A | By Anna Dalla Valle (CNS)-- Forward-looking mindset: whole-system and life cycle thinking My work is centred on the environmental sustainability of buildings over the entire life cycle and beyond in view of the circular economy: from design and construction to use and reuse, up to final disposal or, preferably, recovery for a second life. Here, the paradigm shift is twofold, because a whole-system thinking is needed not only to consider the entire life cycle, but also to envision what happens next. The ultimate goal is to minimize environmental impacts and to drive both sustainability and innovation. To be more explicit, the first shift involves keeping in mind the entire life cycle – from the early design stages – moving beyond the traditional focus on construction and energy efficiency during use. It is to select building products looking back to the supply chain, such as recycled content, locally sourced and bio-based solutions, while also looking ahead to performance decay, maintenance needs and the potential for extending service life. Moreover, the second shift press to move beyond the linear building process – as traditionally practiced – in which we extract raw materials, we build, we use, and eventually we demolish. Indeed, this model has reached its limits, undermining planetary resources with adverse environmental and social effects. Interconnected choices: designing decisions that create shared value A life cycle perspective matched with circularity inevitably challenges this linearity, wondering from the very beginning about what happens when assets become obsolete and fall into disuse, to design buildings as part of a continuous loop of resources. Accordingly, design, construction, daily use (energy and water consumption), maintenance, replacement and end-of-life turn out to be regarded not as isolated steps but interconnected with each other. In fact, at each stage, choices can either preserve or destroy value. For example, if construction solutions are carefully selected, they can be reused in the future, either in their entirety, as whole products, or through disassembly into components, or even by separating materials. In this way, they may maintain the same function (e.g. a window reused as it is) or serve different purposes (e.g. glass cullet used as input for glass wool insulation). If technological systems are designed flexibly, buildings can reach different business segments and host concurrently different activities, resulting easily adaptable from housing to office and vice versa, instead of being demolished. If building processes integrate digital tools, data can guide smarter decisions over decades, provided that data infrastructure is ensured, followed by constant monitoring and analysis of the collected data and the update and dissemination of results across industry and practitioners as well as policymakers. Thinking this way means making choices future-oriented, ready to embrace innovation while respecting planetary boundaries, namely limiting the environmental impact at every stage and in every region – to avoid burden shifting – not just at the beginning but along the whole (first-second) life cycle. Certainly, a demanding but exciting challenge: one I am proud to take on and in my little to contribute to. Beyond appearances: close-up process for understanding what lies behind In daily life, we often say to "look beyond appearances". Usually, this expression pertains to people, to underline the risk of avoiding judging someone solely by what can be seen. Now the interesting thing is that the same advice can be applied to architecture, obviously without undermining the importance of aesthetic beauty, at the core also of the New European Bauhaus initiative together with sustainability and inclusion. Nonetheless, as an architect expert in sustainable technology, I have learned to extend it to the built environment, by seeing buildings not merely as visible structures (walls, roofs, windows), but as living parts of a larger and complex system. In this sense, architecture can be compared to a plant. Plants are anchored in the soil by roots; buildings are anchored in the ground by foundations. Plants capture sunlight, absorb water, accommodate small animals, and interact with other organisms; buildings consume energy, deplete water, host human life, and interact with their surroundings. Both are deeply connected to their ecosystem. However, to fully understand them, both must be looked beyond appearances, through a "close-up" process taken to the extreme. It is not simply a matter of focusing on details, as happens in photography and cinema fields; the intention is to delve deeper and deeper to the fuller extent: an in-depth analysis of whatever is behind, starting from the exterior to gradually shift to construction technologies, materials, up to their chemicals. The latter is, of course, not the responsibility of architects, but it lies at the heart of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), analyses that I usually perform during the decision-making at the different process stage to help building stakeholders minimize environmental impacts across the entire – potentially multiple – life cycle. For architectural technology, for example, it is a matter of addressing, alongside conventional requirements (e.g. performance, safety, usability, well-being), the specific requirements of environmental sustainability (e.g. the rational use and optimization of materials, energy, water), taking into account the technical feasibility and evaluating the entire life cycle. At the utmost, it is to look into everything that underlies