Interview Questions for ANSI/RIA Safety Standards

ANSI/RIA R15.06, “Industrial Robots and Robot Systems – Safety Requirements,” is a crucial standard specifically addressing the safety of industrial robots. Other relevant standards, like those from ISO (e.g., ISO 10218-1 and ISO 10218-2), also cover robot safety, but R15.06 is tailored to the North American context and sometimes offers more specific guidance on certain aspects. The key differences often lie in the level of detail provided for particular safety measures and the specific regulatory requirements enforced in North America. For example, R15.06 might provide more nuanced explanations of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) compliance considerations, unlike a more globally-focused ISO standard.

Think of it this way: ISO standards are like a comprehensive world map, while R15.06 is a detailed city map of a specific North American city, offering finer-grained navigation for local regulations.

ANSI/RIA R15.06 defines four main types of robot safeguarding methods:

• Fixed guards: These are permanent physical barriers, like fences or enclosures, preventing access to the robot’s hazardous areas. Imagine a cage around a large welding robot—that’s a fixed guard.
• Interlocked guards: These guards require a safety interlock, which automatically stops the robot if the guard is opened. Think of a safety door on a machine; opening it shuts down the process.
• Presence-sensing safeguarding devices: These devices detect the presence of a person within the robot’s hazardous area and initiate a safe stop. Examples include light curtains, safety mats, and laser scanners.
• Other safeguarding devices: This category includes any other device designed to reduce or eliminate hazards, like speed and separation monitoring, hand-guiding systems for collaborative robots, or speed reduction zones.

The choice of safeguarding method depends on the specific risks associated with each robotic application.

Safeguarding collaborative robots (cobots) differs significantly from traditional industrial robots because they are designed to share the workspace with humans. ANSI/RIA R15.06 outlines several requirements for cobot safeguarding, emphasizing risk reduction through inherent safety design and control strategies rather than relying solely on physical barriers. The standard focuses on:

• Power and force limiting: Cobots must be designed with inherent limitations on power and force to prevent serious injuries in the event of contact.
• Speed and separation monitoring: Systems should monitor the robot’s speed and distance from humans, automatically slowing or stopping if a person enters a defined proximity.
• Hand-guiding systems: These systems allow operators to manually guide the robot, often with built-in force limitations.
• Safety-rated control systems: Cobots require safety-rated control systems to monitor and manage safety functions.

Risk assessments are crucial to determine the appropriate safety measures for each cobot application, considering factors like the cobot’s capabilities, the task being performed, and the environment.

Conducting a risk assessment for a robotic system according to ANSI/RIA R15.06 involves a systematic approach. This process typically includes the following steps:

1. Identify hazards: List all potential hazards associated with the robot and its operation, such as crushing, impact, entanglement, and electrical shock.
2. Estimate risk: Assess the likelihood and severity of each hazard, considering factors like the frequency of exposure, the potential for injury, and the availability of protective measures.
3. Evaluate existing controls: Analyze whether existing safeguards sufficiently mitigate the identified risks.
4. Select risk reduction measures: Choose appropriate safeguarding methods (as described in question 2) to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
5. Implement and verify controls: Install and test the selected safeguarding measures to ensure they are effective.
6. Document findings: Maintain a comprehensive record of the risk assessment, including identified hazards, risk levels, implemented controls, and verification results.

This process is iterative. You may need to refine your assessment as the robot system develops and as new information emerges.

A comprehensive robot safety program should include several crucial elements:

• Risk assessment and mitigation: Regular risk assessments are paramount, ensuring continuous evaluation and adaptation of safety measures.
• Training and education: All personnel working with or near robots must receive thorough safety training.
• Emergency procedures: Clear and well-rehearsed emergency procedures are essential for handling unexpected situations.
• Maintenance and inspection: Regular maintenance and inspection of robots and safety devices are crucial for maintaining safety levels.
• Safety-rated control systems: Utilizing safety-rated control systems is fundamental in monitoring and managing robot operation.
• Record keeping: Maintaining detailed records of risk assessments, training, inspections, and incidents is essential for accountability and continuous improvement.
• Compliance with standards: Adhering to ANSI/RIA R15.06 and other relevant safety standards ensures a baseline level of safety.

A robust safety program is a proactive approach, aiming to prevent accidents before they happen.

