NIST Economic Analysis Briefs 2 

The Economic Impact of Technology Infrastructure for 

Advanced Robotics 

Gary Anderson (gary.anderson@nist.gov) 

Technology Partnerships Office, Innovation & Industry Services 

October 2016 

Key Findings 

• Closing critical gaps in advanced robotics technology infrastructure would conservatively save

manufactures $40.4 billion annually.

• Barriers to innovation increase the cost of advanced robotics R&D, weaken private investment

incentives, and magnify the role of public institutions.

• Overcoming critical technical barriers may require investments in public-private manufacturing

consortia.

• Small and medium-sized enterprises, key beneficiaries of advanced robotics technology, face

significant barriers to adoption. 

Introduction 

Advanced robotics and automation are potential game-changing technologies for strengthening the 

U.S. manufacturing sector, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in the manufacturing 

sector. Next-generation advanced robots will be mobile, free to move about their environments and 

able to safely collaborate with humans. This represents a stark contrast with current-generation 

industrial robots that operate in highly controlled environments and are frequently isolated from 

workers out of safety concerns. A recent study,

1 commissioned by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) finds that “barriers to innovation lead to a shortage of critical technology 

infrastructure and inhibit the development and adoption of robotics technology.” Technology 

infrastructure2 is the broad base of public and quasi-public technologies and technical knowledge 

that support the research, development, production and diffusion activities of national laboratories, 

universities and firms. 

The analysis is based on in-depth interviews with more than 80 advanced robotics experts from 

leading robotic systems and component developers, systems integrators and end users in a variety of 

industries as well as stakeholders from universities, research centers and industry associations. The 

unique contribution of the study is the focus on barriers to the development and adoption of 

advanced robotic technology. The study finds that gaps in critical technology infrastructure, which 

include standards, measurement technology and other platform technologies, act as a barrier to 

innovation. Meeting these needs would enable the development of advanced robotic capabilities 

that “would stimulate industry investment in robotics technology and lead to the realization of an 

estimated $40.4 billion in net economic savings of U.S. manufacturers.” This represents a 5.3% 

reduction in the cost of goods sold. Meeting the identified needs “will make U.S. manufacturers 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards 1 

and Technology and Director 
 

 

 

 

Table 1: Technology Infrastructure Gaps and Potential Benefits 

Examples of Infratechnology to Help Potential Benefits and Impacts 

Industry Needs Meet Needs 

Safe human-robot interaction (HRI) 

Universal standards for developers of 

robotics technologies and the 

application of these technologies in 

manufacturing settings with robots 

working in close proximity to people 

(see more below on 

sensing/perception for unstructured 

environments, relevant for intuitive 

HRI) 

•	 Test protocols, objective scientific 

and engineering data, reference 

databases, and other technical 

inputs into standards for safe HRI 

(power/force-limiting, 

speed/separation monitoring, 

hand-guided operation, safetyrated monitored stop) 

•	 More flexible, smaller-footprint 

production lines 

•	 New and creative use cases of robots 

working in close proximity and in 

collaboration with people 

•	 Lower integration costs 

•	 Improved safety 

•	 Reduced market risk for developers 

•	 Reduced liability for end users 

•	 Adoption of collaborative robots 

Sensing and perception for 

unstructured (or less-structured) 

environments 

Improved perception (and the ability to 

plan and re-plan the robot’s actions 

based on what it “sees” and “knows”) 

gives a robot greater autonomy, 

lessening its demand that its work 

environment meet stringent tolerances 

Objective, low-cost performance 

characterization 

Making it easier for robotics users to 

know what they are buying and for 

• Common performance metrics, 

objective data, testbeds, test 

methods, and benchmarks to 

characterize the performance 

attributes of advanced systems, 

•

•

•

Reduced uncertainty 

Improved understanding of new 

technologies 

Increased adoption of robotics by 

SMEs 

developers and suppliers to show what subsystems, and components 

their systems do 

Interoperability and modularity • Objective technical inputs into the • Plug-and-play functionality 

Plug-and-play for system components, 

enabled by standards for physical and 

electronic interfaces and software 

interfaces or translators 

standard-setting process: scientific 

and engineering data, benchmarks, 

testbeds, objective third-party 

testing of candidate technologies 

and configurations 

•

•

•

Reduced integration costs (physical 

and software interfaces) 

