A comprehensive national survey of experts within the China robot technology and industry field has provided a detailed snapshot of the current landscape, highlighting significant technological gaps, identifying key bottlenecks, and offering a wealth of strategic recommendations for future development. The survey, designed as part of the Liaoning Province Soft Science Plan Project “Research on the Development Roadmap for Intelligent Robot Technology,” was conducted by the Shenyang Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Northeastern University.
A total of 123 questionnaires were distributed nationwide, with 105 returned and 100 deemed valid. The respondents, comprising leading experts in the field, ensure the survey’s findings are representative and authoritative for the China robot sector. The questionnaire primarily focused on technical issues such as human-robot interaction and multi-robot coordination, with secondary attention on industrialization challenges.
1. Core Technical Indicators and Development Bottlenecks for China Robot
The survey first sought to define the core technological metrics for intelligent robots. Respondents were asked to select the most critical technical aspects from a list. The most concentrated consensus identified four paramount technologies, each selected by over 67% of experts:
- Intelligence and Autonomy
- Environmental Perception and Path Planning
- Navigation, Positioning, and Control
- Human-Robot Interaction and Multi-Robot Coordination & Cooperation
When asked about the primary technical bottlenecks hindering China robot development, these same areas emerged as critical challenges, underscoring widespread technological hurdles. A staggering 78.3% of respondents identified Intelligence and Autonomy as the main bottleneck. Furthermore, over half of the experts also pinpointed Environmental Perception and Path Planning (66.7%), Drive and Smart Materials Technology (59.2%), and Human-Robot Interaction Technology (57.5%) as major obstacles. This indicates that the technological challenges facing the China robot industry are pervasive, extending even to foundational areas like materials and drives.
2. Classification and Current Developmental Stages of China Robot Systems
The survey explored how experts categorize intelligent robot systems. Among four proposed classifications, the method dividing robots into Industrial, Service, and Special-purpose types garnered the highest acceptance at 54.2%. This is the most prevalent classification method within the China robot field. A second classification, which includes categories like Machine Worker Robots and Assistant Robots, also received considerable recognition at 26.7%.
Assessing the current stage of development for different types of China robot, the survey revealed a varied landscape based on the most-accepted classification:
- Industrial Robots: Seen as having reached the industrialization stage (48.1%), with others at pilot-scale (37.0%) or laboratory (14.8%) levels.
- Service Robots: Predominantly viewed as still in the laboratory stage (59.3%), with 29.6% at pilot-scale and only 11.1% at industrialization.
- Special-purpose Robots: Considered mainly at the pilot-scale stage (44.4%), followed by laboratory (40.7%) and industrialization (14.8%) stages.
Analysis of the alternative classification showed similar trends, with Manufacturing Robots largely seen as industrialized, while Medical Rehabilitation, Space, and Defense Robots were predominantly viewed as in the laboratory phase. This data provides crucial reference points for formulating development roadmaps for the China robot sector.
3. International Comparison and Perceived Gaps for China Robot
The survey clearly identified Japan (86.7%), the United States (78.3%), and Germany (72.5%) as the three leading nations in intelligent robot technology, followed by South Korea (47.5%). The perceived gap between China robot technology and the international leading level is substantial. A combined 95% of respondents believe the gap is either “relatively large” (65.8%) or “very large” (29.2%).
Similarly, 92.5% of experts assess the China robot industry’s gap with foreign counterparts as “relatively large” (69.2%) or “very large” (23.3%). The primary reasons cited for the industrial gap are the low level of core technology (85.8%), lack of unified top-level design and planning (66.7%), and a severe shortage of talent reserves within related enterprises (51.7%).
However, a cautiously optimistic note emerged: 55.8% of respondents believe the technology gap has been narrowing over the past five years, though 29.2% felt it was widening. Experts attributed the technological gap primarily to systemic factors: institutions, policies, and environment (78.3%), followed by talent and teams (68.3%), and issues with research funding and infrastructure (48.3% and 46.7%, respectively).
