Page 4 of 4

Exoskeletons in Construction and Heavy Industries: Can They Really Handle the Tough Jobs?

• Oct 17, 2024

Despite the ongoing debate around how open or resistant the industry is to accepting change, construction has long been a sector where innovation can significantly enhance safety and efficiency. One such innovation making waves is wearable robots, commonly known as exoskeletons. These devices augment human capabilities by enhancing the wearer’s strength and endurance, and they have the potential to reduce the high rate of musculoskeletal injuries resulting from the abundance of physically demanding work in the industry. 

However, as with any emerging technology, the adoption of exoskeletons in construction — and heavy industries likewise — comes with its own challenges. Based on involvement in both sides of the scientific research around exoskeletons and the industry adoption of the technology during the past several years, here are some reflections on the key challenges and potential solutions leading to the proper adoption of exoskeletons in the construction industry.

Uncertainty Around Suitability of Available Exoskeletons for Construction

Most exoskeletons currently available on the market seem to have been designed with environments like logistics and manufacturing in mind, hence causing uncertainty around their suitability for construction. These settings are generally more controlled than construction sites, which are dynamic, unpredictable and physically diverse. As a result, some construction professionals question whether these exoskeletons can effectively meet the demands of the industry.

One of the biggest challenges specific to construction compared to other industries is the potential incompatibility of exoskeletons with other PPE (e.g., fall arrest systems, coveralls) and tool belts as well as the question around their durability and ruggedness in harsh environments, such as bands getting torn. Some commercially available exoskeletons are better at meeting these specific needs, and some need more development work, resulting in some models being more appropriate for construction than others. This highlights the importance of taking the appropriate steps to ensure the evaluation, selection and adoption process is carried out properly. 

Beyond selecting the correct exoskeleton for the jobsite conditions, another apparent solution is to develop exoskeletons specifically tailored for construction, which ideally would take place through collaboration between manufacturers, academics, safety experts and construction professionals. However, this is more of a long-term solution and should not stop the industry from exploring existing exoskeleton options right now. Some of the products on the market are suitable, depending on the site conditions and tasks, and their benefits shouldn’t be dismissed because they weren’t originally designed with construction in mind.

There is also a cultural aspect to consider. There are concerns about social perception, whether workers might feel they look weak or stand out if they wear an exoskeleton. Interestingly, some sites offer more openness than resistance, especially after workers get a chance to try the suit and experience the “aha” moment! On the other hand, if a worker doesn’t buy into the technology, they can easily influence their peers, which could slow down adoption across the board. This highlights the importance of properly introducing exoskeletons in a well-thought-out and structured way.

Improper Implementation and Lack of a Systematic Adoption Process

There have been various cases of organizations acquiring exoskeletons and simply handing them to workers for trial without any structured plan or training. Unsurprisingly, this approach rarely, if ever, leads to a successful adoption. Providing workers with exoskeletons without a clear implementation plan is a recipe for failure. When workers are not properly trained or given clear guidance, chances of them finding the devices uncomfortable, inefficient or even unsafe is high. This haphazard approach can also cause workers to reject the technology altogether, viewing it as a hindrance rather than a helpful tool. These negative perceptions can be fairly difficult to change later on.

Additionally, it is important to remember that the adoption of exoskeletons is task-specific, which means that the exoskeleton typically supports the worker in a specific task and is not equally beneficial for everything the worker might do on-site. An exoskeleton designed to support one type of movement or posture may not provide the same advantages — or may even become a hindrance — when the worker shifts to a different task. When evaluating welders and during the early trials on site, one welder loved the exoskeleton while another disliked it. Same role. Same job site. Different experience. It turned out that one welder was primarily working in a sustained bending posture, which the back-support exoskeleton substantially helped with. The other welder often climbed on top of the workbench and had to weld in more awkward postures, making the exoskeleton more of a hindrance than a help.

To ensure successful adoption, it is imperative to follow a systematic implementation approach that includes properly evaluating different aspects of the job, conducting short-term and long-term trials, and continuously monitoring the outcomes. There are frameworks and ASTM standards that can guide this process, ensuring that companies don’t just “try and hope”, but instead adopt exoskeletons in a deliberate and structured way. Implementing a phased rollout and involving frontline workers in the process early-on is critical. Workers who feel like their input matters are much more likely to embrace the change.

