Editorial note:

The following text is part of the SYNAOS magazine dossier on standardization (in German).

‍

To successfully orchestrate heterogeneous robot fleets, an overarching communication system is needed. In intralogistics practice, this complex is referred to as interoperability – something most intralogistics practitioners are likely familiar with.  

The global intralogistics industry has been working for years on its version of a universal communication interface, allowing the ever-growing mass of robot fleets to be flexibly and seamlessly assembled using a "plug & play" principle.  

What lies behind "standardization" and "interfaces"?

But what exactly hides behind the seemingly large and cumbersome topics of standardization and interfaces? At their core, they're rather mundane computer science concepts – namely, the receiving and sending of commands and status reports. For a central control center to mediate and orchestrate between different robots from different manufacturers, the formulation of content in all data exchange points must be the same. Put simply: What a turnaround, a halt, or a "my battery is empty" exactly means in the code line to control the robots must be predetermined and standardized.

If this standardization of language doesn't occur, error messages arise, processes halt, robots stand facing each other cluelessly, accomplishing nothing.

So, the goal of standardization initiatives is to establish a common machine language, allowing users to control heterogeneous mobile robot fleets from various manufacturers with a central control center – across the "mother tongues," i.e., the proprietary software of the robot manufacturers.

Behind the interoperability complex lies a clear business rationale

The business rationale behind this: faster, more flexible commissioning, less economic dependence on individual manufacturers, and effortless scalability.
"Where the practical benefits at the technical development level have long been recognized, standardization initiatives have formed worldwide. However, grasping the matter and assessing its practicality remains difficult not only for decision-makers at the management level. Misconceptions, concerns, misjudgments, and uncertainty persist – even regarding already highly practical approaches like VDA 5050," explains Dr. Lennart Bochmann, CPO, CRO & Co-Founder of SYNAOS.

Enough reason to take a closer look. Firstly, to travel through the currently rather confusing world of intralogistics. And also, to answer the practical questions that have arisen after years of mobile robotics boom regarding the interoperability complex.

The journey begins in Germany with the initiative that currently seems to be a promising candidate to become the intralogistic "world standard": VDA 5050.

Europe, America, Asia: A brief world tour of the current state of affairs

At least the German-speaking intralogistics scene should by now be familiar with VDA 5050. The interface was developed in cooperation between the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) and the German Engineering Federation (VDMA), with the support of the Institute of Materials Handling and Logistics at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT IFL).

What began with the idea of creating a universally applicable interface for communication between control centers and driverless transport systems (FTS) is now on the verge of expanding beyond its origins in the German mechanical engineering and automotive industries.

VDA 5050 has its origins in the automotive industry.

VDA 5050 is gaining ground – but it must continue to evolve

After five years of collaborative development in expert circles, and amidst criticisms such as regionalism, bureaucracy, or creating "robotic stupidity," VDA 5050 capability is now a fixed criterion in tenders for robot fleets and control systems. Even manufacturers of intelligent Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) are increasingly making their devices "VDA 5050-ready," even though the standard itself originates from the track-bound Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV) world.

Andreas Scherb, Specialist in Materials Handling and Intralogistics, Driverless Transport Systems at VDMA, is one of the minds behind VDA 5050. He says, "The system should ultimately be opened up more and more to other mobile robots. We started with a technology base that was dominated by AGVs. In the short and medium term, we will address corridors and zones, allowing autonomous vehicles to navigate freely within certain limits. So, for example, corridors will have virtual guardrails on the right and left, within which a vehicle can move. However, this function will be optional."
In short: VDA 5050 has comparatively established itself but must be consistently developed along with new technical advancements. Clear momentum from the German-speaking and Central European scene is clearly visible. Is the path now clear for this interface from Germany to dominate the world? Yes and no.

Are Americans and Asians hesitant about the "German Thing" VDA 5050?

Beyond all technical, practical, and economically motivated arguments in favor of VDA 5050, it is undoubtedly a success story currently being exported abroad by internationally active German companies. However, it's already foreseeable that it will take quite a bit of persuasion to establish itself beyond the direct influence islands of the VDA 5050 community – primarily German automotive plants abroad. Because no matter how you twist it, launched as a "German Thing," American and Asian users are more likely to be skeptical of the communication model VDA 5050 than to enthusiastically embrace it.

Looking at industrial plants in the USA, the practical need for standardized communication seems to be already evident. From the East Coast, MassRobotics has already established an interface apparently comparable to VDA 5050. However, the belief that MassRobotics is direct competition to VDA 5050, as many still assume, is entirely wrong in reality.

Who and what is really behind MassRobotics?

When someone mentions MassRobotics as an interoperability standard, they strictly mean the MassRobotics AMR Interoperability Standard. Because MassRobotics itself is the namesake non-profit organization from Boston, Massachusetts – hence the "Mass" part. Established since 2015, its goal is to advance the development and deployment of robotic technologies in the USA.

Nearly ten years after its founding, MassRobotics sees itself as a hub, acting like a mix of a start-up incubator and a think tank – broadly equipped with numerous event formats, mentoring programs, academic publications, and practical dialogues.

