Interoperability - the ability to work together with other systems or pieces of equipment - is only achievable if everyone works to the same standards. But how do we decide those standards?

Article featured in the latest issue of the AMRC Journal.

Sharan Kaur, cognitive robotics and automation lead at AMRC Cymru, is at the forefront of that very challenge as the new chairperson for the British Standards Institution (BSI) immersive technologies committee, where she represents the UK’s contributions at an international level.

Advanced manufacturing is about innovation; novel ideas, research and new concept technologies that haven’t been tried and tested yet. But there has to be a balance. The International Organisation for Standardisation’s ISO standards set out rules and guidelines to be used when developing new technologies and processes. They allow industry to follow the same approach, saving time by working collaboratively, and making technologies work together.

There’s a danger in holding back our own advancement if everyone works individually; we’d be repeating the same work. That’s why standardisation, and international committees like the BSI, are particularly important for the advancement of immersive technologies. Getting diverse views from across academia, industry and technology providers, internationally, gives us the space and time to focus on the future.

There is, of course, always more than one way of doing something. But by defining a standard or standardised approach, we’re allowing interoperability, where systems or equipment are able to work together, and giving people back the time to focus on the innovation, rather than repeating work that has already been done - and done well. Interoperability makes innovation a more streamlined process.

For metaverses, a shared virtual world in which users can interact, interoperability is a big issue; they’re only useful if everyone gets these technologies working in the same way. Post-covid, with the rise of hybrid working and international collaborations, virtual reality (VR) is moving away from being a gimmick as it has become more accessible, with improved technology and lower costs. As more people are able to use these systems, and a mix of systems, interoperability is non-negotiable. Standardisation here means your representation can work across multiple formats and systems, whether on screen or through earphones, a desktop monitor or a VR headset.

Bridging the gap between research and standardisation

There are lots of immersive technologies, like metaverses, that have a huge amount of applications - teleoperations, telepresence, virtual reactions. This is where my PhD research leans into my new chairperson role. Part of my research is around digitalising human states, and representing humans digitally, both physically and cognitively. It’s historically been difficult to have a representation that is true; typically based purely on height and not considering mobility and individuality of people.

We need to move away from the one-size-fits-all approach, into customised digitalisation, to make these virtual environments more effective, immersive and comfortable. This customisation creates a much more accessible system. If you’re represented better, particularly during, for example, joint tasks across the world, your performance would be more seamless.

There’s a lot of really good work happening in interoperability, its technical aspects and its integration - the human representation and accessibility is a newer side that I’m really passionate about. Because technology should be inclusive. Anyone should be able to go up to a system and be able to use it, or have a way to adapt it for their use. The AMRC is doing powerful virtual reality work, showing that the world can adapt to individuals; why not have standard accessibility requirements?

Making systems interoperable, and making interoperable systems accessible

We have to have responsibility in what we do. When people introduce a robot to help with repetitive strain, they’re alleviating the physical burden, but potentially adding to the mental burden - removing physical tasks might change someone’s job entirely, and instead introduce cognitive overload. Similarly, if we’re automating a task, and introducing more mental tasks in its place, are we creating too much of a cognitive load?

It’s difficult to include things like cognitive load when you’re looking at metrics to measure someone’s performance, but my research at the AMRC has been looking at digitalising human states, including the mental aspect as much as the physical when representing people as part of a system. Cognitive load is less straightforward to measure, and also depends on individual preferences and ways of working; it’s simpler to capture machine performance data.

With innovation like immersive technologies, we can build accessibly and inclusively from the very beginning. A lot of work in ergonomics has been done around height and body proportions, but ignoring mobility, so the work I’m doing includes mobility using motion capture. If everyone used an accessible approach in their virtual environments, virtual worlds - which we have full control over - would be adapted to mobility.

In my biometrics work, it’s important to understand what type of sensors will work for which type of person. Someone who is neurodivergent might not express facial expressions in the same way as others, so whilst facial expression analysis is useful, more is needed. A heart rate measurement to monitor stress might show similar rate variability with excitement. Using analyses in conjunction with one another provides more context; combining them helps you understand.

This is why I’m also looking at machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) modelling for individual profiles. This method means people don’t have to wear sensors all the time, but can go through a model so that a machine, robot, or any digital interface can understand how the individual works. With a digital representation of a person, we can instead get the machine to predict outcomes. It’s an involved process to consider an individual, see what task they’re doing, identify the right sensors - with the power of machine learning and modelling, we only have to go through that process when renewing or updating the model.

It’s beginning a lean towards improving social sustainability, which is often overlooked in comparison to environmental sustainability. Individualised support is the approach that’s needed, and what we should care about, especially when considering matters of safety. Risk assessments, for example with robotics, look at general guidelines of height, but someone else’s chest height could be another’s head height.

The cost of individualisation is complex, because it can have long term benefits. On a national level, there are a lot of preventable workplace injuries, both physical and mental, which add a financial burden. At a business level, legal claims for preventable injuries could be reduced by individualisation; if physical and mental health are more considered, there can be an increase in comfort, productivity and efficiency. Challenges also come with healthy ageing. Whilst there are a number of government initiatives supporting healthy ageing, the majority combat issues when they have already occurred, but prevention is always the best way. 

Keeping staff happy and healthy at work can improve staff retention and quality. It’s not generating more money in the short term, but it prevents the hidden costs associated; training new staff, exit interviews, recruitment. We can look at the root of a problem being a human-centred issue - if a process is being automated because a company is finding it difficult to maintain skills, why are they finding it difficult? If it’s difficult because of staff retention issues then that is the part to fix; the question isn’t ‘how do we make this faster’, it’s ‘why do we need to make it faster?’

Working at the AMRC, I have an interdisciplinary mindset because we have the advantage of working across a number of different sectors, and can see translatable learnings. If you’re developing a technology, and only looking at your applications or what you’re familiar with, you could be closing doors in the future. That’s where it’s incredibly beneficial to be part of committees. Where we have new emerging technologies, we can see what people are thinking about in the next ten to 20 years, and the standards change with them; they’re constantly reviewed and updated.

What makes the AMRC really powerful is its existence in the space between academia and industry. In my chairperson role, I need to balance these views, and I already have an appreciation of both sides; we want things to be open enough to innovate, but closed enough to remain robust and usable. That balance will be one of the biggest challenges in immersive technologies; freedom within structure and accessible boundaries.

The future of immersive technologies is ready to be shaped by us; through standards, through accessibility. The best way to play your part in that future is to get involved. Apply to be a committee member, feedback on any documents and publications the committees release, and help build a future that’s accessible to all.