront of the Factory of the Future

Collaborative robots (cobots) are trendy and a must have for any organization claiming to go for the factory of the future. An article on Safran’s corporate website (May 2017) explains how the high-tech group is putting Cobots at the Forefront of the Factory of the Future. Of course, it caught my attention.

But what is hype and what is real necessity? The second question reading the article is about the emphasized statement that machines will not replace people. Could it hide the fear of some new luddites smashing the new robots?

The article in a nutshell

The article is an interview of the Head of the Group’s “Ergonomics” program. The article’s highlights are:

  • Safran defines 3 types of cobots:
    • those controlled by an operator located within the immediate vicinity of the system (co-manipulation)
    • those controlled remotely (teleoperation)
    • exoskeletons; electromechanical systems providing active assistance to employees
  • Safran’s guiding principle is to combine the capabilities of a robot with the skills of a human. The article highlights in bold letters that “At no point will machines replace people, they will simply assist them with their work. It is a real partnership”.
  • Cobots enable the employability of aging workers or those with disabilities as well as relieving workers from low value-added tasks.
  • Work organisation and content has to be reviewed, for instance how workers can be part in cobots maintenance
  • Cobots bring flexibility at low cost when compared to traditional robots.

More than hype?

My first question when reading the article’s title was: is the experimentation with cobots a must have for a high-tech company or a real necessity?

Well, it seems that in France at least, the sustained growing activity in aerospace industry meets some difficulties to attract qualified workers and young people eager to work as qualified mechanics. Cobots may well be part of the solution. If work is made easier and high-tech goes to the shopfloor, younger people may consider this career path.

Extend and keep the aging but highly qualified workforce is another expected benefit from bringing in collaborative robots.

Flexibility, with regards to low volumes and high variability is another benefit that can be checked as valid.

From my understanding, cobots are more than fancy new high-tech toys for geeks in industrial engineering. There are real issues to be solved and cobots may be, at least a part of the solution. Cobots and their applications being relatively new, experimentation is still required. Over time, the reality of expected benefits will show, as well as potential new usage and applications.

What about the statement “At no point will machines replace people”?

On the one hand, given the need to replace aging and retiring workforce and to cope with increasing activity in aerospace industry, as well as the nature of the jobs, it is most probably true that machines will not drive human workers out of business soon.

Full automation is hard to imagine with the low volume high mix that characterizes building aircrafts or aircraft equipment.

On the other hand, layoffs are periodically reported in this industry. They happen when companies merge, plants are relocated or when the sales are going down. For people fearing to lose their jobs, the coming of machines purposely installed to reduce the part of human work can be seen as a threat.

Therefore, preventing any new luddites smashing the cobots is understandable.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Can new luddites smash robots in anger?

It strikes me how many robot and cobot promoters downplay the risk for human to lose jobs to automation, digitalization and the raise of new generation of robots. The fact that human workers will remain in business seems too forcefully highlighted to be true. Therefore my question: can new luddites smash robots in anger?

According to wikipedia, the Luddites were a group of English textile workers and weavers in the 19th century who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest, fearing that machines would replace their role in the industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

When it comes to promote the new generations of robots and especially those able to work safely in close proximity with humans, and even collaborate (cobots, made of “collaborative” and “robot”), the benefits put to the forefront is to help workers alleviating dangerous or health-hazardous situations. Cobots would take care of lifting and manipulating heavy loads and/or the repeated motions to grasp, move and hold parts, while the human worker would concentrate on value-adding tasks.

For those workers which would be made unnecessary thanks to automation, their future would look good nevertheless, because they would be recycled in higher-value jobs, like industrial engineering, continuous improvement and many other occupations.

It looks to me like painting the future a bit too blue and who can reasonably believe all this wishful thinking?

Knowing that most of the human tasks can be transferred to robots, Artificial Intelligence and automation, or a combination of all, can we believe that all this high-tech in development and the significant investments required will be made only to improve workers’ jobs?