MassRobotics from Boston: a mixture of incubator and think tank

The MassRobotics AMR Interoperability Standard: Only status information, no task assignment

However, MassRobotics is at best a part-time standardization institute. The MassRobotics AMR Interoperability Standard, introduced in May 2021, aims to enable robots from different manufacturers to "communicate" through a common interface and standardized communication, but it is limited to status updates. This means it focuses on parameters of status monitoring such as position, operational status, payload, planned routes, and paths. The standard itself aims more at networking robot fleets with adjacent infrastructure like warehouse management or ERP systems.

A standardized transmission of transport orders to a central fleet manager is explicitly not covered by the MassRobotics standard. This crucial feature for the operational management of mixed fleets is missing.
"Many see the MassRobotics standard as an American VDA 5050. That is a misconception. The MassRobotics interface aims to connect robots of all kinds with their production environment, keeping them updated on the condition of the devices – but in great detail," says Dr. Philipp Schäfers, Head of Partner Management & Business Development at SYNAOS. "Ultimately, MassRobotics should be seen at best as a complement to interfaces like VDA 5050, which was explicitly developed for standardizing task assignments."

Standardization in Asia: No clear contours visible

Unlike America and Europe, standardization initiatives in Asia are only vaguely discernible. Those looking for practical examples of interoperability find rather fragmented, mostly regional pieces.

For instance, Changi General Hospital (CGH) in Singapore employs an 80-robot strong heterogeneous fleet of cute-looking AMRs named EDi, BLANKi, and MEDi. In hospital operations, these robots guide visitors, distribute warm blankets to chilly patients, and deliver medications from the pharmacy to the wards. Connected with their environment, the robots open doors and independently use elevators.

At Singapore's Changi Hospital: Robots operate elevators, distribute blankets.

The technology in use: A interface specifically developed for the Asian healthcare market called "RoMi-H." This is based on the Open Robotics Middleware Framework, or simply Open-RMF, launched in October 2021. Behind this is the Open Source Robotics Foundation (OSRF), a non-profit organization born out of the environment of Stanford University. Its goal is to develop open-source software for use in robotics.

For those familiar with Open-RMF, it appears to have a concept fundamentally similar to VDA 5050. Like VDA 5050, Open-RMF aims to solve the interoperability dilemma. According to its claims, Open-RMF can also handle traffic management and task dispatcher functionalities, but it is not designed like VDA 5050 to control heterogeneous robot fleets beyond the robots' proprietary software.

Open-RMF: Very diverse applications, no focus on intralogistics

The main difference from VDA 5050 is that Open-RMF does not focus on intralogistics processes, lacking the depth of development regarding the use of central control systems. In fact, there isn't a clear focus on development, except for working on the interaction of AMRs with physical infrastructures such as doors, escalators, or elevators for new interface versions. Documented use cases primarily revolve around hospitals, airports, and shopping malls.

Asia: Use of robots in hospitals, airports and shopping centers.

Japan and South Korea: Isolated initiatives driven by robot manufacturers

Compared to the extremely service-oriented economies of Singapore and similar Asian metropolitan regions, the very traditionally industrialized economic structures of Japan and South Korea offer a wider range of intralogistic scenarios that would need to be solved through interoperability. At least theoretically.

However, currently, only isolated initiatives are recognizable that advocate for a comprehensive standard. "This seems to be driven by one of the local mobile robot suppliers, rather than being a general industry matter," says Tom Andersson, Co-Founder and Principal Analyst at STIQ Styleintelligence in London. Andersson and his team researched the AGV & AMR ROBOTICS report published in London in November 2023.

STIQ Report: Japanese robot market moving slower. For now.

Remarkably, in the STIQ report, a representative of a Japanese robot manufacturer says, "Compared to the USA, the Japanese market for demand for AGVs and AMRs is relatively slow. But I think this is changing due to the increasing labor shortage." Nearly paradoxical: technology-driven and long-beleaguered by demographic changes, Japan is in terms of mobile robotics in intralogistics where Central Europe presumably stood about five years ago.

STIQ report: Japanese robot market moves more slowly

Lars Bäumann, who in recent years served as Chairperson Chapter Shanghai of the German Logistics Association (BVL), provides insight: "Unlike here, Japanese companies only introduce automations when other options such as human resources are exhausted. They pursue much finer strategies. Risk management always plays a prominent role." He adds: "If they see that processes work better with people, they will continue to use people for that."

And China? Tricky.

And China? Bäumann likely knows this market as well as few Europeans do due to his work in Shanghai. He expresses a clear standpoint: "If a standard ever emerges, it will likely be an intrachinese one for the domestic industry. In the foreseeable future, Chinese companies are unlikely to adhere to a global standard like VDA 5050."  

Is there currently a unified Chinese communication interface for mobile robots? It's hard to say. While there are indications that Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean companies occasionally inquire about VDA 5050, the practice seems far from genuinely wanting to cooperate.

