Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-023-02137-w

Collaborative robots in manufacturing and assembly systems:

literature review and future research agenda
Ali Keshvarparast1 · Daria Battini1 · Olga Battaia2 · Amir Pirayesh2

Received: 3 October 2022 / Accepted: 19 April 2023 / Published online: 30 May 2023
© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
Nowadays, considering the constant changes in customers’ demands, manufacturing systems tend to move more and more
towards customization while ensuring the expected reactivity. In addition, more attention is given to the human factors to, on
the one hand, create opportunities for improving the work conditions such as safety and, on the other hand, reduce the risks
brought by new technologies such as job cannibalization. Meanwhile, Industry 4.0 offers new ways to facilitate this change
by enhancing human–machine interactions using Collaborative Robots (Cobots). Recent research studies have shown that
cobots may bring numerous advantages to manufacturing systems, especially by improving their flexibility. This research
investigates the impacts of the integration of cobots in the context of assembly and disassembly lines. For this purpose, a
Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is performed. The existing contributions are classified on the basis of the subject of study,
methodology, methodology, performance criteria, and type of Human-Cobot collaboration. Managerial insights are provided,
and research perspectives are discussed.

Keywords Cobots · Collaborative robots · Literature review · Manufacturing system · Human–machine interaction · Industry
4.0

Introduction robotics-worldwide was more than 14 billion US dollars

out of which, 3.7 billion US dollars, equal to 26 percent,
Increasing production volume was one of the main challenges belonged to automotive industries, and 3.6 billion US dol-
in many industries for a long time. The population’s rapid lars, equal to 25 percent, belonged to electronic industries
growth was the principal reason for that situation (Malik & (Statista, 2022a).
Bilberg, 2019b). To face this increasing demand, industrial For decades, the worldwide usage of robots shows that
systems have been developed during the first and second traditional industrial robots are perfectly fit for mass produc-
industrial revolutions, and mass production has become a tion. However, nowadays, the challenge that industries face is
common strategy (Jepsen et al., 2021). This was followed by not just about the production capacity in terms of throughput
the introduction of robots into manufacturing systems in the but is even stronger related to flexibility, customization, and
third industrial revolution (Azzi et al., 2012). Their advan- ergonomics (Battini et al., 2015). At the same time, the use of
tages convinced managers to use them widely in different robots has some disadvantages, such as the high investment
operations, mainly where repetitive tasks were concerned, and operational costs, the difficulty of integrating them in the
such as the case of automotive and electronic industries (Xu work environment (e.g., size problems or lack of flexibility),
et al., 2021). In 2019, the market sales value of industrial or human-related risks (Serebrenny et al., 2019b). Eventually,
the fourth industrial revolution, known as the Industry 4.0,
happened not only to increase the flexibility in the production
B Ali Keshvarparast
[email protected] systems but also to enhance human–machine interactions
(Lamon et al., 2018). Robotics is still considered as a key
1 Department of Management and Engineering, University of technology, as Boston Consulting cited this field among “the
Padua, Stradella San Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy nine pillars of Industry 4.0” (Neumann et al., 2021).
2 KEDGE Business School Campus Bordeaux, 33405 Talence,
France

123
2066 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

In the Industry 4.0 paradigm, robots are expected to Manufacturing Robotic

become more flexible and safer while generally being more 10

9
affordable and more size efficient. Consequently, it should be

Number of studies
8
easier to integrate robots into a work environment, and more 7
6
opportunities are to be created for human–robot collabora- 5
tions (Weckenborg & Spengler, 2019). These expectations 4
3
led to the introduction of Collaborative Robots (Cobots) 2
1
which help workers in their assigned tasks and improve the 0
results and work conditions by combining workers’ skills and M S HC DT M&R S&R CS R
robots’ physical strength and endurance. Field
The main differences between cobots and traditional
Fig. 1 Number of published literature reviews about collaborative
robots are: (a) cobots do not need to perform a task as quickly robots in relation to the field of study (M: Manufacturing, R: Robotics,
as robots, so it is safer for workers to be around cobots, and CS: Computer Science, S: Safety, DT: Digital Twin, HC: Health Care)
(b) they should not replace workers but cooperate with them,
(c) they are supposed to be more flexible than robots, so
they should be simple to program, locate, and relocate, (d) 8
7
they should prepare a safe shared work-space for workers

Number of studies
6
(de Gea Fernández et al., 2017). Besides these advantages, 5
cobots have ergonomic benefits in the case of repetitive or 4
M
dangerous tasks. In addition, there are the possibilities to 3
CS
use robots to help workers with physical disabilities or aging 2
R
1
workforces (EU-OSHA, 2019).
0
Cobots’ advantages have led the industry to use them more before 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2018
and more in recent years. Based on the Statista database, the
Year
share of collaborative robots from total unit sales worldwide
being 5% in 2018 is expected to reach 13% in 2022 (Statista, Fig. 2 Number of literature review papers per year (R: Robotics, M:
2022b). Also, the market size of the collaborative robot being Manufacturing, CS: Computer Science)
700 million US dollars in 2021 is expected to reach nearly 2
billion US dollars in 2030 (NMSC, 2022). However, same as
any new technology, cobotization brought some new chal- These papers were studied to extract the keydata such as
lenges such as worker’s safety, while safety was initially subjects, research field, sources, review method, classifica-
a main argument for adopting cobots. For instance, due to tion criteria, and key findings were extracted. The number
the close interaction of humans and robots, the safety of the of studies in each research field indicates that these papers
workers should be ensured in a collaborative station which mainly focused on the design phase of cobots, robotics, or
could be a complex problem. computer science fields (see Fig. 1), among which signifi-
In the past decade, safety has been the most referenced cant studies such as Robla-Gomez et al., 2017, El Zaatari
topic in collaborative robots’ literature and designing a safe et al., 2019, Zhang et al., 2021a, and Costa et al., 2022 can
cobot was the main target of most researchers in this field be mentioned. However, recently, some reviews that address
(Cardoso et al., 2021, Pinheiro et al., 2022). Researchers human–robot collaboration appeared in the literature such as
started to further study the interaction of “safe cobots” with Simões et al., 2022, Faccio et al., 2023.
humans and analyse their individual and collaborative per- Figure 2 shows that besides the robotics and computer
formance. In addition to safety, when cobots and humans science fields, studying manufacturing systems has become
interact to achieve a pre-defined goal, many other aspects more popular in recent years. Moreover, several studies
need to be considered. focus on the human–machine dimension (see Appendix Table
Several literature review papers on cobots have been pub- 4), for example, human–robot communication (Hjorth &
lished to assist researchers in exploring the topic. To better Chrysostomou, 2022) or the use of computer science for
understand the differences between other literature review analyzing human–robot collaboration (Navas-Reascos et al.,
papers with regards to the main ideas, categorization, and 2022b) in manufacturing systems.
key findings, a comprehensive analysis was conducted on Among the 32 selected studies, 11 were systematic liter-
literature reviews related to cobots (see Appendix Table 4). ature reviews out of which three were in the manufacturing
By using keywords "cobot" OR "collaborative robot" OR research field, two focused on human factors in collabora-
"human-cobot collaboration" OR "HRC" AND "review" in tive systems, and one focused on workstation design factors.
Scopus and Web of Science, 32 papers were found in English. In our systematic literature review (SLR), we expand the

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2067

analysis of the contributions on cobots and human–robot col- Every study can consider one or more performance criteria to
laboration according to the following criteria: the subject of evaluate their design solutions. In Sect. “Results of the sys-
study, methodology, methodology, performance criteria, and tematic literature review”, all performance criteria that have
collaboration scenarios. been employed in the cobot’s literature are discussed.
The rest of this article is structured as follows.
Section “Basic concepts” introduces some basic concepts Collaboration scenarios
about cobot’s research fields, performance criteria, and col-
laboration scenarios. Section “SLR Methodology” presents Based on how cobots and humans collaborate to accom-
the systematic literature review approach and steps to select plish tasks (processes) in a workstation, the collaboration
papers. In Sect. “Results of the systematic literature review”, between humans and cobots can be classified into four dif-
a demographic analysis is reported, the categorization of the ferent categories: independent, sequential, simultaneous, and
selected papers is explained, and the articles are analyzed in supportive (El Zaatari, 2019) (see Fig. 3).
the defined categories. Finally, in Sect. “Research Agenda
and conclusions”, open questions, and perspectives for • Independent: In this scenario, a human worker and a cobot
human-cobot collaboration are summarized and discussed. process two tasks (tasks 1 and 2) separately on two dif-
ferent workpieces (workpieces 1 and 2). In some studies,
Basic concepts
“independent” scenarios are named “parallel” scenarios.
• Sequential: This scenario happens when a human worker
This section introduces the concepts that will be used further
and a cobot process two different tasks (tasks 1 and 2) on
in our literature analysis, namely: (a) subject of study, (b)
the same workpiece in serial processes. This scenario is
performance criteria, and (c) collaboration scenarios.
usually used to improve working conditions for workers.
Subject of study Delivery tasks or pick-and-place are two samples.
• Simultaneous: Here, a human worker and a cobot process
In general, research about cobots concerns either two different tasks (tasks 1 and 2) on the same work-
pre-manufacturing or post-manufacturing. In the pre- piece at the same time. This scenario is usually used to
manufacturing research, researchers aim to improve the improve ergonomics. For instance, rivets can be processed
design of cobots. Therefore, a cobot is typically considered by a cobot and screws by a human worker simultane-
an isolated entity in these studies, not an entity in a manufac- ously. Ensuring the safety of workers in this scenario is
turing system. On the other hand, in the post-manufacturing of paramount importance.
research, researchers focus on either (I) how to improve the • Supportive: When a human worker and a cobot interac-
human–robot interaction by changing the cobot’s program tively process a single task on a single workpiece, the
or controllers or (II) how to use or implement cobots in a scenario is called “supportive”. In this scenario, support
production system. each other (usually physical support) to accomplish a task.
Based on the previous explanations, cobot studies can be For example, a cobot holds the workpiece and a human
divided into three main classes: design, programming, and worker fastens the screw (Zhang et al., 2021b).
operation.

• Design: The main targets of such papers are to produce a

SLR Methodology
better cobot. Changing the sensors, arms angles, the mate-
In this section, all the research questions were described, then
rial used, and arms speed are the most common ways to
the search strategy and selection criteria were explained in
design new cobots with better performance.
detail. To find, classify, and analyse all relevant articles to the
• Programming: The program and controller installed on the
topic of interest and research questions, a Systematic Litera-
cobots act as the decision-maker. Therefore, researchers
ture Review (SLR) was performed. The proposed guidelines
try to find a new way to develop programs/algorithms that
for SLR studies from Kitchenham (2004) were followed. The
can improve cobots’ performance.
SLR steps are applied in the following order:
• Operation: Such papers discuss the integration of cobots
in manufacturing systems.
• Defining research questions
• Specifying search keyworks (inclusion criteria) and search
Performance criteria method
• Screening titles, abstract, and conclusions to find irrelevant
The selection of performance criteria is essential for design- studies
ing a cobot or a collaborative system (Simões et al., 2022). • Reading carefully all the selected studies

123
2068 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

Fig. 3 Collaboration scenarios (Zhang et al, 2021b)

• Using both forward and backward snowball approaches systems. The relation between search expressions is drawn
• Categorizing, summarizing, and reporting the results to in Fig. 4.
answer the research questions. By using the defined search expressions and the relation
between them, 237 papers were found in both databases.
Research questions Exclusion criteria
The first step of the SLR study is defining the research ques- In the first step, non-English language articles were excluded
tions. The following questions were selected as the research from the papers. In the next step, the duplicated articles were
questions of this study because answering these questions removed. A two-step systematic approach was applied to
can help researchers to better understand the current situa- extract the irrelevant articles: (1) examining the title, reading
tion around cobots implementation and the open questions the abstract, and conclusions; (2) a full paper reading was
in this field. considered if the title, abstract, and conclusions could not
RQ1: What are the performance criteria used in studies provide sufficient information about the paper’s relevance.
related to the implementation of cobots? All papers not respecting at least one of the following con-
RQ2: How many studies considered each collaboration ditions were excluded from the analysis:
scenario?
RQ3: What are the achievements of each study? • The article does not fit the considered research questions.
RQ4: What are the open questions about implementa- • Humans were not considered.
tion of cobots? • Cobot is not considered specifically.
• Not related to the manufacturing system.
Search and selection strategy
After the full reading of papers, 183 papers were selected
In order to find the papers related to the human-cobot collabo-
for analysis. Additionally, a forward and backward snowball
ration, two online databases, Scopus and ISI Web of Science,
approach was realised providing 19 papers. All the search
were used.
and selection processes are described in Fig. 5.

Inclusion criteria Classification

A combination search expression was used in Scopus and To classify the final 201 papers, the following dimensions
Web of Science database to conduct a systematic literature were considered for the analysis of each paper’s research
review on the implementation of cobots in manufacturing questions, results, and conclusions (see Appendix Table 5):

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2069

Fig. 4 Keywords and relations

for search in databases "Cobot*" OR "Collaborave robot*" OR "Human-robot collaboraon*"

AND

"Manufacturing system*" OR "producon system*" OR "assembly*" OR "disassembly*"

Fig. 5 Search and selection steps

Pre-selection of papers based on the keywords in both databases (438 papers)
Step 1

Remove non-English research (remained 425 papers)

Step 2

Remove duplicated research (remained 281 papers)

Step 3

Select papers on the basis of the title and abstract (selected 154 papers)
Step 4

Select papers based on the content (selected 29 papers)

Step5

Apply forward and backward snow ball approach (found 19 papers)

Step 6

1. Subject of study: design, programming, and/or operation aspect of cobots, such as deep learning, augmented reality,
(as explained in Section “Subject of study”). and simulation. The green color keywords are mostly related
2. Methodology (key proposition): mathematical approach, to the robotics and design phase of cobots, such as physical
mathematical modelling, simulation, framework, com- human–robot interaction, force control, and motion planning.
parative case study, or other. Additionally, the blue color keywords are mostly related to
3. Performance criteria: safety, cost, flexibility, productiv- safety and risk management, such as ergonomic, safety, col-
ity, ergonomic, or quality. lision avoidance, and risk assessments.
4. Human-cobot collaboration type: independent, sequen- The most frequently used keywords in cobot studies were
tial, simultaneously, and supportive (as explained in “Collaborative robots” and “assembly” which were classi-
Section “Collaboration scenarios”) fied in the green class, mainly related to the robotics and
design phase of cobots. This is consistent with the find-
Descriptive analysis ings from Fig. 1 and Appendix Table 5, which show that
most studies until now have been focused on the robotics
In this section, some descriptive analyses related to selected and computer science aspects of cobots. As inferred from
articles were presented. In the next section, the main results the classification shown in Fig. 6, the majority of the most-
of the systematic literature review were addressed. Based on used keywords are related to the design and programming
the Scopus database, more than 95% of papers in the field phase. However, there are some categorizations and relation-
of collaborative robots have been published after 2010. As a ships that deserve further attention. For example, "trust" was
preliminary analysis of the published papers filed on cobots categorized in the red class, which is closely related to pro-
in the Scopus database, two networks were elaborated on gramming. This is because most researchers have attempted
the most frequent keywords used in all the articles using to increase trust between humans and cobots by providing
VOSviewer software (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). better and more reliable programming. "Safety" is one of
the most frequently used keywords, alongside “Collaborative
robots”, "human–robot collaboration", and "industry 4.0 . It
Keywords classifications
is also connected to both the design and programming phase.
"Sensors” is categorized in the programming class, but it is
In Fig. 6, the most frequent keywords are classified based
well connected to both other classes due to its importance in
on their relationship in articles. The auto classifier distin-
designing safe human–robot collaboration.
guished three different classes. As can be understood from
the network and color classification, red color keywords are
mostly related to the computer science and programming

123
2070 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

Fig. 6 Clustering of co-occurrence keywords network of the 2251 papers (Scopus Database) using VOSviewer

Fig. 7 Publication year demonstration of co-occurrence keywords network of the 2251 papers (Scopus Database) using VOSviewer

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2071

Table 1 Frequency of using each

performance criterion for each PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
objective

Productivity

Ergonomic

Flexibility

Quality
Safety
Cost
MAIN OBJECTIVE
Design 3 36 2 15 8 2
Programming 0 49 2 6 13 0
Operation 17 54 20 18 7 1
Colors represent the relative values in the data, with dark green indicating higher values, yellow indicating
intermediate values, and dark red indicating lower values.

Keywords timeline human–robot collaboration or aimed to demonstrate the ben-

efits of cobots for industries. As industries become more
In addition to the keyword classifications, the keyword time- familiar with the benefits and safety of cobots, researchers
line in Fig. 7 can also provide insights into the general trends began to focus on designing more efficient systems and
in recent years in the field of cobots. The timeline shows the improving the functionality of cobots. This shift in research
evolution of the keywords used over time, and it can be seen focus reflects the growing acceptance and integration of
that there is a shift in the research focus from older keywords cobots in industries and also the recent interest in human
related to programming and safety, to more recent keywords factors and ergonomics aspects.
related to robotics and design phase, safety, ergonomics, and
the incorporation of new technologies such as digital twins, Frequency analysis
deep learning and smart factory. This indicates a growing
trend towards improving the functionality, safety and effi- A Pivot table based on the performance criteria and the
ciency of cobots, and incorporating new technologies in the main study’s objective for all 201 selected articles clearly
design and operation of cobots. Nearly 30 percent of the shows the frequency of research in each field (see Table 1).
top-most repeated keywords belong to papers published in As shown in the table, productivity was the most frequently
the past 2 years, and more than 90 percent of the top-most considered performance criterion in the articles to examine
repeated keywords belong to papers published in the past the production system. This factor alone is considered in
five years (see yellow and green nodes in Fig. 7). As seen in more than 60 percent of articles. Safety and flexibility are
Fig. 7, the three oldest keywords among the top repeated key- the other two frequent performance criteria in literature.
words are "Cobot", "Haptics", and "Teleoperation". These Quality as the performance criterion was considered just
keywords are categorized in the programming class. The next once in the previous studies.
generation of keywords, represented in green in Fig. 7 and Table 1 showed that performance criteria were not used
related to years between 2018 and 2020, are mostly related evenly across different fields. For example, papers that focus
to the robotics or design phase of cobots and safety such on design or programming mainly consider productivity,
as "motion planning", "force control", "impedance control", flexibility, and safety of the collaborative system. One reason
"collision avoidance", and "obstacle avoidance". "Trust", for this could be that in these types of studies, the main goal
"service robots", and "ergonomics" from the safety and is to enhance the performance of cobots rather than the sys-
ergonomic class, and "digital twins", "deep learning", and tem as a whole. On the other hand, to evaluate the cost of a
"smart factory" from the programming class are the most collaborative system, it is necessary to consider the entire sys-
recent keywords used frequently in studies related to cobots. tem. However, in the operation phase, except for productivity
This indicates that the research focus has shifted towards and flexibility, other performance criteria are used almost
improving the functionality, safety and efficiency of cobots evenly. The number of studies that consider flexibility as a
and incorporating new technologies such as digital twins and performance criterion is low, mainly due to the difficulty of
deep learning in the design and operation of cobots. evaluating flexibility using quantitative measures.
Figure 7 also highlights an important outcome. It shows
a general shift in research topics related to cobots. The old-
est frequent keywords were mostly related to creating a safe Results of the systematic literature review
and usable collaboration system. A more detailed analysis
shows that most of them were frameworks for designing Studies in the design and programming category usually
try to improve cobots from the mechanical or program-
ming aspect of view. However, the main target of our study

123
2072 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

is considering cobots from a management aspect of view. 2017; Weckenborg et al., 2020; Cohen et al., 2022; Zhu et al.,
Therefore, this section analyses only papers belonging to the 2022; Abdous et al., 2022).
operation class (the subject of study is operation).
Since the focus of this study is on the operation phase, a
Designing collaborative disassembly line
more detailed analysis of the corresponding contributions is
provided in Appendix Table 6 regarding this phase. In addi-
Early developments in collaborative assembly lines on one
tion to the methodology and performance criteria, Appendix
hand, and the advantages of using cobots in hazardous or dan-
III summarizes the main problem addressed by each study.
gerous tasks on the other hand, have led many researchers to
This provides a better understanding of the specific chal-
focus on designing collaborative disassembly lines. In this
lenges that researchers are addressing and what they propose
field, researchers have mostly utilized existing frameworks
facing that. This facilitates a more comprehensive under-
or simulation models to design collaborative systems. For
standing of the field and the progress that has been made
instance, Xu et al. (2021) provided a mathematical model
in addressing the key issues related to human–robot collab-
to balance a collaborative disassembly line by considering
oration in manufacturing systems.
both productivity and safety. Due to the hazardous nature
of some tasks in the disassembly line, the majority of stud-
Context of performance assessment ies have considered safety as a crucial performance criterion
for evaluating the collaborative system’s design. For exam-
The first aspect to consider when examining the problem ple, Lee et al. (2022), Deniz & Ozcelik (2023), and Liao
definitions in different studies is the context of performance et al. (2023) all attempted to assign the most hazardous tasks
analysis. Based on the selected articles, it is possible to to cobots to increase the safety of the disassembly line for
categorize the context of performance analysis into several human workers. While most studies in this area used mathe-
classes. matical models to balance the collaborative disassembly line,
Liu et al. (2022a) compared different reinforcement learning
methods to explore the feasibility of designing a collabora-
Designing collaborative assembly line
tive disassembly line.
As shown in Table 2, the majority of studies belong to this
class. The first studies tried to provide frameworks for design- Task allocation
ing a collaborative assembly line. Matthias et al. (2011) were
the first to propose a framework for designing a collabora- On first glance, task allocation is a component of designing
tive assembly line, and as expected, safety was the considered a collaborative assembly line problem, so it is best catego-
performance criterion. Afterwards, other studies were pub- rized as part of the first class. However, new approaches to
lished with different performance criteria (Djuric et al., 2016; human–robot communication, such as optical sensors, aug-
Schonberger et al., 2018; Cencen et al., 2018; Serebrenny mented reality (AR), and motion prediction systems, are
et al., 2019a; Jepsen et al., 2021; Gervasi et al., 2022). After aimed at addressing the lack of cognitive ability of cobots (Li
several framework studies, Gil-Vilda et al. (2017) evaluated et al., 2022). Consequently, in addition to traditional task allo-
the performance of a real collaborative assembly line in a cation, real-time task allocation or scheduling has become
comparative case study. Other examples include Wang et al. more popular. Online scheduling allows for immediate task
(2019), D’Souza et al. (2020), Inoue et al. (2021), Sordan allocation to workers and cobots based on real-time data, such
et al. (2021), and Navas-Reascos et al., (2022a) with different as production rate, task completion time, and machine sta-
performance criteria. Simulation was the next methodology tus. This ensures that the right worker or cobot is assigned to
used in this class (Malik et al., 2020, 2021; Thomas et al., the right task at the right time, thereby optimizing workflow
2018; Zhu et al., 2022). Although mathematical modeling and reducing idle time. Despite the underdeveloped infras-
was the last methodology used for this class, it was the most tructure for seamless communication between humans and
frequently used methodology for collaborative assembly line cobots, various researchers have investigated this topic. Pet-
balancing. The first study in this category was conducted by zoldt et al. (2022) and Pabolu et al. (2022) have proposed
Weckenborg & Spengler (2019), who considered cost and a framework for dynamic task assignment in a collaborative
ergonomics as performance criteria. However, due to the long assembly line and have considered productivity as the per-
history and strong literature in proposing mathematical mod- formance criteria. Zhang et al., (2022a, 2022e) and Lanzoni
els for manual assembly line balancing problems, numerous et al. (2022) have employed AI approaches in their studies. Li
studies have developed new mathematical models to design et al. (2022) provides a model for calculating online fatigue
and optimize a collaborative assembly line (i.e.,Boschetti in an assembly line and reducing fatigue levels by assigning
et al., 2021a, 2021b; Dalle Mura & Dini, 2019; Sadik et al., tasks to cobots.

123
 Table 2 Performance assessment methods and used criteria for cobots operation phase

Considered criteria

Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility

Method Mathematical Weckenborg and Spengler Sadik et al. (2017), Casalino Weckenborg and Spengler Xu et al. (2021), Lee et al. Weckenborg et al. (2020)
modelling (2019), Dalle Mura and et al., (2019a, Fager et al. (2019), Dalle Mura and (2022), Deniz & Ozcelik
Dini (2019), Dalle Mura & (2019), Zhang and Jia Dini (2019), Dalle Mura & (2023), Liao et al. (2023)
Dini (2022), Li et al., (2020), Weckenborg et al. Dini (2022), Keshvarparast
(2021c), Vieira et al. (2020), Xu et al. (2021), et al. (2022), Mura & Dini
(2022), Zhu et al. (2022), Boschetti et al., (2021a), (2023), Dalle Mura and
Dalle Mura and Dini Cohen et al. (2022), Li Dini (2022), Li et al.
(2022), Deniz & Ozcelik et al., (2021c), Vieira et al. (2022c), Stecke and
(2023), Xiang et al. (2022), (2022), Boschetti et al., Mokhtarzadeh (2022),
Liao et al. (2023), Abdous (2021b), Almasarwah et al. Abdous et al. (2022)
et al. (2022) (2022), Nourmohammadi
et al. (2022),
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

Keshvarparast et al.
(2022), Zhu et al. (2022),
Lee et al. (2022), Antonelli
and Aliev (2022), Li et al.
(2022), Stecke and
Mokhtarzadeh (2022
Mathematical Accorsi et al. (2019), Zhang et al., (2021b), Gualtieri et al. (2019), Zhang Gualtieri et al. (2019)
approach Gualtieri et al. (2019), Belhadj et al. (2022) et al., (2021b)
Belhadj et al. (2022)
Framework Djuric et al. (2016), Lamon Lamon et al. (2018); Gervasi Matthias et al. (2011), Malik Thomas et al. (2018),
et al. (2018), Serebrenny et al. (2021) et al. (2020), Berger et al. Serebrenny et al., (2019a,
et al., (2019a), Malik et al. (2020) 2019b), Malik et al.
(2020), Petzoldt et al. (2020)
(2022), Gervasi et al.
(2021), Pabolu et al. (2022)

123
2073
 Table 2 (continued)
2074

Considered criteria

123
Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility

Simulation Zhu et al. (2022) Cohen and Shoval (2020), Banziger et al. (2020), Boschetti et al. (2022), Thomas et al. (2018)
Wojtynek and Wrede Navas-Reascos et al., Gualtieri et al. (2022)
(2020), Banziger et al. (2022a)
(2020), Malik et al. (2021),
Ibanez et al. (2021),
Petzoldt et al. (2022), Zhu
et al. (2022), Wang et al.
(2022a), Boschetti et al.
(2022), Lorenzo et al.
(2022)
Comparative Karaulova et al. (2019) Gil-Vilda et al. (2017), Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Inoue et al. (2021)
case Quenehen et al. (2019), (2019), Karaulova et al.
Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. (2019), Gualtieri et al.,
(2019), Wang et al. (2019), (2020b), Navas-Reascos
Karaulova et al. (2019), et al., (2022a)
Gualtieri et al., (2020b),
Malik and Brem (2021),
Sordan et al. (2022),
Ibanez et al. (2021)
Other Peron et al. (2022) Sadik and Urban (2017b), Gualtieri et al., (2020a), Bruno and Antonelli (2018), Jepsen et al. (2021)
Gualtieri et al., (2020a), Lanzoni et al. (2022) Malik and Bilberg (2019a),
Rega et al. (2021), Gualtieri et al., (2020a),
Gjeldum et al. (2022), Rega et al. (2021)
Peron et al. (2022), Zhang
et al. (2022b), Liu et al.
(2022a)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2075

Workspace design Performance criteria

Workstation design is a critical component in a collaborative These sections analyse the contributions according to the
assembly line that affects both the safety and productivity of evaluation criteria used. Five performance criteria have been
workers. The design must ensure that the work environment used in the literature of Cobots operation class: safety, cost,
is ergonomic and safe for both workers and cobots to flexibility, productivity, and ergonomics.
minimize the risk of accidents, injuries, and musculoskeletal
disorders (Gualtieri et al., 2022). An effective workstation Cost
design can enhance workflow efficiency and reduce the time
required to complete tasks, thereby minimizing bottlenecks, Costs can be considered both in the design phase and the
and streamlining the workflow. Moreover, an adaptable operational phases. Some researchers are interested in the
and flexible workstation design is crucial for the long-term reduction of the cost of designing or manufacturing of
success of a collaborative assembly line (Gervasi et al., cobots. In the operational phase, researchers aim to reduce
2021). The design should accommodate changes in product the cost of implementation of new cobots in a manufacturing
design, production volumes, and other variables that impact system, cost of maintenance, cost of collaboration, or cost of
the assembly line’s operation. This requires a modular production. Weckenborg & Spengler (2019) and Dalle Mura
design that enables the quick and efficient reconfiguration & Dini (2019) developed a new cost-oriented mathematical
of workstations to meet changing needs. In summary, an modeling for the collaborative assembly line. Accorsi et al.
optimal workstation design is essential for achieving a safe, (2019) studied the economic feasibility of using cobots in the
efficient, and flexible collaborative assembly line. To design food packaging industry. Gualtieri et al. (2019) developed a
a workspace, researchers have proposed frameworks and new evaluation methodology for redesigning a pure manual
simulation models. Malik & Bilberg (2019a) proposed a assembly line into a collaborative assembly line. Karaulova
framework for designing a workspace and the positions of et al. (2019) analyzed an assembly line after establishing
cobots, tools, and objects for a safe collaborative system. cobots. Dalle Mura & Dini (2022), Zhu et al. (2022), Dalle
Malik et al. (2020) provided a new framework for designing Mura & Dini (2022), Abdous et al. (2022), and Belhadj et al.
productive, safe, and flexible collaborative workspaces and (2022) developed a mathematical model and considered cost
proposed a simulation model to validate it. Wojtynek & as one of the objective functions. Li et al., (2021c) proposed
Wrede (2020) also developed a new simulation model for a bi-objective mathematical model with the second objective
collaborative workspaces to design a productive workspace. function being the minimization of the cost of the assembly
line. Fager et al. (2021) calculated the cost-effectiveness
of using Cobots in a picking system. Vieira et al. (2022)
developed a two-level mathematical model with a detailed
discrete-event simulation model. Peron et al. (2022) proposed
Task classification a Decision Support System (DSS) for implementing assis-
tive technologies in assembly line which cost is one of the
Task classification is an important aspect of collaborative performance criteria evaluated. Lee et al. (2022), Liao et al.
assembly lines as it helps to identify which tasks are best (2023), and Deniz & Ozcelik (2023) developed a mathemat-
suited for humans and which tasks are more appropriate for ical model for collaborative disassembly line which one of
collaborative robots. This ensures that each worker and cobot the objective functions is cost. Xiang et al. (2022) developed
is performing tasks that are safe and appropriate for their a mathematical model for a multi-product u-shaped collabo-
respective capabilities, ultimately improving efficiency and rative assembly line and tried to optimize cost of production.
productivity. Task classification can also optimize the alloca-
tion of tasks by assigning them based on workers’ and cobots’ Productivity
respective strengths and abilities, enabling the assembly line
to operate more smoothly. Additionally, it can aid in design- Productivity is the most used performance criterion in the 53
ing tasks that are compatible with collaborative systems. In selected papers and it was considered in both the design and
2018, Bruno & Antonelli used an AI classification tool (Deci- operational phases. Lamon et al. (2019) related the increased
sion Tree) to develop a task classification model, considering productivity with minimizing cobots’ fatigue. Wang et al.
features such as precision and tools required (Bruno and (2019) showed the improvement in productivity by using
Antonelli, 2018). In 2019, Antonelli & Bruno extended their cobots in a real case study. Serebrenny et al., (2019a),
work by adding more features to their classification models, Gualtieri et al., (2020b), and Gervasi et al. (2021) suggested
resulting in a more complete classification (Antonelli and a framework to improve productivity. Zhang and Jia (2020),
Bruno, 2019). Weckenborg et al. (2020), Boschetti et al., (2021a), Cohen

123
2076 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

et al. (2022), Boschetti et al., (2021b), Nourmohammadi et al. factors (e.g., awkward postures, excessive effort, and repeti-
(2022), Antonelli & Aliev (2022), and Almasarwah et al. tive movements) in a real case study by implementing cobots.
(2022) used mathematical models to maximize productivity. Weckenborg & Spengler (2019) used the mean work rate as
Wojtynek & Wrede (2020), Malik et al. (2021), and an ergonomic constraint in a new cost-oriented mathemat-
Wang et al. (2022a) used simulation to evaluate productiv- ical modeling for collaborative assembly lines. Dalle Mura
ity improvement by implementing cobots in assembly lines. & Dini (2019) considered tasks’ energy expenditure in cost-
Malik et al. (2020) elaborated a framework to simulate the oriented mathematical modeling. They ensure that assigned
designed assembly line with virtual reality to evaluate the tasks’ energy expenditure for each worker should not pass the
productivity of the assembly line. Gualtieri et al., (2020a) physical limitation of the worker. Gualtieri et al., (2020a) and
provided a guideline for designing a product that improves Gualtieri et al., (2020b) provided a guideline for designing
the productivity of the collaborative assembly lines. Xu et al. a product that improves the ergonomics of the collaborative
(2021), Li et al., (2021c), Vieira et al. (2022), Li et al. (2022), assembly lines. Zhang et al., (2021b) used a new metric,
and Keshvarparast et al. (2022) developed a multi-objective the combination of productivity and ergonomics, to design
mathematical model in which one of the objective functions a collaborative assembly line. Dalle Mura & Dini (2022)
was to improve productivity. Zhang et al., (2021b) applied a developed a mathematical model and considered a combina-
new metric, a combination of productivity and ergonomics, tion formula of cost and ergonomics as the objective function.
to design a collaborative assembly line. Malik & Brem (2021) Banziger et al. (2020) proposed a simulation method to allo-
proposed a framework to use digital twins to simulate col- cating task to human or robot. Keshvarparast et al. (2022),
laborative assembly lines. Rega et al. (2021) developed a and Dalle Mura and Dini (2022), developed a multi-objective
knowledge-based approach to optimize the productivity of mathematical model that one of the objective functions was
assembly lines. Sordan et al. (2022) used a case study to minimizing the total physical workload for each worker. Li
evaluate the workers’ idle time in an assembly line balancing et al. (2022) considered fatigue in a collaborative assembly
problem. Gjeldum et al. (2022) proposed a 3-level deci- line balancing. Navas-Reascos et al., (2022a) evaluate physi-
sion support system for task-sharing to improve productivity. cal strain and muscular activities in a collaborative assembly
Ibanez et al. (2021) and Banziger et al. (2020) developed new line and compare it with the previous manual assembly line.
simulation software to design a collaborative assembly line to
evaluate the productivity of the designed assembly line. Pet- Safety
zoldt et al. (2022) proposed a framework for dynamic task
allocation and validate the effectivity of the framework by A collision-free collaboration system is a safe collaboration
using simulation model. Peron et al. (2022) proposed a Deci- system (Rojas et al., 2021). Opposite to industrial robots,
sion Support System (DSS) for implementing assistive tech- which are usually isolated while workers being restricted
nologies in assembly line which productivity is one of the per- from approaching or interacting with the robots, workers
formance criteria evaluated. Zhang et al. (2022b) used Rein- and cobots can be assigned to a workstation freely. As a
forcement Learning for online task sequencing in a collabora- result, worker safety was the first issue that the researchers
tive assembly line which considered productivity as a perfor- focused on. That is why, throughout the design process of
mance criterion. Pabolu et al. (2022) proposed a digital twin- a cobot, safety is a critical consideration, and the Interna-
based framework for evaluating a collaborative assembly line tional Organization for Standardization (ISO) sets specific
before implementation. Liu et al. (2022a) compare two dif- guidelines for safe, collaborative work (ISO 10218-1 and ISO
ferent Reinforcement Learning methods and the solutions 10218-2). Safety-rated monitored stop, hand guiding, speed
provided by each of them based on productivity evaluation. and separation monitoring (SSM), and power and force lim-
iting are among the four collaboration scenarios addressed
by the safety standards (Costanza et al., 2021). Matthias et al.
Ergonomics (2011) and Malik & Bilberg (2019a) provided a framework
to ensure the safety of workers in a collaborative system.
Collaborative systems such as cobots have mainly two Gualtieri et al., (2020a) provided a guideline to design a
kinds of ergonomic issues, cognitive and physical. Cognitive product that is compatible with the safety procedures of the
ergonomic issues refer to mental stress and psychological collaborative assembly lines. Malik et al. (2020) provided a
discomfort, which could be felt by operators while collab- framework to simulate the designed assembly line with vir-
orating with robots. Papers that have considered cognitive tual reality to evaluate the safety of the assembly line. Berger
ergonomic issues are rare. Most of the papers considered et al. (2020) introduced the “safety Bubble” concept to ensure
ergonomics similarly to practices for the assembly lines by the safety of workers. Xu et al. (2021), by referring to ISO/TS
considering fatigue, energy expenditure, etc. Realyvásquez- 15066, ensure the safety of workers by reducing the speed
Vargas et al. (2019) tried to reduce the Occupational risk of cobots regarding the distance between worker and cobot.

