Deploying Robots in a Production Environment: A Study on Temporal Transitions of Workers’ Experiences

  • Daniela WurhoferEmail author
  • Thomas Meneweger
  • Verena Fuchsberger
  • Manfred Tscheligi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9298)


Understanding a worker’s perspective when introducing robots at humans’ workplaces is crucial to improve human-robot interaction in production environments. Taking a temporal perspective on workers’ experiences with robots, we explored expectations and general attitudes as well as actual feelings and reflections regarding the deployment of robots in a semiconductor factory. To evoke reports on workers’ experiences, we applied a narrative interview technique with 10 workers. To characterize the temporal transition of workers’ experiences, we distinguished between three phases in the deployment process: expectations before the deployment of the robots, familiarization with the robots, and experienced consequences of working with the robots. We present characteristic experiences of each phase and describe how these experiences change over time regarding the perceived functional value of the robots, work organization, feelings, social environment, and attitudes. Overall, our research contributes leverage points towards a more positive experience of workers when deploying robots in a factory.


Temporality Experience Factory Human-robot interaction 



The financial support by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged (Christian Doppler Laboratory for “Contextual Interfaces”).


  1. 1.
    Alben, L.: Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions 3(3), 11–15 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bargas-Avila, J.A., Hornbaek, K.: Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, pp. 2689–2698. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Björndal, P.S., Ralph, M.B.: On the handling of impedance factors for establishing apprenticeship relations during field studies in industry domains. In: Proceedings of the NordiCHI 2014, pp. 1107–1112. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buchner, R., Wurhofer, D., Weiss, A., Tscheligi, M.: Robots in time: how user experience in human-robot interaction changes over time. In: Herrmann, G., Pearson, M.J., Lenz, A., Bremner, P., Spiers, A., Leonards, U. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8239, pp. 138–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castellano, G., Aylett, R., Dautenhahn, K., Paiva, A., McOwan, P.W., Ho, S.: Long-term affect sensitive and socially interactive companions. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coradeschi, S., Kristoersson, A., Lout, A., Von Rump, S., Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Gonzalez, J.: Towards a methodology for longitudinal evaluation of social robotic telepresence for elderly. In: 1st Workshop on Social Robotic Telepresence at HRI 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duffy, B.R.: Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42, 177–190 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernaeus, Y., Hakansson, M., Jacobsson, M., Ljungblad, S.: How do you play with a robotic toy animal? A long-term study of pleo. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 39–48 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fink, J., Bauwens, V., Kaplan, F., Dillenbourg, P.: Living with a vacuum cleaning robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(3), 389–408 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flick, U.: Episodic interviewing. In: Bauer, M.W., Gaskell, G. (eds.) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound, pp. 75–92. Sage, London (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinds, P.J., Roberts, T.L., Jones, H.: Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-Comput. Interact. 19(1), 151–181 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karapanos, E., Martens, J., Hassenzahl, M.: Reconstructing experiences with iScale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70(11), 849–865 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J.: User experience over time: an initial framework. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2009, pp. 729–738 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kidd, C.D.: Designing for long-term human-robot interaction and application to weight loss. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kujala, S., Miron-Shatz, T.: Emotions, experiences and usability in real-life mobile phone use. In: Proceedings of CHI 2013, pp. 1061–1070. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kujala, S., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Karapanos, E., Sinnelä, A.: UX Curve: a method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interact. Comput. 23(5), 473–483 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, M.K., Forlizzi, J.: Designing adaptive robotic services. In: Proceedings of IASDR 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meneweger, T., Wurhofer, D., Obrist, M., Beck, E., Tscheligi, M.: Characteristics of narrative textual data linked to user experiences. In: CHI EA 2014, pp. 2605–2610. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J.: Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of HRI 2008, pp. 287–294 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norman, D.A.: The way I see it: memory is more important than actuality. Interactions 16(2), 24–26 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Obrist, M., Reitberger, W., Wurhofer, D., Förster, F., Tscheligi, M.: User experience research in the semiconductor factory: a contradiction? In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6949, pp. 144–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olsson, T.: Layers of user expectations of future technologies: an early framework. In: CHI EA 2014, pp. 1957–1962. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Renaud, K., Van Biljon, J.: Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study. In: Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2008, pp. 210–219. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. J. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    von Wilamowitz Moellendorff, M., Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A.: Dynamics of user experience: How the perceived quality of mobile phones changes over time. In: User Experience - Towards a unied view, Workshop at NordiCHI 2006, pp. 74–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weiss, A., Buchner, R., Fischer, H., Tscheligi, M.: Exploring human-robot cooperation possibilities for semiconductor manufacturing. In: International Workshop on Collaborative Robots and Human Robot Interaction (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weiss, A., Igelsböck, J., Wurhofer, D., Tscheligi, M.: Looking forward to a “Robotic Society”? - imaginations of future human-robot relationships. Special issue on the Human Robot Personal Relationship Conference in the Int. Journal of Social Robotics (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright, P., McCarthy, J.: Experience-centered design: designers, users, and communities in dialogue. Synth. Lect. Hum. Centered Inform. 3, 1–123 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wurhofer, D., Buchner, R., Tscheligi, M.: Research in the semiconductor factory: insights into experiences and contextual influences. In: Proceedings of HIS 2014, pp. 123–128 (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yogasara, T.: Anticipated user experience in the early stages of product development. Ph. D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Wurhofer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Meneweger
    • 1
  • Verena Fuchsberger
    • 1
  • Manfred Tscheligi
    • 1
  1. 1.Christian Doppler Laboratory “Contextual Interfaces”, Center for Human-Computer InteractionUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations