Preparing the published article.
How to Define Acceptance Metrics for a Robotics Pilot
Build a robotics pilot scorecard around accepted output, quality, human attention and recovery. Define the test conditions, evidence and decision rules before equipment arrives.
Begin with the decision the pilot must support
A robotics pilot should end with a decision supported by agreed evidence: accept the defined application, extend a specific test, change the scope or stop. Write that decision and its criteria before the equipment arrives. Otherwise, a team can collect impressive footage while leaving the purchasing question unanswered.
NIST's performance-assessment work organizes robotic capability around tasks and components such as perception, mobility and dexterity. That provides useful measurement context; the practical scorecard below is editorial guidance for a buyer, not a NIST certification scheme. NIST performance-assessment framework.
Define the task, boundaries and baseline
Describe one unit of useful work and its completion condition. For a transfer task, that might be a correctly identified container accepted at the destination. For inspection, it could be a usable observation attached to the correct asset. Name the starting condition, allowed objects, route, operating period and exclusions.
Measure the existing process under comparable conditions. Record quality, waiting and staff effort as well as elapsed time. Keep the baseline assumptions visible so that a quiet pilot shift is not compared with the busiest manual shift.
Use a small set of measurable outcomes
Accepted output: useful units completed within the agreed observation period.
Completion rate: accepted tasks divided by all eligible tasks attempted.
Human attention: interventions and total assistance minutes, with reasons.
Recovery: elapsed time from interruption to an approved return to operation.
Quality: rejected work, missed conditions or rework, using application-specific definitions.
Specify the denominator for every rate. Decide in advance how aborted missions, repeated attempts and excluded conditions are counted. Retain both total attempts and first-attempt results; they answer different operational questions.
Test variation and keep the evidence
NIST's robot-agility project explicitly examines unexpected events, failures and variation in parts or environments. A procurement trial can apply that general idea through controlled variations relevant to the site. NIST robot-agility research.
Agree which variations the supplier expects the system to handle, then schedule them across repeated runs. Keep timestamps, software version, configuration and intervention notes with the results. Report the number of observations and their distribution; an average without its sample size or slowest cases can hide operational problems.
Evaluate the operator and recovery process
NIST's response-robot program includes operator proficiency alongside robot capability. Its emergency-response scope is distinct from a factory pilot, but it illustrates why the person-machine combination matters. NIST response-robot test program.
Have intended users perform routine tasks after the agreed training. Record whether they can identify an interruption, reach the support route and carry out the approved recovery procedure. Keep safety approval as a separate required gate: good throughput does not compensate for an unresolved unsafe condition.
Make acceptance and retesting explicit
Give each criterion a threshold, evidence owner and decision-maker. Distinguish mandatory gates from improvement targets. Define a limited retest for a specific correction, and record the changed version so later results are not mixed with the original configuration.
The final report should state what passed, what failed and where the conclusion applies. Use Write a Robotics Buyer Brief to frame the application, explore Robotics Knowledge, or continue to Robotics RFQ.