What Responsibilities Exist When Robotic Automation Fails Due to System Architecture and Not the Robot Itself?

When a robotic cell stops or fails to reach the expected performance, the initial reaction is often immediate and almost automatic: the robot is failing. However, in most real industrial projects, the robot is only one component of the system—and not necessarily the source of the issue. This situation raises one of the most sensitive questions for any company implementing automation: who is responsible when the system does not perform as expected, but the robot itself is in perfect condition? The answer is not simple, which is why it is such a recurring concern among production managers, maintenance teams and technical directors. From a strictly technical standpoint, an industrial robot is a certified, tested piece of equipment designed to meet clear specifications regarding payload, reach, repeatability and duty cycle. When supplied correctly—whether new or refurbished—its behavior is defined by the manufacturer and documented in measurable terms. If the robot meets those specifications, it cannot be considered defective. Problems usually arise at another level: the system architecture. This includes how the cell has been designed, how the robot interacts with the other equipment, how material flows have been defined, how process sequences work, the control logic, and the safety margins. This is where many implicit expectations collide with technical reality. A robotic automation system involves multiple layers: the robot, the controller, programming software, peripherals (spindles, grippers, tables, sensors), functional safety, and often external systems such as PLCs, MES or industrial networks. If any of these elements is incorrectly sized or poorly coordinated, overall performance will suffer—even if the robot operates exactly as it should. From Eurobots’ position as a supplier, this distinction is crucial. The robot supplier is responsible for providing a robot configured according to its specifications, with proper documentation, verifiable history and technical support aligned with the manufacturer. They must ensure that the robot performs the motions, payloads and cycles for which it was designed. What cannot fall on the robot supplier, however, is responsibility for engineering decisions that belong to the design of the complete system. For example, a robot may be fully capable of executing a trajectory, but if the process demands accelerations incompatible with the rigidity of the tool–workpiece assembly, the issue does not lie with the robot but with how the operation was conceived. This distinction often becomes clear too late, once the system is already installed in the plant and production does not flow. At that point, frustration arises: the robot “is not giving the expected results,” even though it is actually performing its function perfectly within an unbalanced system. This is why one of the keys to avoiding conflict is to clearly separate supply responsibility from integration responsibility from the very beginning of the project. When this boundary is not defined, the robot becomes an unfair scapegoat for structural system issues. In mature projects, companies learn to analyze failures from a systemic perspective. They review cycle times, sequences, interferences, safety margins and control logic before questioning the robotic equipment. This approach not only reduces unnecessary downtime but also strengthens the relationship among all parties involved. Robotic automation does not fail because the robot “is not good,” but because the overall system is not always designed to leverage its true capabilities. Understanding this difference is a fundamental step toward making better technical and commercial decisions—and toward seeing the robot not as an unfulfilled promise, but as what it truly is: a precise tool within a much larger system.