Cobotics and advanced robotics maturity
Your robot fleet placed on a maturity scale, with the costed roadmap to make it produce.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Cobotics and advanced robotics maturity
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Cobotics and advanced robotics maturity framework, inspired by CMMI principles and ISO 10218 / ISO/TS 15066 benchmarks for human-robot collaboration assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
This mechanism (one level, the level above, and the action linking them) is what turns a finding into a trajectory.
Can a collaborative cell be reprogrammed for a new product by the site’s own teams?
- N1
No in-house reprogramming. Any programme change goes through the integrator.
- N2
One or two technicians know how to intervene. The skill is individual, undocumented, and unavailable if they are absent.
- N3
A reprogramming procedure exists and several trained setters apply it. Programmes are archived and version-controlled.
- N4
Product changeovers are completed within a target lead time, with a reusable programme library and safety validation built into the change process.
- N5
Programmes and gripping standards are shared across sites, reused on new projects, and reviewed periodically against measured changeover times.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Have the lead technician write up the reprogramming procedure, train two setters per shift on a real product, and add the review of archived programmes to the monthly production review agenda.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Cobotics covers applications where a robot shares a space or task with an operator, without a full physical barrier. Advanced robotics adds autonomous mobile robots, reprogrammable multi-product cells, adaptive gripping and vision-based control. This is not a certifying framework: it is a set of industrial, technical, organisational and human capabilities. Maturity here is measured by the ability to move from an isolated robotic workstation to a fleet operated, maintained and redeployed by the production teams themselves.
In practice, management runs into simple questions that are rarely settled. Who decides a task is suitable for robotisation, and on what criteria of cycle time, variability and real gain? How long does it take to reprogramme a cell when the product changes, and is this within the reach of a setter or reserved for an external integrator? What happens to a cobot when the line evolves: redeployed, or shut down pending a decision? The actual utilisation rate of installed equipment is often the first missing indicator.
One confusion comes up repeatedly: the risk assessment of a collaborative cell is not a commissioning formality. Human-robot collaboration relies on speed, force and distance limits that depend on the task, the tooling and the part being handled. Changing a gripper or a trajectory changes these limits. Mature organisations therefore treat risk assessment as a living process, tied to change management, not as a file archived once the installation is signed off.
The maturity assessment answers a different question from a compliance check. A compliance check asks whether the installation meets a requirement, yes or no. The assessment asks what level of control your practices have reached, theme by theme, and what specific actions move you up a level. The gap between the measured score and the target generates the action plan, which the AI groups into a prioritised roadmap, readable by an industrial steering committee as much as by senior management.
The framework is ready to use and adaptable. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to your context, whether a single-unit workshop or high-volume line, or builds a variant from your own documents: integration specifications, internal machine safety standards, and lessons learned from your sites.
Reference standard: Cobotics and advanced robotics maturity framework, inspired by CMMI principles and ISO 10218 / ISO/TS 15066 benchmarks for human-robot collaboration
The themes assessed
Strategy and use cases
Existence of an explicit robotics trajectory, criteria for selecting workstations, analysis of variability and cycle times, assessment of expected gain before deciding.
Human-robot collaboration safety
Risk assessment per application, speed, force and distance limits, collaboration modes chosen, reassessment when tooling or trajectory changes.
Integration into production processes
Insertion into flows, workstation supply management, actual cycle time, handling of disruptions and manual recovery.
Flexibility and reprogramming
Product changeover lead time, autonomy of setters and operators, program library, standardisation of grippers and interfaces.
Mobile robots and internal logistics
Mapping of circulation zones, coexistence with pedestrians and forklifts, fleet supervision, charging management and mission priorities.
Perception, vision and advanced control
Use of vision for guidance and inspection, adaptive gripping, learning on variable parts, model management and updates.
Skills and work organisation
Roles defined around the cells, skills development plan, operator involvement in design, attention to ergonomics and acceptance.
Maintenance and fleet availability
Preventive maintenance of cells, critical spare parts in stock, dependence on integrators, tracking of downtime and root causes.
Data, interoperability and supervision
Cycle data feedback, connection to the MES and workshop supervision, exchange formats and protocols, traceability of robotised operations.
Performance measurement and redeployment
Actual utilisation rate of installed equipment, tracking gains achieved against gains announced, decision to redeploy or retire, cross-site capitalisation.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does this framework lead to a certification?
No. Cobotics and advanced robotics are not overseen by a certifying body. The assessment measures maturity levels across industrial practices and produces a progression trajectory. The machine safety requirements applicable to your installations remain handled within their own framework.
What is the difference between this assessment and a robotic integration study?
An integration study covers one workstation and results in a technical solution. The assessment covers the organisation’s ability to select, operate, maintain and redeploy its equipment. It sits upstream and informs future investment decisions.
How long does the assessment take?
The short version is completed in a single working session. The full version, run collaboratively with methods, maintenance, HSE and production, spans one to two weeks, most of the time being spent gathering input from shop-floor teams.
Can the framework be adapted to our industrial context?
Yes. Themes, questions and levels can all be modified, and the AI can build a variant from your internal standards and integration specifications. A small-batch workshop and a high-volume line should not be assessed on the same grid.
How can several sites be compared with each other?
The same framework is deployed at each site, making scores comparable theme by theme. The benchmark places each business unit against the others and against its own history, and a cross-site roadmap consolidates action plans without duplicating shared actions.
Do you need automation expertise to answer?
The questions cover practices, lead times and organisation, not programming. Some require specific technical input: the collaborative mode allows these questions to be assigned to the right contributor.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, backed up with Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European providers.