Human workers will remain the weak link in automated processes in many aspects, beginning with variability: variability in availability, mood, health, discipline, focus, speed of execution, performance…

Why would investors refrain to reap all the benefits of the new solutions?

And if some would, as an act of humanity, I believe many would not have much hesitation and once the competitiveness is challenged, I cannot believe that care for humanity would count for much.

So if human workers cannot be kept in their jobs, they have to be “recycled”.

Yet the speed of progress with autonomous systems is such that most unnecessary human actors will be out of occupation before they can convert to a new one.

Besides, who can believe that ALL outperformed workers can be recycled into specialized technicians, industrial engineers, problem solvers and continuous improvers?

Who can believe we would need so many, if need at all?

My assumption is that the robot and automation promoters fear a new luddites uprising who could smash the high-tech in anger for losing their jobs.

But unlike the 19th century workers, the threatened contemporary ones have overall higher education, access to instant information. It can’t be long they understand the risks by their own or by someone else’s analysis.

Therefore, it is necessary to downplay what could happen?

Comments welcome.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

The cobot controversy – Part 1

“The cobot controversy” is the title of a short article published by and on the Hannover Messe (“Hannover Fair”, the industry exhibition) website.

http://www.hannovermesse.de/en/news/the-cobot-controversy.xhtml

The article can be read in English as well as in German (assumed original version). This article proposes a “balanced” view about the impact of the collaborative robots (cobots) on the jobs in industry.

It caught my interest because most often the articles on those subjects, i.e. robots and future of jobs are single-sided.

  • On the one hand promoters of the factory of the future, industry 4.0 and robotics only highlight the alleged benefits of the new technologies.
  • On the other hands, prophets of doom predict nothing else than mass extinction of jobs.

Published by what can be considered the Mecca of Germany’s Industrie 4.0, the showplace of the most recent and finest developments in cyber physical systems, automation and more, it is fair (no pun intended…) to present the flip side of the coin.

Furthermore, some references to studies cited in the article are interesting. For instance the fact that “robots are replacing tasks, not jobs”. Digging deeper into this one, I read that usually analysts assume that the whole job is taken over by automation or robots when in fact only specific tasks are. This is mainly because the analysts remained on a macro level.

Now, can this invalidate the initial assumption: robots won’t replace humans at work?

When observing any person in its daily work, many of the tasks done are not described in the work instructions neither in the procedures and many tasks are not even part of the job description.

This can have several reasons:

  • people not sticking to the work instructions and taking liberties
  • reacting to unexpected situations that require decision and action on the spot
  • impossibility to describe every possible situation in work instructions and procedures
  • broad guidelines as instructions, relying on human know-how to carry out the tasks
  • etc.

The human workers defenders will argue that humans are irreplaceable when facing an unexpected situation, something that is likely to happen (very) frequently. They may be right, but with regards to old automation constraints and algorithm programming.

Until relatively recently, automation required accurate positioning and low variability for automated machines or robots to operate. Programming was linear and only capable to adjust on programmed variations. With the all the progress in various fields, objects positioning is no longer a hard constraint and systems are increasingly capable to adjust to unexpected situations.

Machines, in the broadest meaning of the word, are also increasingly capable to learn and adapt. Therefore, the assumption of the irreplaceable human is losing its validity as the machines’ abilities improve.

When observing humans work, is it also common to see them take deliberate liberties with the list of tasks, because of their inability to keep focused over time, because they are convinced to know better or because they lack the self-discipline to stick to instructions.

Humans introduce many variations and not always for good reasons, therefore praising the vast variety of tasks the human do must be considered with care. For the same reason, stating that “robots are replacing tasks, not jobs”, based on such observations without a critical discrimination of the necessity and added-value of the human tasks, might be wrong.

Why? When going for automation, the engineers will analyze the process and concentrate on the core activities. They may well ignore many special issues a human will take care of, but also ignore all the unnecessary or deviant activities human will add. More or less, this analysis will discriminate necessary from unnecessary tasks, value-added from waste.