Risk reduction in robotic systems means systematically decreasing the likelihood and severity of hazards. This isn’t just about reacting to accidents but proactively designing, implementing, and monitoring systems to minimize risks. It’s a multi-layered approach.

Imagine a manufacturing line with a robotic arm. Risk reduction starts with the design stage, incorporating safety features like speed limitations and power limits. Then, during implementation, appropriate safeguarding (e.g., light curtains) is added, further reducing risks. Finally, ongoing monitoring and maintenance ensure the effectiveness of these measures over time. The goal isn’t to eliminate all risk (which is often impossible), but to reduce it to a level that is acceptable considering the benefits of using the robotic system.

Safety-rated control systems are the nervous system of a safe robotic application. These systems continuously monitor safety-related parameters (like the robot’s position, speed, and proximity to humans) and initiate safety functions as needed, such as reducing speed, stopping the robot, or activating emergency stops. They’re designed to meet specific performance levels (e.g., PL d, SIL 3) as defined in relevant safety standards, meaning they’re tested and certified to ensure a certain level of reliability and safety. Without these systems, the safety of a robotic system cannot be reliably assured. They are the backbone of many of the safety functions we have discussed, forming a critical link between the physical robot and the various safety devices.

Consider them as the ‘watchdog’ constantly monitoring the robot’s actions and ensuring that they remain within predefined safe parameters. If the robot begins to deviate from these parameters, the safety-rated control system takes action immediately to mitigate the risk.

Emergency stops are crucial in robotic systems to prevent accidents and injuries. ANSI/RIA standards mandate multiple, readily accessible emergency stop devices strategically located to ensure a worker can quickly halt a robot’s operation in hazardous situations. These stops must be designed to meet specific requirements, including:

• Multiple E-Stops: There should be more than one emergency stop button, positioned to allow for quick access from different locations around the robot cell.
• Positive-Opening Mechanism: E-stop switches must use positive-opening mechanisms, ensuring that the circuit breaks when the switch is activated and remains open until manually reset. A simple push button, for example, is not sufficient – it needs a dedicated mechanism that physically breaks the connection.
• Fail-Safe Design: The entire emergency stop system should be designed with redundancy, so a single point of failure doesn’t disable the safety mechanism. This often involves multiple circuits and components.
• Clear Identification: Emergency stop buttons must be clearly marked with a universally recognized symbol. This ensures quick and easy identification even under pressure.
• Accessibility and Visibility: The E-stop buttons need to be easily accessible and visible at all times, free from obstruction.

Example: In a car manufacturing plant, you might find multiple emergency stops – one on the robot control panel, another on the safety fence, and even handheld e-stop devices for personnel working directly within the robot’s operational area. Each stop is connected to a separate fail-safe circuit to ensure that even with one failure, the robot stops.

Proper training is paramount for personnel working with robots. ANSI/RIA standards emphasize a tiered approach, tailoring training to the individual’s role and responsibilities. Training should cover:

• Robot Operation and Programming: This includes understanding the robot’s capabilities, limitations, and programming interface.
• Safety Procedures: Comprehensive knowledge of lockout/tagout procedures, emergency stop procedures, and safe operational practices within the robot cell.
• Risk Assessment and Hazard Recognition: Workers must be able to identify potential hazards associated with robot operation.
• Emergency Response Protocols: Training should encompass procedures for handling emergencies, such as unexpected robot behavior or malfunctions.
• Specific Robot Model Training: In-depth training on the exact model of robot being used, covering specific functionalities and safety features.

Training should be documented and regularly reviewed. It is not a one-time event; it needs to be refreshed and updated as needed, especially after changes to the robotic system or environment. Practical, hands-on training with simulated or actual robotic systems is highly effective.

Various sensors play a critical role in robotic system safety. These include:

• Light Curtains: These use infrared beams to create an invisible safety barrier. If a person or object interrupts the beam, the robot stops immediately.
• Laser Scanners: Similar to light curtains, but often with a longer range and more flexible scanning patterns. They offer a wider field of view.
• Pressure-Sensitive Mats: Placed on the floor of the robot cell, these mats detect the presence of personnel within the robot’s operational area. This triggers a robot slow-down or stop.
• Proximity Sensors: Detect the presence of objects near the robot. These can be ultrasonic, capacitive, or inductive, each offering different ranges and sensitivity levels.
• Vision Systems: Advanced systems using cameras and computer vision can detect unexpected objects or personnel and react accordingly.
• Force Sensors/Torque Sensors: Mounted on the robot arm, these can detect unexpected forces or impacts. This is valuable in collaborative robotics for detecting collisions and ensuring safe operation.