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2077

Rega et al. (2021) developed a knowledge-based approach to most papers that focused on safety and flexibility used frame-
optimize the productivity and safety of assembly lines. Lee work approaches. Safety is also an interesting topic for review
et al. (2022), Liao et al. (2023), and Deniz & Ozcelik (2023) papers, suggesting that there is a need for more research on
proposed a mathematical model to safety of human worker this topic. The analysis further shows that studies in design or
in a hazardous disassembly environment. programming classes mainly used simulations to improve the
safety of cobots. Simulations were infrequent in papers that
considered productivity as the performance criterion. This
Flexibility
finding implies that researchers need to incorporate simula-
tions into their studies to improve cobot safety.
Flexibility, like safety, is an indicator that researchers usually
In conclusion, the analysis of Table 2 provides valuable
study in a qualitative way in the cobots design phase. In the
insights into the frequency of different performance criteria
literature, two types of flexibility are stated. First, flexible
in cobot operation studies. The results highlight the need for
cobot which refers to how fast the cobots can reprogram or
more research on ergonomics, safety, and flexibility in cobot
mobilize for new procedures; second type, flexible collabo-
operation. Researchers should also consider using simula-
ration is about the number of tasks that cobots can possibly
tions to improve cobot safety and productivity during the
do in a given time (design of work cell). The term “flexible
operational phase.
cobot” is usually considered in the design phase of a cobot.
Cobot designers aim to design and develop a new cobot that
can perform various activities by considering flexibility dur-
Human-cobot collaboration scenarios
ing the design process. “Flexible collaboration” refers to the
manufacturing system design. Malik et al. (2020) provided a
Studying cobots requires a deep understanding of the collab-
framework to simulate the designed assembly line with vir-
oration scenario, which refers to the division of tasks among
tual reality to evaluate the flexibility of the assembly line.
team members. This is a crucial aspect of the operation
Jepsen et al. (2021) proposed a new framework to design a
phase (e.g. assembly line design) process, as the collab-
flexible assembly line. Inoue et al. (2021) used mobile cobots
oration scenario chosen can have a significant impact on
to transfer products in an assembly line to improve flexibility.
the planning, efficiency, and overall outcome of the pro-
duction system (Antonelli & Bruno, 2019). Keshvarparast
Papers’ methodology and adopted performance et al. (2022) have introduced a mathematical model that pro-
criteria vides insights into how three different collaboration scenarios
(sequential, simultaneous, and supportive) can impact the
Table 2 presents an analysis of the frequency of different per- design and cycle time of collaborative assembly lines.
formance criteria and methodologies in the literature on cobot However, research that considered collaboration scenar-
operation. The operational phase of cobots is a critical aspect ios is limited. Table 3 shows that, more than 43% of the
that must be considered to ensure their successful implemen- 58 selected papers do not consider collaboration scenarios.
tation. The results show that most of the studies that devel- This is a concerning issue, as the failure to consider the col-
oped mathematical models used cost and productivity as their laboration scenario can lead to inefficiencies, longer cycle
primary performance criteria. However, the number of papers times, and decreased productivity. The majority of the studies
that considered cost as the performance criterion in other that failed to consider collaboration scenarios only provided
methodologies is very low. For example, to best of our knowl- frameworks or comparative case studies. Moreover, studies
edge there is not any framework which considered cost as the that provided mathematical models considered at least one
performance criteria. This finding indicates that cost is not a scenario, the number of studies that considered multiple sce-
primary concern in other methodologies. In contrast, produc- narios is low, likely due to the complexity of considering all
tivity is the most frequent performance criterion used in the the different scenarios and their varying requirements and
literature. More than half of the papers considered productiv- assumptions. Although all the studies that provided mathe-
ity as the performance criterion, which highlights the impor- matical models considered at least one scenario, the number
tance of improving cobot productivity in the operational of studies that considered multiple scenarios is low, likely
phase. The analysis also shows that ergonomics is a relatively due to the complexity of considering all the different sce-
neglected performance criterion in cobot operation studies. narios and their varying requirements and assumptions. It is
This result suggests that researchers need to pay more atten- worth mentioning that the specific needs of the industry, the
tion to ergonomics in the operational phase to ensure worker type of tasks being performed, and the available resources,
well-being. Moreover, the results indicate that safety and among other factors, can affect the choice of the collabora-
flexibility are rare performance criteria in mathematical mod- tion scenario. Studying the application sector of the cobots
eling and mathematical approach methodologies. Instead, could help practitioners in this matter.

123
2078 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

Table 3 Frequency analysis of collaborative scenarios based on methodology

Not considered

Se + Si + Su
In+ Se + Su
In + Se + Si
Se + Su

Si + Su
In + Se

Se + Si
In+ Su
In + Si
Su

all
Se
In

Si
Mathematical modelling 0 0 4 5 2 1 7 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0
Key Proportion

Mathematical approach 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Framework 10 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Simulation 3 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Comparative case 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Others 10 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total 30 6 7 9 3 2 10 4 2 4 0 1 0 1 0

Colors represent the relative values in the data, with dark green indicating higher values, yellow indicating
intermediate values, and dark red indicating lower values.

*In Independent, Se Sequential, Si Simultaneous, Su Supportive

Cobots’ application industrial sectors of tasks. The lack of specificity in the studies included in
Appendix Table 6 highlights the need for more research to
The application sector of cobots is also an important aspect fully understand the capabilities and limitations of cobots
of research, as it helps us understand how these robots can in different applications. This research can help identify the
be used in different fields, such as warehouse, automotive, potential benefits and challenges of using cobots in specific
and precision tasks. Cobots are designed to work alongside industries and tasks and help develop cobots that are better
humans, and they have the potential to increase productivity, suited to those applications. Ultimately, understanding the
improve safety, and reduce costs. However, the specific application sector of cobots is crucial to realizing their poten-
requirements of different industries and tasks may vary, tial to improve productivity, safety, and cost-effectiveness in
which is why it is important to understand the task types a wide range of industries.
and industries where cobots are being used. For example, in
a warehouse, cobots may be used for picking and packing,
while in automotive manufacturing, they may be used for Digital twins for assessing the performance
assembly or welding. In precision tasks, cobots may be used of cobots
for tasks that require a high degree of accuracy, such as
inspection or quality control. Understanding the specific task The performance evaluation approach or method could be
types and industries where cobots are being used can help also an important topic in the study of cobots. As a comple-
identify the potential benefits and challenges of using cobots mentary technology, which is largely addressed in the Indus-
in those applications. The studies included in Appendix try 4.0 context, the Digital Twins could be mentioned. Digital
Table 6 explore the use of cobots in various positions and for twins are virtual replicas of physical systems, products, or
different types of tasks, but they do not provide information processes, created using sensors, IoT devices, and other
on the specific task types or industries where cobots are data-gathering tools to capture real-time data that is used
being used. This lack of specificity highlights the need for to create a digital representation (Grieves & Vickers, 2017).
more research to fully understand the capabilities and limi- They have become increasingly important in manufacturing
tations of cobots in different applications. By identifying the as they enable companies to test new products, optimize pro-
specific requirements and challenges of different industries duction processes, and reduce downtime. By simulating the
and tasks, researchers can develop cobots that are better behaviour of a physical system in a virtual environment, com-
suited to those applications, as well as identify areas where panies can better understand the system’s performance and
further research is needed. predict how it will respond to changes in the real world (Dig-
In summary, the application sector of cobots is an impor- ital Twin Consortium, 2022). Digital twins are particularly
tant area of research, as it helps us understand how these useful in manufacturing where they are used to create a vir-
robots can be used in different fields and for different types tual representation of a product or system that can be tested
and optimized before the physical product is built. This helps

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2079

to reduce the time and cost associated with physical testing and modular, allowing for easy customization and scalabil-
and prototyping (Nikolakis et al., 2019). They can also be ity. The authors suggest that this framework can facilitate
used to monitor and optimize the performance of machines effective collaboration between humans and robots, leading
and production lines by gathering data from sensors and other to improved manufacturing processes and productivity. Sun
sources to predict when maintenance will be required, reduce et al. (2021) proposed a digital twin driven framework to eval-
downtime, and improve overall efficiency (Zhou et al., 2020). uate the cognitive and improve the performance of cobots.
In collaborative systems where humans and robots work
together to complete tasks, digital twins should be used to Evaluating the interaction between human and cobot
create a virtual representation of the system including both
the human and robot components. This enables researchers to Pizoń et al. (2022) explored the use of digital twins to eval-
test different configurations and control strategies in a virtual uate the integration of cobots into manufacturing systems
environment before deploying the system in the real world and analyse potential human–robot interactions. Further-
(Fuller et al., 2020; Leng et al., 2021; Perno et al., 2022). To more, they identified some of the benefits that digital twins
better understand the studies, a general categorization around can bring to collaborative manufacturing systems. However,
digital twins is provided (see Fig. 8). As it can be seen in human digital twins are still very rare in literature and real
this figure, two different categories existed for studies; first, examples of human/cobot digital representations are urgently
to develop a digital twin model for using in a collaborative needed in the short future (Berti et al., 2022).
system (Schmidt et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b; Yi et al., Evaluating the performance of collaboration system
2022); second, to use digital twins in a collaborative system.
Malik et al. (2020) used Augmented Reality (AR) to provide
Real-time monitoring a complete simulation to evaluate productivity, flexibility,
and safety for a collaborative assembly line. Pabolu et al.
In some studies, a digital twin based real-time monitoring (2022), and Wang et al. (2022b) suggested a framework to
proposed for collaborative systems. Ye et al. (2022) designed evaluate the performance of a designed assembly line. Zhu
an interface based on digital twins to improve the real-time et al. (2022) proposed a mathematical model for reconfig-
task allocation controller in a collaborative system. Lorenzo uration of assembly line to reduce cost of production and
et al. (2022) suggested a framework to use digital twins as improve productivity then, they used digital twins for evalu-
real-time production planning. Both the studies used produc- ating the new design before implementing. Choi et al. (2022)
tivity as the performance evaluation criteria. Franceschi et al. presented a mixed reality system that enables safe collabo-
(2022) proposed a framework to use digital twins detecting ration between humans and robots using deep learning and
production failure in a real-time monitoring controlling sys- digital twin generation. The system integrates real-world and
tem. In this study, quality was considered as the performance virtual environments to provide a comprehensive and immer-
evaluation criteria. sive experience. The authors suggest that this system can
improve collaboration and safety in various industrial appli-
Evaluating cations.
Overall, digital twins are an important tool for improving
In manufacturing, digital twins are especially beneficial as human–robot collaboration in manufacturing and other
they enable the creation of a virtual model of a product or applications. As the technology continues to evolve, digital
system that can be refined and tested before its physical twins are likely to become even more important in collabo-
counterpart is constructed. This approach assists in minimiz- rative systems, enabling humans and robots to work together
ing the expenses and time associated with physical testing more effectively and efficiently (Grieves & Vickers, 2017;
and prototyping (Pizoń et al., 2022). Research that uses Zhu et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2021), inside a socio-technical
digital twins for evaluation in collaborative systems can be ecosystem.
divided into three classes: (1) evaluating the performance
of cobot in the design phase, (2) evaluating the interaction
between human and cobot, (3) evaluating the performance Research agenda and conclusions
of collaborative systems.
According to the performed literature review, Cobots have
Evaluating the performance of cobot in design phase attracted much attention in the previous 8 Years (from 2014
to 2022). Although the first publication in this field was pub-
Lu et al., (2022b) discussed the development of a digi- lished in 1994, most subsequent articles have concentrated on
tal twin-based framework for human–robot collaboration in the mechanical aspects of enhancing Cobots, while the inter-
manufacturing. The framework is designed to be generic action between humans and Cobots appeared only recently

123
2080 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

Fig. 8 Digital twins in

human–robot collaboration
studies

(Cencen et al., 2018). One of the most important reasons in the cobot operation phase. Additionally, most studies that
for this shifting in the research focus is the safety issues have considered ergonomic, safety, and flexibility have pro-
that arise when Cobots are implemented in a human–ma- vided only qualitative frameworks, and a lack of quantitative
chine sharing environment (Costanzo et al., 2021). Since the measures can be detected. In literature, there is a strong
robots were originally isolated in the manufacturing system, need for new quantitative approaches able to jointly mea-
the safety procedures were limited only to some specific sit- sure the ergonomic, safety, and flexibility performances of a
uations. After introducing the Cobots to the industries, the collaborative manufacturing system in all the phases of the
safety procedure needs to change significantly (Malik & Bil- manufacturing/assembly process.
berg, 2019a). With time, new Cobots have been designed in a
better way and the safety, flexibility, and productivity of new Collaboration scenario
Cobots are considerably higher than the old ones (Romiti
et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022; Yi et al., 2022). However, as The most crucial difference between robots and Cobots lies
our study has shown previously, the number of studies in this in their ability to collaborate with humans. Real collaboration
field is still insufficient to cover all the questions and to con- occurs when the supportive collaboration scenario is in play,
sider the human factors in a comprehensive way. To identify where the worker and the Cobot work together to complete
open questions in the field of cobots and human–robot col- a task, resulting in the highest level of collaboration (Zhang
laboration in manufacturing systems, the authors analysed et al., 2021b). However, as mentioned in Section "Flexibil-
all the selected studies and summarized the opinions of the ity" and summarized in Table 3, the number of papers that
authors in the conclusion of each study. consider this scenario is still very limited. To fully under-
Hereafter, our findings are discussed more in detail stand the potential of the collaboration between humans and
around the major research areas that were emphasized by Cobots, it is essential to study different collaboration sce-
the authors because of their priority or potential for further narios and compare them in real-world situations. There is
investigations. also a lack of studies considering more than two collabo-
ration scenarios together. This complexity makes it difficult
Performance assessment criteria to understand the interplay between different collaboration
scenarios (Keshvarparast et al., 2022). Moreover, most of the
Based on the discussion provided in Tables 1 and 2, a existing methodological frameworks for designing collabo-
set of performance indicators have been used to evaluate rative assembly lines do not consider collaboration scenarios.
cobots. Productivity is the most used performance criterion Mathematical models, on the other hand, have shown that col-
to evaluate the performance of a collaborative system in laboration scenarios can lead to different optimal designs for
all phases of the process, including the robotic, program- assembly lines (Keshvarparast et al., 2022). Future research
ming, and operation phases. Other studies have measured is needed not only to create new models and approaches but
safety and flexibility indices in the robotic or programming also for comparing different human-cobot collaboration sce-
phase, however, there appears a lack of studies concerning narios in real-world situations, in order to fully validate the
the assessment of safety and flexibility performance indices findings from mathematical models and theoretical studies

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2081

in real settings. Different collaboration scenarios should also This will help us better understand how to design collabora-
be compared and assessed according to various performance tive systems that consider the unique needs and preferences
metrics, such as productivity, efficiency, and worker satisfac- of each worker (Li et al., 2021c, Mura & Dini, 2023). When
tion. workforce diversity is considered, also different learning
effects need to be investigated. Research on learning curves
Task designing and classification in collaborative systems is limited, leading to an incomplete
understanding of the human–robot interaction and its impact
With the introduction of collaborative robots, it is neces- on system performance. This highlights the need for fur-
sary to design tasks that are more suitable for human–robot ther research in this area to gain insights into the differences
collaboration (Rega et al., 2021). This means considering in learning and forgetting curves based on worker diversity
the unique capabilities and limitations of both humans and (Cohen et al., 2022). Understanding the impact of worker
robots, and designing tasks that can be performed safely and diversity on the learning and forgetting curve in collabora-
efficiently by both (Gualtieri et al., 2020b). By doing so, tive systems can lead to increased efficiency, productivity,
one can take advantage of the strengths of both humans and and worker satisfaction.
robots and create a more effective and efficient collaborative
process. However, the lack of sufficient research in this area Ergonomic assessment and impact on injury
which is shown in Appendix Table 6 means that many tasks reduction rate
are still being designed in the same way as before, without
considering the potential benefits of human–robot collab- The delegation of uncomfortable and heavy tasks to a collab-
oration. Therefore, it is essential that researchers focus on orative robot has been suggested to improve the ergonomic
studying the differences between traditional task design and quality of work by avoiding awkward postures or tired-
task design for human–robot collaboration. By understand- ness caused by repetitive load (Mateus et al., 2019). This
ing these differences, more effective methods for designing approach can solve a multi-objective job allocation prob-
tasks, that are optimized for human–robot collaboration, can lem for humans and Cobots (Zhang et al., 2021b). However,
be developed. Furthermore, task categorization is also impor- there is limited research on the true ergonomic quality level
tant for assigning tasks to humans or cobots and selecting the of work, when it is completed in partnership with a cobot,
best collaboration scenario. This involves considering dif- and further investigation is required to support the assump-
ferent aspects linked to each task and to the resource who tion that a cobot will always increase the ergonomic level
will execute the task (Bruno & Antonelli, 2018) as task of a task and reduce injuries risk. This limitation is clearly
time, value-add time percentage, ergonomic workload, safety shown in Appendix Table 6. Only Realyvásquez-Vargas et al.,
level, etc. By categorizing tasks according to specific param- 2019, and Karaulova et al., 2019 investigated the ergonomic
eters, it can determine if a task is best suited for human-cobot indexes in a comparative case study and analysed the differ-
collaboration or should be performed exclusively by humans ence between manual assembly line and collaborative assem-
or robots (Antonelli & Bruno, 2019). This can help to support bly line by an ergonomic point of view. Recent studies assume
the operation manager decision making, optimize the collab- the ergonomic index for tasks assigned to Cobots equal to
orative process, improve performance, and ensure safety. zero (Stecke & Mokhtarzadeh, 2022; Li et al., 2022; Dalle
Mura & Dini, 2022). However, this assumption neglects the
Workforce diversity fact that Cobots can create a new ergonomic load on workers
(Lacevic et al., 2022; Lanzoni et al., 2022; Mura and Dini,
The importance of considering human factors in cobot- 2023). In addition, some tasks can be done in different ways
human collaboration cannot be overstated (Bogataj et al., in the presence of cobot in supportive mode, so ergonomic
2019, Katiraee et al., 2021; Neumann et al., 2021). The indexes are not equal to zero. This highlights the need for
fact that workers can have differing ages, genders, skills, additional research to accurately assess the true ergonomic
and physical characteristics means that the impact of these quality level of work in collaboration with Cobots by cou-
factors on the overall production process and the human- pling postural, fatigue and cognitive ergonomic assessment.
cobot relationship must be thoroughly studied. The field of
human–robot interaction has only just begun to address these ML\RL in human pose prediction and task
issues. However, as it is mentioned in several new studies, scheduling
there is much room for exploration and advancement (Schon-
berger et al., 2018; Gualtieri et al., 2020a; Dalle Mura & Dini, The use of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms as the
2022; Petzoldt et al., 2022; Keshvarparast et al., 2022). The decision-making system for cobots is an important aspect
effect of differences in age, gender, physical measures, and of their functionality. Cobots use motion capturing systems
skills on Cobot acceptability by humans must be explored. and motion sensors to predict the movements of their human

123
2082 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

co-workers, which helps to improve their collaboration and as previously discussed) will be strategic to support the oper-
increase productivity. Reinforcement Learning (RL) has also ation manager decision making in the near future. Digital
been widely used in cobot controllers to optimize training and ergonomics tools, biosensors and wearable sensors coupled
improve performance. As it can be seen in Appendix Table with ML techniques will be also strategic in this context to
6, recently some online scheduling studies used reinforce- design a digital twin for human workers and create effective
ment learning such as Alessio et al., (2022). Additionally, Liu and sustainable collaborative working environments (Calvo
et al., (2022b), and Zhang et al., (2022b) used reinforcement & Gil, 2022; Lin & Lukodono, 2021; Berti et al, 2022). As
learning to optimize an assembly line balancing problem. it can be seen in Appendix Table 6, currently, a few stud-
However, more detailed investigation should be conducted ies investigated a sustainable collaborative system and all of
to verify the results. Therefore, there is a lack of research in them assert that more studies required to fully developed this
the literature on the use of Machine Learning and Reinforce- issue, also some suggestion provided by these studies (Calvo
ment Learning to optimize the implementation of cobots in & Gil, 2022; Gualtieri et al., 2022). As a consequence, the
manufacturing systems. integration of key concepts from the human factors engi-
neering discipline will be strategic to assess cobots use and
benefits in the context of Industry 4.0 (Neumann et al., 2021).
Real data collection The so-called “side effects’ of the technology” needs to be
investigated since there might be side effects associated with
The shortage of practical case studies able to provide to the the worker comfort and trust of working with a cobot for an
research community a real data collection and open-source entire working shift of 8 h (Neumann et al, 2021).
databases for supporting future research, method validation
and tuning is evident in the literature. To better understand
the implementation of cobots in collaborative manufactur- Conclusions
ing environments, more thorough and comprehensive studies
must be conducted in real manufacturing scenarios. This This study conducted a systematic literature review to explore
includes not only laboratory testing with human and cobot the integration of collaborative robots (cobots) in manufac-
participants, but also real-world case studies and practical turing systems. Accordingly, we searched for papers using
applications that provide a more realistic view of how cobots the research questions’ definitions and the corresponding
are impacting the manufacturing industry. Currently, only keywords in two databases (Scopus and Web of Science),
three studies (i.e., Gil-Vilda et al., 2017; Navas-Reascos et al., resulting in a sample of 438 articles. We then selected
2022a) provide data that can be used to guide future research, 202 papers based on extraction criteria, and an additional
highlighting the need for more robust and inclusive data sets 19 papers were found through the snowball approach. The
to support the growth and development of cobots in the man- selected studies were classified based on their subject of
ufacturing industry. study, methodology, performance criteria, and collaboration
scenarios. Our findings revealed that productivity was the
most used performance criterion, while flexibility was the
Sustainable human-cobot collaboration least used due to the challenges in evaluating it. Moreover,
collaboration scenarios were often overlooked in the selected
Finally, it is important to consider the sustainability of the studies, leaving gaps in our understanding of the impact of
human-cobot collaboration in the shared working environ- different scenarios on cobot performance. Our analysis of
ment. If humans and robots must cooperate in the same the literature identified several key contributions to the state
workplace, they will mutually affect and complement each of the art, including new approaches to cobot design and
other. Here, the wellbeing of the worker and his behaviour deployment.
and status parameters will be strategic to react with changes Our study has practical implications for practitioners and
in the scheduling and balancing of the working tasks. The researchers working in the field of manufacturing systems.
development of digital representation of the workers by col- By categorizing studies based on different industries or
lecting real time data regarding workers’ status, well-being, usage, our findings could guide the selection of the most
health and safety parameters (including postures and fatigue suitable performance criteria for each cobot application. We

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2083

carefully analyzed the context of analysis and categorized the Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
problems for selected papers to better understand the frequent Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
issues that studies previously faced. Additionally, we investi- long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
gated in detail the collaborative scenarios and the importance source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indi-
of digital twins in collaborative systems. cate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
Considering the elaborated research agenda, the following in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
topics could be promising areas for future research, such as is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
evaluating the impact of collaboration scenarios on cobot intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
performance. Finally, it is worth mentioning that this study permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copy-
is not without limitations. For example, while we provided right holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecomm
ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
a general overview of performance criteria, future research
could explore these criteria in greater depth. Additionally,
further research could investigate the use of cobots in specific
Appendix
manufacturing contexts, such as warehouses.
(See Tables 4, 5, and 6).
Funding Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di
Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This project has received
funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and inno-
vation programme under grant agreement No 873077 (MAIA-H2020-
MSCA-RISE 2019).