the presence of that specific material in that exact spot, its behaviour and interrelationships when in service, and its post-use journey, setting up the necessary network to actually close the loop in practice. Material-immaterial synergy: the invisible foundations of sustainable architecture To embrace this vision, the idea of resources is to be extended compared to the ordinary sense. Certainly, buildings are made and calls for a set of tangible resources, such as money to be started, bricks, steel, or timber to be erected, tools and equipment to be managed including in the long-term. The issue that often runs out is that buildings rely heavily as well on intangible resources, namely knowledge, skills, processes, organisation, information flows and network. These two dimensions – tangible and intangible – are closely connected and interdependent on each other. Without appropriate eco-design knowledge, even the best materials are wasted; without materials, knowledge has no application. In such a mindset, architecture becomes a remarkable expression of the synergy between tangible resources and intangible resources: a space where East and West can successfully meet, building a bridge across cultures through openness and inclusiveness. Indeed, it is well recognized that different traditions bring different perspectives and, when combined, generate the best and more holistic solutions. The "living building" is both a technical and cultural artefact, an expression of human creativity that must not overstep the planetary boundary. Strategic imperative: cross-border and cross-disciplinary cooperation Evidence is found in international collaborations such as Joint Schools, where universities from different countries join forces to promote shared research and training. A concrete example of Sino-foreign cooperation is the XJTU-POLIMI Joint School, opened in Xi'an (China) in 2019 through a partnership between Politecnico di Milano and Xi'an Jiaotong University. As POLIMI's first campus outside Italy, it serves as an international platform dedicated to education and research as well as technology transfer and business incubation. This initiative, like others currently in place, aims to take the best of each part to foster shared growth and mutual learning. Italy brings its strong polytechnic culture, its multidisciplinary approach and focus on design quality, together with the European emphasis on social and environmental responsibility. China, in turn, is a leader in fast-evolving business, in the integration capacity of digital technologies and in large-scale engineering projects, pulled by top-down policies that allow fast implementation. In conjunction, these strengths can create fertile ground for innovation and speed up the transformation process within the Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sector, always been acknowledged as resistant to change, due to its intrinsic complexity and fragmented nature. Rethinking the built environment: buildings as resource-driven assets The effort is to move beyond the concept of buildings as "material banks" – namely repositories where resources are temporarily stored – to rethink them and push the vision further of buildings as "resource-driven assets". While the first construct is earmarked for physical goods, that proposed calls for careful consideration of both tangible/material/visible resources and intangible/immaterial/invisible resources, taking care that everything is optimised and nothing is wasted, to preserve their value over time. In practice, this means looking at what goes into buildings, such as materials, systems and the energy required to transform and assemble them, but also, for instance, the set of expertise, skills and specialization of practitioners involved during design. Similarly, starting from the outset, it means looking at what comes out throughout buildings life, like emissions, waste, and decommissioned materials, but also knowledge gained from monitoring and lessons learned from operations. To ignore either side of the equation (inputs-outputs) would be a missed opportunity. If we want buildings to truly act as resource-driven assets, we must synergise, map, understand, and manage the full spectrum of in- and out- flows, both tangible and intangible. On the tangible side, this requires a deep understanding of material, energy and water flows across the entire life cycle. Which resources are extracted, transported, and assembled? How much energy is consumed, and how is it sourced? How do materials degrade over time, and how can they be reused or recycled without losing quality? These questions are essential to reduce impacts and to design systems that are both efficient and resilient. On the intangible side, equally important are the flows of information and knowledge that connect all actors in the construction value chain. Long before a building is erected, crucial questions are: How is data exchanged among stakeholders? Is communication efficient enough to speed up the workflows? How can design capabilities evolve into maturity, meaning quality achieved through best practice? Then, as more buildings themselves add to this immaterial layer through sensors, smart meters, and digital platforms that produce valuable insights, another set of questions follows: How is this information managed, shared, and preserved? How to ensure that data supports predictive maintenance and reverse logistics? How to activate new business models based on sharing and collaboration? Just as materials should not be wasted, neither should information. Data and knowledge must be treated as resources that enrich our collective know-how, building an "infodump bank" that not only improves current performance but also informs future decisions, guides new designs and strengthens subsequent projects. The correlation between tangible and intangible resources is ever closer: managing them together ensures that nothing is wasted and that the embedded value is preserved across time. In that respect, "no waste of resources" also means "no waste of value", since every material, every bit of data, and every piece of knowledge carries potential that, if carefully handled, can extend usefulness, inspire innovation, and create lasting benefits well beyond the life of a single project. Global impact: construction sector as global lever for planetary sustainability Through joint research and cross-border exchange programmes, the construction sector proves to be an extraordinary testing ground and given its global impact in terms of emissions and resource consumption, it clearly stands as a priority for change. Furthermore, never forget that buildings are everywhere and shape our daily lives, leading mindful planning crucial not only for preserving the natural environment but also human well-being. In this framework, architects, engineers, designers, scientists and all necessary professionals can work side by side to explore new possibilities, even creating new synergies across key business sectors. Imagine if constructions integrate materials from unexpected sources such as fashion and/or food waste. Fast-fashion clothing and textile scraps, invasive plants and agricultural by-products, or even organic waste – which are currently a significant environmental burden with serious social effects – can be rethought as valuable inputs for new building solutions. In this way, the concept of waste disappears, as it serves as input resources from another industrial sector, consequently, contributing to lower material intensity (virgin material reduction), greater industrial symbiosis (new business opportunities), and implementing smarter ways to manage resources. At the same time, digital technologies and artificial intelligence can support this process, helping to track resources, optimise flows, and potentially update in real-time the expected environmental impacts in relation to what actually happens. The ambition is to create architecture that is resource efficient and socially valuable in the long term. Considering the key role of construction, even small changes, when scale up to thousands of buildings and millions of people, can make a big difference for the planet. At this point, the key role of China is beyond question. As the world's largest construction market and major exporter, its choices strongly affect global trends, making environmental awareness and transparency in its building sector essential. Indeed, in a globalised economy, what is produced in one region may be assembled in another, used in a third and so on throughout the different stages of the life cycle, spreading responsibilities across several borders. For this reason, it is imperative to turn LCA into a standard practice, but also to regionalise results, to identify where the greatest impacts occur over the building life cycle, including in geographical terms. Here, China inevitably results in a central hotspot to concentrate efforts: improving practices there could deliver benefits worldwide, setting the chance to become an outstanding reference and reducing burdens far beyond its borders, (hopefully) without exceeding the limits of the planet. Yet – be warned – the focus is not solely on new construction, where starting from scratch makes everything easier: the real challenge (and greatest opportunity) stands in the existing building stock, because of representing the largest reserve of resources we already have. These artefacts embody vast amounts of materials, energy, and human effort that should not be wasted leaving unfinished and/or uninhabited. Instead of discarding them, we must be proactive to renew the existing buildings, extending their service life while improving performance to meet ever-evolving needs. Call to action: building bridges within planetary boundaries It is time to join forces, to move from theory to practice, from words to action. To succeed, we need lots more than technology. We need dialogue between cultures; we need young and open minds, trained to think across disciplines and borders, ready to learn from diversity, capable of working together toward a unified vision, think globally while acting locally. Green architecture should not be perceived as a trend, but as a common responsibility of the present for the future. These are just the premises to the most open question ever: "What if we built bridges between East and West, without crossing the limits of our planet?" I therefore invite everyone to begin offering practical responses, reframing global challenges as shared opportunities for innovation. Profile: Anna Dalla Valle is an Assistant Professor and Researcher in the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (DABC) at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. She is an associate and active member of both the Italian LCA Network Association and the Italian Society of Architectural Technology. She represents Politecnico di Milano in the New European Bauhaus initiative and fully participates in various international organizations, including the LCA Working Group of the Italian Green Building Council, the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and the International Energy Agency’s working group on ' Ways to Implement Net-zero Whole Life Carbon Buildings'. 
。 今年WAIC，不少企业的展台都展示了机器人“能干嘛”，想给自家“娃”找个班上。
机器人大讲堂注意到，节卡给出的答案有些不同：别急着给人形机器人找一个标准答案，先按工作分分“人”。
双臂能扛50公斤重活的JAKA K1-25，像工厂里的“重装工”；能移动、装配、锁螺丝的JAKA Kargo，是穿梭于产线之间的“产业工人”；1.22米高的π仔，则更像一个面向开发者、高校和商业场景的“实习生”。
B | 更重要的是，其中一些机器人已经不只是站在展台上等待被围观，而是在华域等全球头部工业企业的产线上被真正“排进班表”。
C | 这或许代表着人形机器人产业正在发生的一次变化。 过去两年，行业最热衷讨论的是一个终极问题：怎样造出一个像人一样、什么都会干的通用机器人？但当机器人真正准备进入工厂，问题迅速变得具体：你能搬多重？能不能连续工作？换一种零件还能不能干？部署需要多久？ROI是多少？ AGI是终点，但工程化不会从终点开始。因为在真正的通用机器人出现之前，产业可能必须先解决一个个具体的问题。而节卡此次给出的答案，是先让机器人学会“分工”。 01. 人形机器人开始按工作“长身体” 过去两年，人形机器人交出的“简历”高度相似。
D | 身高一米六左右，两条腿、两只手、几十个自由度，会走、会跑、会跳，再完成几个抓取动作。如果把LOGO遮住，不少机器人甚至很难被普通观众一眼分辨出来。 这并不奇怪。在产业早期，企业首先需要证明的是“能不能做到”。双足行走、全身运动控制、灵巧操作，都是最直观的技术能力证明。 但进入工厂之后，评价体系完全变了。工厂不会因为一个机器人后空翻做得漂亮，就给它安排一个工位。它只关心：能不能干、干得稳不稳，以及算下来划不划算。 于是，机器人的身体开始被工作重新定义。 节卡此次推出的JAKA K1-25就是一个典型例子。它没有把资源集中在跑得更快、动作更像人上，而是首先解决了一个极其朴素的问题——力气。 K1-25双臂协同额定负载达到50公斤，重复定位精度达到±0.1毫米。展会现场，它最直接的展示不是跳舞，而是双臂分别举起25公斤的哑铃。 这个动作看起来没有那么“灵动”，但放进工厂，意义完全不同。 在汽车制造、重型装备、金属加工等场景中，大量零部件本身就超过10公斤甚至20公斤。不少人形机器人已经可以完成抓取和操作，但真正来到这些工位，遇到的第一个问题甚至不是“不够智能”，而是“搬不动”。 为此，节卡自研了APEX系列JX9-120大扭矩行星关节，并重新设计双支撑轻量化机身结构，让单臂自重不足25公斤，实现25公斤额定负载，极限负载可达30公斤。 换句话说，K1-25并不是为了更像“人”设计的。它首先要更像一个能干重活的“工人”。
E | 同样的逻辑也出现在JAKA Kargo上。 需要跨越楼梯和复杂地形，双足有自己的价值；但如果机器人主要在平整的工厂中高频移动，轮式底盘可能更加稳定和高效。
F | 于是，轮子负责跑，两只手负责干。这或许没有双足机器人那么科幻，却可能更接近现阶段工厂对具身机器人的真实需求。
G | 当机器人开始进入真实世界，“像不像人”就不再是唯一尺度，“适不适合工作”开始变得更重要。 机器人身体的设计逻辑，也开始从复刻人类，走向服务生产力。 02. 比造一个“人”更难的，是找到一个工位 过去几年，机器人行业最不缺的是Demo。第一次叠衣服、第一次完成复杂抓取、第一次连续行走数小时，都足以成为一次技术突破。 但制造业有一套完全不同的评价体系。 完成一次任务没有那么重要。
H | 真正重要的是，第一千次还能不能完成；零件位置偏了怎么办；产品换型怎么办；两台机器人如何协同；出现异常之后，系统能不能继续稳定运行。
I | 机器人从实验室进入工厂，本质上不是把一个Demo搬到产线上。而是把一个“偶尔成功的智能”，变成一套“长期稳定的生产系统”。 这也是此次WAIC上，节卡展示中更值得关注的一条线。 在“模登时代·伙伴之城”的智造坊里，两台轮式人形机器人组成了一条小型协同产线。它们干的是一份非常具体的工作：装新能源电机。
J | 从电机外壳转运、物料交接，到组件装配、精密螺丝锁付，再到成品入库，两台机器人分工协作。其中最细的一颗螺丝牙纹只有0.5毫米，单颗锁付时间约10秒。 更重要的是，这套系统并不是为了WAIC临时搭建的展品，而是此前已经在华域电动百万级电机量产产线上进行实景打磨和验证。 系统融合YOLO视觉分割、多模态感知和AI Agent，零部件识别准确率达到99%，目标是让机器人能够面对多品类混线生产，而不是永远重复一套提前写死的动作。 这件事真正值得讨论的，不只是“两台机器人会装电机”。而是工业机器人正在尝试从“执行动作”，向“完成任务”迈进一步。 传统设备擅长解决的是确定性生产问题。人类告诉它到A点抓取，再移动到B点放下，只要环境不发生变化，它就可以高速、精准地重复千万次。 但现实中的柔性生产并不会永远停留在A点和B点之间。零件会偏，订单会变，生产线会换型，任务也会临时调整。 于是，机器人不仅需要一副更灵活的身体，也需要理解“我要完成什么”。 在节卡的技术体系中，大模型负责语义理解和全局规划，技能模型负责精确执行，视觉系统负责感知环境变化，再由机器人完成任务拆解和动作规划。
K | 这意味着，具身智能给工业带来的价值，不只是增加一种新的机器人形态。它真正试图改变的是自动化的部署逻辑。 过去，为了让机器人工作，人们要尽可能把工厂改造成机器人熟悉的样子；未来，机器人则要开始学习适应不断变化的工厂。
L | 这可能才是具身智能进入制造业真正困难、也真正有价值的地方。 03. 不只是给机器人造身体，还要降低“教它工作”的成本 如果说K1-25和Kargo解决的是“什么样的机器人适合干什么活”，那么节卡此次展示的另一条技术线，解决的是另一个问题：怎样让机器人更容易学会干活？ 在WAIC现场，节卡还展示了一套基于JAKA Studio Pro与CoboΠ EI的智能化协作应用。以手机包装为例，传统自动化方案面对工件换型、托盘布局变化时，往往需要工程师重新编程和调试。而在新的方案中，工件拍照后可以通过AI生成3D模型，操作人员再通过语音或文字描述任务，由AI生成机器人运动序列，经过仿真验证后直接下发真机执行。 按照节卡提供的方案，图生3D可以将传统数天级的建模过程压缩到分钟级，轨迹实现秒级生成。机器人编程正在从“工程师告诉机器人每一步怎么走”，向“人告诉机器人最终要做什么”演进。 这与人形机器人的“分工”实际上是同一件事的两面。 一边，是给不同工作造更合适的身体；另一边，是降低教机器人工作的成本。 π仔则补上了另一个环节。它身高1.22米，拥有27个自由度，单臂负载3公斤，配套VR全身遥操和动作捕捉系统。人在现实中抬手、转身，机器人可以同步完成动作，同时记录关节运动、视觉感知和反馈数据。 这意味着，一次遥操作不仅是一次控制，也可以成为一次数据生产。 对于高校、实验室和开发者而言，一台更小、更容易部署的人形机器人，价值未必是承担重工业生产，而是成为具身智能时代的“开发机”：降低开发门槛、积累真实世界数据，同时培养更多机器人开发者。 至此，节卡此次展示的几种机器人开始形成清晰的分工。
M | K1-25解决“能不能干重活”，Kargo解决“能不能进入工厂移动作业”，π仔解决开发、训练与数据问题；CoboΠ EI和JAKA Studio Pro，则试图让机器人更容易被部署和使用。
