Cobot Deployment: 6 Steps from Risk Assessment to Start-Up

Your plant has just bought a collaborative robot from a Japanese maker such as FANUC, DENSO, or Kawasaki. The plan is to run it next to operators with no fence. The supplier's documents mention "80 W," a 2013 notice from Japan's labor ministry, and JIS B 8433, and you are not sure which of these applies to you.

The short answer: no cobot is "safe" on its own. Whether you can run it without a fence depends on the whole application: the robot, the end effector (gripper or tool), the parts it handles, the equipment around it, and how people move near it. You assess the risk of that application and meet the standards and regulations that apply where the robot is installed.

This guide walks through cobot deployment in six steps, from picking the process to start-up. It covers risk assessment and the role of ISO/TS 15066, the 2025 revision of ISO 10218, and an overview of how Japan's rules relate. It ends with common failures, questions to ask the Japanese side, and an email template you can reuse.

Contents

1. What a Cobot Is, and Why the Robot Alone Is Not "Safe"
2. Collaborative Robot Implementation Steps at a Glance
3. Steps 1–2: Pick the Process and the Collaboration Mode
4. Step 3: Cobot Risk Assessment and the Role of ISO/TS 15066
5. Step 4: Standards and Regulations (Overview Only)
6. Steps 5–6: From Integrator Selection to Start-Up
7. Common Cobot Deployment Failures and How to Avoid Them
8. Questions to Ask the Japanese Supplier or Integrator
9. Limits of This Guide
10. FAQ
11. Sources

What a Cobot Is, and Why the Robot Alone Is Not "Safe"

A collaborative robot (cobot) is designed to work in the same space as people instead of behind a safety fence. Many models detect contact force and stop, or slow down when a person approaches. Typical jobs are assembly, packing, and loading and unloading machines.

According to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR), cobots made up 10.5% of the industrial robots installed worldwide in 2023. They are still a minority, but more plants now consider them for labor shortages and for processes that do not justify a dedicated automated line.

The point people most often miss is that cobot safety does not end with the robot. JIS B 8433-1, the Japanese version of ISO 10218-1, treats the robot as only one component of the final collaborative robot system. The standard states that the robot alone is not enough for safe collaborative operation.

Here is a simple example. A low-force robot fitted with a gripper that picks up sharp parts still creates a cut hazard. The 2025 edition of ISO 10218 makes this even clearer: it frames safety around assessing each collaborative application rather than a "collaborative robot."

So treat the process, not the robot, as the unit you deploy. The rest of the steps make more sense from that angle. Figure 1 compares a fenced cell with a fenceless collaborative setup.

Figure 1: Fenced Cell vs. Collaborative Operation

Without a fence, your own risk assessment and documents have to show why the application is safe.

Conventional fenced cell

Fenceless collaborative operation

People

Nobody enters the robot's operating range

People and the robot work in the same space

Safety basis

Guarding: fences, interlocks, light curtains

Risk assessment of the whole application, or a robot system built to ISO 10218

What keeps people safe

Physical separation

Force and speed limits, person detection, and the design of the end effector and nearby equipment

Layout

Floor space for the fence as well as the robot

Fits beside a workbench, but any layout change means a new assessment

Best fit

High-speed, high-volume repetition

Work shared with people; high-mix lines with frequent changeovers

In Japan, robots whose drive motors are rated 80 W or less fall outside the industrial robot rules, but hazards from the end effector and parts still need to be assessed.

Collaborative Robot Implementation Steps at a Glance

Cobot deployment runs in three phases (planning, safety design, and implementation) and six steps. The key difference from an ordinary equipment project is that safety design runs in parallel with robot selection, not after the purchase order.

Figure 2: Six Steps of Cobot Deployment

Finish the safety work before you order, then confirm it on the real equipment at start-up.