The selection of sensors depends on factors like the robot’s application, environment, and the level of safety required. A combination of sensors is often used for redundancy and robust safety performance.

Regular inspection and maintenance of safety devices are non-negotiable for maintaining a safe working environment. Regular checks identify and mitigate potential failures before they lead to accidents. This involves:

• Visual Inspections: Regularly check for wear and tear, damage, or signs of tampering on all safety devices. Look for loose connections, damaged wiring, or any signs of physical damage to sensors or switches.
• Functional Tests: Perform regular functional tests of all safety devices. This includes testing emergency stops, light curtains, pressure mats, and other safety sensors to verify that they respond correctly.
• Calibration: Sensors often need periodic calibration to maintain accuracy. Laser scanners, for instance, might drift over time. Calibration ensures proper sensitivity and response.
• Documentation: Maintain meticulous records of all inspections and maintenance activities. This helps track the history of each device and identifies patterns or trends.

Failure to maintain safety devices can lead to component failure and render safety systems ineffective, resulting in increased risk of accidents and injury. Regular maintenance ensures that safety systems are consistently effective.

Handling safety violations in a robotic system requires a structured approach. First, immediately stop the robot and secure the area to prevent further incidents. Then:

• Investigate the Violation: Thoroughly investigate the cause of the violation to understand the root cause and prevent recurrence.
• Implement Corrective Actions: Take corrective actions, which might include repair, replacement of faulty components, retraining of personnel, or modifications to safety procedures.
• Document the Incident: Create detailed documentation of the safety violation, including the date, time, cause, corrective actions taken, and any injuries or damages.
• Report the Incident: Report the violation to relevant authorities (depending on company policy, and possibly OSHA). This is essential for maintaining safety records and identifying potential systemic safety issues.
• Review Safety Procedures: Review existing safety procedures to ensure they are adequate and identify any gaps that need to be addressed.

A robust incident reporting and investigation system is critical. Learning from mistakes and systematically addressing safety violations proactively minimizes risks in the future.

Lockout/tagout (LOTO) procedures are designed to prevent accidental start-up of a machine or system during maintenance or repair. For robotic systems, a robust LOTO procedure ensures that power to the robot and any associated equipment is completely isolated before work commences. Key elements include:

• Identification of Energy Sources: Identify all energy sources for the robot system, including electrical power, compressed air, hydraulic power, etc.
• Isolation of Energy Sources: Develop a procedure to safely isolate each energy source, using appropriate lockout devices (locks, tags, etc.). This might involve disconnecting power, disabling pneumatic systems, and removing pressure from hydraulic lines.
• Lockout and Tagout Devices: Utilize appropriate lockout and tagout devices to visually and physically prevent the accidental energization of the system. These devices should be clearly marked with the person’s name and date.
• Verification of Lockout/Tagout: Verify that all energy sources have been successfully isolated before starting maintenance work.
• Authorized Personnel Only: Only authorized personnel with LOTO training can perform lockout/tagout procedures.
• Tagout Procedures: Once work is complete, a clear procedure should be followed to remove the lockout/tagout devices and return the system to normal operation.

A well-defined LOTO procedure minimizes the risks associated with maintenance activities involving robotic systems. The procedure should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in the system or equipment.

Speed and separation monitoring are essential safety features in robotic systems. They help prevent collisions by dynamically adjusting the robot’s speed or halting its operation based on the proximity of personnel or objects.

• Speed Monitoring: This involves adjusting the robot’s speed based on the proximity of a person or object. As an object approaches, the robot slows down and might stop entirely if a certain distance threshold is breached. This reduces the severity of potential impacts.
• Separation Monitoring: This measures the distance between the robot and a worker or object using sensors such as laser scanners or light curtains. If the distance falls below a predefined safety limit, the robot stops or slows down.
• Safety Zones: Many robotic systems utilize defined safety zones. Zones can have different speed limits; the robot might operate at full speed in an outer zone, slow down in a middle zone, and halt in an inner zone, where human interaction is possible.
• Emergency Stop Integration: Speed and separation monitoring systems should be integrated with the emergency stop system, enabling immediate shutdown in case of unsafe conditions.