123
 Table 4 Summary of literature review studies related to cobot
2084

Row Authors Subjects Field Sources SL* Classification criteria Key finding and insights

123
1 Green et al. (2008) Investigation of using AR as a CS Not specified No Not any classifications were Suggesting a human–robot
communication way provided interaction model
between humans and cobots architecture based on AR
2 Nelles et al. (2016) Investigating head R Web of Science; Pubmed; Yes Topic/Aim; Task; Study Provided strengths and
movement-based controller snowball design; Measurements; limitations of current
in cobots and its effect on Population; methods, and future research
stress and strain of the neck guideline
3 Robla-Gomez et al. (2017) Investigating safety in S; R Not specified No Quantifying level of injury by Reviewing the main safety
Human–Robot collaboration collision; Minimizing protocols that have been
injury in the human–robot proposed or applied, and
collision; Collision presenting some
avoidance multi-disciplinary approach
to estimate and evaluate the
injuries or prevent collision
4 Halme et al. (2018) Investigating the readiness CS Not specified No Methods; Sensor type; safety Actual collaborative scenarios
level of vision-based safety function; Separation are very rare in literature.
system distance Also, the vision-based safety
system could move forward
to a real industrial test
5 Liu and Wang (2018) Investigating gesture CS Not specified No Essential technical Provide an analysis related to
recognition system as a components (sensor technological developments
communication way technologies, gesture during the years. Then
between humans and cobots identification, gesture provide future technologies
tracking, and gesture developments suggestions
classifications)
6 Manoharan and Kumaraguru Investigation of using cobot to R Not specified No Single or multiple cobots in Path planning for a single
(2018) increase the speed of trajectory planning cobot is significantly easier
Additive Manufacturing and less complex to optimize
(AM) processes
7 Grischke et al. (2019) Investigation of using robots HC Not specified No Not any classifications were Providing a first concept and
as a dental assistant provided pilot study for cobot’s
application as dental
assistance. A more complex
framework can significantly
increase the chance of
acceptance by dentists
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 4 (continued)

Row Authors Subjects Field Sources SL* Classification criteria Key finding and insights

8 Bi & Guan(2019) Investigating CS not specified No Parameter to be estimated; EMG signals can be a reliable
Electromyography (EMG)- model; performance approach to predicting human
based motor to predict the measure; performance movement intention. Also,
intention movement of EMG signal can be used as a
worker communication way between
humans and cobots
9 Matheson et al. (2019) Investigating real case studies M ScienceDirect; No Cobot used; Control system; Summarizing the results of
with cobots IEEExplore; Web of Application (assembly, implementing cobots in real
Science human assistance, and case studies. More real case
machine tending); studies investigation should
Objectives (productivity, be done
safety, and HRI)
10 El Zaatari et al. (2019) Investigating different CS Not specified No Communication; All programming approaches
programming methods and Optimization; Learning and categories have their
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

effects on HRC advantages and

disadvantages. Therefore, the
programming method should
be chosen in light of the real
case
11 Chemweno et al. (2020) Investigating ISO 15066 S, R Not specified No Risk identification; Risk propose a new framework
standard’s position in safety analysis; Risk evaluation based on ISO 31000 to
protocols for collaborative design safeguards in
systems collaborative environments
12 Dianatfar et al. (2021) Investigation of using AR and CS Not specified No Methods; Application; Tools; a summary of existing AR/VR
VR as a communication way Sensors; Device; Robot solutions in Human–robot
between humans and cobots Type collaboration. Lack of
productivity and focus on
safety in existing solutions
13 Arents et al. (2021) Investigating Human–robot M; R Web of Science; Scopus Yes Sensors; Algorithms for relation between safety actions
collaboration HRC; Application; and collaboration level, the
collaboration level; Safety effect of virtual training on
Action; Safety Standard safe collaboration, and the
benefits of HRC
14 Zhang et al., (2021a) Investigating compliant R Not specified No Compliant controller type specifying advantages and
controller for cobots (Force-based, model-based, disadvantages of different
and external force-based) compliant control types

123
2085
 Table 4 (continued)
2086

Row Authors Subjects Field Sources SL* Classification criteria Key finding and insights

123
15 Keshvarparast et al. (2021) Investigating the M Scopus No Methodologies, performance the focus of research is mainly
implementation of cobot in factors (productivity, safety, on the productivity of the
the manufacturing system flexibility, cost, ergonomic) manufacturing system and
less on ergonomic aspects
16 Gualtieri et al. (2021) Investigating safety and S Scopus Yes Safety (contact avoidance, determining the current trend
ergonomic in HRC contact detection and in safety and ergonomics
mitigation); Ergonomics field in recent years
(Physical ergonomics,
cognetive and
organizational ergonomics)
17 Bisen and Payal (2022) Investigating recent CS Not specified No Cobot programming Different programming
development in cobot (communication, approaches bring different
optimization, or learning) collaboration levels. Complex
programming may increase
the autonomy of cobot but
may lower the flexibility
18 Storm et al. (2022) Investigating the physical and S; R PubMed; PsycINFO; Web Yes Methodology; Investigated the focus of methodological
mental well-being of of Science; Scopus factors; SHELLO research is on risk
workers in collaborative component; well-being assessments and physical
systems based on SHELLO component safety, but not the mental
approach health of workers
19 Hassan and Oddo (2022) Investigation of using cobot in M; R Direct; Springer; Scopus; No assembly type (manual or focus on the productivity of
Wire harness assembly IEEExplore; Web of collaborative); Topics of assembly lines and neglect
process Science; ProQuest interest (collaborative the cost or ergonomic aspect
robot, ergonomic, computer of assembly lines.
vision systems, Additionally, the importance
implementation of employing computer
methodologies) vision to increase
functionality
20 Baltrusch et al. (2022) Investigating the effect of R not specified No Shape; Materials; Surface The effects of using tactile
tactile sensors in cobots texture sensors have been
investigated less than what
should be. This issue should
be further investigated and
developed
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 4 (continued)

Row Authors Subjects Field Sources SL* Classification criteria Key finding and insights

21 Inkulu et al. (2022) Investigating the effect of M PubMed; Scopus No job quality factors (Cognitive Job quality is impacted by
human–robot collaboration Workload, Collaboration workplace design, robot
on job quality Fluency, Trust, and design, and collaboration
Acceptance and design. Matching robot
Satisfaction) capabilities to end-user
desires will improve job
quality
22 Ramasubramanian et al. Investigating mental stress and S; R Compendex; Web of Yes Factors that affect workers’ Worker mental stress or safety
(2022) safety awareness in presence Science; PubMed; mental stress or safety awareness are correlated with
of cobot Ergonomics Abstract; awareness; Methods to robot-related factors such as
measure mental stress; robot characteristics, social
Methods to measure safety touching, and trajectory
awareness
23 Simões et al. (2022) Investigating challenges and M; R not specified No Communication between Difficulties in integrating
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

opportunities in human and robot (one-way, one-way and two-way

collaborative systems two-way); Application human–robot collaboration
(welding, assembly, and different industrial
inspection, other applications were discussed
manufacturing operations)
24 Hopko et al. (2022) Investigating Machine CS Scopus; IEEExplore; Web Yes Metrics of collaborative a detailed analysis of metrics
Learning (ML) in of Science tasks; ML technique; with Interaction task,
human–robot collaboration Cognitive ability; Sensing; cognitive abilities with ML
Interaction task; Robotic technique, and ML technique
platform; Human role; with interaction task was
Cobot role provided
25 Yan & Jia (2022) Investigating Digital Twin in DT Scopus; Google Scholar No Digital Twin approach (SBA, While DT in HRC research is
HRC LBA); Benefits and lagging, research on the DT
Challenges for industrial robotic
processes is growing quickly.
Due to the uncertainty
involved in simulating the
environment involving the
human operator, it is far
simpler to develop a digital
model of an industrial robot
than a collaborative robot

123
2087
 Table 4 (continued)
2088

Row Authors Subjects Field Sources SL* Classification criteria Key finding and insights

123
26 Sheikh & Duffy (2022) Investigating factors for M Scopus; Web of Science Yes Human operator (cognitive The impacts of cobots on
designing workstations in and social process, human physiological,
HRC comfort, and safety); biomechanical,
Technology; Team’s psychological, and general
performance; Integrated knowledge regarding the
approach to design HRC design of a human-centred
collaboration were attempted
to be classified
27 Costa et al. (2022) Investigating the most R EBSCO; PubMed; Yes Human Factors (trust, The most common research
frequently addressed Human MEDLINE; Engineering cognitive workload, methods used were subjective
Factors states, the Source; Academic Anxiety, safety perception, questionnaires, and the most
quantifying methods, and Search Ultimate; fatigue); Subjective often examined states were
the implications of the states Compendex measures; Objective anxiety, cognitive workload,
on HRC measures and trust. Demographic
factors of tested workers
missing in most studies
28 Hjorth & Chrysostomou Investigating Human Comfort R not specified No Human Comfort Factors The relatively low user
(2022) Factors in HRC (ergonomic, motion-based, acceptability of cobots is the
anthropomorphism, robot main barrier keeping them
sociability); Metrics of from playing a significant
measure; Metrics of role in industries. Developed
improvement methods to improve Human
Comfort Factor in HRC are
relatively low
29 Lu et al., (2022a) Content analysis on M Web of Science; Google Yes Leading authors; Leading The most ergonomic factor
ergonomic in HRC Scholar; Scopus publishers; Leading used in literature determined
country; Word Cloud
30 Navas-Reascos et al., (2022b) Investigating Human Factors M ResearchGate; Yes Human Factors; Cobot The gap in the literature related
in HRC ScienceDirect; IEEE capabilities (mobility, to the Human factors in HRC
Xplore; Scopus; Web of adaptability, connectivity, was clarified. Physical
Science actuation, consistency, ergonomic and mental
safety); Modern production workload is the main concern
systems features (flexibility, of researchers until now
reconfigurability,
cost-oriented,
interconnection, agility)
31 Faccio et al. (2023) Investigation of using AR as a R ACM Digital Library; Web Yes level of interaction; Tracking According to the findings, the
communication way of Science; model; Visualization field of study into employing
between humans and cobots ScienceDirect; Scopus methods; Visualization AR in HRC is still
equipment developing. Additionally,
techniques based on
projectors and HMDs are
demonstrating positive effects
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

on operator-related features
 Table 4 (continued)

Row Authors Subjects Field Sources SL* Classification criteria Key finding and insights

32 Semeraro et al. (2023) Investigating HRC in M; R Web of Science; Google No Robot; Safety; Robot The results show that research
disassembly systems Scholar; Scopus restrictions; Workplace on HRC in disassembly lines
restrictions; Human–robot is still in its early stages. Task
communication characteristics in disassembly
lines should be more
investigated in HRC

*SL Systematic literature

R Robotic, M Manufacturing, CS Computer Science, S Safety, HC Health Care, DT Digital Twin
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

123
2089
 Table 5 Selected papers categorization
2090

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

123
Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

1 Akella Prasad * *
et al. (1999)
2 Garber and Lin * * *
(2002)
3 Stanescu et al. * *
(2008)
4 Panescu et al. * *
(2009)
5 Minca et al. * *
(2010)
6 Matthias et al. * *
(2011)
7 Minca et al., * * * *
(2011a)
8 Minca et al., * *
(2011b)
9 Müller et al. * *
(2014)
10 Unhelkar and * *
Shah (2015)
11 Heddy et al. * *
(2015)
12 Wang and Lu * *
(2016)
13 Coupeté et al. * * * *
(2016)
14 Djuric et al. * * *
(2016)
15 Sarkar et al. * *
(2017)
16 Sadik et al. * *
(2017)
17 Kolyubin et al. * *
(2017)
18 Mokaram et al. * * * *
(2017)
19 Djuric et al. * *
(2017)
20 Gil-Vilda et al. * *
(2017)
21 Sousa et al. * * * *
(2017)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 5 (continued)

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

22 Calitz et al. * * * *
(2017)
23 Sadik and Urban * * * * *
(2017a)
24 Sadik and Urban * * *
(2017b)de
25 Sadik and Urban * *
(2017c)
26 Bruno and * * * * *
Antonelli
(2018)
27 Schonberger * * *
et al. (2018)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

28 Mendes et al. * *
(2018)
29 Mitrea and * *
Tamas (2018)
30 Weichhart et al. * *
(2018)
31 Cencen et al. * *
(2018)
32 El Makrini et al. * *
(2018)
33 Sadik and Urban * *
(2018)
34 Khalid et al. *
(2018)
35 Blankemeyer * * *
et al. (2018)
36 Rückert et al. * *
(2018)
37 Unger et al. * *
(2018)
38 Malik and * * *
Bilberg (2018)
39 Thomas et al. * * * * * *
(2018)

123
2091
 Table 5 (continued)
2092

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

123
Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

40 Djuric et al. * * * *
(2018)
41 Pieska et al. *
(2018)
42 Islam et al. * *
(2019)
43 Malik and * * *
Bilberg
(2019a)
44 Casalino et al., * * * * *
(2019a)
45 Weckenborg and * * * * * *
Spengler
(2019)
46 Quenehen et al. * * * *
(2019)
47 Fager et al. * * * *
(2019)
48 Hanna et al. * *
(2019)
49 Nogueira et al. * * * *
(2019)
50 Coupeté et al. * * *
(2019)
51 Mosadeghzad * *
et al. (2019)
52 Wojtynek et al. * * *
(2019)
53 Realyvásquez- * * * * *
Vargas et al.
(2019)
54 Zhao et al. (2019) * *
55 Kanazawa et al. * *
(2019)
56 Welfare et al. * *
(2019)
57 Lamon et al. * * * *
(2019)
58 Menegozzo et al. * *
(2019)
59 Malik et al. * * *
(2019)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 5 (continued)

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

60 Accorsi et al. * * * *
(2019)
61 Wang et al. * * * *
(2019)
62 Serebrenny et al., * * * *
(2019a)
63 Serebrenny et al., * * *
(2019b)
64 Gualtieri et al. * * * * *
(2019)
65 Dusadeerungsikul * * *
et al. (2019)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

66 Karaulova et al. * * * * *
(2019)
67 Olender and * *
Banas (2019)
68 Casalino et al., * *
(2019b)
69 Antonelli and * * * * * *
Bruno (2019)
70 Ruiz Garcia et al. * *
(2019)
71 Dalle Mura and * * * * * *
Dini (2019)
72 Naidoo et al. * *
(2019)
73 Avalle et al. * * * *
(2019)
74 Alebooyeh and * * *
Urbanic
(2019)
75 Ismail et al. * * *
(2020)
76 Chonsawat and * *
Sopadang
(2020)
77 Mohammadi * *
Amin et al.
(2020)
78 Wojtynek et al. * * *
(2020)
79 Hanna et al. * * *
(2020)

123
2093
 Table 5 (continued)
2094

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

123
Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

80 D’Souza et al. * *
(2020)
81 Nieto et al. * *
(2020)
82 Maderna et al. * * *
(2020)
83 Gualtieri et al., * * * *
(2020b)
84 Lee et al. (2020) * * *
85 von Drigalski *
et al. (2020)
86 Zhang and Jia * * * * *
(2020)
87 Weckenborg * * * * * *
et al. (2020)
88 Malik et al. * * * * * *
(2020)
89 Hollerer et al. * *
(2021)
90 Wedin et al. * *
(2020)
91 Cohen & Shoval * * *
(2020)
92 Psulkowski et al. *
(2020)
93 Yu et al. (2020) * * * *
94 Wojtynek and * * * *
Wrede (2020)
95 Fukui et al. * *
(2020)
96 Dimitropoulos * * *
et al. (2021)
97 Prioli & Rickli * *
(2020)
98 Emeric et al. * *
(2020)
99 Le et al. (2020) * * *
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 5 (continued)

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

100 Ogas et al. (2020) * *

101 Gualtieri et al., * * * * *
(2020a)
102 Rueckert et al. * * *
(2020)
103 Carfì et al. (2020) *
104 Berger et al. * * * *
(2020)
105 Broum & Simon * * *
(2020)
106 Chemweno et al. * * *
(2020)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

107 Liu & Wang * * *

(2020)
108 Oliff et al. (2020) * * *
109 Banziger et al. * * * *
(2020)
110 Xu et al. (2021) * * * * *
111 Boschetti et al., * * * * *
(2021b)
112 Jepsen et al. * *
(2021)
113 Inoue et al. * * *
(2021)
114 Soares et al. * * *
(2021)
115 Li et al., (2021b) * * *
116 Toichoa Eyam * * *
et al. (2021)
117 Arrais et al. * * *
(2021)
118 Leyrer et al. * * *
(2021)
119 Zhang et al., * * * * * *
(2021b)

123
2095
 Table 5 (continued)
2096

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

123
Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

120 Malik and Brem * * *

(2021)
121 Dahl et al. (2021) * * *
122 Rega et al. (2021) * * * *
123 Shu and Solvang * * *
(2021)
124 Dalle Mura & * * * * * * *
Dini (2022)
125 Garcia et al. * * *
(2021)
126 Sordan et al. * * * *
(2022)
127 Gjeldum et al. * * * * *
(2022)
128 Wada et al. * * *
(2021)
129 Cohen et al. * * * * *
(2022)
130 Li et al., (2021c) * * * * * *
131 Fager et al. * * * *
(2021)
132 Vieira et al. * * * * *
(2022)
133 Malik et al. * * * *
(2021)
134 Ibanez et al. * * * *
(2021)
135 Boschetti et al., * * * *
(2021a
136 Lucci et al. * * *
(2022)
137 Almasarwah * * * *
et al. (2022)
138 Zaatari et al. * *
(2022)
139 Belhadj et al. * * * * * * *
(2022)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 5 (continued)

