ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION | SITE SECURITY
Drones are one of the most useful security tools for rapid deployment, particularly in challenging environments or large open spaces. Source: Shutterstock
issues in advance. They provide a continuous stream of
information on: ● Condition: Vibrations, temperature, and other indicators of normal function, such as acoustics. Subtle deviations that could indicate impending failure trigger alerts, enabling maintenance staff to intervene based on real- time health rather than a fixed schedule.
● Past breakage: By comparing historical data with present readings, sensors can alert operators to patterns that typically indicate faults.
● Environmental conditions: Humidity, air quality, dust, and gases can affect machinery and adversely affect human staff. Sensors track these changes and alert relevant staff when levels spike outside of safe ranges.
● Usage: Not all machines are used as much as initially expected. Some components may be under greater strain with more frequent run cycles, and IoT sensors are used to inform maintenance efforts.
Relevant readings reduce the need for manual inspection, enabling maintenance teams to determine at a glance whether a machine is operating as expected. These notes are automatically logged to support the creation of more comprehensive and detailed reports, which are helpful for incident investigation and insurance claims. Central to the appeal and utility of IoT sensors in
automation is, ironically, their lack of autonomy. No decisions are made by sensors that are not explicitly specified by the operators who calibrate them. They filter, based on real-time information and past records, low-priority fluctuations that are ultimately irrelevant to standard operation. The evolution of predictive maintenance is unsurprising to industry insiders. A 2013 paper, ‘Recent advances and trends in predictive manufacturing systems in big data environment’ by Jay Lee et al, noted that most manufacturing strategies assume that every facet of production is optimal, which was not the case then, nor is it the case now. However, continuous monitoring enabled by IoT devices helps bridge the gap between expectations and reality, facilitating planning and adaptation based on reliable evidence.
Trust and transparency Even if, hypothetically, automation performs as well as or even better than a human, security and maintenance directly affect physical safety and any error can have severe consequences. Systems that do not communicate their processes degrade human decision-making, so understanding why a robot or sensor has flagged a particular variable or suggested a course of action is vital
24 | March 2026 |
www.neimagazine.com
for both compliance and the continued productivity and effectiveness of the teams that use them. When staff do not trust the automated suggestions, they may ignore valid alerts, and if they’re overly reliant on them, they will waste time investigating false alarms. Trust and transparency are a balancing act and have only become more relevant since the proliferation of AI, which is embedded in robotics and automation. Frameworks from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the European Commission highlight the need for human oversight to ensure accountability and the opportunity to intervene. They also suggest that systems should be explainable to the operators who use them, not only to the engineers who develop them, and that rigorous stress testing is required to determine the limits of sensors under non-ideal conditions. Automation, in particular, is valued for the scaling it enables, and when these considerations are not baked into a site’s growth strategy, any progress is built on shaky foundations. Untrained and reliant staff train new members, who in turn become even more dependent on systems they don’t understand, and the risks associated with the technology compound as it assumes greater responsibilities. A well-trained, tech-literate team understands:
● Where and how systems store logs throughout their lifecycle
● How the system behaves ● What limitations they need to keep in mind ● How to override automated decisions
This, along with clear and robust outlines of who is
responsible for outcomes and the chain of command in the event of an emergency, best equips organisations to mitigate the human impact of automation on teams. Robotics operate in a similar ethical space, with the added limitation of a physical presence. Reports and academic papers on mechanical workers emphasise the importance of worker acceptance. In order for robots to deliver the benefits listed, human teams must view them as collaborators rather than competitors. Standard security and maintenance applications of these machines challenge this perception, as robots that perform repetitive or hazardous tasks are typically welcomed. Robotics must be implemented with the same care as automation. Hands-on training and refresher sessions, as the technology evolves, keep workers aligned with their robotic counterparts and clarify who bears responsibility for operations in the event of an error.
The new normal across industries The days of speculation on robotic workers and predictive systems are behind us, though we’re evidently not past the learning curve yet. They have proven capable of performing; that much is clear, but exactly how they fit into existing nuclear industry workflows and how they can be meaningfully leveraged without adversely affecting human teams still requires fine-tuning. Robots that handle hazardous or menial tasks are widely
supported, and IoT sensors reduce much of the routine work that maintenance teams face, but these technologies are only the beginning. As more tasks become the responsibility of machines and automated processes, little of the general discussion will concern their effectiveness. In security and maintenance, however, where a high barrier to entry should be assumed, this will remain a primary area of focus, alongside their fair and transparent implementation. ■
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