These features are especially crucial in collaborative robots (cobots) where humans and robots share the same workspace. These systems often use a combination of speed and separation monitoring, ensuring that the risk of collisions is minimized.

Verifying the effectiveness of safety devices in robotic systems requires a multi-faceted approach, combining rigorous testing, documentation, and ongoing monitoring. It’s not enough to simply install a safety device; you need to prove it consistently delivers the intended protection.

We primarily use two methods: Functional Safety Testing and Performance Level (PL) Verification. Functional safety testing involves simulating various failure scenarios and verifying the device’s response. For example, we might test an emergency stop button by repeatedly activating it under different load conditions, ensuring it reliably halts the robot within the specified time. PL verification, on the other hand, focuses on demonstrating that the safety device meets the required Performance Level (PL) as defined by ISO 13849-1. This involves assessing the probability of failure and the severity of potential hazards to determine the appropriate safety level.

Documentation plays a critical role. Comprehensive records of all tests, including methodologies, results, and any deviations, are essential for demonstrating compliance and traceability. Finally, regular maintenance and inspections are key to ongoing verification. This ensures that the safety devices continue to operate effectively throughout the robot’s lifecycle. Think of it like regular car maintenance; preventative checks keep your vehicle safe and functioning properly – the same logic applies to robotic safety systems.

The robot integrator holds significant responsibility for ensuring the safety of the entire robotic system. They are essentially the ‘general contractor’ of robotic safety. Their responsibilities begin with risk assessment, identifying all potential hazards associated with the robot’s operation and its interaction with the environment and human workers. This is crucial for selecting appropriate safety devices and implementing control measures.

Beyond risk assessment, the integrator is responsible for designing, installing, and commissioning the entire safety system. This includes selecting and integrating all safety-rated components, ensuring they are correctly wired and programmed to work together seamlessly. They also need to develop and implement safety procedures, training workers on safe operating procedures, and providing clear documentation of the entire system. Regular system testing and maintenance fall under their purview as well. Imagine building a house; the integrator is not just responsible for putting up the walls, but also for ensuring the electrical system, plumbing, and fire safety systems are all properly installed and functioning correctly.

Failure to properly fulfill these responsibilities can lead to serious accidents and legal repercussions. Therefore, competence, thoroughness, and adherence to all relevant safety standards are paramount.

Validating a robot safety system is a systematic process to demonstrate that the implemented safety functions effectively mitigate the identified risks and meet the required safety integrity level (SIL) or Performance Level (PL). This involves a series of steps, from initial design review to final acceptance testing.

• Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment: Identifying all potential hazards associated with the robot system.
• Safety Requirements Specification: Defining the safety functions needed to mitigate the identified hazards and specifying the required SIL/PL.
• Safety System Design: Designing the safety system architecture, including the selection of safety-rated components and the implementation of safety functions.
• Verification and Validation: Testing the safety system to demonstrate that it meets the specified safety requirements. This includes simulations, functional tests, and potentially formal verification methods.
• Documentation: Creating comprehensive documentation of the safety system, including hazard analyses, safety requirements, design specifications, test results, and maintenance procedures.
• Acceptance Testing: Final testing to ensure the system meets all safety requirements before deployment.

The entire process is meticulously documented, following a traceable methodology. This documentation ensures that each step is clearly understood and that any potential issues can be quickly identified and addressed. Independent verification and validation (V&V) by a third party is often beneficial to ensure impartiality and rigorous compliance.

A ‘safety-rated’ component is a device or system that has been designed, manufactured, and tested to meet specific safety standards. These components are crucial for building robust safety systems. They are not simply ‘good enough’; they’ve undergone rigorous testing and certification to prove their reliability in protecting against hazards. This certification typically involves independent testing to verify that the component meets specific performance levels, such as PL d, PL e, or SIL 2, SIL 3, depending on the standard and application.