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

140 Nourmohammadi * * * * *
et al. (2022)
141 Zhang et al., * * *
(2022d)
142 Yao et al. (2022) * *
143 Cacace et al. * * *
(2022)
144 Keshvarparast * * * * * * *
et al. (2022)
145 Petzoldt et al. * * *
(2022)
146 Navas-Reascos * * * * *
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

et al., (2022a)
147 Zaid et al. (2022) * *
148 Roveda et al. * *
(2022)
149 Romiti et al. * * *
(2021)
150 Sanna et al. * * *
(2022)
151 Zhu et al. (2022) * * * * * * *
152 Liu et al., (2022a) * *
153 Andronas et al. * *
(2022)
154 Dmytriyev et al. * *
(2022)
155 Lee et al. (2022) * * * * *
156 Gervasi et al. * * * * *
(2021)
157 Li et al. (2022) * *
158 Zhang et al., * *
(2022b)
159 Bright et al. * *
(2022)

123
2097
 Table 5 (continued)
2098

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

123
Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

160 Zhang et al. * *

(2022c)
161 Zhang et al. * *
(2022e)
162 Lv et al. (2022) * *
163 Yu and Zhang * * *
(2022)
164 Schmidt et al. * * *
(2022)
165 Costanzo et al. * * * *
(2021)
166 Zhou et al. (2022) * * *
167 Mueller et al. * *
(2022)
168 Giberti et al. * * * *
(2022)
169 Sun et al. (2021) * * *
170 Dalle Mura and * * * *
Dini (2022)
171 Maderna et al. * *
(2022)
172 Zhang et al. * * *
(2022a)
173 Deniz & Ozcelik * * * * * *
(2023)
174 Pabolu et al. * * * *
(2022)
175 Deng et al. * *
(2022)
176 Wang et al. * * * * *
(2022a)
177 Xiang et al. * * * * *
(2022)
178 Liu et al. (2022a) * * * * *
179 Antonelli & * * * * *
Aliev (2022)
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 5 (continued)

Row Authors Subject of study Methodology Considered performance criteria Collaboration scenarios

Design Programming Operation Mathematical Mathematical Framework Simulation Comparative Others Cost Productivity Ergonomic Safety Flexibility Quality Independent Sequential Simultaneous Supportive
modelling approach case
Assembly Disassembly Others

180 Yu & Chang * *

(2022)
181 Li et al. (2022) * * * * * *
182 Liao et al. (2023) * * * * * *
183 Stefanakos et al. * *
(2022)
184 Ye et nal. (2022) * *
185 Yi S. et al. (2022) * * *
186 Tuli et al. (2022) *
187 Wang et al. * * *
(2022b)
188 Boschetti et al. * * * * *
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

(2022)
189 Lorenzo et al. * * *
(2022)
190 Valente et al. * *
(2022)
191 Chiurco et al. * *
(2022)
192 Apostolopoulos * *
et al. (2022)
193 Koch et al. (2022) * *
194 Lin et al. (2022) * *
195 Gualtieri et al. * * *
(2022)
196 Franceschi et al. * * *
(2022)
197 Gjeldum et al. * * *
(2022)
198 Stecke and * * * * *
Mokhtarzadeh
(2022)
199 Peron et al. * * * * * *
(2022)
200 Abdous et al. * * * * * *
(2022)
201 Lanzoni et al. * * *
(2022)
202 Mura & Dini * * * *
(2023)

123
2099
 Table 6 Summary of contents for operation phase
2100

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

123
1 Matthias et al. (2011) Designing a Framework Safety Traditional approach Assembly line—not Safety increment
collaborative specified based on ISO
assembly line 10218–2, ISO
12100, ISO 14121
2 Djuric et al. (2016) Designing a Framework Productivity Traditional approach Manufacturing system Makespan reduction
collaborative
manufacturing
system
3 Sadik and Urban Flow shop scheduling Comparative case Productivity Digital Assembly line—not Cycle time reduction
(2017b) with Cobots study Twins—Simulation specified
4 Sadik et al. (2017) Task sharing in Mathematical Productivity Digital Assembly line—not Cycle time reduction
collaborative modeling Twins—Simulation specified
assembly line
5 Gil-Vilda et al. (2017) Designing a Comparative case Productivity Traditional approach U-shaped Assembly Makespan reduction
collaborative study line—not specified
assembly line
6 Bruno and Antonelli Task classification for AI _ classification Not mentioned Not mentioned Assembly A real-time task
(2018) task sharing and line—Snowplow mill scheduling
online scheduling controller based on
previous task
classification
7 Schonberger et al. Designing a Framework Not mentioned Not mentioned Assembly line—not Designing a
(2018) collaborative specified collaborative work
workflow cell
8 Cencen et al. (2018) Designing a Framework Not mentioned Not mentioned Assembly line—not Designing a
collaborative specified collaborative
assembly line assembly
9 Thomas et al. (2018) Designing a flexible Framework, Flexibility Digital Assembly line—not Determining the
collaborative simulation Twins—Simulation specified productivity and
assembly line flexibility of
designed assembly
lines
10 Malik and Bilberg Work-space design Framework Safety Traditional approach Work cell—not Supporting the
(2019a) specified choice of the safety
approach in
designing a
workstation
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 6 (continued)

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

11 Casalino et al., Task scheduling in Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Cycle time reduction
(2019a) collaborative modeling specified
assembly line
12 Weckenborg and Collaborative Mathematical Cost, Ergonomic Traditional approach Assembly line—not Cost of production
Spengler (2019) assembly line modelling specified reduced
balancing
13 Quenehen et al. (2019) Task allocation in Comparative case Productivity Traditional approach Assembly Makespan reduction
collaborative study line—Cylinder barrel
assembly line
14 Fager et al. (2019) Cobot as a kit Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach Kit preparation Cycle time reduction
preparation in modeling
assembly line
15 Realyvásquez-Vargas Occupational risk Comparative case Productivity, Traditional approach Pockets assembly Cycle time and risk
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

et al. (2019) factors reduction in study Ergonomic station factors reduction

collaborative
assembly line
16 Welfare et al. (2019) Deploying Cobots in Interview Not mentioned Not mentioned Manufacturing system Deploying
the manufacturing challenges clarified
system
17 Lamon et al. (2018) Reduce Cabot’s Framework Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Increase productivity
fatigue specified in certain period
18 Accorsi et al. (2019) Application of Cobots Feasibility Analysis Cost Digital Twins—RFID Packing in catering Estimation of
in the food industry production system Cobots: Profitable
after 2 and half a
year
19 Wang et al. (2019) application of Cobots Comparative case Productivity Traditional approach Work cell—Die sets Evaluation of Cobots
in die sets study performance:
better quality and
higher productivity
20 Serebrenny et al., designing a Framework Productivity, Traditional approach Manufacturing system Transforming
(2019a) collaborative Flexibility manual assembly
manufacturing line to
system collaborative
assembly line
21 Gualtieri et al. (2019) new evaluation for Framework Cost, Ergonomic Traditional approach Assembly line—not A new evaluation
collaborative specified methodology
assembly line

123
2101
 Table 6 (continued)
2102

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

123
22 Karaulova et al. (2019) Lean manufacturing Comparative Case Cost, Productivity, Traditional approach / Work cell Cobots reduce costs
with Cobots Study Ergonomic Digital Twins—RFID and ergonomic
issues, increase
productivity, and
stay competitive in
market
23 Antonelli & Bruno task assignment based AI _ Classification Productivity Machine Learning—clas- Assembly A real-time task
(2019) on tasks sification line—Snowplow mill scheduling
characteristics controller based on
previous task
classification
24 Dalle Mura & Dini designing Mathematical Cost, Ergonomic Traditional approach Assembly Reducing the cost by
(2019) collaborative modelling line—Scooter chassis considering
assembly line workers energy
expenditure
25 Chonsawat and determining the Bibliometric Not mentioned Not mentioned Assembly line—not Economic efficiency
Sopadang (2020) readiness indicators techniques specified is attractive
for I 4.0
26 D’Souza et al. (2020) Cobot as a piking Comparative case Productivity Traditional approach Warehouse—Material Cycle time reduction
system in assembly study transport
line
27 Gualtieri et al., Collaborative Framework Productivity, Traditional approach Assembly line—Cable Cycle time and
(2020b) assembly line Ergonomic harnesses ergonomic
balancing improvement
28 Zhang and Jia (2020) Task allocation in Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Cycle time reduction
collaborative modelling specified
assembly line
29 Weckenborg et al. collaborative Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Cycle time reduction
(2020) assembly line modelling specified
balancing
30 Malik et al. (2020) Virtual reality to Framework, Productivity, Safety, Virtual Assembly line—not Determining the
design a simulations Flexibility Reality—Simulation specified productivity,
collaborative safety, and
workspace flexibility of
designed assembly
lines by simulation
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 6 (continued)

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

31 Cohen and Shoval Cobot deployment in Simulation, Strategy Not mentioned Not mentioned Assembly line—not A new way to
(2020) assembly line specified simulate Cobots in
assembly line and
calculate the
performance
32 Wojtynek and Wrede work-space design Simulation Productivity Simulation in iWA Assembly line—not Makespan reduction
(2020) specified
33 Gualtieri et al., product designing Framework Productivity, Traditional approach Assembly line—not Enhancing
(2020a) compatible with Ergonomic, Safety specified productivity,
collaborative ergonomic and
assembly line safety by using the
new framework to
design a product
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

34 Berger et al. (2020) make an assembly Framework Safety Digital Assembly line—not A framework to
line safer Twins—Simulation specified choose safety
approach in
designing
workstation
35 Banziger et al. (2020) Task allocation in Simulation Productivity, Traditional approach / Assembly New method for to
collaborative Ergonomic Simulation line—Automotive optimize task
assembly line industry allocation in a
work cell
36 Xu et al. (2021) Human–robot Mathematical Productivity, Safety Traditional approach Disassembly smoothness index of
collaborative modelling line—bearing coupler disassembly, and
disassembly line cycle time reduced
balancing
37 Boschetti et al., collaborative Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Makespan reduction
(2021b) assembly line approach specified
balancing
38 Jepsen et al. (2021) Designing a flexible Framework Flexibility Digital Twins—Object Assembly line—Drone Reduction the
production system detection assembly modifying time for
each change
39 Inoue et al. (2021) designing a Comparative case Flexibility Traditional approach Warehouse—Material Mobile Cobots cause
reconfigurable study transport to eliminate some
manufacturing designing obstacles
system by using
AGV and Cobots for
material transport

123
2103
 Table 6 (continued)
2104

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

123
40 Zhang et al., (2021b) new metric for Mathematical Productivity, Traditional approach Assembly Improvement in
collaborative approach Ergonomic line—cylinder head production time
assembly line and ergonomic
simultaneously
41 Malik and Brem improving Framework Productivity Digital Assembly line—not Cycle time reduction
(2021) collaboration Twins—Simulation specified
between human and
cobots by using
digital twins
42 Rega et al. (2021) safety protocols for Knowledge-based Productivity, Safety Traditional approach Work cell—not Improving
designing approach specified productivity and
collaborative safety
assembly line
balancing
43 Dalle Mura & Dini job rotation in Mathematical Cost, Ergonomic Traditional approach Assembly Significant
(2022) assembly line modeling line—Vehicle improvement in
front-end both factors
44 Sordan et al. (2022) collaborative Comparative case Productivity Traditional approach U-shaped Assembly Idle time reduction
assembly line study line—not specified
balancing
45 Gjeldum et al. (2022) task allocation in DSS procedure Productivity Traditional approach Assembly Cycle time reduction
collaborative line—manual gearbox
assembly line
46 Cohen et al. (2022) collaborative Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Makespan reduction
assembly line modeling specified
balancing
47 Li et al., (2021c) collaborative Mathematical Cost, Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not An optimal Pareto
assembly line modeling specified front based on
balancing cycle time and cost
of an assembly line
48 Fager et al. (2021) piking system in Mathematical Cost Traditional approach Assembly line—not Reduction in cost of
assembly line approach specified production,
increase in cost of
equipment
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 6 (continued)

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

49 Vieira et al. (2022) production planning Mathematical Cost, Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not An optimal Pareto
and scheduling modeling, specified front based on
Simulation / production
(ROSA) Makespan and
operational costs
50 Malik et al. (2021) designing Simulation Productivity Digital Assembly Cycle time reduction
collaborative Twins—Simulation line—Ventilator
assembly line production
51 Ibanez et al. (2021) collaborative Simulation, Productivity Digital Assembly line—Cable Cycle time reduction
assembly line Comparative case Twins—Simulation harnesses
study
52 Boschetti et al., collaborative Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach / Assembly line—not Makespan reduction
(2021a) assembly line modeling Simulation specified
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

balancing
53 Almasarwah et al. Task allocation in Mathematical Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Reduction in the
(2022) collaborative modeling specified cycle and idle
assembly line times and enhance
the production rate
of an assembly
system
54 Keshvarparast et al. collaborative Mathematical Productivity, Traditional approach Assembly Significant
(2022) assembly line modeling Ergonomic line—Vehicle improvement in
balancing front-end both factors for
C-AL
55 Belhadj et al. (2022) Task allocation and Mathematical Cost, Productivity Traditional approach Parallel disassembly Improvement in
planning in approach, Heuristic line—gear box production time
collaborative strategy approach and cost
disassembly line simultaneously
56 Nourmohammadi collaborative Mathematical Productivity, Number Traditional approach Assembly line—not Improving in the new
et al. (2022) assembly line modeling of used recurses specified proposed metric
balancing and (combination of
scheduling cycle time and
number of used
resources)

123
2105
 Table 6 (continued)
2106

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

123
57 Petzoldt et al. (2022) Dynamic task Framework; Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Dynamic task
allocation for Simulation specified allocation can
collaborative improve HRC in
assembly line assembly tasks,
especially when
the workload is
variable or
uncertain
58 Navas-Reascos et al., collaborative Simulation; Ergonomic Traditional approach Assembly line—Wire Ergonomics
(2022a) assembly line Comparative case Harness Assembly improvement of
balancing study Process assembly process
(reduced physical
strain and muscular
activity for the
workers, and
improved their
overall well-being)
59 Zhu et al. (2022) Reconfiguring Simulation; Cost; Productivity Digital Manufacturing system- use of a digital twin
collaborative Mathematical Twins—Simulation not specified can enable
assembly line by Model dynamic
Digital Twin reconfiguration
optimization of
intelligent
manufacturing
systems
60 Lee et al. (2022) Task allocation and Mathematical Model Productivity; Safety Traditional approach Disassembly—Used Improvement in
planning Hard Disc Drive disassembly
collaborative process, with the
disassembly line robot providing
support in the most
difficult and
dangerous parts of
the task
61 Gervasi et al. (2021) A framework to Framework Productivity; Traditional approach Assembly the proposed
design a Ergonomic line—Automotive methodology
human–Robot industry helped to identify
collaboration the most
appropriate
configuration for
the task
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 6 (continued)

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

62 Peron et al. (2022) Decision support Decision Support Cost; Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Use cobots in low
system for System specified throughput only if
implementing operation times are
assistive high. In high
technologies in throughput, best to
assembly lines use both DIs and/or
cobots
63 Dalle Mura & Dini Job-rotation in Mathematical Model Cost; Ergonomic Traditional approach Assembly Cobot
(2022) collaborative line—Vehicle implementation
assembly line front-end improve
ergonomics in
assembly line
64 Zhang et al. (2022b) Online task sequence AI—Reinforcement Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not dynamic task
assignment to Learning specified assignment can
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

human and cobot improve the

productivity of
HRC
65 Deniz & Ozcelik collaborative Mathematical Model Cost; Safety Traditional approach Disassembly—Hazard Cost reduction
(2023) disassembly line
task allocation for
hazard products
66 Pabolu et al. (2022) Digital twins-based Framework Productivity Digital Assembly line—not The framework helps
framework for task Twins—Simulation specified to evaluate the
allocation performance of
assembly line
before
implementation
67 Wang et al. (2022a) time-based and Simulation Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Method to analyse
event-based specified the dynamic factors
simulation for on performance of
dynamic factors of HRC
HRC
68 Xiang et al. (2022) multi-product Mathematical Model Cost Traditional approach Disassembly—not Cost benefit of using
u-shaped specified cobots in a
collaborative multi-product
disassembly line disassembly line
balancing

123
2107
 Table 6 (continued)
2108

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

123
69 Liu et al. (2022a) two-sided AI—Reinforcement Productivity Traditional approach Disassembly—not Reinforcement
collaborative Learning specified learning can be
disassembly line used to find a
balancing solution for C-DLB
70 Antonelli and Aliev Robust real time Mathematical Model Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Robust solution for
(2022) optimization of task specified C-ALB to decease
assignment in cycle time
C-ALB
71 Li et al. (2022) online task Mathematical Model Productivity; Traditional approach Assembly line—not New multi-modal
reassignment based Ergonomic specified fatigue model to
on fatigue of worker evaluate fatigue in
in C-AL real time
72 Liao et al. (2023) Sequence planning Mathematical Model Cost; Safety Traditional approach Disassembly—not A model to balance
for collaborative specified cost, feasibility and
disassembly line safety of C-DL
73 Boschetti et al. (2022) collision avoidance Simulation Productivity; Safety Traditional approach Assembly line—not Different collision
strategies in C-AL specified avoidance
strategies make
different
productivity for
C-Al
74 Lorenzo et al. (2022) production planning Framework Productivity Traditional approach Assembly line—not Digital twin
and near real-time specified simulation
production effectively can
controlling evaluate
performance of
C-AL
75 Gualtieri et al. (2022) Safety guideline for Framework Safety Digital Assembly line—not Guideline for design
HRC Twins—Simulation specified a safe C-AL by
considering system
characteristics
76 Gjeldum et al. (2022) A decision Support Decision Support Productivity Traditional approach Assembly A decision support
System for task System line—Gearbox system to design a
allocation in C-AL productive C-AL
77 Stecke and Collaborative Mathematical Model Productivity; Traditional approach Assembly line—not Cycle time reduction
Mokhtarzadeh assembly line Ergonomic specified
(2022) Balancing
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118
 Table 6 (continued)

Row Authors Problem Method Performance criteria Evaluation approach Application sector Achieved results

78 Abdous et al. (2022) Collaborative Mathematical Model Cost; Ergonomi Traditional approach Assembly line—not A balance between
assembly line specified cost and ergonomic
Balancing in C-AL
79 Lanzoni et al. (2022) Real-time ergonomic AI—VR Ergonomic Digital Work cell Significant
analysis of worker Twins—Simulation improvements in
with virtual reality RULA index for
worker
80 Mura & Dini (2023) Improving ergonomic Mathematical Ergonomic Traditional approach Assembly Improvement in
indexes in modeling line—Electrical noise exposure and
collaborative scooter energy expenditure
assembly line in collaborative
assembly line
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

123
2109
2110 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

References Ergonomics, 65(5), 719–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.