China represents a distinct intralogistics market

Dr. Susanne Lehmann, who served as Executive Director of Logistics for Volkswagen's logistics strategy in China for over two years, responsible for material and vehicle logistics in ten Chinese factories, offers her insight: "Chinese politics and economy think very long-term and plan in cycles of up to 20 years. A nationwide standardized communication interface has not been planned so far." However, her team, in collaboration with Jiaotong University and in consultation with experts from SYNAOS, has established a control system to at least create a standard internally for VW.

Management Imperatives for a World of Intralogistics at Different Speeds

The journey in search of interfaces and standards for intralogistics leads through a world of different speeds. However, a world where various national concepts vie for significance and dominance is missing. Rather, the current significant standardization initiatives are strongly influenced by the "open-source" mindset, referring and recommending each other. For example, the VDMA clearly classifies MassRobotics as a complement to VDA 5050, by no means as competition. Open systems like Open-RMF explicitly recommend and enable the integration of VDA 5050 in their publications.

This is initially good news for intralogistics practice. Currently, there are no foreseeable struggles for standardization, as seen in container shipping, the food industry, or the transatlantic feud over accounting standards such as IFRS and US-GAAP.

What does this mean for practice? What management imperatives can be inferred?

#1: Don't Wait for the Global Standard

Looking beyond the horizon, it's clear that the German intralogistics scene has developed something with VDA 5050 that will create significant practical utility and economic value, far beyond its origins and homeland. When it comes to solving the increasingly urgent interoperability dilemma of mobile robotics, VDA 5050 is simply unrivaled worldwide.

However, it's far from being the intralogistics world standard. Nevertheless, observing the global industry shows that it doesn't need to be. Waiting for VDA 5050 – or a "global version" based on it – to be universally adopted would be a mistake.
"There won't be a world government of mobile robotics dictating to practice how code lines should look and how they shouldn't. Why should there be? Intralogistics doesn't face a VHS-Betamax decision where one could bet on the wrong horse. Even though managers must avoid misinvestments, the biggest mistake currently would be to postpone investments where practical solutions already exist," says Dr. Wolfgang Hackenberg, CEO and Co-Founder of SYNAOS.

#2: Understand Standardization as a Business Case, Not a Must-Have

The term standardization still sounds to many like petty coercion, bureaucratic aloofness, and the curbing of innovation or entrepreneurial spirit. However, for mobile robotics, what applies to almost every young industry that consolidates after a phase of booming growth is relevant: standardized processes and practical interfaces will structure and accelerate growth. Reliability in terms of investments will increase, and performance and quality can be evaluated more accurately and comprehensively.

"Using reliable, proven standards will simply ensure that less money goes up in smoke. Where it's not clear which hardware can be perfectly orchestrated with which software through which interface, fleets that are too large and incompatible with each other almost inevitably arise," says SYNAOS CEO Hackenberg. He recommends that interoperability must be seen by management teams up to CFO functions as a business case, not as an exercise in bureaucracy or unrealistic standardization zeal.

Hackenberg continues: "Standardized communication avoids mispurchases, speeds up commissioning, and reduces dependencies on individual manufacturers. But that's only part of the business case behind interoperability. In terms of operational excellence, central control systems like SYNAOS' bring significantly more efficiency. More orders can be handled with fewer robots."

Additionally, there's the global scalability of once "solved" intralogistics scenarios between different locations. So, if an intralogistics scenario is automated and operational at Site A, decision-makers would do well to apply this blueprint to all their sites with comparable intralogistics scenarios. This creates additional dividends beyond the efficiency gain from automation. "And so, an investment in intelligent intralogistics ultimately pays double dividends. If one understands standardization as a value driver," further elaborates Hackenberg.

#3: Actively Shape Developments

It's almost a truism: to some extent, (intra-)logistics managers are faced with the choice of being drivers or being driven during the phase of finding powerful standards.

The implementation of mobile robotics is a highly complex, business-critical field. Harmonizing hardware and software through standards requires a constant balancing act between technical achievements (such as autonomous robot navigation) and their integration into cross-controllable control systems. Criticism of VDA 5050 arose not from technical impossibilities but from areas of interpretation—what the interface is capable of representing and what new robotics and feature manufacturers in the market offer in comparison. Smartly navigating obstacles, for instance.

Even for those who critically view developer forums and the voluntary approach, such as that of the VDMA, as too slow, they should understand that standards are constantly evolving. And they develop to be more practical and faster the more actively market participants participate.

"Currently, the further development of VDA 5050, for example, is strongly focused on backward compatibility, the integration of autonomous navigation, load management, and map formats. That so much is on the agenda is a good thing! It shows that the industry is finding a broader forum where those who really want to actively shape are coming together," says Dr. Lennart Bochmann of SYNAOS.

The search for greater efficiency, investment security, and performance—that's the essence of the standardization issue. The analysis of the current state of affairs shows that a standardized interface between robots and control centers will establish itself—but not for the sake of standardization. Instead, through solutions from practice for practice that prevail without needing anyone to enforce them.