0 |
Work (Re-)Design and Cobotics:
Exploring Change in Job Characteristics
S2945797 – Koen Kijk In de Vegt71 (12905)
Technology and Operations Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
First Assessor: N. Ziengs Msc.
Second Assessor: prof. dr. ir. J.C. Wortmann
i |
Abstract
Due to new advances in technology, small scale work efforts become within reach of automation. One of the new technology concepts that automate small scale work efforts is cobotics. Cobotics is a concept were human operators collaborate with robotics. Contrary to automation on large scale work efforts, the robotic is only partially taking over the task of the operator. There are multiple studies regarding change in job characteristics, but change by new technology concepts has not been widely studied. This study examines how the introduction of new technology affects the characteristics of a job. The findings are based on a single case study, where the job was enriched with a robotic arm. The effect of this change in job characteristics is measured by the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). The results are retrieved by 14 interviews, observations and documentation. The results show that the task characteristics were negatively influenced by the introduction of cobotics. On the contrary, knowledge and contextual characteristics were positively influenced. The social characteristics were not significantly altered by cobotics. However, some of the changes were only temporarily due to implementation. These findings suggest that implementing new technology concepts could have better results if the operator doesn‟t have to relocate. These findings also suggest that partially automation of work does not have to lead to negatively outcome measures because the operator can do more tasks.
ii | Table of Contents Abstract ... i 1. Introduction ... 1 2. Background ... 4 2.1 Cobotics ... 4 2.2 Job Characteristics ... 5 2.2.1 Task characteristics ... 6 2.2.2 Knowledge characteristics ... 7 2.2.3 Social characteristics ... 7 2.2.4 Contextual characteristics ... 9
2.3 Impact of technology on Job Characteristics ... 10
iii | 4.2 Task characteristics ... 20 4.2.1 Autonomy ... 20 4.2.2 Task Variety ... 22 4.2.3 Task Significance ... 23 4.2.4 Task Identity ... 24
4.2.5 Feedback from the job ... 25
4.3 Knowledge characteristics ... 26 4.3.1 Job Complexity ... 26 4.3.2 Information Processing ... 27 4.3.3 Problem Solving... 28 4.3.4 Skill Variety ... 29 4.3.5 Specialization ... 30 4.4 Social Characteristics ... 31 4.5 Contextual Characteristics ... 32 4.6 Programmers ... 33 4.7 Summary of results ... 33 5. Discussion ... 35
5.1 Answering the research question ... 35
5.2 Limitations ... 39 5.3 Practical implications ... 40 5.4 Theoretical implications... 41 Conclusion ... 42 References ... 43 Appendices ... 48
iv |
Appendix II: Interview Protocol for Employees and Managers ... 50
Appendix III: Results Interviews Employees ... 61
Appendix IV: Codebook Interviews ... 62
List of Tables Table 1: List of inductive codes ... 16
Table 2; List of Enablers and Barriers ... 34
List of Figures Figure 1; Original task in steps ... 12
Figure 2; Cobotics task with its activities ... 13
Figure 3; Example of coding scheme... 16
Figure 4; Results of Autonomy ... 21
Figure 5; Results of Task Variety ... 22
Figure 6; Results of Task Significance ... 23
Figure 7; Results of Task Identity ... 24
Figure 8; Results of Feedback from the job ... 25
Figure 9; Results of Job Complexity ... 26
Figure 10; Results of Information Processing ... 27
Figure 11; Results of Problem Solving ... 28
Figure 12; Results of Skill Variety ... 29
Figure 13; Results of Specialization ... 30
Figure 14; Results of Social Support ... 31
Figure 15; Results of Interdependency ... 32
1 |
1. Introduction
Since 1495 (Leonardo da Vinci), the evolution of the robotic arm has increased to sophisticated, more capable and more usable technology (Lee, Jeongwon & Jolesz, 2009). Although independent, intelligent robotic arms are more common in modernity, this technology is also costly (Steinberg, Merguerian & Bihrle, 2008) and difficult to use (Quigley et al., 2009).