2021.1984585
Abdous, M. A., Delorme, X., Battini, D., & Berger-Douce, S. Banziger, T., Kunz, A., & Wegener, K. (2020). Optimizing
(2022). Multi-objective collaborative assembly line design prob- human–robot task allocation using a simulation tool based on stan-
lem with the optimisation of ergonomics and economics. Interna- dardized work descriptions. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
tional Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 31, 1635–1648.
00207543.2022.2153185 Battini, D., Delorme, X., Dolgui, A., & Sgarbossa, F. (2015). Assem-
Accorsi, R., Tufano, A., Gallo, A., Galizia, F. G., Cocchi, G., Ronzoni, bly line balancing with ergonomics paradigms: Two alternative
M., Abbate, A., & Manzini, R. (2019). An application of collabo- methods. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(3), 586–591.
rative robots in a food production facility. Procedia Manufacturing Belhadj, I., Aicha, M., & Aifaoui, N. (2022). Product disassembly plan-
38: 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.044 ning and task allocation based on human and robot collaboration.
Akella, P., Peshkin, M., Colgate, E. D., Wannasuphoprasit, W., Nagesh, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing
N., Wells, J., Holland, S., Pearson, T., & Peacock, B. (1999). (IJIDeM), 16(2), 803–819.
Cobots for the automobile assembly line. In Proceedings 1999 Berger, T., Bonte, T., Santin, J. J., & Sallez, Y. (2020). The concept of"
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. safety bubble" to build ethical reconfigurable assembly systems.
No. 99CH36288C) (Vol. 1, pp. 728–733). IEEE. https://doi.org/ IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53(2), 17023–17028.
10.1109/robot.1999.770061 Berti, N., Serena, F., Mattia, G., Monica, R., & Daria, B. (2022).
Alebooyeh, M., & Urbanic, R. J. (2019). Neural network model for Real-time postural training effects on single and multi-person
identifying workspace, forward and inverse kinematics of the 7- ergonomic risk scores. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(10), 163–168.
DOF YuMi 14000 ABB collaborative robot. IFAC-PapersOnLine, Bi, L., & Guan, C. (2019). A review on EMG-based motor intention
52(10), 176–181. prediction of continuous human upper limb motion for human-
Alessio, A., Aliev, K., & Antonelli, D. (2022). Robust adversarial robot collaboration. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control,
reinforcement learning for optimal assembly sequence definition 51, 113–127.
in a cobot workcell. Advances in manufacturing III: Volume 2- Bisen, A. S., & Payal, H. (2022). Collaborative robots for industrial
production engineering: Research and technology innovations, tasks: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 52, 500–504.
industry 4.0 (pp. 25–34). Springer International Publishing. Blankemeyer, S., Wiemann, R., Posniak, L., Pregizer, C., & Raatz,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99310-8_3 A. (2018). Intuitive robot programming using augmented reality.
Almasarwah, N., Abdelall, E., Suer, G. A., Pagan, J., & You, Y. (2022). Procedia CIRP, 76, 155–160.
Collaborative robots’ assembly system in the manufacturing area, Bogataj, D., Battini, D., Calzavara, M., & Persona, A. (2019). The
assembly system 4.0. The International Journal of Advanced Man- ageing workforce challenge: Investments in collaborative robots
ufacturing Technology, 122(2), 1069–1081. or contribution to pension schemes, from the multi-echelon per-
Andronas, D., Arkouli, Z., Zacharaki, N., Michalos, G., Sardelis, A., spective. International Journal of Production Economics, 210,
Papanikolopoulos, G., & Makris, S. (2022). On the perception and 97–106.
handling of deformable objects–A robotic cell for white goods Boschetti, G., Bottin, M., Faccio, M., Maretto, L., & Minto, R. (2022).
industry. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 77, The influence of collision avoidance strategies on human-robot
102358. collaborative systems. Ifac-Papersonline, 55(2), 301–306.
Antonelli, D., & Aliev, K. (2022). Robust assembly task assignment in Boschetti, G., Bottin, M., Faccio, M., & Minto, R. (2021a). Multi-robot
human robot collaboration as a Markov decision process problem. multi-operator collaborative assembly systems: a performance
Procedia CIRP, 112, 174–179. evaluation model. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 32(5),
Antonelli, D., & Bruno, G. (2019). Dynamic distribution of assem- 1455–1470.
bly tasks in a collaborative workcell of humans and robots. FME Boschetti, G., Faccio, M., Milanese, M., & Minto, R. (2021b). C-
Transactions, 47(4), 723–730. ALB (Collaborative Assembly Line Balancing): a new approach
Apostolopoulos, G., Andronas, D., Fourtakas, N., & Makris, S. (2022). in cobot solutions. The International Journal of Advanced Man-
Operator training framework for hybrid environments: An aug- ufacturing Technology, 116(9), 3027–3042.
mented reality module using machine learning object recognition. Bright, T., Adali, S., & Bright, G. (2022). Low-cost sensory glove for
Procedia CIRP, 106, 102–107. human–robot collaboration in advanced manufacturing systems.
Arents, J., Abolins, V., Judvaitis, J., Vismanis, O., Oraby, A., & Ozols, Robotics, 11(3), 56.
K. (2021). Human–robot collaboration trends and safety aspects: Broum, T., & Šimon, M. (2020). Safety requirements related to col-
A systematic review. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, laborative robots in the Czech Republic. MM Science Journal.
10(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.17973/MMSJ.2020_03_2019136
Arrais, R., Costa, C. M., Ribeiro, P., Rocha, L. F., Silva, M., & Veiga, Bruno, G., & Antonelli, D. (2018). Dynamic task classification and
G. (2021). On the development of a collaborative robotic system assignment for the management of human-robot collaborative
for industrial coating cells. The International Journal of Advanced teams in workcells. The International Journal of Advanced Man-
Manufacturing Technology, 115(3), 853–871. ufacturing Technology, 98(9), 2415–2427.
Avalle, G., De Pace, F., Fornaro, C., Manuri, F., & Sanna, A. (2019). An Cacace, J., Caccavale, R., Finzi, A., & Grieco, R. (2022). Combining
augmented reality system to support fault visualization in indus- human guidance and structured task execution during physical
trial robotic tasks. IEEE Access, 7, 132343–132359. human–robot collaboration. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing.
Azzi, A., Battini, D., Faccio, M., & Persona, A. (2012). Sequenc- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-01989-y
ing procedure for balancing the workloads variations in case of Calitz, A. P., Poisat, P., & Cullen, M. (2017). The future African
mixed model assembly system with multiple secondary feeder workplace: The use of collaborative robots in manufacturing. SA
lines. International Journal of Production Research, 50(21), Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 1–11.
6081–6098. Calvo, R., & Gil, P. (2022). Evaluation of collaborative robot sustain-
Baltrusch, S. J., Krause, F., de Vries, A. W., van Dijk, W., & de Looze, able integration in manufacturing assembly by using process time
M. P. (2022). What about the human in human robot collaboration? savings. Materials, 15(2), 611.
A literature review on HRC’s effects on aspects of job quality.

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2111

Cardoso, A., Colim, A., Bicho, E., Braga, A. C., Menozzi, M., & Dalle Mura, M., & Dini, G. (2019). Designing assembly lines with
Arezes, P. (2021). Ergonomics and human factors as a require- humans and collaborative robots: A genetic approach. CIRP
ment to implement safer collaborative robotic workstations: A Annals, 68(1), 1–4.
literature review. Safety, 7(4), 71. Dalle Mura, M., & Dini, G. (2022). Job rotation and human–robot
Carfì, A., Villalobos, J., Coronado, E., Bruno, B., & Mastrogio- collaboration for enhancing ergonomics in assembly lines by
vanni, F. (2020). Can human-inspired learning behaviour facil- a genetic algorithm. The International Journal of Advanced
itate human–robot interaction? International Journal of Social Manufacturing Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-
Robotics, 12(1), 173–186. 08068-1
Casalino, A., Mazzocca, E., Di Giorgio, M. G., Zanchettin, A. M., Dalle Mura, M., & Dini, G. (2023). Improving ergonomics in mixed-
& Rocco, P. (2019a). Task scheduling for human-robot col- model assembly lines balancing noise exposure and energy
laboration with uncertain duration of tasks: a fuzzy approach. expenditure. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Tech-
In 2019a 7th International Conference on Control, Mechatron- nology, 40, 44–52.
ics and Automation (ICCMA) (pp. 90–97). IEEE. https://doi.org/ de Gea Fernández, J., Mronga, D., Günther, M., Knobloch, T., Wirkus,
10.1109/ICCMA46720.2019.8988735 M., Schröer, M., Trampler, M., Stiene, S., Kirchner, E., Bargsten,
Casalino, A., Zanchettin, A. M., Piroddi, L., & Rocco, P. (2019b). V., & Bänziger, T. (2017). Multimodal sensor-based whole-
Optimal scheduling of human–robot collaborative assembly oper- body control for human–robot collaboration in industrial settings.
ations with time petri nets. IEEE Transactions on Automation Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 94, 102–119. https://doi.org/
Science and Engineering, 18(1), 70–84. 10.1016/j.robot.2017.04.007
Cencen, A., Verlinden, J. C., & Geraedts, J. M. P. (2018). Design de Sousa, G. B., Olabi, A., Palos, J., & Gibaru, O. (2017). 3D metrol-
methodology to improve human-robot coproduction in small-and ogy using a collaborative robot with a laser triangulation sensor.
medium-sized enterprises. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mecha- Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tronics, 23(3), 1092–1102. promfg.2017.07.211
Chemweno, P., Pintelon, L., & Decre, W. (2020). Orienting safety assur- Deng, X., Liu, J., Gong, H., Gong, H., & Huang, J. (2022). A human-
ance with outcomes of hazard analysis and risk assessment: A robot collaboration method using a pose estimation network for
review of the ISO 15066 standard for collaborative robot systems. robot learning of assembly manipulation trajectories from demon-
Safety Science, 129, 104832. stration videos. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.
Chiurco, A., Frangella, J., Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., Padovano, A., Solina, https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2022.3224966
V., Mirabelli, G., & Citraro, C. (2022). Real-time Detection of Deniz, N., & Ozcelik, F. (2023). Bi-objective optimization-based
Worker’s Emotions for Advanced Human-Robot Interaction dur- multi-criteria decision-making framework for disassembly line
ing Collaborative Tasks in Smart Factories. Procedia Computer balancing and employee assignment problem. Kybernetes, Vol.
Science, 200, 1875–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-06-
01.388 2022-0857
Choi, S. H., Park, K. B., Roh, D. H., Lee, J. Y., Mohammed, M., Dianatfar, M., Latokartano, J., & Lanz, M. (2021). Review on existing
Ghasemi, Y., & Jeong, H. (2022). An integrated mixed reality VR/AR solutions in human–robot collaboration. Procedia CIRP,
system for safety-aware human-robot collaboration using deep 97, 407–411.
learning and digital twin generation. Robotics and Computer- Digital Twin Consortium. (2022). What is a digital twin?
Integrated Manufacturing, 73, 102258. Available at https://www.digitaltwinconsortium.org/initiatives/
Chonsawat, N., & Sopadang, A. (2020). Defining SMEs’ 4.0 readiness the-definition-of-a-digital-twin/
indicators. Applied Sciences, 10(24), 8998. Dimitropoulos, N., Michalos, G., & Makris, S. (2021). An outlook on
Cohen, Y., & Shoval, S. (2020). A new cobot deployment strategy in future hybrid assembly systems-the Sherlock approach. Procedia
manual assembly stations: Countering the impact of absenteeism. Cirp, 97, 441–446.
IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53(2), 10275–10278. Djuric, A., Rickli, J. L., Jovanovic, V. M., & Foster, D. (2017). Hands-on
Cohen, Y., Shoval, S., Faccio, M., & Minto, R. (2022). Deploying learning environment and educational curriculum on collaborative
cobots in collaborative systems: Major considerations and pro- robotics. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2017, 1–15.
ductivity analysis. International Journal of Production Research, Djuric, A., Rickli, J., Sefcovic, J., Hutchison, D., & Goldin, M. M.
60(6), 1815–1831. (2018). Integrating collaborative robots in engineering and engi-
Costa, G. D. M., Petry, M. R., & Moreira, A. P. (2022). Augmented neering technology programs. In ASME International Mechan-
reality for human-robot collaboration and cooperation in industrial ical Engineering Congress and Exposition (Vol. 52064, p.
applications: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 22(7), 2725. V005T07A013). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Costanzo, M., De Maria, G., Lettera, G., & Natale, C. (2021). A Djuric, A. M., Urbanic, R. J., & Rickli, J. L. (2016). A framework
multimodal approach to human safety in collaborative robotic for collaborative robot (CoBot) integration in advanced manu-
workcells. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engi- facturing systems. SAE International Journal of Materials and
neering, 19(2), 1202–1216. Manufacturing, 9(2), 457–464.
Coupeté, E., Moutarde, F., & Manitsaris, S. (2016) A user-adaptive Dmytriyev, Y., Insero, F., Carnevale, M., & Giberti, H. (2022). Brain—
gesture recognition system applied to human-robot collaboration computer interface and hand-guiding control in a human–robot
in factories. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium collaborative assembly task. Machines, 10(8), 654.
on Movement and Computing (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1145/ D’Souza, F., Costa, J., & Pires, J. N. (2020). Development of a solution
2948910.2948933 for adding a collaborative robot to an industrial AGV. Industrial
Coupeté, E., Moutarde, F., & Manitsaris, S. (2019). Multi-users online Robot: The International Journal of Robotics Research and Appli-
recognition of technical gestures for natural human–robot collab- cation, 47(5), 723–735.
oration in manufacturing. Autonomous Robots, 43(6), 1309–1325. Dusadeerungsikul, P. O., Sreeram, M., He, X., Nair, A., Ramani, K.,
Dahl, M., Bengtsson, K., & Falkman, P. (2021). Application of the Quinn, A. J., & Nof, S. Y. (2019). Collaboration requirement plan-
sequence planner control framework to an intelligent automation ning protocol for HUB-CI in factories of the future. Procedia
system with a focus on error handling. Machines, 9(3), 59. Manufacturing, 39, 218–225.
El Makrini, I., Elprama, S.A., Van den Bergh, J., Vanderborght, B.,
Knevels, A.J., Jewell, C.I., Stals, F., De Coppel, G., Ravyse,

123
2112 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

I., Potargent, J., & Berte, J. (2018). Working with walt: How a approach in design. International Journal of Advanced Robotic
cobot was developed and inserted on an auto assembly line. IEEE Systems, 5(1), 1.
Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25(2), 51–58. https://doi.org/ Grieves, M., & Vickers, J. (2017). Digital twin: Mitigating
10.1109/MRA.2018.2815947 unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex sys-
El Zaatari, S., Marei, M., Li, W., & Usman, Z. (2019). Cobot program- tems. Transdisciplinary perspectives on complex systems: New
ming for collaborative industrial tasks: An overview. Robotics and findings and approaches, 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
Autonomous Systems, 116, 162–180. 319-38756-7_4
Emeric, C., Geoffroy, D., & Paul-Eric, D. (2020). Development of a Grischke, J., Johannsmeier, L., Eich, L., & Haddadin, S. (2019). Den-
new robotic programming support system for operators. Procedia tronics: review, first concepts and pilot study of a new application
Manufacturing, 51, 73–80. domain for collaborative robots in dental assistance. In 2019
EU-OSHA. Digitalisation and occupational safety and health. International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)
(2019). https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/digitalisation-and- (pp. 6525–6532). IEEE.
occupational-safety-and-health-eu-osharesearch-programme Gualtieri, L., Monizza, G. P., Rauch, E., Vidoni, R., & Matt, D.
Faccio, M., Granata, I., Menini, A., Milanese, M., Rossato, C., Bottin, T. (2020a). From design for assembly to design for collabo-
M., & Rosati, G. (2023). Human factors in cobot era: a review of rative assembly-product design principles for enhancing safety,
modern production systems features. Journal of Intelligent Man- ergonomics and efficiency in human-robot collaboration. Proce-
ufacturing, 34(1), 85–106. dia CIRP, 91, 546–552.
Fager, P., Calzavara, M., & Sgarbossa, F. (2019). Kit preparation Gualtieri, L., Palomba, I., Merati, F. A., Rauch, E., & Vidoni, R.
with cobot-supported sorting in mixed model assembly. IFAC- (2020b). Design of human-centered collaborative assembly work-
PapersOnLine, 52(13), 1878–1883. stations for the improvement of operators’ physical ergonomics
Fager, P., Sgarbossa, F., & Calzavara, M. (2021). Cost modelling of and production efficiency: A case study. Sustainability, 12(9),
onboard cobot-supported item sorting in a picking system. Inter- 3606.
national Journal of Production Research, 59(11), 3269–3284. Gualtieri, L., Rauch, E., & Vidoni, R. (2021). Emerging research fields
Franceschi, P., Mutti, S., Ottogalli, K., Rosquete, D., Borro, D., & in safety and ergonomics in industrial collaborative robotics: A
Pedrocchi, N. (2022). A framework for cyber-physical production systematic literature review. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
system management and digital twin feedback monitoring for fast Manufacturing, 67, 101998.
failure recovery. International Journal of Computer Integrated Gualtieri, L., Rauch, E., & Vidoni, R. (2022). Development and val-
Manufacturing, 35(6), 619–632. idation of guidelines for safety in human-robot collaborative
Fukui, H., Shimizu, T., Maeda, I., Nobuhiro, M., Okada, K., Dohi, assembly systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 163,
M., Fujitani, S. & Fujita, T. (2020, December). Development of 107801.
devices applied to collaborative robot production system based on Gualtieri, L., Rauch, E., Vidoni, R., & Matt, D. T. (2019). An evaluation
Collaborative Safety/Safety2. 0. In ISR 2020; 52th International methodology for the conversion of manual assembly systems into
Symposium on Robotics (pp. 1–6). VDE. https://ieeexplore.ieee. human-robot collaborative workcells. Procedia Manufacturing,
org/abstract/document/9307466 38, 358–366.
Fuller, A., Fan, Z., Day, C., & Barlow, C. (2020). Digital twin: Enabling Halme, R. J., Lanz, M., Kämäräinen, J., Pieters, R., Latokartano, J., &
technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Access, 8, Hietanen, A. (2018). Review of vision-based safety systems for
108952–108971. human-robot collaboration. Procedia CIRP, 72, 111–116.
Garber, M., & Lin, M. C. (2002). Constraint-based motion planning Hanna, A., Bengtsson, K., Dahl, M., Erős, E., Götvall, P. L., & Ekström,
for virtual prototyping. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM sym- M. (2019). Industrial challenges when planning and preparing col-
posium on Solid modeling and applications (pp. 257–264). laborative and intelligent automation systems for final assembly
Garcia, M. A. R., Rauch, E., Salvalai, D., & Matt, D. (2021). AI-based stations. In 2019 24th IEEE International Conference on Emerg-
human-robot cooperation for flexible multi-variant manufactur- ing Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) (pp. 400–406).
ing. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on IEEE.
Industrial Engineering and Management 2021 (pp. 1194–1203). Hanna, A., Bengtsson, K., Götvall, P. L., & Ekström, M. (2020).
IEOM. Towards safe human robot collaboration-Risk assessment of intel-
Garcia, M. A. R., Rojas, R., Gualtieri, L., Rauch, E., & Matt, D. ligent automation. In 2020 25th IEEE International Conference
(2019). A human-in-the-loop cyber-physical system for collab- on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) (Vol.
orative assembly in smart manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 81, 1, pp. 424–431). IEEE.
600–605. Hassan, S. A., & Oddo, C. M. (2022). Tactile sensors for Material recog-
Gervasi, R., Mastrogiacomo, L., Maisano, D. A., Antonelli, D., nition in Social and Collaborative Robots: A brief review. In 2022
& Franceschini, F. (2021). A structured methodology to sup- IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and
port human–robot collaboration configuration choice. Production Applications (MeMeA) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
Engineering, 16(4), 435–451. Heddy, G., Huzaifa, U., Beling, P., Haimes, Y., Marvel, J., Weiss, B., &
Giberti, H., Abbattista, T., Carnevale, M., Giagu, L., & Cristini, F. LaViers, A. (2015). Linear temporal logic (LTL) based monitoring
(2022). A methodology for flexible implementation of collabora- of smart manufacturing systems. In Proceedings of the Annual
tive robots in smart manufacturing systems. Robotics, 11(1), 9. Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society.
Gil-Vilda, F., Sune, A., Yagüe-Fabra, J. A., Crespo, C., & Serrano, H. Prognostics and Health Management Society. Conference (Vol.
(2017). Integration of a collaborative robot in a U-shaped produc- 6). NIH Public Access.
tion line: A real case study. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 109–115. Hjorth, S., & Chrysostomou, D. (2022). Human–robot collaboration
Gjeldum, N., Aljinovic, A., Crnjac Zizic, M., & Mladineo, M. (2022). in industrial environments: A literature review on non-destructive
Collaborative robot task allocation on an assembly line using the disassembly. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,
decision support system. International Journal of Computer Inte- 73, 102208.
grated Manufacturing, 35(4–5), 510–526. Hollerer, S., Fischer, C., Brenner, B., Papa, M., Schlund, S., Kast-
Green, S. A., Billinghurst, M., Chen, X., & Chase, J. G. (2008). Human- ner, W., Fabini, J., & Zseby, T. (2021). Cobot attack: a security
robot collaboration: A literature review and augmented reality assessment exemplified by a specific collaborative robot. Procedia
Manufacturing, 54, 191–196.