Fear of Being an Early Adopter

While most professionals who get to touch and feel exoskeletons see the potential value, many are hesitant to be early adopters. The construction industry is known for its conservative approach to new technology. The majority of companies are often wary of investing in unproven innovations as early adopters, fearing that they may not yield the expected benefits. The low profit margin of most companies, especially small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs), makes it hard to blame them for not spending their limited resources on a technology they are uncertain about. 

One of the contributors to this problem is a lack of enough publicized success stories, making it difficult for potential adopters to assess the real-world impact of exoskeletons. This can be achieved through more case studies, industry conference presentations and industry-facing articles that highlight the tangible benefits of the technology and how to overcome barriers that are shared across companies. While there is a growing body of academic research, more industry-friendly publications that reflect practical, on-site experiences will help build confidence. Building a strong network of early adopters who can advocate for the technology and share their experiences can help alleviate the fears of potential adopters. More of this sharing is necessary to push exoskeletons further down the Hype cycle for industries like construction. Manufacturers also need to step up by offering pilot programs and demonstrations that allow companies to experience the benefits firsthand before committing to a full-scale investment.

Cost Concerns

Cost is another sticking point. Some professionals find exoskeletons costly, while others see it as a worthwhile investment compared to the cost of workplace injuries. While the initial investment required to purchase exoskeletons can be a barrier for many companies, the cost of workplace injuries — both in terms of direct expenses and lost productivity — can potentially far exceed the cost of implementing exoskeletons. Despite this, the high upfront costs may deter some companies from adopting the technology.

One way to mitigate the cost concern is to adopt a phased implementation strategy, gradually rolling out exoskeletons across different teams or tasks to spread out the cost over time. To maximize the return on investment, organizations should follow a structured adoption framework that ensures the right type of exoskeletons is selected for their specific needs, avoiding unnecessary purchases. Manufacturer pilots are crucial to ensure this. 

Convincing management to invest can be difficult, but letting decision-makers try the exoskeletons themselves can make a huge difference. Pairing this with a well-researched cost-benefit analysis that highlights the long-term savings from injury prevention can often tip the balance in favor of adoption.

Health and Safety Concerns

There are also concerns about whether exoskeletons can potentially work against the user and cause harm. The skepticism is usually around whether exoskeletons cause muscle weakness or atrophy, promote awkward postures, create a false sense of safety or introduce new hazards. 

When it comes to muscle atrophy, the current body of scientific research is reassuring. Studies show that exoskeletons provide modest support for tasks that are already physically demanding, and they are designed to assist rather than replace muscle activity. As such, they are unlikely to cause muscle weakening. Most exoskeletons do not entirely take over the physical effort but instead reduce strain, allowing the worker to complete demanding tasks with less fatigue. The worker is still engaging their muscles, just with less exertion, which minimizes the risk of atrophy.

In terms of promoting awkward postures, an example would be the exoskeleton making stooping easier than squatting and hence encouraging poor posture over time. This again highlights the importance of proper training and monitoring as part of the adoption. This is also true for concerns around introducing new safety hazards, such as increased risk of entanglement in machinery or reduced mobility in emergency situations. Going through a comprehensive adoption process and involving the right parties including safety and ergonomics experts ensures all these concerns are taken into account before rolling out the technology. Regular assessments and adjustments based on user feedback are essential to identifying and addressing any negative impacts early on.

Closing Thoughts 

Exoskeletons offer significant potential to improve safety, reduce injuries, and boost productivity in construction and heavy industries. However, the challenges around their adoption must be addressed thoughtfully. By taking a structured and informed approach to implementation, the industry can better overcome these challenges and fully realize the benefits of this promising technology. Also, openness to experimenting with the technology, alongside shared success stories, can help shift attitudes and pave the way for broader adoption. With the right strategies in place, the construction industry can fully realize the benefits of exoskeletons, making workplaces safer and more efficient while reducing the physical strain on workers.