Planning

STEP 1Pick the processLook at cycle time, parts, and operator movement, and shortlist processes that suit collaboration

STEP 2Choose the collaboration modeDecide what people and the robot share, and which of the four collaborative modes provides safety

Safety design

STEP 3Risk assessmentIdentify hazards, estimate risk, decide on risk reduction measures, and record them

STEP 4Standards and regulationsISO 10218-1/-2, local regulations, and documents such as the technical file

Implementation

STEP 5Integrator, design, and orderWrite the safety requirements into the specification and agree on who is responsible for what

STEP 6Install, verify, and start upCheck the safety functions on the real cell, then set up training and work rules before production

Steps 3 and 4 go back and forth. Every design change means repeating the assessment.

Steps 1 and 2 decide where the robot works, why, and how it interacts with people. Steps 3 and 4 show that this way of working is safe. Steps 5 and 6 turn the result into equipment and make it stick on the shop floor.

Steps 1–2: Pick the Process and the Collaboration Mode

The first step is choosing which process the cobot will take over. Get this wrong, and the cell often fails to pay for itself, no matter how many safety measures you add later.

Processes That Suit Cobots, and Processes That Do Not

Cobots usually run with limited speed and force so that contact does not cause serious injury. As a result, a conventional fenced robot is often the better choice for high-speed, high-volume repetition.

Cobots do well when you want to automate only part of a process, change over often, or have little floor space. Rather than replacing an operator's whole job, a practical split is to hand off simple tasks such as part feeding or screw driving. The operator keeps the judgment calls and fine adjustments.

Figure 3 sums up which processes suit cobots and which need a closer look.

Figure 3: Good Fits for Cobots and Processes to Review Carefully

Judge by whether the work can be shared with people and whether the layout needs flexibility, not by speed.

Good fit: Machine tendingLoading and unloading machine tools or inspection equipment, which frees operators for setup and quality checks

Good fit: Screw driving and part insertionRepetitive motions that can be done at a workbench next to an operator

Good fit: Packing and light palletizingWithin limited weights and stack heights, the robot can take over tasks that strain operators' backs

Good fit: High-mix, low-volume workSwitching the end effector or program lets one robot serve several products

Review carefully: Blades, hot parts, heavy loadsEven with low robot force, the part or the end effector itself is a hazard

Review carefully: High-speed mass productionSlowing the robot can miss the takt time, and a fenced cell may make more sense

These are rules of thumb. The final decision comes from the risk assessment in Step 3.

Before you choose, measure the current cycle time, the weight, shape, and variation of the parts, and the operators' walking paths. Integrators will always ask for these numbers when you request a quote, and the more complete your data, the faster the review goes.

Choose One of the Four Collaborative Modes

Once the process is set, decide how people and the robot will interact. ISO 10218-1:2011 (JIS B 8433-1:2015 in Japan) lists four modes of collaborative operation. The mode you choose determines the sensors, safety functions, and robot you need.

Figure 4: Four Modes of Collaborative Operation

One mode stops the robot, one lets the operator guide it by hand, one controls distance, and one allows contact within limits.

Safety-rated monitored stop

No contactThe robot stops when a person enters the collaborative workspace, and a safety function monitors the standstill. It resumes after the person places a part and leaves.

Hand guiding

Operator-guidedA person moves the robot directly with a device near the tool end. It has an emergency stop and an enabling device, and a safety function monitors speed.

Speed and separation monitoring

Distance controlSensors measure the distance to people. The robot slows as they approach and makes a protective stop if it cannot keep the set separation.

Power and force limiting

Contact allowedDesign or control limits the force and pressure of contact, and the robot makes a protective stop above the limit. This is what most people picture as a "cobot."

Names follow ISO 10218-1:2011, shortened. Some 2025-edition summaries call "safety-rated monitored stop" "monitored standstill"; check the wording in the edition you use. One process can combine several modes.

When a cobot works beside a person without a fence, the design usually centers on power and force limiting. Relying on force limits alone, however, makes the assessment harder where the robot path passes at head or neck height, or where a person could be trapped against nearby equipment.

In some cases, combining force limiting with a no-contact mode lets the robot run faster, for example when nobody is nearby.

Step 3: Cobot Risk Assessment and the Role of ISO/TS 15066

Risk assessment decides whether collaborative operation works. For a cobot, it follows the usual pattern: identify hazards, estimate the size of each risk, and reduce the risks in order of priority.