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2113

Hopko, S., Wang, J., & Mehta, R. (2022). Human factors considera- Lacevic, B., Zanchettin, A. M., & Rocco, P. (2022). Safe Human-robot
tions and metrics in shared space human-robot collaboration: A collaboration via collision checking and explicit representation
systematic review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 6. of danger zones. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and
Ibáñez, V. R., Pujol, F. A., Ortega, S. G., & Perpiñán, J. S. (2021). Engineering.
Collaborative robotics in wire harnesses spot taping process. Com- Lamon, E., Peternel, L., & Ajoudani, A. (2018). Towards a prolonged
puters in Industry, 125, 103370. productivity in industry 4.0: A framework for fatigue minimisation
Inkulu, A. K., Bahubalendruni, M. V. A. R., Dara, A., & Sankara- in robot-robot co-manipulation. In 2018 IEEE-RAS 18th Interna-
narayanasamy, K. (2022). Challenges and opportunities in human tional Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) (pp. 1–6).
robot collaboration context of Industry 4.0—A state of the art IEEE.
review. Industrial Robot, 49(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Lanzoni, D., Cattaneo, A., Vitali, A., Regazzoni, D., & Rizzi, C.
IR-04-2021-0077 (2022). Markerless motion capture and virtual reality for real-time
Inoue, S., Urata, A., Kodama, T., Huwer, T., Maruyama, Y., Fujita, S., ergonomic analysis of operators in workstations with collaborative
Shinno, H. & Yoshioka, H. (2021). High-precision mobile robotic robots: a preliminary study. In Advances on Mechanics, Design
manipulator for reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Interna- Engineering and Manufacturing IV: Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Journal of Automation Technology, 15(5), 651–660. https:// tional Joint Conference on Mechanics, Design Engineering &
doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2021.p0651 Advanced Manufacturing, JCM 2022, June 1–3, 2022, Ischia, Italy
Islam, S. O. B., Lughmani, W. A., Qureshi, W. S., Khalid, A., Mariscal, (pp. 1183–1194). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
M. A., & Garcia-Herrero, S. (2019). Exploiting visual cues for Le, C.H., Le, D.T., Arey, D., Gheorghe, P., Chu, A.M., Duong, X.B.,
safe and flexible cyber-physical production systems. Advances in Nguyen, T.T., Truong, T.T., Prakash, C., Zhao, S.T. & Mahmud, J.
Mechanical Engineering, 11(12), 1687814019897228. (2020). Challenges and conceptual framework to develop heavy-
Ismail, B. I., Khalid, M. F., Kandan, R., Ahmad, H., Mydin, M. N. M., load manipulators for smart factories. International Journal of
& Hoe, O. H. (2020). Cobot fleet management system using cloud Mechatronics and Applied Mechanics, 8(2), 209–216. http://gala.
and edge computing. In 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/29752
on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS) Lee, H., Liau, Y. Y., Kim, S., & Ryu, K. (2020). Model-based human
(pp. 1–5). IEEE. robot collaboration system for small batch assembly with a vir-
Jepsen, S. C., Worm, T., Johansen, A., Lazarova-Molnar, S., Kjærgaard, tual fence. International Journal of Precision Engineering and
M. B., Kang, E. Y., ... & Schwee, J. H. (2021). A research setup Manufacturing-Green Technology, 7, 609–623.
demonstrating flexible industry 4.0 production. In 2021 Interna- Lee, M. L., Behdad, S., Liang, X., & Zheng, M. (2022). Task allocation
tional Symposium ELMAR (pp. 143–150). IEEE. and planning for product disassembly with human–robot collab-
Kanazawa, A., Kinugawa, J., & Kosuge, K. (2019). Incremental learn- oration. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 76,
ing of spatial-temporal features in human motion patterns with 102306.
mixture model for planning motion of a collaborative robot in Leng, J., Wang, D., Shen, W., Li, X., Liu, Q., & Chen, X. (2021). Digital
assembly lines. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics twins-based smart manufacturing system design in Industry 4.0:
and Automation (ICRA) (pp. 7858–7864). IEEE. A review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 60, 119–137.
Karaulova, T., Andronnikov, K., Mahmood, K., & Shevtshenko, E. Leyrer, T., Varis, P., Wallace, W., Gangadar, P., Mandhana, M., Jayara-
(2019). Lean automation for low-volume manufacturing environ- jan, P., & Karaiyan, S. (2021). Analysis and implementation of
ment. Annals of DAAAM and Proceedings of the International multi-protocol gigabit Ethernet switch for real-time control sys-
DAAAM Symposium, 0059–0068, 30. tems. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Communications
Katiraee, N., Calzavara, M., Finco, S., Battini, D., & Battaïa, O. Workshops (ICC Workshops) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.
(2021). Consideration of workers’ differences in production sys- 1109/ICCWorkshops50388.2021.9473718
tems modelling and design: State of the art and directions for future Li, G., Holseker, E., Khodabandeh, A., Sneltvedt, I. G., BjrnY, E.,
research. International Journal of Production Research, 59(11), & Zhang, H. (2021a). Development of A Manufacturing Sys-
3237–3268. tem for Gear Assembly using Collaborative Robots. In 2021a
Keshvarparast, A., Battaia, O., Pirayesh, A., & Battini, D. (2022). IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation
Considering physical workload and workforce diversity in a col- (ICMA) (pp. 22–27). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMA52036.
laborative assembly line balancing (C-ALB) optimization model. 2021.9512631
IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(10), 157–162. Li, S., Zheng, P., Fan, J., & Wang, L. (2021b). Toward proactive
Keshvarparast, A., Katiraee, N., Finco, S., & Battini, D. (2021). Cobots human–robot collaborative assembly: A multimodal transfer-
implementation in manufacturing systems: literature review and learning-enabled action prediction approach. IEEE Transactions
open questions. Proceedings of the Summer School Francesco on Industrial Electronics, 69(8), 8579–8588.
Turco.. https://www.research.unipd.it/handle/11577/3440137 Li, X., Xu, W., Yao, B., Ji, Z., & Liu, X. (2022). Dynamic task realloca-
Khalid, A., Kirisci, P., Khan, Z. H., Ghrairi, Z., Thoben, K. D., & tion in human-robot collaborative workshop based on online biotic
Pannek, J. (2018). Security framework for industrial collabora- fatigue detection. In 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference
tive robotic cyber-physical systems. Computers in Industry, 97, on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) (pp. 116–122).
132–145. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMA52036.2021.9512631
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic Li, Z., Janardhanan, M. N., & Tang, Q. (2021c). Multi-objective migrat-
reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University, 33(2004), 1–26. ing bird optimization algorithm for cost-oriented assembly line
10.1.1.122.3308 balancing problem with collaborative robots. Neural Computing
Koch, J., Büsch, L., Gomse, M., & Schüppstuhl, T. (2022). A methods- and Applications, 33(14), 8575–8596.
time-measurement based approach to enable action recognition Liao, H. Y., Chen, Y., Hu, B., & Behdad, S. (2023). Optimization-based
for multi-variant assembly in human-robot collaboration. Proce- disassembly sequence planning under uncertainty for human-
dia CIRP, 106, 233–238. robot collaboration. Journal of Mechanical Design, 145(2),
Kolyubin, S. A., Shiriaev, A. S., & Jubien, A. (2017). Refining dynam- 022001.
ics identification for co-bots: Case study on KUKA LWR4+. Lin, C. H., Wang, K. J., Tadesse, A. A., & Woldegiorgis, B. H. (2022).
IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 14626–14631. Human-robot collaboration empowered by hidden semi-Markov

123
2114 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

model for operator behaviour prediction in a smart assembly sys- Manoharan, M., & Kumaraguru, S. (2018). Path planning for
tem. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 62, 317–333. direct energy deposition with collaborative robots: A review.
Lin, C. J., & Lukodono, R. P. (2021). Sustainable human–robot col- In 2018 Conference on Information and Communication
laboration based on human intention classification. Sustainability, Technology (CICT) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
13(11), 5990. INFOCOMTECH.2018.8722362
Liu, H., & Wang, L. (2018). Gesture recognition for human-robot Matheson, E., Minto, R., Zampieri, E. G., Faccio, M., & Rosati, G.
collaboration: A review. International Journal of Industrial (2019). Human–robot collaboration in manufacturing applica-
Ergonomics, 68, 355–367. tions: A review. Robotics, 8(4), 100.
Liu, H., & Wang, L. (2020). Remote human–robot collaboration: A Matthias, B., Kock, S., Jerregard, H., Kallman, M., Lundberg, I., &
cyber–physical system application for hazard manufacturing envi- Mellander, R. (2011). Safety of collaborative industrial robots:
ronment. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 54, 24–34. Certification possibilities for a collaborative assembly robot con-
Liu, Y., Zhou, M., & Guo, X. (2022a). An improved Q-learning algo- cept. In 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and
rithm for human-robot collaboration two-sided disassembly line Manufacturing (ISAM) (pp. 1–6). Ieee. https://doi.org/10.1109/
balancing problems. In 2022a IEEE International Conference ISAM.2011.5942307
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 568–573). IEEE. Mateus, J. C., Claeys, D., Limère, V., Cottyn, J., & Aghezzaf, E. H.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC53654.2022.9945263 (2019). A structured methodology for the design of a human-robot
Liu, Z., Liu, Q., Xu, W., Wang, L., & Zhou, Z. (2022b). Robot learn- collaborative assembly workplace. The International Journal of
ing towards smart robotic manufacturing: A review. Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 102, 2663–2681.
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 77, 102360. Mendes, N., Safeea, M., & Neto, P. (2018). Flexible programming
Lorenzo, R., Elisa, N., & Marco, M. (2022). Local digital twin-based and orchestration of collaborative robotic manufacturing systems.
control of a cobot-assisted assembly cell based on dispatching In 2018 IEEE 16th International Conference on Industrial Infor-
rules. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(2), 372–377. matics (INDIN) (pp. 913–918). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
Lu, L., Xie, Z., Wang, H., Li, L., & Xu, X. (2022a). Mental stress INDIN.2018.8472058
and safety awareness during human-robot collaboration-review. Menegozzo, G., Dall’Alba, D., Roberti, A., & Fiorini, P. (2019). Auto-
Applied Ergonomics, 105, 103832. matic process modeling with time delays neural network based on
Lu, X., Li, X., Wang, W., Chao, K. M., Xu, L., De Vrieze, P., & Jing, Y. low-level data. Procedia Manufacturing, 38, 125–132.
(2022b). A generic and modularized Digital twin enabled human- Minca, E., Dragomir, O. E., Dragomir, F., & Enache, M. A. (2011a).
robot collaboration. In 2022b IEEE International Conference on Temporal recurrent modelling appllied to manufacturing flexible
e-Business Engineering (ICEBE) (pp. 66–73). IEEE. https://doi. lines served by collaborative robots. In 2011a 8th Asian Control
org/10.1109/ICEBE55470.2022.00021 Conference (ASCC) (pp. 749–754). IEEE.
Lucci, N., Monguzzi, A., Zanchettin, A. M., & Rocco, P. (2022). Minca, E., Dragomir, O. E., Dragomir, F., & Stefan, V. (2010). Appli-
Workflow modelling for human–robot collaborative assembly cation for manufacturing systems served by collaborative robots
operations. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, monitoring. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Automa-
78, 102384. tion and Logistics (pp. 138–143). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
Maderna, R., Poggiali, M., Zanchettin, A. M., & Rocco, P. (2020). ICAL.2010.5585397
An online scheduling algorithm for human-robot collaborative Minca, E., Dragomir, O. E., Dragomir, F., Enache, M. A., & Radaschin,
kitting. In 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and A. (2011b). Assembly-disassembly flexible lines and collab-
automation (ICRA) (pp. 11430–11435). IEEE. https://doi.org/10. orative robots considered as hierarchical systems in temporal
1109/ICRA40945.2020.9197431 recurrent modelling. In 2011b 9th World Congress on Intelligent
Maderna, R., Pozzi, M., Zanchettin, A. M., Rocco, P., & Prattichizzo, Control and Automation (pp. 69–74). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.
D. (2022). Flexible scheduling and tactile communication for 1109/WCICA.2011.5970637
human–robot collaboration. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Mitrea, D., & Tamas, L. (2018). Manufacturing execution system
Manufacturing, 73, 102233. specific data analysis-use case with a cobot. IEEE Access, 6,
Malik, A. A., & Bilberg, A. (2018). Digital twins of human robot col- 50245–50259.
laboration in a production setting. Procedia Manufacturing, 17, Mohammadi Amin, F., Rezayati, M., van de Venn, H. W., & Karimpour,
278–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.047 H. (2020). A mixed-perception approach for safe human–robot
Malik, A. A., & Bilberg, A. (2019a). Developing a reference model collaboration in industrial automation. Sensors, 20(21), 6347.
for human–robot interaction. International Journal on Interactive Mokaram, S., Aitken, J.M., Martinez-Hernandez, U., Eimontaite, I.,
Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(4), 1541–1547. Cameron, D., Rolph, J., Gwilt, I., McAree, O. & Law, J. (2017).
Malik, A. A., & Brem, A. (2021). Digital twins for collaborative robots: A ROS-integrated API for the KUKA LBR iiwa collaborative
A case study in human-robot interaction. Robotics and Computer- robot. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 15859–15864. https://doi.org/
Integrated Manufacturing, 68, 102092. 10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2331
Malik, A. A., Andersen, M. V., & Bilberg, A. (2019). Advances in Mosadeghzad, M., Kalym, D., Kaliyanurov, Z., & Alizadeh, T.
machine vision for flexible feeding of assembly parts. Procedia (2019). Towards enhancing modular production systems by
Manufacturing, 38, 1228–1235. integrating a collaborative robotic manipulator. In 2019 IEEE
Malik, A. A., Masood, T., & Bilberg, A. (2020). Virtual reality in manu- International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation
facturing: Immersive and collaborative artificial-reality in design (ICMA) (pp. 1750–1755). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMA.
of human-robot workspace. International Journal of Computer 2019.8816444
Integrated Manufacturing, 33(1), 22–37. Mueller, R., Marx, S., Kanso, A., & Adler, F. (2022). Intuitive
Malik, A. A., Masood, T., & Kousar, R. (2021). Reconfiguring and Robot programming and path planning based on human-machine
ramping-up ventilator production in the face of COVID-19: Can interaction and sensory data for realization of various aircraft
robots help? Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 60, 864–875. application scenarios (No. 2022-01-0011). SAE Technical Paper.
Malik, A. A., & Bilberg, A. (2019b). Complexity-based task allocation https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0011
in human-robot collaborative assembly. Industrial Robot, 46(4), Müller, R., Vette, M., & Scholer, M. (2014). Inspector robot–a new
471–480. https://doi.org/10.1108/IR-11-2018-0231 collaborative testing system designed for the automotive final
assembly line. Assembly Automation, 34(4), 370–378.

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2115

Naidoo, N., Bright, G., & Stopforth, R. (2019, January). A dis- Perno, M., Hvam, L., & Haug, A. (2022). Implementation of digital
tributed framework for programming the artificial intelligence of twins in the process industry: A systematic literature review of
mobile robots in smart manufacturing systems. In 2019 Southern enablers and barriers. Computers in Industry, 134, 103558.
African Universities Power Engineering Conference/Robotics and Peron, M., Sgarbossa, F., & Strandhagen, J. O. (2022). Decision support
Mechatronics/Pattern Recognition Association of South Africa model for implementing assistive technologies in assembly activ-
(SAUPEC/RobMech/PRASA) (pp. 34–41). IEEE. https://doi.org/ ities: A case study. International Journal of Production Research,
10.1109/RoboMech.2019.8704788 60(4), 1341–1367.
Navas-Reascos, G. E., Romero, D., Rodriguez, C. A., Guedea, F., & Petzoldt, C., Niermann, D., Maack, E., Sontopski, M., Vur, B., & Fre-
Stahre, J. (2022a). Wire harness assembly process supported by a itag, M. (2022). Implementation and evaluation of dynamic task
collaborative robot: A case study focus on ergonomics. Robotics, allocation for human-robot collaboration in assembly. Applied
11(6), 131. Sciences, 12(24), 12645.
Navas-Reascos, G. E., Romero, D., Stahre, J., & Caballero-Ruiz, A. Pieskä, S., Kaarela, J., & Mäkelä, J. (2018). Simulation and pro-
(2022b). Wire harness assembly process supported by collabora- gramming experiences of collaborative robots for small-scale
tive robots: Literature review and call for R&D. Robotics, 11(3), manufacturing. In 2018 2nd International Symposium on Small-
65. scale Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (SIMS) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.
Nelles, J., Kohns, S., Spies, J., Brandl, C., Mertens, A., & Schlick, C. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIMS.2018.8355303
M. (2016). Analysis of stress and strain in head based control of Pinheiro, S., Correia Simões, A., Pinto, A., Van Acker, B.B., Bombeke,
collaborative robots—A literature review. Advances in Physical K., Romero, D., Vaz, M. & Santos, J. (2021). Ergonomics and
Ergonomics and Human Factor. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- safety in the design of industrial collaborative robotics: A system-
319-41694-6_70 atic literature review. Occupational and Environmental Safety and
Neumann, W. P., Winkelhaus, S., Grosse, E. H., & Glock, C. H. (2021). Health III, 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89617-
Industry 4.0 and the human factor—A systems framework and 1_42
analysis methodology for successful development. International Pizoń, J., Gola, A., & Świć, A. (2022). The role and meaning of the
Journal of Production Economics, 233, 107992. digital twin technology in the process of implementing intelligent
Nieto, W., Arias-Correa, M., & Madrigal-González, C. (2020). Acqui- collaborative robots. Advances in manufacturing III: Volume 1-
sition and evaluation of depth data from humans, in robotized mechanical engineering: Research and technology innovations,
industrial environments. Journal of Physics: Conference Series Industry 4.0 (pp. 39–49). Cham: Springer International Publish-
IOP Publishing, 1547(1), 012016. ing.
Nikolakis, N., Alexopoulos, K., Xanthakis, E., & Chryssolouris, G. Prioli, J. P. J., & Rickli, J. L. (2020). Collaborative robot based archi-
(2019). The digital twin implementation for linking the virtual tecture to train flexible automated disassembly systems for critical
representation of human-based production tasks to their physical materials. Procedia Manufacturing, 51, 46–53.
counterpart in the factory-floor. International Journal of Com- Psulkowski, S., Frketic, J., Parker, H., Werner, R., & Dickens, T.
puter Integrated Manufacturing, 32(1), 1–12. (2020). Investigating inter-weld bonds under tension in mecha-
NMSC. (2022). Size of the collaborative (cobot) robot market world- tronic AM processing. Composites and Advanced Materials Expo,
wide in 2020 and 2021, with a forecast for 2022 to 2030 CAMX 2020. https://www.nasampe.org/store/viewproduct.aspx?
(in million U.S. dollars) [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved March id=17720103
08, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/748234/global- Quenehen, A., Pocachard, J., & Klement, N. (2019). Process optimi-
market-size-collaborative-robots/ sation using collaborative robots-comparative case study. IFAC-
Nogueira, R., Reis, J., Pinto, R., & Gonçalves, G. (2019). Self-adaptive PapersOnLine, 52(13), 60–65.
cobots in cyber-physical production systems. In 2019 24th IEEE Ramasubramanian, A. K., Mathew, R., Kelly, M., Hargaden, V., &
International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Papakostas, N. (2022). Digital twin for human-robot collaboration
Automation (ETFA) (pp. 521–528). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ in manufacturing: Review and outlook. Applied Sciences, 12(10),
ETFA.2019.8869165 4811.
Nourmohammadi, A., Fathi, M., & Ng, A. H. (2022). Balancing and Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Arredondo-Soto, K. C., García-Alcaraz, J.
scheduling assembly lines with human-robot collaboration tasks. L., Márquez-Lobato, B. Y., & Cruz-García, J. (2019). Introduction
Computers & Operations Research, 140, 105674. and configuration of a collaborative robot in an assembly task as
Ogas, E., Avila, L., Larregay, G., & Moran, D. (2020). Object grasping a means to decrease occupational risks and increase efficiency
with a robot arm using a convolutional network. International in a manufacturing company. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Journal of Mechatronics and Automation, 7(3), 113–121. Manufacturing, 57, 315–328.
Olender, M., & Banas, W. (2019). Cobots–future in production. Inter- Rega, A., Vitolo, F., Di Marino, C., & Patalano, S. (2021). A knowledge-
national Journal of Modern Manufacturing Technologies, 11(3), based approach to the layout optimization of human–robot collab-
103–109. orative workplace. International Journal on Interactive Design
Oliff, H., Liu, Y., Kumar, M., & Williams, M. (2020). Improving and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 15(1), 133–135.
human–robot interaction utilizing learning and intelligence: A Robla-Gómez, S., Becerra, V. M., Llata, J. R., Gonzalez-Sarabia, E.,
human factors-based approach. IEEE Transactions on Automa- Torre-Ferrero, C., & Perez-Oria, J. (2017). Working together: A
tion Science and Engineering, 17(3), 1597–1610. review on safe human-robot collaboration in industrial environ-
Pabolu, V. K. R., Shrivastava, D., & Kulkarni, M. S. (2022). A digital- ments. IEEE Access, 5, 26754–26773.
twin based worker’s work allocation framework for a collaborative Romiti, E., Malzahn, J., Kashiri, N., Iacobelli, F., Ruzzon, M., Lau-
assembly system. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(10), 1887–1892. renzi, A., Hoffman, E.M., Muratore, L., Margan, A., Baccelliere,
Panescu, D., Pascal, C., Sutu, M., & Varvara, G. (2009). Collabora- L. & Cordasco, S. (2021). Toward a plug-and-work reconfig-
tive robotic system obtained by combining planning and holonic urable cobot. IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, 27(5),
architecture. 2009 Advanced technologies for enhanced quality 3219–3231. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2021.3106043
of life (pp. 138–143). London: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AT- Roveda, L., Testa, A., Shahid, A. A., Braghin, F., & Piga, D. (2022). Q-
EQUAL.2009.36 Learning-based model predictive variable impedance control for
physical human-robot collaboration. Artificial Intelligence, 312,
103771.