At first automation was only used in large scale repetitive tasks, but due to new advances in technology also small non-repetitive tasks are automated (Kopacek, 2009). One of the recent advances in robotics is cobotics, a more usable and less costly method (Faulring, Colgate, & Peshkin, 2005). Cobotics is a neologism from “Cooperation” and “Robotics” because it is a method where the machine is not working independently but is set up and trained by operators. This human-machine interaction is directly one of the limitations of cobotics because it always requires a human by its side to load the robot with pre-assemblies to solder. However, little is known about how people respond to the integration of technology in their work.
2 | important because studies have shown the importance of work design for organizational outcomes (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001).
Hackman and Oldham (1976) stated that effects in job characteristics change the psychological state of employees. Eventually, negative effects could lead to unmotivated employees. Hackman and Oldham (1976) stated that every job could be characterized in different motivational aspects, such as, skill variety and task identity. After years of research, the job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1976) and all of the research on job characteristics developed into the work design theory (Parker et al., 2001) which helped to comprehend the experiences and behaviours of employees. Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) created a method to assess the work design theory, a questionnaire to measure the job aspects, such as, skill variety and task identity. Although Morgeson, Nahrgang and Humphrey (2007) assumed that all the fundamental questions have been answered, there are no studies mentioning these measures in regards to implementing new technology, such as cobotics. Johns (2016) argued that the impact of context on organizational behaviour is not sufficiently recognized. Changes in the context of work, demand for new theoretical perspectives on the work design theory (Grant & Parker, 2009).
3 | contextual characteristics are positive influences on the motivational characteristics (Morgeson et al., 2003). The outcome measures will be determined to understand the complete impact of new technology on job characteristics.
4 |
2. Background
This chapter will describe the theoretical background of this research and consists of four sections. In the first section the concept of cobotics will be described. Furthermore, the second section will describe the job characteristics. The third section enhances on the impact that technology has on job characteristics and at last, the research question will be presented.
2.1 Cobotics
The cobotics concept is a new technology (Faulring et al., 2005; Peshkin et al., 2001) and is a collaboration between humans and a robotic arm. This collaboration is defined as a direct interaction of humans with robots, were the robot and the human are teaming up in a shared workplace to accomplish tasks (Peshkin et al., 2001). This new advance in automation is less costly than traditional automation and is therefore easier to use on a small scale. A main feature of this new robot architecture is that the collaboration takes place in a shared workspace, because small scale work efforts become within the reach of automation. One of the reasons why the interaction of a human and a robot is interesting, is because they can complement each other (Lamy, Collédani & Geffard, 2010). The robot is designed to optimize strength, velocity, precision and stiffness but is not very good in rapidly learning complex tasks. Human workers, on the other hand, are more capable to adapt to certain task changes. This complementation is shown in many new concepts, such as, co-manipulation (Lamy et al, 2009) and human-machine interaction (Levin, Pieraccini, & Eckert, 2000).
Co-5 | manipulation is shown in various functions such as gesture guidance, force amplification (Xavier Lamy et al., 2010). However, with co-manipulation, the robot is an extension or upgrade of the skills of the human operator (X. Lamy et al., 2009). Human-machine interaction is different from co-manipulation because it eases the work of the human operator by interacting with robots. For example, the telephone protocol at customer service centres is interacting with the customer, before the customer has contact with the operator. This protocol guides the customer to the operator that handles the specific complaints of the customer. Although human-machine interaction is a technology that interacts with humans (Levin et al., 2000), it does not complement the human in its tasks like cobotics.
However, this complementarity between a human and a robot is also a downside of cobotics, because in comparison to full automated jobs, the robot stops working after doing his task. Due to this complementation with a robot, the characteristics of the job could change.