The rating itself is a measure of the component’s probability of failure under normal operating conditions. A higher safety rating indicates a lower probability of failure and a greater level of safety. Examples of safety-rated components include emergency stop buttons, safety light curtains, and safety PLCs. Using safety-rated components is not optional in many industrial applications; it’s a requirement for compliance and safe operation. Using uncertified components, even if they seem to function correctly, exposes the system and workers to unacceptable risks.

Incorporating safety into the design of a robotic system is a crucial and iterative process. It begins even before the first line of code is written or the first component is selected. It’s not an afterthought; it’s an integral part of the entire design lifecycle.

The key is to adopt a ‘safety by design’ approach. This means considering safety at every stage of the design process, from initial concept to final testing and deployment. This involves:

• Hazard analysis and risk assessment: Identifying potential hazards associated with the robot’s operation and environment.
• Safety requirements specification: Defining the safety functions needed to mitigate the identified hazards.
• Selection of safety-rated components: Choosing components that meet the required safety integrity levels or performance levels.
• Design of safety functions: Implementing safety functions such as emergency stops, speed monitoring, and safeguarding devices.
• Software development and testing: Developing and testing the robot’s control software to ensure that safety functions are properly implemented and tested.
• Validation and verification: Thoroughly testing the system to verify that it meets the safety requirements.

This holistic approach ensures that safety is not compromised for speed or efficiency. It’s a crucial investment, not a cost-cutting measure.

Various safeguarding methods exist, each with its own strengths and limitations. Understanding these limitations is crucial for effective risk mitigation. Let’s consider a few common methods:

• Physical guards (e.g., fences, cages): These offer excellent protection but can restrict access and limit flexibility.
• Light curtains: They provide non-contact sensing, allowing for more flexible robot operation. However, they can be susceptible to interference from external light sources and require careful alignment.
• Pressure-sensitive mats: These detect the presence of personnel in a specific area. However, their effectiveness can be limited by their size and sensitivity.
• Interlocks: These prevent access to hazardous areas when the robot is operating. They are effective but require careful design and implementation to avoid bypassing.

The choice of safeguarding method depends on the specific application and the level of risk. A thorough risk assessment is essential to determine the appropriate combination of safeguarding methods to achieve the desired level of safety. Often, a multi-layered approach is necessary to account for the limitations of individual methods.

Managing the risk of unexpected robot movement requires a multi-layered approach focusing on prevention, detection, and mitigation. Preventing unexpected movements begins with robust design and programming. This includes using safety-rated components, implementing proper software design practices, and performing thorough testing. For instance, we implement software that monitors the robot’s position and speed and immediately halts operation if it deviates from programmed parameters.

Detection involves using various sensors and safety devices to detect unexpected movement. These might include emergency stop buttons, safety light curtains, and laser scanners that monitor the robot’s workspace. If unexpected movement is detected, the safety system should initiate a rapid and controlled shutdown.

Mitigation involves minimizing the potential impact of unexpected movement. This may involve using soft start/stop mechanisms to reduce sudden movements, installing physical barriers to limit the robot’s range of motion, and providing ample warning to nearby personnel. Regular maintenance, inspections, and operator training further reduce the likelihood of unexpected movement.

A layered approach combining prevention, detection, and mitigation offers the most robust protection against this critical hazard.

Neglecting robot safety standards carries significant legal ramifications, potentially leading to hefty fines, lawsuits, and even criminal charges. The severity depends on the nature of the violation and the resulting harm. For instance, a failure to implement proper safeguarding that results in a worker injury could lead to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) citations and costly litigation. Companies found to be in violation might face reputational damage, impacting their business prospects. Furthermore, in cases involving fatalities, criminal charges against individuals or the company itself are possible. Adherence to standards like ANSI/RIA R15.06 is not merely a best practice; it’s a legal necessity to mitigate risk and demonstrate a commitment to workplace safety.

My experience encompasses a range of safety PLC programming techniques, focusing on achieving functional safety according to IEC 61508 principles. I’m proficient in developing safety-related control systems using various PLC platforms (e.g., Rockwell Automation, Siemens, Schneider Electric). This includes implementing safety functions like Emergency Stops (ESTOPs), light curtains, pressure mats, and interlocks. I’ve extensively utilized structured programming techniques, ensuring clear code readability and maintainability. I’ve employed various safety-related programming methodologies including:

• Redundancy: Implementing dual-channel systems to enhance reliability and fault tolerance. For example, using two independent PLCs to monitor and control a critical safety function, comparing their outputs for consistency.
• Safety-rated sensors and actuators: Integrating these components, verified to meet specific safety integrity levels (SILs), ensuring timely and accurate response to hazardous situations.
• Diagnostic coverage: Implementing self-diagnostic routines within the safety PLC program, continuously monitoring its own health and reporting any anomalies. This might involve checking for communication errors, hardware failures, or unexpected software states.