For power and force limiting, the assessment also needs contact limits. ISO/TS 15066:2016 set out biomechanical limits for the force and pressure allowed when a robot touches a person.

In the 2025 revision, that content was consolidated into ISO 10218-2, so check which document and edition an assessment cites.

In Japan, a companion notice issued with the 2013 notice (Kian-anpatsu 1224 No. 1) asks users to follow the national guideline on comprehensive safety standards for machinery. That guideline sets out how to identify machine hazards and the priority order for risk reduction.

The sections below use it as a worked example; your local regulations and standards set what actually applies to you.

How Wide to Look for Hazards

Do not stop at normal operation. The Japanese guideline lists these situations to cover when identifying hazards:

• Work in the intended use, including setup, teaching, operation, cleaning, and maintenance
• Work at the start of use, such as transport, installation, and trial runs
• Work at the end of use, such as dismantling and disposal
• Work during breakdowns or abnormal conditions
• Reasonably foreseeable misuse, such as taking shortcuts
• People other than the robot's operators coming close

For a cobot, that includes other workers walking along an aisle and forklift drivers bringing in parts. Think beyond people who follow the work instruction, and include what people are likely to do when they are in a hurry.

A failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) of the process helps you catch work during abnormal conditions.

Three Things to Look at When Estimating Risk

Japan's 2013 notice names three points that need special attention when estimating cobot risk:

• The force and kinetic energy of the robot arm and other moving parts
• The chance of a person being trapped between the arm and surrounding structures
• The arm shape and working conditions, such as protrusions that could hit the eyes, sharp edges, and pinch points between joints

On trapping, the notice gives examples of conditions that can be judged free of this hazard. One is keeping at least 500 mm (about 20 in) between the arm and surrounding structures at their closest point. Another is when a trapped person can be released by hand, without drive power.

These are examples from a Japanese notice, not universal limits, so confirm the criteria in the standard you work to. In practice, placing a robot near the edge of a workbench or a column makes the trapping assessment harder, so think about it at the layout stage.

Risk is normally estimated for the most likely injury. The guideline also asks you to consider the most serious foreseeable injury, even if it is unlikely. Instead of assuming "it stops if it hits someone," think about what can happen before it stops.

Choose Risk Reduction Measures in Priority Order

If an estimated risk is not acceptable, plan measures to reduce it. Do not pick whatever is easiest; work down the priority order in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Priority Order for Risk Reduction

Each lower level only covers the risk the level above could not remove.

1. Inherently safe designRemove the hazard by design instead of guarding: widen or narrow trapping gaps, reduce drive force, use an end effector with rounded edges, automate feeding so people do not need to enter

Remaining risk

2. Safeguarding and complementary protective measuresSlowing or stopping with area sensors or laser scanners, emergency stop placement, and similar measures

Remaining risk

3. Work procedures and trainingTell operators about residual risk; set rules for entry, restart, and prohibited actions

If still needed

4. Personal protective equipmentSafety glasses, gloves, and so on, as the last resort

Based on the employer's actions in Japan's guideline on comprehensive safety standards for machinery. Also check that a measure does not create a new hazard.

With cobots, a surprising amount can be done at level 1. Routing the robot away from head height, or changing how the part is gripped so protrusions do not point at the operator, costs almost nothing. Before adding sensors, see whether layout and motion can reduce the risk.

Record the Results and Review After Every Change

Record the assessment results, the measures taken, and the residual risks. Keep them with the instruction manual and other information for use from the robot maker. In Japan, the 2013 notice also requires the results to be recorded and kept under the national risk assessment guideline.

This record is your basis for running without a fence. Set a rule from day one: whenever an assumption behind the assessment changes, review it. That includes a new end effector, a new part, or moving the robot.

Step 4: Standards and Regulations (Overview Only)

Alongside the risk assessment, confirm the legal and standards basis for running without a fence. This section is an overview to help you read the documents. Which rules apply, and how to comply, depends on where the cobot is installed, so confirm with a qualified safety professional and the robot maker.