Comments welcome.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Cobots: more cooperation than collaboration

Cobot is the contraction of “collaborative” and “robot”, name and concept of a new kind of robots able to work literally hand-in-hand with humans without a safety fence between them.

fraunhoferCobots are hype and the word tends to become generic for any kind of robot working in close proximity of humans. A study from the German FRAUNHOFER – INSTITUT für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation IAO (2016) about first experiences with lightweight robots in manual assembly* distinguishes cooperation from collaboration.

*“Leichtbauroboter in der manuellen Montage – einfach einfach anfangen. Erste Erfahrungen von Anwenderunternehmen

This post is in great part my translation of the original study, with my personal comments.

>Lisez-moi en français

The study summarized different combinaisons in the use of robots near and with human operators, leading the authors to propose 5 classes:

  1. Robotic cell in which a robot operates on its own, fenced-off from humans by a safety fence. In such a case there is no human-robot collaboration.
  2. Coexistence of robot and human, a case in which both are close to each other but without a safety fence, yet have no common workspace. The robot has its own dedicated space distinct from the human one.
  3. Synchronized work: an organization in which human and robot share a common workspace but only one being active at a time. The work sequence is like a choreography between human and robot.
  4. Cooperation: the two “partners” work on their own tasks and can share a common space but not on the same product nor same part.
  5. Collaboration: an organization with common and simultaneous work on the same product or part. Typically the robot handles, presents and holds a part while the operator works on it.

Based on this classification, the studies reveals that collaboration is still seldom. Workers and robots work side by side on their own dedicated tasks, letting me conclude that for the time being, “cobots” are more cooperative than collaborative.

Motivation for investing in this kind of more expensive robots is mainly productivity improvement and secondary objectives are improvement of ergonomics (avoid heavy lifting for example) and testing innovative technologies.

The choice of this kind of solutions requires also new planning and management tools as well as consulting. New standards and regulations are in preparation that must be managed by companies themselves, not the system provider. All this carries additional costs.

Companies with no or only limited experience with these kinds of robots remain hesitant, therefore the authors of the study recommend to implement step wise, starting simple and going from human-robot coexistence to collaboration.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

How lean can help shaping the future? Introduction

Lean, no doubt, is a powerful proven business management system with long track record of success stories (and probably as many failed attempts).

In 60 years, Lean made it slowly from Lean Manufacturing to Lean Thinking and Lean Management, from small improvement experiments in industrial workshops to worldwide shared Body of Knowledge.

Despite all the experience gathered and shared, the numerous good books, papers, testimonies or seminars, the application of Lean concepts is still as it was in its early days. Most of those starting Lean initiatives seek cost savings and/or performance improvement and still consider Lean as a well-furnished toolbox. They try to fix broken and poorly designed processes, bailing water faster rather than fixing the leaks.

Chris HOHMANN

Author Chris HOHMANN

Sadly, Lean seldom made it into management age, but keep stuck in the tool age as Jim Womack would put it, being “used” as it was in its early days, or as Mike Rother expresses it: “Lean seems stuck in the 20th Century, for instance focused almost exclusively on efficiency, and that there is a 21st-Century Lean that encompasses a wider range of human endeavor.“

It seems to me that most organizations using Lean run backwards into their future – which is risky and suboptimal enough – and do not anticipate the disruptions that lay ahead.

Innovations in technologies, societal changes and stiffer regulations for example will lead us into a near future where past experience will be only a limited help.

I think about machines able to learn from their own experience, processes able to configure and adjust themselves dynamically to respond to customers’ demands, power plants going into safe mode long before human supervisors would notice any problems, far better sales forecasts, ever smaller production batches and new ways to manufacture, using 3D printing for example.

Factories of the future will have to blend into residential areas, because of lack of space or simply because employees long commuting time is huge waste of time and energy. These factories must be energy efficient, limit all their pollution (noise, fumes, scrap…) and may be mobile device-controlled by only a handful of highly skilled personnel, few workers sharing their job with collaborative robots (cobots).

