Over five years, the purchase price of an inspection robot rarely accounts for more than half of the total costs. On the benefit side, savings in staff alone rarely make the calculation work – more reliable are journeys no longer needed, two-person deployments avoided and damage detected earlier. Which procurement model fits is decided less by price than by the question of who should bear the risk of downtime and loss of value.
The cost side
One-off costs
| Item | Note |
|---|---|
| Robot platform | often overestimated as a share of the total |
| Sensor payload | comparably high, depending on equipment |
| Charging station | |
| Structural preparation | foundation, power connection, roofing if needed |
| Network connection | access points along the route |
| Initial setup, teaching the routes | several days for larger plants |
| Training | consider operation and setup separately |
| Freight, customs, import VAT | for direct imports |
| Conformity effort | for direct imports from third countries |
Table scrolls sideways.
The last two items do not apply when buying from a supplier that has already taken on the role of importer. For direct imports they are a considerable and frequently overlooked block. More in CE conformity in inspection robotics – a guide for operators and importers.
Ongoing costs
| Item | Note |
|---|---|
| Maintenance and service contract | with a defined response time |
| Software licences, cloud services | often per device and year |
| Spare batteries | limited number of cycles, plannable replacement |
| Wear parts | foot pads, joint components |
| Insurance | separate cover often required |
| Staff effort | supervision, evaluation, upkeep of the routes |
| Energy | negligible |
Table scrolls sideways.
The item most often forgotten is the staff effort for upkeep. Structural changes, new inspection points, adjusted routes – these do not take care of themselves. Plan for regular effort, not for a one-off setup.
Risk items
Three items cannot be entered as fixed costs, but belong in the assessment.
Downtime. How long is the system out of action when a defect occurs? If spare parts come from a third country and there is no concept for keeping parts in stock, several weeks are realistic. Without a replacement device, the entire benefit is lost during this time – and manual inspection has to be organised in addition.
Spare parts availability. With a service life of five years and product generations that change every two to three years, a written commitment makes sense.
End of software support. A device without security updates cannot be operated permanently in a critical infrastructure network.
The benefit side
This is where cost-effectiveness calculations most often overreach. A sound calculation separates three categories.
Readily quantifiable
- Journeys no longer needed to unmanned sites: travel time, kilometres, working time. The most reliable item of all.
- Two-person deployments avoided where lone working is not permitted.
- Hours freed up from recurring inspection rounds.
- Additional inspections without additional staff – here the benefit lies not in savings but in a higher inspection density.
Real, but only estimable as a range
- Damage detected earlier. An overheating bearing discovered in time prevents a plant shutdown. The frequency can be estimated from your own fault history, not calculated.
- Reduced exposure to hazards. Hard to express in euros, but often the strongest argument internally.
- Quality of documentation. Complete, comparable series of measurements help with audits, providing evidence and insurance claims.
Not seriously quantifiable
Blanket increases in availability, general “digitalisation benefits”, gains in image. These items belong in the justification, not in the calculation.
How a sound calculation is structured
Calculate with ranges, not point values. A conservative and an optimistic assumption, with the expected case in between.
Separate certain from uncertain items. If the calculation already works with the readily quantifiable items, it is sound. If it only works with the estimated ones, that should be stated.
Carry out a sensitivity analysis for the one variable on which everything depends – usually the number of shutdowns avoided. What does the calculation look like if this value is halved?
Calculate over the realistic service life, not over the depreciation period.
A calculation that states its uncertainties is more convincing to approval committees than one that appears to add up exactly.
The procurement models
Purchase
You acquire ownership, capitalise the asset and depreciate it.
- Liquidity: fully tied up at the time of procurement
- Risk: loss of value, downtime and obsolescence lie with you
- Flexibility: free to use, modify and resell
Fits a long planned period of use, stable requirements and an available investment budget.
Leasing
You pay for use over a fixed term.
- Liquidity: preserved, predictable monthly charge
- Risk: partly with the lessor, depending on the contract terms
- Balance sheet: the allocation depends on the specific terms – in particular on the ratio of the basic lease term to the normal useful life and on agreed options. International accounting standards apply different rules from commercial law.
- VAT: charged on the individual instalments
Fits when liquidity matters more than ownership and the period of use is foreseeable.
Hire purchase
You rent with an agreed transfer of ownership at the end.
- Liquidity: monthly instalment, but for VAT purposes the VAT usually falls due in full at the start – a considerable liquidity effect that is often overlooked
- Balance sheet: allocated as a rule to the purchaser
- Risk: as with purchase
Fits when ownership is wanted but the budget is to be spread over several years.