ISO 10218 Was Revised in 2025

ISO published revised editions of ISO 10218-1 (the robot) and ISO 10218-2 (robot applications and robot cells) in February 2025. This was a major revision of the 2011 editions. Most of ISO/TS 15066, the technical specification with detailed requirements for collaborative applications, was folded into ISO 10218-2.

The main changes include:

• Safety framed around the collaborative application rather than the "collaborative robot"
• Two robot classes: Class 1 for very weak robots that pose no significant hazard, and Class 2 for all other industrial robots
• Required performance levels set per safety function, instead of one blanket level for the whole robot
• New requirements on topics including cybersecurity and manual load stations

In the US, ANSI/A3 R15.06-2025, published in September 2025, is the national adoption of ISO 10218 Parts 1 and 2. It replaces the 2012 edition.

In Japan, the national versions JIS B 8433-1 and -2 were still the 2015 editions based on ISO 10218:2011 when the Japanese edition of this article was written. TS B 0033:2017, Japan's version of ISO/TS 15066, was withdrawn in March 2025 when it expired.

Before you rely on any of these, check the current status with the Japanese Standards Association or your supplier.

Because of this mix of editions, write down which edition each assessment and document is based on. A Japanese supplier's file may cite ISO 10218:2011 or JIS B 8433:2015, while your local rules may already reference the 2025 edition.

How Japan's 80 W Rule and Safety Ordinance Relate

You will see these Japanese rules in documents from Japanese makers and parent companies. They apply to robots installed in Japan; they do not replace the regulations in your country.

• Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health: Japan's safety rules for industrial robots. Machines whose drive motors are rated 80 W or less fall outside the industrial robot rules. This is the so-called "80 W rule."
• Article 150-4: For robots above 80 W, the employer must take measures such as installing a fence or enclosure when contact with a running robot could endanger workers. A model sold as a cobot is covered if its rated output is above 80 W.
• 2013 notice (Kihatsu 1224 No. 2, December 24, 2013): The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) clarified when robots above 80 W can work alongside people without a fence. Meeting either of the two routes in Figure 6 is enough.

Figure 6 compares the two routes in the 2013 notice.

Figure 6: Japan's Two Routes to Fenceless Collaboration

Either route requires documents that explain why the setup is safe.

Risk assessment route

ISO standard route

Requirement

Measures based on a risk assessment allow the employer to judge that the risk of harm from contact has been eliminated

A robot designed, built, and installed to ISO 10218-1/-2 is used within its specified conditions

Main party

The employer using the robot

Designer, manufacturer, and installer (whoever is responsible for safe installation conditions)

Documents

Records of the risk assessment results

Technical file and declaration of conformity

Watch out for

You must be able to explain your method and reasoning

If the contract does not say who the "installer" is, responsibility for documents becomes unclear

Based on the MHLW leaflet (December 2013). The notice was written for ISO 10218:2011.

In practice, the robot maker usually shows that the robot meets ISO 10218-1, the integrator designs and assesses the system, and the user confirms the final way of working. Whatever the route, the user should be able to answer "On what basis are we running this without a fence?"

If your cell is in Japan, the ordinance also requires special education (tokubetsu kyoiku, a mandatory safety course) for workers who teach robots above 80 W inside their operating range, or inspect them inside that range while they run (Article 36, items 31 and 32). Teaching includes setting motion order or positions by moving the arm by hand.

Other provisions cover written teaching procedures, immediate stopping and "work in progress" signs on start switches (Article 150-3), emergency stop checks before work (Article 151), and stopping and locking start switches during inspection and repair (Article 150-5).

Ask for the Technical File and Declaration of Conformity

For the ISO route, the technical file and the declaration of conformity carry the most weight. The MHLW leaflet lists these contents for the technical file:

• Overall machine drawing and control circuit diagrams
• Detailed drawings, calculations, and test results
• Documents showing the risk assessment procedure and residual risks
• Standards applied
• A copy of the instruction manual

A declaration of conformity is a document in which the manufacturer or another responsible party declares that the machine meets all relevant provisions of the safety standards. If you do not confirm at the quote stage who prepares and delivers which documents, you may find just before start-up that only the robot's own documents exist.

