Cobot Intent-and-Mode Recovery Authority — Precision Assembly

The mandate

A control-interface release changed how several cobot cells communicated learned path, manual guidance, pause, protective stop and resumed automatic movement. Operators maintained safe production through local restrictions, but a near miss showed that identical lights and gestures carried different meanings across cell generations. The automation executive was dismissed after the investigation exposed incomplete change and training evidence.

The interim must mobilise within two weeks for nine months, leading cell-state reconciliation, interface redesign governance, workforce requalification and permanent-leader induction. Recruitment begins once a sixty-day common mode taxonomy is operating. Five weeks are reserved for overlap; the assignment will not extend for capacity expansion, unrelated line automation or replacement of mechanically sound robot fleets.

Handover requires every priority cell to resolve task, robot and tool configuration, control mode, taught path, permitted human action, displayed cue, safety function, intervention and restart. The successor must command unseen ambiguous-cue and manual-guidance exercises across two cell generations, while Quality and Safety accept remaining legacy controller, language and training-record limitations.

The authority may freeze interface releases, restrict affected cells, mandate witnessed restart, require operator retraining, direct the approved €21 million recovery and appoint temporary control owners. Authorised safety engineers approve safety functions; production leaders release work; employee representatives retain consultation rights. The interim cannot waive safeguards, certify machinery, dismiss staff permanently or approve spending beyond delegation.

Robot replacement, production-network redesign and manufacturing-process optimisation beyond the affected interaction risks are excluded. The leader may demand supplier evidence and configuration access but will not invent new assembly methods or treat user-interface consistency as machinery certification. Recovery is bounded to comprehensible human–robot state, controlled change and dependable intervention across current cells.

Why this seat is open

The near miss was contained, yet it revealed that local competence compensated for an incoherent fleet interface and weak release evidence. Dismissal of the responsible executive left no one able to arbitrate Controls, Safety, Production and Workforce Training. Temporary authority is required before the company recruits for its longer-term automation roadmap.

What you will own

• Reconstruct affected cells across task, controller, robot, tool, learned path, mode, displayed cue, safety state, intervention and restart.
• Define one operator-facing mode vocabulary while preserving differences that arise from certified controller and process constraints.
• Decide which cells may operate normally, require restriction, need witnessed transition or must stop pending engineering review.
• Command exercises for ambiguous gesture, stale taught path, silent mode change, failed indicator, tool substitution and interrupted restart.
• Establish change evidence connecting interface release, risk review, training impact, worker consultation and production authorisation.
• Govern recovery against safely released cells, operator comprehension, controlled interventions, training currency and recurrence evidence.
• Transfer command through mixed-generation exercises and successor acceptance of controller, localisation and supplier-interface debt.

Candidate qualifications

• Held executive collaborative-robot, industrial controls or automation-safety authority across mixed-generation production cells in live factories.
• Reconstructed human and machine state after ambiguous mode indication, learned-path change, manual guidance or interrupted restart.
• Governed operator-interface change within machinery safety, workforce consultation and production-release controls under schedule pressure.
• Stopped or restricted automation when competent operators were compensating informally for inconsistent system cues and training.
• Worked with controller suppliers while preserving client access to configuration, event history and safety-function evidence.
• Handed a recovered human–robot operating system to permanent leadership through live and adversarial cell-transition exercises.

Non-negotiables

• Available within two weeks for exclusive Munich service and regular presence on operating shifts across affected cells.
• Has governed cobot or industrial-robot mode safety; consumer interface or generic automation programme experience is insufficient.
• No undisclosed relationship with robot, controller, safety-system or training suppliers involved in the recovery.
• Will preserve worker consultation and authorised safety decisions even where restriction reduces near-term production output.

1. 49 words maximum. State your Munich availability and one robot-mode ambiguity you contained in an operating factory.
2. 49 words maximum. How did you standardise operator cues without invalidating machine-specific safety controls?
3. 49 words maximum. Which unseen manual-guidance transition would qualify permanent leadership before handover?