2.2 Job Characteristics
6 | outside-work activities. Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) exploited this enriched theory by creating a method to assess the different job dimensions (Work Design Questionnaire). Furthermore, this questionnaire can be used to assess job dimensions and determine psychological states of employees. The questionnaire consists of four categories of job characteristics; Task, Knowledge, Social and Contextual characteristics.
2.2.1 Task characteristics
Task characteristics are defined as the characteristics that are primarily concerned with the job and the activities that are done. The topics that are included in the task characteristic are;
Autonomy. Autonomy is defined as the degree of freedom that someone has in their planning, work methods and decision making (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
Task variety. Task variety is characterized as the range of different tasks or activities that the employee performs to fulfil their job (Herzberg, 2003).
Task significance. Task significance reflects the degree of job importance, in what way the task influences the lives or work of others (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
Task identity. Task identity is described as the level of degree to which the job involves making a complete product (Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976).
Feedback from the job. Feedback from the job is explained as the amount of feedback that the employee receives from the task itself (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
7 | and task variety had mixed relationships. Task significance and task variety had a positive effect on job performance, but no effect on absenteeism.
2.2.2 Knowledge characteristics
The knowledge characteristics of the job include the knowledge, skill and specialization that the employee has to have to accomplish his/her tasks. The topics that are considered as knowledge characteristics are;
Job complexity. The complexity of the job is constructed as the difficulty that is necessary to fulfil the task (Campion, 1988).
Information processing. Information processing is described as the amount of information that needs to be processed, to fulfil the tasks properly (Wall, Jackson, & Mullarkey, 1995).
Problem solving. Problem solving is characterized as the amount of creative, innovative solutions that are required to perform the task (Wall et al., 1995).
Skill Variety. The variety in skill is reflected as the range of skills that the employee needs to have to fulfil the task (J. R. Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Specialization. Specialization is explained as the amount of specialized knowledge that the employee has to have to fulfil the task (Campion, 1988).
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) researched the relationship between knowledge characteristics and outcome measures. They found that all the five knowledge characteristics are positive related to the outcome measures.
8 | The social characteristics of the job are derived from the interdependence of the job, the social support, the feedback from others and the interaction outside the organization. The topics that are considered as social characteristics are;
Social support. Social support is defined as the degree to which a job provided opportunities for advice from others (Karasek, 1979; Sims et al., 1976).
Interdependence. Interdependence is described as the level of dependency that the employee has on colleagues and vice versa (Kiggundu, 1981).
Interaction outside the organization. The interaction outside the organization is the amount of social activities that employees have with each other outside the organization (Sims et al., 1976).
Feedback from others. Feedback from others is reflected as the amount of feedback or information that someone gets from other colleagues or managers (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
9 |
2.2.4 Contextual characteristics
The contextual characteristics of the job are derived from the characteristics of the workplace, such as ergonomics or equipment use. The topics that are considered as contextual characteristics are;
Ergonomics. Ergonomics is explained as the characteristics of the workplace that influences the correct posture and/or movement of employees (Campion & Thayer, 1985).
Physical demands. The physical demands are described as the level of physical activities that are performed during the tasks (Edwards, Scully, & Brtek, 1999).
Work conditions. The work conditions are characterized by the workplace and its environment. Some parameters of this topic are temperature, noise and level of hygiene (Edwards et al., 1999).
Equipment use. Equipment use is reflected as the complexity and the variety of the equipment that the employee has to use to fulfil the tasks (Harvey, Friedman, Hakel, & Cornelius, 1988).
10 |
2.3 Impact of technology on Job Characteristics
In 2016, Billings, Klimoski and Breaugh did a quasi-experiment to explore the impact that technology has on job characteristics but found no significant effect on the job outcome measures. This is contrary to the theory of Hackman and Oldham (1976), they stated that a change job characteristics would lead to a change in job outcome. A limitation to the study of Billings, Klimoski and Breaugh (2016) was that the participants had a decline in outcome measures prior to the change because they informed the participants about the change. Therefore, the outcome measures could have been declined by minor changes before the day of the implementation. However, the outcome of this study is not regarding a new technology concept such as cobotics but with a conveyer-belt frequently used by people over the last decades in supermarkets. Due to the fact that this research is conducted with a change in job characteristics experienced by a new technology concept, could have different results.