Steps 5–6: From Integrator Selection to Start-Up

Once the safety requirements are set, turn them into equipment. Cobots are easy to teach, and some companies commission them in-house. Once end effector design and safety assessment are included, though, most companies hire a system integrator.

Choosing an Integrator and Writing the Specification

Look beyond robot programming experience. Check whether the integrator has carried out risk assessments and contact force measurements for collaborative applications themselves.

Besides cycle time and target parts, write these items into the specification:

• The collaborative mode or modes to be used
• Allowed contact conditions
• The standard and edition used for assessment
• The documents to be delivered

Japan's machinery safety guideline also asks employers to choose machines designed with safety in mind and to include safety conditions in the order where needed. Starting the safety discussion after you order leads to costly rework.

What to Verify on the Real Cell After Installation

After installation, confirm that the real cell delivers the safety you designed. Cable routing and fixture positions always differ slightly from the drawings, so check again on the finished cell.

Figure 7 lists cobot-specific items to check before production.

Figure 7: Start-Up Checks on the Real Cell

Before production, confirm one by one that the assessment's assumptions hold on the real equipment.

Safety functions

CHECK 01Emergency and protective stopsE-stop location and function; the robot stops as designed when sensors detect a person

CHECK 02Speed and force settingsLimits are set as designed and cannot be changed without authorization

CHECK 03Contact force measurementFor force limiting, measure at possible contact points and compare with the assessment

Layout

CHECK 04Trapping and pinchingDistance to nearby equipment; a trapped person can get free by hand

CHECK 05Walkways and markingsFloor markings show the collaborative workspace, and it does not cross an aisle

CHECK 06End effector and partsSharp edges, dropped parts, and behavior after a missed grip

Operation

CHECK 07Work rulesTeaching, inspection, and restart procedures are written down

CHECK 08TrainingOperators who teach or inspect have completed the training required locally

CHECK 09RecordsAssessment results, documents, and setting values are available at the cell

These are general examples. Set the actual items from your risk assessment.

Running without a fence does not remove the need for teaching and inspection rules. Write procedures for teaching, restart, and maintenance, and train the people who do this work before production starts.

Common Cobot Deployment Failures and How to Avoid Them

Many failures come less from the technology than from doing things in the wrong order or leaving responsibilities unclear. Figure 8 lists common ones. All of them can be prevented before the order is placed.

Figure 8: Common Failures and Fixes

Each fix is cheapest before the purchase order.

Common failureFix

Buying the robot firstPayload or reach turned out too small for the process

Define the process and parts firstMeasure cycle time, weight, and walking paths before choosing a model

Slowed too much to meet taktSpeed was cut for safety until the robot was slower than a person

Combine modesUse a no-contact mode as well, such as running faster when nobody is nearby

Unclear document ownershipNobody decided who prepares the technical file and assessment records

Fix deliverables at the quote stageState the scope of documents and who prepares them in the specification

No reassessment after a moveA line rearrangement created a new trapping hazard

Set change-management rulesReassess whenever the end effector, part, or layout changes

The shop floor stops using itNobody can change over or recover from a fault, so it sits idle

Develop an in-house ownerHand over changeover and recovery procedures at start-up, alongside training

The last failure is the easiest to miss. Name an in-house owner for maintenance and changeovers at start-up.

The last one deserves attention. Easy changeover is a cobot's strength, but without someone on the floor who can use it, the robot ends up sitting idle.

Questions to Ask the Japanese Supplier or Integrator

When the robot, the cell, or the design comes from Japan, settle these points before you order. They map to the steps above.