N | 看起来是不同产品，背后实际上指向同一个问题：怎样让机器人真正开始工作。 04. 节卡不是在押一种机器人形态 理解这一点，也就更容易理解节卡为什么会同时做出这些看起来差异巨大的产品。
o | 节卡首先是一家从工厂里长出来的机器人公司。其机器人全球出货超过3万台，覆盖近百个国家和地区，客户包括丰田、施耐德、中国中车、立讯精密、上汽集团等企业。 所以，它进入具身智能的起点，与很多从AI或者人形本体起家的创业公司并不完全相同。 节卡面对的问题首先是：传统工业机器人还有哪些事情干不了？ 不能自由移动，换产成本高，编程门槛高，面对非结构化环境能力有限，大型零部件需要双臂协同，生产线变化之后又需要重新调试。 具身智能和AI，恰好提供了一套新的技术工具。从这个角度看，节卡从协作机器人向具身智能延伸，并不是简单换一条赛道，而是在不断补齐工业机器人的能力边界。 这也解释了为什么节卡没有把所有筹码押在一种所谓的“终极形态”上。 轻型机器人干轻活，重载机器人干重活，轮式机器人负责移动作业，小型人形承担开发、教育和商业互动；往下，是APEX关节模组和运动控制系统，往上，是CoboΠ EI、JAKA EVO和Agent能力，最终进入汽车、3C、仓储物流等具体场景。
p | 这是一条与“先造出一个通用人形机器人，再给它寻找应用”不同的路径。不是先造一个“人”，再给它找工作；而是先看有哪些工作，再给工作匹配合适的机器人。 这并不意味着通用机器人不重要。 恰恰相反，真正的通用智能依然可能是整个产业共同追逐的终局。但至少在今天，“通用”仍然意味着更高的硬件、模型、数据和可靠性成本。 而商业化不会等待终极答案。工厂里的料箱今天就需要搬，螺丝今天就需要拧，企业今天就需要降低换产和部署成本。
q | 因此，真正让具身智能产业开始转动的，未必是第一台什么都会的机器人。更可能是第一批在某一份具体工作上，已经真正创造价值的机器人。 05. 下一场竞争，是“抢工位” 人形机器人行业正在进入一个更现实的阶段。
r | 一家企业拥有多强的模型、一台机器人能完成多炫酷的动作，依然重要。但当产品真正走向商业化，行业最终必须面对一个更加残酷的问题： 你的机器人，到底在哪里上班？ 一台真正进入工厂的机器人，需要解决的远不只是运动控制和模型能力。 它需要供应链、可靠性、售后和系统集成，需要理解生产工艺，甚至需要知道一颗螺丝应该用多大的力矩拧进去。 这些事情没有机器人跑步、跳舞那么吸睛，却决定了一台机器人究竟是一件科技展品，还是一种真正的生产资料。
s | 这也是此次节卡WAIC展示背后更值得关注的变化。 关节进入机器人，机器人进入工厂，工厂产生数据，数据再回到模型，模型重新提升机器人的能力。如果这个闭环能够真正转起来，机器人行业的竞争也会从单点技术竞争，逐渐进入真实世界能力的竞争。
t | 未来真正有价值的企业，未必只是拥有最强模型或者最酷机器人的公司。 更重要的可能是，谁能够持续把机器人送进真实世界，让它们在那里工作、产生数据、迭代能力，然后进入更多工位。 因为具身智能最终不能只存在于论文、模型和Demo里。它必须拥有一副身体，找到一份工作，然后真正创造价值。 AGI是远方，但机器人产业不能等到远方抵达之后才开始商业化。 所以，人形机器人下一阶段真正值得看的，或许不再只是“谁更像人”。 而是谁先找到工作。又是谁，能真正抢到工位。
Current article:http://3eg.cousizhegaobaolengkuo.bond/f5nz/qha.html
Published on:07:13:10