2.4 Research questions
11 |
3. Methodology
This chapter will describe the methodology section of this research and consists of three sections. In the first section the case will be described, with the different tasks that are present. Furthermore, the second section will describe the data collection. At last, the third section will discuss the validity of this research.
3.1 Case selection
12 |
3.1.1 Original task
It is important to know that all the equipment, components and empty circuit boards are delivered to the employee on one single trolley. The original task consists of different activities that are graphically shown in figure 1.
The employee starts with pre-processing. This activity consists of different steps, starting with checking whether all the components are present. Continued by reading the product manual and check all the necessary equipment. The second activity is pre-assembly. In this phase they mount the different components onto the desired spots on the board until the board is complete. Afterwards, they start with soldering all the components onto the board. The fourth activity is checking all the braze marks for incompleteness and their quality. After finishing one product, the employee transfers the assembled product into the trolley and picks an empty circuit board of the same trolley. In addition, the employee starts again with pre-assembly, followed by soldering and checking. This continues until there are no empty circuit boards left and the order is finished. At last, the employee will count the assembled circuit boards and compares them with the required amount. After all the products are on the trolley, it goes to the test-department.
13 |
3.1.2 Cobotic task
Due to an investment in a robotic arm, the method is slightly changed. The complete procedure with its changes is shown in figure 2.
It starts with the trolley that the employee gets. The first activity is still pre-assembly, where the content of the trolley is inspected. Thereafter, the employee has to start the robotic arm and selects the right product on the computer. Furthermore, the employee takes an empty circuit board and mounts the different components onto the desired spots on the circuit board. When all the components are mounted the employee transports the circuit board onto the workstation of the robotic arm. The step of soldering is done by the robotic arm. In the meantime, the employee is preparing the next circuit board by mounting the components in place. After the robotic arm is finished with soldering the circuit board, the employee transports the finished product onto the trolley and transports the prepared product on the workstation of the robotic arm. These steps will continue until all the circuit boards are finished. At last, the employee will count the assembled circuit boards and compares them with the number that is required.
14 |
3.2 Data collection
The units of analysis of this research are employees that are working together with a machine. An important step within this research was selecting the appropriate sources of data to increase the validity. At first, there were multiple interviews conducted. Furthermore, the researcher did some observations to observe the different levels of task characteristics. At last, the documentation of the company has been studied to research the tasks of the employees.
3.2.1 Interviews
15 |
3.2.2 Observations
Another method of conducting data that was used were observations. During this research, the working process with the robotic as well as the working process without the robotic arm had been observed. During observations, the participants of this research were observed and the information mentioned during interviews was checked by the researcher on site.
3.2.3 Documentation
The third method of retrieving data was by studying the documents available. The documentation was used to seeking clarification of information. Some information that was given during the interviews or observation had to be checked on correctness. By using multiple sources of data, the validity and reliability of this case were improved.
3.3 Data analysis
16 |
Example
Code
Code Family
Work-scheduling AutonomyPositive towards Work-scheduling Autonomy
“I can plan my own work however I deem fit.”
Enabler to Work-scheduling Autonomy
"There is a order pool where I can took an order
I like to produce."
Negative towards Work-scheduling Autonomy
"I can not do any order I like, because of the
robotic arm."
Disabler to Work-scheduling Autonomy
"I can't choose any order because of rush orders, or a fixed planning with the
robotic arm."
Figure 3; Example of coding scheme
When the interviews were coded, it became clear that the coding structure was not complete enough to comprehend all the findings. In table 1 there is an overview of some inductive codes that were used. These codes were used to find new information that was not considered before.