Science fiction? Not at all, no more. Search the Web for terms like “smart factories” or “industry 4.0” to get a glimpse into the future.

This brings (at least) two questions about Lean:

  1. Will lean survive the fourth industrial revolution? a topic I discuss in >this post<
  2. How Lean can help shaping the future?

This post is an introduction to a prospective thinking about these topics

Related

Feel free to share your thoughts and comments!

Technologies alone will not regain competitive advantage

Smart factories, high level of automation, robots, cobots and industry 4.0 concepts will not be enough to regain competitive advantage for Western European* companies. The reason is very simple, these technologies will be available to everyone and there is no real barrier to entry. These technologies won’t be very expensive and the ease of mastering them is their core claim.

Christian HOHMANNThus, everything else being equal, technologies alone won’t change contestants’ actual competitive advantages once they all acquired and mastered them.

Will the innovations therefore be useless? Surely not, they’ll enhance tools and processes and open new perspectives, but technologies alone won’t regain competitive advantage.

* This post is written from a French perspective which may be valid for Western Europe and United States as well

What can differentiate a competitor from his peers is the attractiveness of its offers, as it already did and still does before the next techno revolution. Attractive offers are based on:

  • Innovative products and services
  • High level of customization
  • High perceived value
  • Fast deliveries

These features are responses to common customers’ expectations like:

  • the fascination for novelty, originality
  • the desire to distinguish from the mass with something custom made
  • the ratio from perceived quality and value to its cost
  • the instant satisfaction of desires

In other words, it is not the means – read technologies – used to please customers that determine performance but the way of using them. The keys to competitive edge do not relate to machinery, automation nor sophisticated IT alone but to smarter use of them.

Hints for future successes, with a bit of high-tech

Analyzing voice of customers, soon greatly improved with big data.

Big data brings all kind of heterogeneous information together, analyze them and refine customers’ preferences better than traditional inquiries could achieve. For a simple reason: inquiries are based on limited questions with limited answer options and too often biased. Respondent keep much of their expectations and desires unspoken, implicit and thus hidden. Big data allows gathering small pieces of information in tweets, facebook posts, online orders, blog comments, etc. and finding correlations that allow to refine the offering to customers’ unspoken and maybe unconscious longings.

Innovation

Innovation is not only responding to customers’ whishes but surprise them with something new, different. Here TRIZ may help. TRIZ is one of these powerful methods and tools that didn’t really make it into the light so far.

TRIZ is a problem solving method based on logic and data, not intuition, which accelerates the project team’s ability to solve these problems creatively. TRIZ also provides repeatability, predictability, and reliability due to its structure and algorithmic approach. “TRIZ” is the (Russian) acronym for the “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving.” G.S. Altshuller and his colleagues in the former U.S.S.R. developed the method between 1946 and 1985. TRIZ is an international science of creativity that relies on the study of the patterns of problems and solutions, not on the spontaneous and intuitive creativity of individuals or groups. More than three million patents have been analyzed to discover the patterns that predict breakthrough solutions to problems.

source: http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/what_is_triz/

The TRIZ pioneers used a big data approach in time big data as technology and tool did not exist. Now that big data is growing mature, methods like TRIZ and QFD (Quality Function Deployment) could be boosted and jointly used for invention.

Speed

Speed, both for launching often new products/services and deliver them fast to market, is a key success factor. Additive manufacturing (3D printing) may be a technical response, but when it comes to speed Lean can help a lot.

Lean is not only about reducing lead time, but also avoiding loops (e.g. rework), unnecessary dwelling (e.g. waiting for next process step or waiting for inventory queue to flush). Lean also cares about doing things right first time, improving in-process quality and doing what is really necessary to deliver value and thus stop over processing and needless tasks. While all this reduces lead time, it reduces also costs and improves quality.

Profitability

Profitability means that all the previous should not be done at the expense of company’s profit. Profit making is essential for company’s sustainability. What’s the use of a one-shot success?