Robot-as-a-Service
You pay for a service, not for a device – often linked to availability or to the inspection rounds carried out.
- Liquidity: purely ongoing expense, no investment
- Risk: maintenance, downtime and obsolescence lie with the provider
- Flexibility: shorter commitment, scaling possible
- Price: usually the most expensive route over the term – you are paying for the transfer of risk
Fits for getting started, for time-limited projects and where internal capacity for supervision is lacking.
Allocation of risk at a glance
| Purchase | Leasing | Hire purchase | Robot-as-a-Service | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of value | you | shared | you | provider |
| Downtime | you | you | you | provider |
| Maintenance | you | you | you | provider |
| Obsolescence | you | shared | you | provider |
| Liquidity tied up | high | low | medium | low |
Table scrolls sideways.
Residual value and service life
A point that becomes decisive with long terms.
Mobile robotics is developing fast. A device that is state of the art today will, in five years, compete with successor models that perform considerably better. At the same time the batteries age, and whether the manufacturer is still maintaining the firmware is an open question after five years.
The economic residual value after five years is therefore hard to forecast and tends to be low.
This leads to a practical rule: the longer the commitment, the more it matters who bears the residual value. With a 60-month commitment and transfer of ownership, you bear a risk that can hardly be calculated. Shorter terms, or models in which the provider takes on the risk, are often the more sensible choice in this field – even if they appear more expensive in nominal terms.
What belongs in the contract
Regardless of the procurement model:
- Response time after a fault report and on-site time, each with a consequence if exceeded
- Replacement device – from what length of downtime, within what time
- Spare parts availability: guaranteed period, also after the model has gone out of production
- Software support: duration, scope, security updates
- Price adjustment: whether and within what limits service prices may rise
- Data access: who owns the data collected, and what happens to it when the contract ends
- Exit: what happens if the product is discontinued or the provider becomes insolvent
The point on data access is easily overlooked in Robot-as-a-Service models and is most important there.
Requirements specification and tender
A useful requirements specification describes requirements, not products. Describing a particular model excludes alternatives and weakens your negotiating position.
A sensible structure:
- Use case and inspection scope – which inspection round, which measuring points
- Ambient conditions – temperature, ingress protection, ground, zones
- Functional requirements – degree of autonomy, range, payload
- Sensors – derived from the inspection scope
- Interfaces and data formats – connection to existing systems
- Conformity and evidence – explicitly as an exclusion criterion
- Data protection – data flows, operation without an external connection
- Service – response times, spare parts, training
- Evidence to be included in the offer – declaration of conformity, references
Point 6 belongs among the exclusion criteria, not the evaluation criteria. A device that may not lawfully be placed on the EU market is not an admissible offer, whatever its price.
Funding
Investments in occupational safety and health and in digitalisation are in principle eligible for funding – through programmes of the federal government, the federal states, the Berufsgenossenschaften (German statutory accident insurance institutions) and the EU. Which programmes fit in an individual case changes constantly and depends on company size, industry and project.
One point applies in practice almost always: funding applications usually have to be submitted before the project starts. Anyone who orders first and then looks for funding has usually lost the entitlement. Clarify this question before you sign a contract.
Common mistakes in the calculation
Counting only the device price. Sensors, charging infrastructure, structural preparation and setup add up considerably.
Staff savings as the main benefit. Usually does not make the calculation work and also creates resistance among the workforce. More in Acceptance in robot deployment – taking concerns seriously, avoiding resistance.
Not valuing downtime. A system without a replacement concept delivers zero benefit during the repair period while costs continue.
Overlooking battery life. Spare batteries are plannable and not cheap.
Underestimating the effort for upkeep. Routes and inspection points need ongoing supervision.
Calculating over the depreciation period instead of the real service life.
Long commitment without considering residual value. The price advantage of a 60-month term can be eaten up by the residual value risk.
Structure of a requirements specification
- Use case and inspection scope described, not the desired product
- Ambient conditions complete: temperature, ingress protection, ground, zones
- Functional requirements instead of model names
- Sensors derived from the inspection scope
- Interfaces and data formats named
- Evidence of conformity formulated as an exclusion criterion
- Requirements for data flows and operation without an external connection
- Response times, spare parts commitment, scope of training
- Evidence to be submitted with the offer listed
This checklist will be offered as a download once the template exists.
Sources
- Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance and compliance of products European Union accessed 15 August 2026
- Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass Bundesministerium der Finanzen accessed 15 August 2026
Change log (1)
- 5 October 2026 Initial publication First publication of the English version.