Table 1: List of inductive codes
Inductive Codes Example
Implementation Barrier “The operators were not spoken to, when implementing the new technique”
Motivation Enabler “I like it when I can cooperate with colleagues and not sit behind a desk all day”
Fear Enabler “I am scared that one day, my job will be taken over by robots”
17 |
3.4 Validity
Although, the different findings are related, by displaying them also independently we increased the internal validity of this research (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). The internal validity was tested by establishing the relationship between enablers/barriers of characteristics and the score that interviewees mentioned on the characteristics. The internal validity was also strengthened by establishing a causal relationship between the effects of cobotics and the change in characteristics. This was done by interviewing the same employee before she worked with the robot and after she worked with robot. The implementation was the only event that had happened between both interviews.
The external validity is knowing whether a study can be generalized (Karlsson, 2009). This research can be generalized because it has a suitable foundation of literature. The implementation of this precise technology is case specific but the research is based upon numerous general papers.
19 |
4. Results
This chapter provides the results of this study. This section is structured as following; at first the sample description is mentioned. Thereafter, the change in task characteristics is displayed, followed by the change in knowledge, the social and contextual characteristics. The detailed results can be found in appendix III.
4.1 Sample description
20 |
4.2 Task characteristics
The task characteristics are overall changed negatively by cobotics. By reason of the change in autonomy and feedback from the job. The detailed results of the task characteristics are presented next.
4.2.1 Autonomy
21 | the robotic arm. The 6th interviewee mentioned that the robot production orders lessened her autonomy because there was no order pool to choose from;
“I cannot choose an order from the order pool, the robot orders are planned. I have to do what the robot demands me to” (Employee 6)
The results that are shown in figure 4 show a temporary drop in autonomy due to implementation. The employees that worked for a longer period of time with the robotic arm mentioned the same score as before the implementation.
W o r k S c h e d u lin g A u t o n o m y P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s D e c is io n - m a k in g A u t o n o m y P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s W o r k M e t h o d s A u t o n o m y P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
22 |
4.2.2 Task Variety
All of the interviewed employees reported much task variety. Due to the fact that employees were learned and stimulated to do multiple tasks, the variety is large. Employees that worked with the robotic arm reported the same task variety as employees that didn‟t;
„When the robotic arm is busy with soldering, I can do some minor tasks in the meantime‟ (Employee 7).
The employees that did work with the robotic arm could do some small tasks and this enabled their task variety. These results are graphically shown in figure 5.
T a s k V a r i e t y P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
23 |
4.2.3 Task Significance
The interviewed employees reported much task significance. These results are shown in figure 6. The employees that worked with the robot and didn‟t work with the robot all mentioned a high score;
„Without my work, the company wouldn‟t have any products to sell‟ (Employee 8). Furthermore, the managers that were interviewed reported a lower experienced significance level (4) than the employees. By reason of less motivated employees, their thoughts of the significance level were more tamed;
„I think that some people don‟t see their work as important as I do, some people are just focused on getting paid‟ (Manager 1).
T a s k S i g n i f i c a n c e P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
24 |
4.2.4 Task Identity
The reported level of task identity was low. The working methodology is divided in different steps, as mentioned in the methods section, and this disables the task identity. The robotic arm replaced some steps but this didn‟t affect the already low score. These scores are graphically presented in figure 7. During the observations it became clear that the printed circuit board is handled by lots of different stations throughout the company. At first there will be an example print made by the test department to get out all of the easy made mistakes. Once this example is proven to work, it will be delivered together with the production order to one of the operators. The operators are then soldering the printed circuit board. Once the circuit boards are soldered, the circuit boards will be passed on to other operators to check if all the components are there. If the customer bought a service package, the print will be checked on its functionality by the test department. It is relatively easy to trace back mistakes to the right operator, because they are all reliable on the quality of the operators in front of them.