• Rated output: What is the rated output of each drive motor? (Relevant to the 80 W rule only if the cell is also used in Japan.)
• Standards and editions: Which standards and editions was the robot or system assessed against: ISO 10218-1/-2:2011, ISO 10218-1/-2:2025, ISO/TS 15066:2016, or JIS B 8433:2015?
• Collaborative modes: Which collaborative modes does the design use, and where in the cycle?
• Contact limits: For power and force limiting, what force and pressure limits were used for each body region, and from which document?
• Risk assessment: Can we receive the risk assessment, including residual risks and the assumptions about layout, end effector, and parts?
• Documents: Who prepares the technical file and the declaration of conformity, and do they cover the whole system or only the robot?
• Installer: Who is responsible for the installation conditions, and is this stated in the contract?
• Verification: Will contact forces be measured on the installed cell, and will we receive the measurement report?
• Settings protection: How are safety settings (speed, force, zones) protected from unauthorized changes?
• Changes: Which changes (end effector, part, layout, program) does the supplier consider to require reassessment?

You can adapt this email to send the key questions in one message.

Limits of This Guide

• This is an overview, not a compliance procedure. The regulations and standards that apply depend on the country and site, so confirm them with a qualified safety professional, the robot maker, and your integrator.
• The Japanese rules described here (the 80 W rule, Article 150-4, the 2013 notice, special education) apply to robots installed in Japan. Outside Japan, they only explain what Japanese documents mean.
• Examples such as the 500 mm separation come from a Japanese notice written for ISO 10218:2011. Check the criteria in the edition you work to.
• Standards change. ISO 10218 was revised in 2025, and national adoptions follow on different schedules, so check the current status before you rely on a specific edition.

FAQ

Is ISO/TS 15066 Still Used After the 2025 Revision?

Its content lives on in ISO 10218-2:2025, which consolidated most of ISO/TS 15066:2016, including the force and pressure limits for contact. Supplier documents written before 2025 may cite ISO/TS 15066, so check which edition a document is based on.

Does a Cobot Need a Risk Assessment?

Yes. The robot is only one part of the system, and the end effector, parts, layout, and people around it create their own hazards. A low-force robot with a gripper that handles sharp parts can still cause cuts.

What Is the 80 W Rule in Japan?

Under Japan's Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health, machines whose drive motors are rated 80 W or less fall outside the industrial robot rules. For robots above 80 W, including many cobots, measures such as a fence are required when contact with the running robot could endanger workers. The 2013 MHLW notice sets the conditions for working without a fence, and outside Japan, local regulations apply instead.

What Changed in ISO 10218 in 2025?

The February 2025 revision folded most of ISO/TS 15066 into ISO 10218-2. It also framed safety around the collaborative application and added two robot classes, performance levels per safety function, and new requirements such as cybersecurity.

How Is a Cobot Different From a Conventional Industrial Robot?

A cobot is designed to work in the same space as people without a safety fence. Most models detect contact and stop or slow down when a person approaches, and they usually run with limited speed and force.

Sources

• 80 W rule, the two routes, technical file contents, points for risk estimation: MHLW leaflet on safety standards for human-robot collaboration, December 2013 (Japanese)
• 2013 notice text (80 W exclusion, teaching and inspection measures, special education): MHLW, partial revision of the enforcement notice for Article 150-4 of the Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health, Kihatsu 1224 No. 2, December 24, 2013 (Japanese)
• Notes on the notice: MHLW, Kian-anpatsu 1224 No. 1, December 24, 2013 (Japanese)
• Risk reduction priority, records, and safety conditions in orders: MHLW, guideline on comprehensive safety standards for machinery (Japanese)
• Four modes of collaborative operation: JIS B 8433-1:2015 (ISO 10218-1:2011) (Japanese)
• JIS B 8433-2:2015 status: Japanese Standards Association, JSA Webdesk (Japanese)
• ISO 10218-1:2025 publication: Japanese Standards Association, JSA Webdesk (Japanese)
• TS B 0033:2017 withdrawal (March 25, 2025): Japanese Standards Association, JSA Webdesk (Japanese)
• ISO 10218:2025 key changes: ibf solutions, "New standards for industrial robots EN ISO 10218-1 and -2"; A3, "Updated ISO 10218: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions"; SICK, "More safety for humans and machines"
• ANSI/A3 R15.06-2025: Robotics & Automation News, "A3 releases new American National Standard for industrial robot safety" (September 15, 2025)
• Cobot share of installations: IFR, "How Robots Work alongside Humans" (December 4, 2024)