Why it matters
After commissioning, the integrator leaves and the system belongs to the operation. Someone has to run it, maintain it, answer alarms, manage the vendor, and decide what changes.
Those responsibilities exist whether or not they are assigned. Unassigned, they fall to whoever is nearest.
What can go wrong
- No named owner exists for the system, so issues move between operations, maintenance, and IT.
- Technicians are trained once at go-live, and the knowledge leaves with turnover.
- Preventive maintenance and spare parts are not planned, and availability declines over the first year.
- The vendor support agreement does not match operating hours.
- Staff were not involved in the change and work around the system.
- Layout or process changes are made after deployment without revisiting the safety risk assessment.
What evidence to examine
| Evidence | What it can establish |
|---|---|
| Responsibility matrix for the automated system | Whether ownership is assigned and understood |
| Staffing plan and skills inventory | Whether the roles needed exist, by shift |
| Training plan and training records | Whether competence is built and sustained |
| Maintenance plan, schedule, and spares list | Whether availability is being managed |
| Vendor support agreement and service levels | Response commitments compared with operating hours |
| Change management and communication plan | Whether affected staff are prepared |
| Escalation path with named contacts | Who acts when the system stops |
| Safety risk assessment and its review process | Whether user-side safety responsibilities are maintained |
Warning signs
- The project team is expected to disband at go-live.
- Training is a single line in the vendor proposal.
- The second and third shifts have no trained responder.
- Nobody is assigned to review safety documentation when the layout changes.
What to do next
- Name the system owner, and the owner’s backup, before vendor selection.
- Define roles by shift for operation, first response, and maintenance.
- Match the support agreement to operating hours and agree the escalation path.
User responsibilities are now addressed directly in mobile robot safety standards. ANSI’s overview of R15.08 Part 3, published in 2026, describes users conducting and documenting a risk assessment and maintaining its risk reduction measures, including after changes to the robot, application, or environment.