T a s k I d e n t i t y P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
25 |
4.2.5 Feedback from the job
The interviewed employees that didn‟t work with the robot reported a high level of feedback from the job. The quality of the product is largely dependent on the soldering. On the grounds that the employees solder the circuit boards by hand themselves, they check the soldering continuously when performing the task:
“During the work, you‟re verifying if the soldering is correctly done” (Employee 2). The quantity of the circuit boards produced is calculated and tuned on historical data and is given to the employee together with the order forms. The employees that work with the robotic arm are reporting much lower levels of feedback from the job. These differences in scores are presented in figure 8. As regards to the quality, the soldering is done by the robot. Therefore, the employee has to check the soldering afterwards but solely on vision, not by actually feeling the soldering. As to the quantity (speed), the historical data is not known because of its novelty. Accordingly, the given required speed is not accurate enough to assess upon.
F e e d b a c k f r o m t h e j o b P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
26 |
4.3 Knowledge characteristics
The knowledge characteristics are overall changed positively by cobotics. By reason of the change in information processing, skill variety and problem solving. The detailed results of the knowledge characteristics are presented next.
4.3.1 Job Complexity
The interviewed employees that didn‟t work with the robot reported a low level of job complexity. Due to experience, the employees didn‟t consider their work as complex. The interviewed employee that was learning to work with the robotic arm considered her work as medium complex. But, after working for a longer period with the robotic arm, her consideration changed into low complexity. The employees that worked with the robotic arm for a longer period also mentioned a low level of job complexity. These results are presented in figure 9. The managers‟ perceptions were controversial to the employees:
„There job is very complicated. They have to gain a lot of knowledge before they can do their job‟ (Manager 1).
They reported a high job complexity. Due to minuscule components and perfect placement, they take into account 6 months before an employee is considered capable to work independent. . J o b C o m p l e x it y P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
27 |
4.3.2 Information Processing
The interviewed people that didn‟t work with the robotic arm reported a lower level of information processing then the employees that did. The difference between these reported levels of information processing is thanks to the computer. The employees that work with the robotic arm have to use the computer to start the robot and check whether failures occur. Due to observations, it became clear that the employees checked the computer screen often. In addition to the computer, the employees checked the robotic arm more often. By doing small activities during the soldering, the employee becomes responsible for more activities in the same time, which leads to more information processing. These results are graphically shown in figure 10. It is shown that the amount of information that needs to be processed is higher with cobotics.
In f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s in g P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
28 |
4.3.3 Problem Solving
The interviewed people that didn‟t work with the robotic arm reported a relatively low level of problem solving (2-3). The results of Problem Solving are graphically presented in figure 11. It was stated that the amount of problems were disabled by the use of an example;
„When the example product is made, most of the problems are found and solved‟ (Employee 2).
Before the circuit board is going to solder by hand, the test-department is going to solder an exact replica of the circuit board to solve the problems on hand. The employees that did work with the robotic arm (short and long-term) reported a much higher level of problem solving (5-6) due to the failures of the robotic arm;
„The robotic arm is new and sometimes gives too much tin or too much air, we have to correct its mistakes‟ (Employee 8).
P r o b le m S o l v i n g P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
29 |
4.3.4 Skill Variety
The reported level of skill variety for the people that didn‟t work with the robotic arm was relatively low (3). The results are presented in figure 12. The employees that worked with the robotic arm reported a higher score (5). Due to the fact that they had to work with a computer was often mentioned as an enabler. Surprisingly, the managers did not mention this enabler and scored all employees equally on the level of skill variety;
„Everyone has its own set of skills so I think that the robotic arm isn‟t affecting their own sense of skills‟ (Manager 2).
Figure 12; Results of Skill Variety
30 |
4.3.5 Specialization
The reported levels of specialization within the different groups of employees were not consistent. Some employees stated that due to experience, they enabled some degree of specialization, where other employees mentioned that their job didn‟t require specialization and everyone could do it. Whether the employee worked with the robotic arm or not did not have any influence in their scores. The scores are shown in figure 13. Meanwhile, both managers reported a high score of specialization (6). They mention the different soldering certificates and experience of the employees as enablers for their specialization;
„Some employees have an IPC3-certificate (High quality standards), some work with the robotic arm, I think that everybody has its own specialization‟ (Manager 1).