Moreover, I have significant experience in documenting the safety functions in accordance with required standards. For example, creating safety requirements specifications (SRS) and functional safety assessments (FSA) are critical for demonstrating compliance.

I am very familiar with functional safety standards, particularly IEC 61508, and its influence on robotic safety. IEC 61508 provides a framework for designing and implementing electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems (E/E/PES). This framework is crucial for determining the required safety integrity level (SIL) based on risk assessment. Understanding SIL levels helps in selecting appropriate safety components and designing a system with the necessary safety performance level. My experience includes applying the concepts from IEC 61508 to ANSI/RIA R15.06, aligning the robotic safety requirements with the broader functional safety principles outlined in IEC 61508. This includes understanding the different safety lifecycle stages – from hazard identification and risk assessment to verification and validation activities.

Risk matrices are fundamental to robotic safety. They provide a structured way to analyze and quantify potential hazards associated with robot operation. The matrix typically involves identifying hazards (e.g., crushing, collision, entanglement), assessing the severity of potential harm (e.g., minor injury, serious injury, fatality), and estimating the likelihood (e.g., frequent, occasional, rare) of the hazard occurring. The combination of severity and likelihood determines the risk level, which guides the selection of appropriate safety measures. For example, a high-severity, high-likelihood hazard might necessitate the implementation of multiple safety layers, such as physical guarding, light curtains, and emergency stop buttons. A lower-risk hazard could be mitigated with simpler measures like warning signs or operational procedures. Risk matrices are a dynamic tool, updated during the design and operation of the robotic system to accommodate changes or new insights.

Documenting safety procedures for robotic systems is crucial for compliance and operational safety. My approach follows a structured method incorporating the following:

• Risk Assessment Report: A comprehensive document detailing identified hazards, risk levels, and mitigation strategies.
• Safety Procedures Manual: A detailed guide covering safe operation, maintenance, and emergency procedures, including lockout/tagout protocols.
• Machine Safety Documentation: Detailed schematics, PLC programs, and safety component specifications to facilitate troubleshooting and maintenance.
• Training Records: Evidence of operator and maintenance personnel training on safe operating procedures.
• Incident Reports: A system for recording any safety incidents, near misses, or accidents, which supports continuous improvement.

This documentation adheres to relevant standards, ensuring clarity and traceability throughout the system’s lifecycle.

In one project involving a palletizing robot, we experienced intermittent failures in the safety light curtain. The robot would occasionally continue its operation despite the light curtain being obstructed. Our troubleshooting involved a systematic approach:

1. Verification of the Light Curtain: We first tested the light curtain itself, confirming it was functioning correctly using a test device. This eliminated the sensor as the primary source of the issue.
2. PLC Program Inspection: Next, we analyzed the PLC program, checking for issues in the safety logic, specifically the section governing the light curtain’s input and its interaction with the robot’s operational state. We were searching for potential coding errors or faulty wiring configurations.
3. Wiring Inspection: A careful examination of the wiring from the light curtain to the PLC revealed a loose connection at a junction box. This loose connection resulted in intermittent signal loss, leading to the robot’s unsafe operation.
4. Remediation: Once the faulty connection was identified and repaired, extensive testing was conducted to confirm the light curtain’s correct integration with the robot’s safety system.

This incident highlighted the importance of thorough testing and regular maintenance to ensure the reliability of safety systems.

Staying current with ANSI/RIA R15.06 requires a multi-pronged approach. I regularly subscribe to industry publications and newsletters focusing on robotics and automation safety. I actively participate in professional organizations (like the Robotic Industries Association) that provide updates and training on the latest standards. I also attend industry conferences and workshops to learn about best practices and emerging safety challenges. Finally, direct access to the latest revision of ANSI/RIA R15.06 is maintained through the relevant standards organizations, ensuring I’m always working with the most up-to-date information when developing and implementing robotic safety systems.