Modular development of systems 

Increased adaptability of robotic 

systems 

• Scalable, reconfigurable, and reusable 

robotic systems 

• Reduced retooling costs 

• Increased adoption in industries with 

small production runs 

•	 Sensor registration and calibration 

•	 Performance characterization 

(benchmarks, testbeds, and 

technical inputs to standards to 

characterize the performance of 

systems, subsystems, and 

components) 

•	 Sensing/perception 

engines/architectures 

•	 Proof-of-concept robotics 

applications of knowledge 

representation and reasoning 

•	 Lower integration costs associated 

with accommodating tolerances 

•	 Flexible navigation of unstructured or 

less-structured environments 

•	 More flexible plant layouts 

•	 Improved safety 

•	 Optimized robot motions 

•	 Data streams to calibrate simulation 

models 

•	 Protocols to simplify the • Simplified programming Intuitive interfaces 

programming, training, and rapid • Reduced setup time and setup costs 

Enabling rapid programming and re-tasking of robots • Decrease need for specialized training 

training without specialized skills • Standard programming language to commission a robotics 

for industrial robotics 

Modeling and simulation 

Virtual factory floor allowing modeling 

and simulation, calibrated based on 

real-time data feed from robots, 

machine tools, sensors, and control 

systems on the floor 

•	 Robust, open, real-time operating 

system on the factory floor 

•	 Reference models, modeling 

frameworks to fully integrate 

robots into models of the 

manufacturing environment and 

enable robust 

simulation/prediction 

•	 Control of processes from central 

dashboard 

•	 Improved prediction 

•	 Adjustments can be optimized 

•	 Reduced delay and work stoppage 

•	 Software reconfigurable factory floor 

•	 Reduced retooling costs 

•	 Improved “as-built” documentation 

•	 Using robot teaching to refine 

simulation models 

2 
 

 

Figure 1: Total Annual Impact, Apportioned by Technology Need (Millions of 2013 US$) 

more efficient and more flexible, making the U.S. manufacturing sector better positioned to compete 

internationally.” 

The analysis first identified six broad areas of technical need and the qualitative benefits of meeting 

these needs. Then the analysis estimated manufacturing cost savings of providing industry with the 

new technical capabilities. The identified needs and quantitative benefits of meeting those needs 

are summarize in Table 1 and Figure 1 respectively. The identified needs include safe human robot 

interaction, technologies for sensing and perception in unstructured environments, object 

performance characterization for advanced robotics, interoperability for advanced robotic 

components, intuitive user interfaces, and modeling and simulation for advanced robotics. The 

analysis is based on primary data collected from small manufacturing establishments as well as 

Fortune 500 companies. 

Key Findings 

First, the analysis indicates that the benefits to meeting the identified technology infrastructure 

needs are large. Overall, enhanced technology infrastructure for robotics and automation would 

result in an estimated $40.4 billion in annual cost savings for the U.S. manufacturing sector. The 

report finds that these estimates are lower-bound impact estimates because difficult-to-quantify 

benefits such as R&D efficiencies, accelerated product development, impacts on competitiveness 

and the creation of entirely new advanced robotics markets such as personal robots are not included 

in the impact estimates. It is however important to note that the report found significant variation 

across industries with respect to estimated impacts. 

Second, in addition to measurement and standards needs, this study identifies a number of critical 

technology platforms such as sensing and perception technologies, technologies for improved robot 

mobility and navigation, machine vision, methods for object identification, and tactile sensing and 

perception. The study finds that ensuring that such industry needs are met may require investments 

in public-private manufacturing consortia. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

The study also identifies distinct barriers to innovation, caused by market failures3, beyond the 

public good nature of technology infrastructure. These barriers increase the cost of advanced 

manufacturing R&D, weaken private investment incentives and magnify the role of public institutions 

in meeting these scientific and technical needs. The infrastructure gaps alongside critical 

uncertainties and network effects ensure that current advanced robotics research, development and 

deployment is excessively costly and accessible to a limited set of companies. The stakeholder 

interviews identify critical uncertainties that increase transactions and adoption costs and diminish 

the incentive of all parties - across entire supply chains - to invest in robotics R&D. For example, a 

lack of critical standards “makes it difficult for end users to compare product offerings and choose 

the best solution to meet their needs.” Across the array of industry needs identified, “end users find 

it costly to convey their needs to developers, and developers similarly find it costly to communicate 

to the end users what their systems can and cannot do and to prove that their systems will perform 

as advertised.” In this environment it is difficult if not impossible to reap the rewards of investment. 