123
2116 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

Rojas, R. A., Garcia, M. A. R., Gualtieri, L., & Rauch, E. (2021). Com- of the world congress on engineering and computer science
bining safety and speed in collaborative assembly systems–An (pp. 438–441).
approach to time optimal trajectories for collaborative robots. Pro- Sheikh, A., & Duffy, V. G. (2022). Revolutionizing ergonomics in
cedia CIRP, 97, 308–312. manufacturing processes using collaborative robots: A systematic
Rückert, P., Adam, J., Papenberg, B., Paulus, H., & Tracht, K. (2018). literature review. In Digital Human Modeling and Applications in
Calibration of a modular assembly system for personalized and Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Anthropom-
adaptive human robot collaboration. Procedia CIRP, 76, 199–204. etry, Human Behavior, and Communication: 13th International
Rueckert, P., Muenkewarf, S., & Tracht, K. (2020). Human-in- Conference, DHM 2022, Held as Part of the 24th HCI Inter-
the-loop simulation for virtual commissioning of human-robot- national Conference, HCII 2022, Virtual Event, June 26–July 1,
collaboration. Procedia CIRP, 88, 229–233. 2022, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 289–305). Cham: Springer Interna-
Sadik, A. R., & Urban, B. (2017a). An ontology-based approach to tional Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05890-5_23
enable knowledge representation and reasoning in worker–cobot Shu, B., & Solvang, B. (2021). Architecture for task-dependent human-
agile manufacturing. Future Internet, 9(4), 90. robot collaboration. In 2021 IEEE/SICE International Symposium
Sadik, A. R., & Urban, B. (2017b). Flow shop scheduling problem on System Integration (SII) (pp. 207–212). IEEE. https://doi.org/
and solution in cooperative robotics—case-study: One cobot in 10.1109/IEEECONF49454.2021.9382703
cooperation with one worker. Future Internet, 9(3), 48. Simões, A. C., Pinto, A., Santos, J., Pinheiro, S., & Romero, D.
Sadik, A. R., & Urban, B. (2017c). Towards a complex interaction sce- (2022). Designing human-robot collaboration (HRC) workspaces
nario in worker-cobot reconfigurable collaborative manufacturing in industrial settings: A systematic literature review. Journal of
via reactive agent ontology-case-study: Two workers in coop- Manufacturing Systems, 62, 28–43.
eration with one cobot. In Proceedings of the 9th International Soares, I., Petry, M., & Moreira, A. P. (2021). Programming robots by
Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineer- demonstration using augmented reality. Sensors, 21(17), 5976.
ing and Knowledge Management, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.5220/ Sordan, J. E., Oprime, P. C., Pimenta, M. L., Lombardi, F., & Chi-
0006487200270038 abert, P. (2022). Symbiotic relationship between robotics and Lean
Sadik, A. R., & Urban, B. (2018). CPROSA-holarchy: An enhanced Manufacturing: A case study involving line balancing. The TQM
PROSA model to enable worker—cobot agile manufacturing. Journal, 34(5), 1076–1095.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Stanescu, A. M., Nita, A., Moisescu, M. A., & Sacala, I. S. (2008). From
Research, 7(3), 296–304. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmerr.7.3. industrial robotics towards intelligent robotic systems. In 2008
296-304 4th International IEEE Conference Intelligent Systems (Vol. 1,
Sadik, A. R., Taramov, A., & Urban, B. (2017). Optimization of tasks pp. 6–73). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IS.2008.4670441
scheduling in cooperative robotics manufacturing via johnson’s Statista. (2022a). Sales value of the industrial robotics market
algorithm case-study: One collaborative robot in cooperation with worldwide from 2018 to 2022a, by application area (in
two workers. In 2017 IEEE conference on systems, process and million U.S. dollars) [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved March
control (ICSPC) (pp. 36–41). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPC. 08, 2022a, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1018262/
2017.8313018 industrial-robotics-sales-value-worldwide-by-application-area/.
Sanna, A., Manuri, F., Fiorenza, J., & De Pace, F. (2022). BARI: An Statista. (2022b). Share of traditional and collaborative robot unit
affordable brain-augmented reality interface to support human- sales worldwide from 2018 to 2022b [Graph]. In Statista.
robot collaboration in assembly tasks. Information, 13(10), 460. Retrieved March 08, 2022b, from https://www.statista.com/
Sarkar, S., Ghosh, G., Mohanta, A., Ghosh, A., & Mitra, S. (2017). statistics/1018935/traditional-and-collaborative-robotics-share-
Arduino based foot pressure sensitive smart safety system worldwide/
for industrial robots. In 2017 Second International Confer- Stecke, K. E., & Mokhtarzadeh, M. (2022). Balancing collaborative
ence on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technolo- human–robot assembly lines to optimise cycle time and ergonomic
gies (ICECCT) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCT. risk. International Journal of Production Research, 60(1), 25–47.
2017.8118009 Stefanakos, I., Calinescu, R., Douthwaite, J., Aitken, J., & Law,
Schmidt, B., Sánchez De Ocãna Torroba, A., Grahn, G., Karlsson, I., J. (2022). Safety controller synthesis for a mobile manufac-
Ng, A. (2022). Augmented reality approach for a user interface turing cobot. In Software Engineering and Formal Methods:
in a robotic production system. In SPS2022: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference, SEFM 2022, Berlin, Germany,
10th Swedish Production Symposium (Vol. 21, p. 240). IOS Press. September 26–30, 2022, Proceedings (pp. 271–287). Cham:
https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE220143 Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
Schönberger, D., Lindorfer, R., & Froschauer, R. (2018). Model- 031-17108-6_17
ing workflows for industrial robots considering human-robot- Storm, F.A., Chiappini, M., Dei, C., Piazza, C., André, E., Reißner,
collaboration. In 2018 IEEE 16th International Conference on N., Brdar, I., Delle Fave, A., Gebhard, P., Malosio, M. & Peña
Industrial Informatics (INDIN) (pp. 400–405). IEEE. https://doi. Fernández, A. (2022). Physical and mental well-being of cobot
org/10.1109/INDIN.2018.8471999 workers: A scoping review using the Software–Hardware–Envi-
Semeraro, F., Griffiths, A., & Cangelosi, A. (2023). Human–robot col- ronment–Liveware–Liveware–Organization model. Human Fac-
laboration and machine learning: A systematic review of recent tors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries,
research. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 79, 32(5), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20952
102432. Sun, X., Zhang, R., Liu, S., Lv, Q., Bao, J., & Li, J. (2021). A digital
Serebrenny, V., Lapin, D., & Mokaeva, A. (2019a). The perspective twin-driven human–robot collaborative assembly-commissioning
flexible manufacturing system for a newly forming robotic enter- method for complex products. The International Journal of
prises: Transition framework from the concept to science-driven Advanced Manufacturing Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/
product. In Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science s00170-021-08211-y
(pp. 458–463). Thomas, A., Guerra-Zubiaga, D. A., & Cohran, J. (2018). Digital fac-
Serebrenny, V., Lapin, D., & Mokaeva, A. (2019b). The perspective tory: Simulation enhancing production and engineering process.
flexible manufacturing system for a newly forming robotic enter- In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
prises: approach to organization subsystem formation. In Lec- Exposition (Vol. 52019, p. V002T02A077). American Society
ture notes in engineering and computer science: proceedings

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118 2117

of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2018- Wojtynek, M., & Wrede, S. (2020). InteractiveWorkspace Layout
88334 focusing on the reconfiguration with collaborative robots in
Toichoa Eyam, A., Mohammed, W. M., & Martinez Lastra, J. L. (2021). modular production systems. In ISR 2020; 52th International Sym-
Emotion-driven analysis and control of human-robot interactions posium on Robotics (pp. 1–8). VDE.
in collaborative applications. Sensors, 21(14), 4626. Wojtynek, M., Leichert, J., & Wrede, S. (2020). Assisted planning
Tuli, T. B., Henkel, M., & Manns, M. (2022). Latent space based col- and setup of collaborative robot applications in modular produc-
laborative motion modeling from motion capture data for human tion systems. In 2020 25th IEEE International Conference on
robot collaboration. Procedia CIRP, 107, 1180–1185. Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) (Vol. 1,
Unger, H., Markert, T., & Müller, E. (2018). Evaluation of use cases pp. 387–394). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA46521.2020.
of autonomous mobile robots in factory environments. Procedia 9212083
Manufacturing, 17, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg. Wojtynek, M., Steil, J. J., & Wrede, S. (2019). Plug, plan and pro-
2018.10.044 duce as enabler for easy workcell setup and collaborative robot
Unhelkar, V. V., & Shah, J. A. (2015). Challenges in developing programming in smart factories. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 33(2),
a collaborative robotic assistant for automotive assembly lines. 151–161.
In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Xiang, C., Liu, P., Guo, J., Wang, J., Qin, S., Qi, L., & Zhao, J.
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (2022). Multi-neighborhood parallel greedy search algorithm for
(pp. 239–240). https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702705 human-robot collaborative multi-product hybrid disassembly line
Valente, A., Pavesi, G., Zamboni, M., & Carpanzano, E. (2022). Delib- balancing problem. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on
erative robotics–a novel interactive control framework enhancing Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 866–871). IEEE.
human-robot collaboration. CIRP Annals, 71(1), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC53654.2022.9945502
Vieira, M., Moniz, S., Gonçalves, B. S., Pinto-Varela, T., Barbosa- Xu, W., Cui, J., Liu, B., Liu, J., Yao, B., & Zhou, Z. (2021). Human-
Póvoa, A. P., & Neto, P. (2022). A two-level optimisation- robot collaborative disassembly line balancing considering the
simulation method for production planning and scheduling: The safe strategy in remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production,
industrial case of a human–robot collaborative assembly line. 324, 129158.
International Journal of Production Research, 60(9), 2942–2962. Yan, Y., & Jia, Y. (2022). A review on human comfort factors, measure-
Von Drigalski, F., Schlette, C., Rudorfer, M., Correll, N., Triyonop- ments, and improvements in human-robot collaboration. Sensors,
utro, J. C., Wan, W., Tsuji, T., & Watanabe, T. (2020). Robots 22(19), 7431.
assembling machines: learning from the world robot summit Yao, X., Ma, N., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Yang, E., & Faccio, M. (2022).
2018 assembly challenge. Advanced Robotics, 34(7–8), 408–421. Enhancing wisdom manufacturing as industrial metaverse for
https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2019.1705910 industry and society 5.0. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing.
Wada, H., Kinugawa, J., & Kosuge, K. (2021). Reactive motion plan- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-02027-7
ning using time-layered C-spaces for a collaborative robot PaDY. Ye, Z., Jingyu, L., & Hongwei, Y. (2022). A digital twin-based human-
Advanced Robotics, 35(8), 490–503. robot collaborative system for the assembly of complex-shaped
Wang, C., & Lu, L. (2016). Building lightweight robots using single- architectures. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engi-
motor drives—a survey and concept study. In 2016 IEEE Inter- neers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. https://doi.
national Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM) org/10.1177/09544054221110960
(pp. 676–682). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIM.2016.7576846 Yi, S., Liu, S., Xu, X., Wang, X. V., Yan, S., & Wang, L. (2022). A
Wang, K. B., Dailami, F., & Matthews, J. (2019). Towards collaborative vision-based human-robot collaborative system for digital twin.
robotic polishing of mould and die sets. Procedia Manufacturing, Procedia CIRP, 107, 552–557.
38, 1499–1507. Yu, T., & Chang, Q. (2022). Motion planning for human-robot
Wang, X., Setchi, R., & Mohammed, A. (2022a). Modelling uncertain- collaboration based on reinforcement learning. In 2022 IEEE
ties in human-robot industrial collaborations. Procedia Computer 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engi-
Science, 207, 3652–3661. neering (CASE) (pp. 1866–1871). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
Wang, Y., Feng, J., Liu, J., Liu, X., & Wang, J. (2022b). Digital CASE49997.2022.9926471
twin-based design and operation of human-robot collaborative Yu, T., Huang, J., & Chang, Q. (2020). Mastering the working sequence
assembly. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(2), 295–300. in human-robot collaborative assembly based on reinforcement
Weckenborg, C., & Spengler, T. S. (2019). Assembly line balancing learning. IEEE Access, 8, 163868–163877.
with collaborative robots under consideration of ergonomics: A Yu, Y. H., & Zhang, Y. T. (2022). Collision avoidance and path planning
cost-oriented approach. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 1860–1865. for industrial manipulator using slice-based heuristic fast march-
Weckenborg, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Müller, C., Grunewald, M., & Spen- ing tree. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 75,
gler, T. S. (2020). Balancing of assembly lines with collaborative 102289.
robots. Business Research, 13(1), 93–132. Zaatari, S. E., Wang, Y., Hu, Y., & Li, W. (2022). An improved approach
Wedin, K., Johnsson, C., Åkerman, M., Fast-Berglund, Å., Bengts- of task-parameterized learning from demonstrations for cobots
son, V., & Alveflo, P. A. (2020). Automating nut tightening using in dynamic manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
Machine Learning. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53(2), 10291–10296. 33(5), 1503–1519.
Weichhart, G., Fast-Berglund, Å., Romero, D., & Pichler, A. (2018). An Zaid, I. M., Halwani, M., Ayyad, A., Imam, A., Almaskari, F., Hassanin,
agent-and role-based planning approach for flexible automation of H., & Zweiri, Y. (2022). Elastomer-based visuotactile sensor for
advanced production systems. In: 2018 International Conference normality of robotic manufacturing systems. Polymers, 14(23),
on Intelligent Systems (IS) (pp. 391–399). IEEE. https://doi.org/ 5097.
10.1109/IS.2018.8710546 Zhang, R., Li, J., Zheng, P., Lu, Y., Bao, J., & Sun, X. (2022a). A
Welfare, K. S., Hallowell, M. R., Shah, J. A., & Riek, L. D. (2019). fusion-based spiking neural network approach for predicting col-
Consider the human work experience when integrating robotics in laboration request in human-robot collaboration. Robotics and
the workplace. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 78, 102383.
on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 75–84). IEEE. https://doi. Zhang, R., Lv, Q., Li, J., Bao, J., Liu, T., & Liu, S. (2022b). A
org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673139 reinforcement learning method for human-robot collaboration in

123
2118 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 35:2065–2118

assembly tasks. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufactur- Zhao, J., Yang, F., Liu, W., Liu, F., Li, F., Wang, H., & Zhang, H.
ing, 73, 102227. (2019). An approximation model based on kernel ridge regression
Zhang, S., & Jia, Y. (2020). Capability-driven adaptive task distribution for robot kinematics simulation. In 2019 IEEE 23rd Interna-
for flexible Multi-Human-Multi-Robot (MH-MR) manufactur- tional Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in
ing systems. SAE Technical Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.4271/ Design (CSCWD) (pp. 313–318). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
2020-01-1303 CSCWD.2019.8791915
Zhang, S., Huang, H., Huang, D., Yao, L., Wei, J., & Fan, Q. (2022c). Zhou, G., Luo, J., Xu, S., & Zhang, S. (2022). A cooperative shared
Subtask-learning based for robot self-assembly in flexible collab- control scheme based on intention recognition for flexible assem-
orative assembly in manufacturing. The International Journal of bly manufacturing. Frontiers in Neurorobotics. https://doi.org/10.
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 120(9–10), 6807–6819. 3389/fnbot.2022.850211
Zhang, T., Du, Q., Yang, G., Chen, C. Y., Wang, C., & Fang, Z. Zhou, G., Zhang, C., Li, Z., Ding, K., & Wang, C. (2020). Knowledge-
(2021a). A review of compliant control for collaborative robots. driven digital twin manufacturing cell towards intelligent manu-
In 2021a IEEE 16th Conference on Industrial Electronics and facturing. International Journal of Production Research, 58(4),
Applications (ICIEA) (pp. 1103–1108). IEEE. https://doi.org/10. 1034–1051.
1109/ICIEA51954.2021.9516193 Zhu, Q., Huang, S., Wang, G., Moghaddam, S. K., Lu, Y., & Yan,
Zhang, T., Sun, H., Zou, Y., & Chu, H. (2022d). An electromyography Y. (2022). Dynamic reconfiguration optimization of intelligent
signals-based human-robot collaboration method for human skill manufacturing system with human-robot collaboration based on
learning and imitation. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 64, digital twin. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 65, 330–338.
330–343.
Zhang, Y. J., Liu, L., Huang, N., Radwin, R., & Li, J. (2021b). From
manual operation to collaborative robot assembly: An integrated Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
model of productivity and ergonomic performance. IEEE Robotics dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
and Automation Letters, 6(2), 895–902.
Zhang, Z., Peng, G., Wang, W., Chen, Y., Jia, Y., & Liu, S. (2022e).
Prediction-based human-robot collaboration in assembly tasks
using a learning from demonstration model. Sensors, 22(11),
4279.

123