Bandeau_CH11

Robots won’t take your job, investors will

In a previous post I outlined cobots utopia where collaborative robots extend the worker’s abilities and compensate some human weaknesses. In this perspective cobots could keep aging workers on the job and help to improve industrial jobs’ image, often quoted Dirty, Dangerous and Difficult.

The cooperation between robots and workers could increase manpower productivity, hence reducing the cost gap with low-cost countries.

How likely is this to happen?

Let’s put it bluntly: why should an investor invest to compensate the human weaknesses with high-tech, knowing that in the system made of the association of robots and humans, the latter will still be the limiting factor?

Everything else being equal, why should an investor choose the precarious option of backing-up expensive workforce with cobots when a cheaper basic workforce is available somewhere in poorer, not-so-advanced countries?

Everything else being equal, why should an investor choose to invest in a complex combination of man-and-machine when full automation / robotics may soon be / already is (?) available?

Big Data combined with cyberphysical devices will come closer to human intelligence, allowing machines to learn from experience and predict failures, stoppage, breakdowns and act accordingly.

If investors are facing the choice between a cobot assisted human worker and a full automated process, I’m not sure many cobots will sell. What’s sure, the robot makers will sell, either robots or cobots!

Related: Cobots utopia

Cobots utopia

What is a cobot?

A cobot is a collaborative robot, a robot able to work with human, assist them, collaborate with them, without harming them.

Traditional industrial robots are fenced off humans to avoid injuring them while moving or working. Unlike cobots, traditional robots cannot notice human presence and adapt their behavior. Usually a safety barrier will put the robot on hold when trespassed.

Cobots are meant to assist their human colleagues, taking over repetitive, dangerous hard work or extending human abilities e.g. Lifting heavy weight, reduce fatigue, and so on.

Cobots can take over the non-value-adding operation, freeing humans for more valuable tasks. Cobots could boost productivity.

Cobots could be a solution to ease working in general, in some industries where operations are heavy-duty and help aging workforce to keep their jobs. Cobots could serve as mentors and assistants, cybernetic reminders, knowledge base and many more.

Cobots may help overcome the relunctancy for industrial jobs often quoted as Dirty, Dangerous and Difficult.

Cobots utopia

At first. The idea to assist and relief the aging and stressed human workers with a gentle, care taking cybernetic colleague sounds good.

These cobots will compensate many human weaknesses, hence improve quality and productivity. All the chores will be pushed onto them, while the human worker, thanks to his human status and alleged capabilities, is the leader of this pair or pack.

Cobots would remind their human colleague not to forget again this or that operation, adapt their speed to him and go on with work restlessly while he/she enjoys coffee break.

In a process involving humans, the human link is the weakest link of the chain. Unreliable, highly variable in mood and performance, needing periodic rest.

Yet humans have human abilities like adjust to unexpected events, learn from experience or solve problems. These made them unique and valuable in semi-automatic processes despite all other numerous weaknesses. At least until technology catches up.

Related >Examples of cobots

Robot as coworker, a cobot

Automation and robotics are ways for old economies to keep up with competition being inovative and cost effective. Yet aging of population, raising concern about health and safety, stiffer regulations, etc. may welcome the robot as a companion. Those able to work with humans on a shopfloor are called cobots, collaborative-robots.

Collaborative industrial robots are complex machines which work hand in hand with human beings. In a shared work process, they support and relieve the human operator. One example: a robot lifts and positions a heavy workpiece whilst a human worker welds light iron hooks to it. During this task, the operator and the various elements of the robot, such as the robot arm and tool, are in close proximity to each other. The robot and the worker may come into direct contact with each other as a result. A comparable situation can be found with mobile service robots, which are being used in increasing numbers in the proximity of human beings in occupational contexts and in public or private environments.

>Source: Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA)

HIRO, a collaborative human-like robot for industrial applications (Japan)

Meet BAXTER, the Cobot (USA)

>Read Robotics Featured Articles – The End of Separation: Man and Robot as Collaborative Coworkers on the Factory Floor

Andrew, cobot for lab (Switzerland)

Related >Cobots Utopia

Bandeau_CH12