Further, the study provides evidence that proprietary standards4 fail to address these underlying 

barriers to innovation. The analysis demonstrates that when measurement and test methods, 

interoperability standards, scientific and engineering databases are treated as proprietary 

intellectual assets, firms can use these to create market distortions by conveying market power 

through branding and reputation The analysis also warns that “companies that develop industrial 

robots may have incentives to limit interoperability due to customer lock-in.” Further, “lock-in and 

market power are problems of proprietary standards. Public standards eliminate this barrier to 

innovation.” “[I]nterviewees emphasized NIST as a credible, objective, unbiased third party” 

important to overcoming these uncertainties. By filling this “honest broker” role, public institutions 

are vital to overcoming such barriers to innovation. These findings highlight the importance of public 

research institutions in meeting the identified technical needs. The current gaps in technology 

infrastructure increase the costs and weaken private investment incentives in advanced 

manufacturing research, development and deployment. Privately developed standards may be 

further distorting the market. 

Finally, although the study finds that small and medium-sized manufacturers “are more likely to use 

collaborative robots than traditional industrial robots and represent a largely untapped customer 

base,” they also face significant barrier to adoption of advanced robotic technology. Low levels of 

interoperability, a lack of low-cost tools for measuring safety, a lack of objective performance 

measures and high and uncertain integration costs all “act as a barrier to adoption for many SMEs.” 

References 

[1] Anderson G (2013) The Impact of Federally Performed R&D: Twenty Years of Economic Analysis at 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2013 Technology Transfer Society 

Conference. 

[2] Link A Scott J (2011) The theory and practice of public-sector R&D economic impact analysis. 

(NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) Planning Report 11-1. 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director/planning/report11-1.pdf. 

[3] Link, Albert N., Zachary T. Oliver and Alan C. O’Connor (2016). Economic Analysis of Technology 

Infrastructure Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Advanced Robotics and Automation. (NIST, 

Gaithersburg, MD) NIST GCR 16-005. 

[4] Tassey G (2007) The Technology Imperative. (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham). 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

[5] Tassey G (2015) The Economic Nature of Knowledge Embodied in Standards for TechnologyBased Industries. Routledge Handbook of the Economics of Knowledge, eds Antonelli C, Link A 

(Routledge, New York), pp. 189-207. 

1 See Link, et al. [3]. 2 Technology infrastructure includes infratechnologies and technology platforms. Infratechnologies are 

technical tools, such as measurement and test methods, reference materials, scientific and engineering 

databases, process models, and the technical basis for physical and functional interfaces between 

individual components of both cyber and physical systems technologies. Technology platforms are 

precompetitive proofs of concept that demonstrate the potential commercial viability of multiple new or 

improved products, processes, or services. Technology infrastructure shares many common feature with 

tangible infrastructure. Namely, it is difficult and even undesirable to exclude potential users 

implementing the technology and usage of the technology infrastructure by a particular organization does 

not does not preclude others from benefiting to much the same extent. See Anderson [1], Link and Scott 

[2] and Tassey [4] for a richer discussion of the public good nature of technology infrastructure. 3 A market failure is a situation where free markets do not allocate resources efficiently. In particular, the 

study finds evidence that network externalities, uncertainty and economies of scope all impact research in 

technology infrastructure for advanced robotics. The result is that markets invest too few resources in 

R&D. 4 Proprietary standards can include both product and non-product standards such as measurement and 

test methods, interoperability standards, scientific and engineering databases and artifacts such as 

reference materials (infratechnologies). At times, these non-product standards become the technical 

basis for standards developed through voluntary consensus standards developing organizations. However, 

just as market dynamics drive the adoption of de facto product standards so to can market dynamics drive 

the development and adoption of non-products standards. Tassey [5] notes the negative effects on 

economic efficiency of market power conveyed through proprietary product and non-product standards. 

5