It's assumed by many that industrial robots will increasingly be based on the human form. Guy Courtin, vice president industry and global alliances with Tecsys, explains why that's not necessarily a good idea.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about designing robots in human form for use in manufacturing and distribution environments. Does that make sense? Courtin doesn’t necessarily think so. He traces the origin of the word “robot” to the 1920 science fiction play R.U.R., by Czech playwright Karel Čapek, one of the earliest works to imagine a mechanical man with arms, legs, head and torso. Ever since then, movies, books and even toys have perpetuated the assumption that “robots need to look like us.”

Fine in concept, but it’s not necessarily the best solution for industrial purposes. “A robot is fundamentally a tool,” Courtin says, “Why try to build a humanoid and look for a use case, as opposed to finding a workflow and optimizing for that?”

There’s a psychological element to the question. Designing a humanoid robot amounts to creating something in our own image — the “God complex,” as Courtin describes it. But technological innovations that began by aping nature, as in the case of aircraft, often need to be tweaked to become practical.

The human form, for all of its marvels, is simply not the best option for many commercial purposes, Courtin says. Better to create a form factor that’s focused on specific applications, such as a robotic arm or autonomous mobile unit.

Even the most amazing robots have their limitations. Courtin cites the case of a robot in a Hyundai factory that was given the task of triaging car parts — something, in that particular case, that could have accomplished by a human in far less time and at much lower cost.

“Is the juice worth the squeeze?” asks Courtin. “I don’t think so. Not yet.”