4. The Position of Liaoning in China Robot Development
The survey included specific questions on Liaoning Province, a traditional hub for industrial robotics in China. The results affirm its strong standing. A combined 87.5% of national experts believe Liaoning’s robot research level is at either an “advanced” (67.5%) or “leading” (20.0%) position domestically. Furthermore, 86.7% assess Liaoning’s intelligent robot industrialization level as “advanced” (70.8%) or “leading” (15.9%) within China. This indicates that Liaoning maintains a significant advantage in both research and industrial application within the broader China robot ecosystem.
5. Expert Opinions and Strategic Recommendations for China Robot
An open-ended question soliciting additional suggestions yielded extensive feedback from 68 experts. Their recommendations, totaling nearly ten thousand words, have been synthesized into several key strategic areas essential for the future of China robot development.
5.1 Policy and Strategic Planning
Experts overwhelmingly stressed the necessity for robust, long-term national strategy. Recommendations include creating a dedicated 20-30 year development plan to ensure policy continuity and avoid missteps seen in other industries. There is a strong call for top-level design and coordinated planning to overcome fragmented, repetitive, and closed-off research efforts. The goal should be to foster indigenous innovation in theories, technologies, and products to prevent foreign dominance of the massive domestic China robot market, as witnessed in the automotive sector. The development of industry standards for various robot types was also highlighted as crucial.
5.2 Research Funding and Development Mechanisms
Concerns were raised about current funding models and institutional barriers. Suggestions include increasing and sustaining investment in robot research. There is a notable proposal to shift towards a post-result funding model for key generic technologies: setting clear targets, allowing open competition, publicly demonstrating results, and rewarding the most successful outcomes to ensure fairness and efficiency. Experts also advised strengthening funding supervision to guarantee resources are directed into actual research and production.
A critical institutional issue was identified: a disconnect between research institutes that hold core technologies and enterprises that lack innovation capacity and are reluctant to invest in them. This hampers the commercialization of knowledge and impedes technological advancement. Experts urge systemic reforms to bridge this gap, facilitating efficient knowledge transfer and application in the commercial sphere to propel the entire China robot industry forward.
5.3 Development Models and Technical Pathways
Experts proposed hybrid development models tailored for China robot. One suggestion combines the “Korean model” of initially focusing on procurement, system integration, and market capture in specific sectors with the “Japanese model” of later promoting industry-academia-research collaboration to break through core components. The ultimate aim is to build a complete industrial chain encompassing robots, key parts, and system integration.
The paramount technical priority is achieving breakthroughs in core components, specifically controllers, drive servo systems, and reducers. Without domesticating these, higher-level technologies like environmental perception and intelligence will remain constrained. Development should proceed along two tracks: pioneering theoretical research and promoting widespread application in sectors like agriculture to generate broad social and economic benefits. The guiding principle should be using “batch application” to drive technological progress, with realistic timelines rather than unrealistic “overtaking” goals.
5.4 Project Organization and Talent Cultivation
To improve research quality, experts recommend establishing long-term, stable funding for evaluated and classified research teams based on their direction and performance, discouraging short-term, direction-hopping projects. Introducing competitive mechanisms in major projects, maintaining multiple independent teams until final stages, can prevent monopoly and foster innovation.
For talent, a multi-layered approach is advised: popularizing robot knowledge from primary school to cultivate interest and hands-on skills; enhancing exchanges with and recruitment of international talent and core technologies; and raising public awareness through science outreach. Establishing awards for young scientists and innovators was also suggested to encourage early-career researchers in the China robot field.
5.5 Discipline and Professional Development
Some experts called for standardizing the robotics discipline within the China robot education system. Currently, robotics programs are often arbitrarily placed within mechanical or automation engineering departments, whereas internationally they are frequently aligned with computer science. There is a need to clearly define the boundaries between general robotics and intelligent robotics at a higher academic level to ensure proper foundational education for future innovators.
Conclusion
The survey yields several definitive conclusions about the state of China robot technology and industry. It has crystallized the core technical indicators and widespread bottleneck challenges. It has clarified the developmental stages of different robot categories, providing a baseline for roadmap planning. It quantifies the significant—though slowly narrowing—gap with leading nations, attributing it to systemic, talent, and core technological factors. Finally, it confirms the leading domestic role of regions like Liaoning while compiling a comprehensive set of expert-driven recommendations covering policy, funding, models, technology, and talent. These insights offer invaluable guidance for policymakers and industry leaders steering the future trajectory of China robot development.