S p e c ia li z a t i o n P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
31 |
4.4 Social Characteristics
The social characteristics weren‟t influenced by the robotic arm. The scores of the employees, working with or without the robotic arm, were not significantly different towards each other. The results of the Social Support levels are presented in figure 14. The social support and the interaction outside the organization where all reported high (6-7);
„I really enjoy my work here and I have a good interaction with my colleagues‟ (Employee 3).
This was not disabled by the robotic arm, because the workplace was not changed. The employees that worked with the robotic arm were still working in the same workplace.
The interdependence level and the feedback from others were reported low (2) in both groups. The scores of the interdependence are shown in figure 15. The interdependence was reported low because the tasks that employees do are only a part of the assembly process of circuit boards. This was not changed by adding a robotic arm. The feedback from others scores were low due to sole working. Every employee is considered to be an independent entity within the process;
„I do not get a lot of feedback from my colleagues, only when I‟m asking for it in the canteen‟ (Employee 6).
Figure 14; Results of Social Support
32 |
4.5 Contextual Characteristics
The contextual characteristics are scored by observations and some interviews. The ergonomics level is improved by the robotic arm. As a result of the robotic arm, the posture of the employee is positively changed. Employees are not soldering by hand the entire day and therefore, the employees are not bent over their workplace. The physical demands and the work conditions are not changed significantly. The work of the employees was not physically demanding before and therefore this is not changed due to the robotic arm. The work conditions are not adapted due to the same workplace. The robotic arm can be seen as equipment that doesn‟t need to adapt the workplace. The level of equipment use is scored higher. The employees that worked with the robotic arm reported a higher score, due to the work with computers.
In t e r d e p e n d e n c y P a r t ic ip a n t s S c o r e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W ith o u t C o b o tic s S h o r t- te r m C o b o tic s L o n g - te r m C o b o tic s
33 |
4.6 Programmers
During this research three programmers were interviewed about their opinion of the robotic arm. The interview protocol of these interviews was more open because they do not actually work with the robotic arm. In these interviews, the programmers mentioned that they did not acknowledge the change in activities for the employees. They did not consider the thought that employees had about the robotic arm and programmed it to the best of their abilities. They thought about the new work method and how it should be structured. This new work method was not based upon the old work method;
„We saw the robotic arm as a new technology and therefore developed a new work method for the employee, we considered the old working method as past‟ (Programmer 3).
The programmers also mentioned that implementing new technology concepts was harder than they thought. They mentioned that the implementation could be easier when the operators had been participating in the implementation project.
4.7 Summary of results
34 | The different characteristics were enabled or disabled/barred. The reason behind a relatively low or high score was an enabler or barrier. Although these reasons are presented in the results section it is also listed in table 2 to give a clear overview.
Table 2; List of Enablers and Barriers
Characteristics Barriers
Autonomy Robot-specific orders
Task Variety Too much operators (Capable of doing the same tasks)
Task Identity independency of colleagues (Not able to make a complete product) Feedback from the job No fixed way of giving feedback
Job Complexity Example board, documentation
Information Processing Experience (Information is not processed)
Problem Solving Example board
Skill Variety Not having the urge to adapt to new concepts Specialization Experience leads to feeling work is child‟s play
Characteristics Enablers
Autonomy Order pool
Task Variety Flexible operators (Capable of doing multiple tasks) Task Significance Importance because dependency of colleagues Feedback from the job Quantity is calculated
Experiencing soldering by hand Job Complexity Small and Precise activities Information Processing Working with computers Problem Solving Creativity with failures
Skill Variety Learning new concepts/technologies
35 |
5. Discussion
This discussion is divided into three main parts. At first the results will be discussed. Secondly, the limitations will be presented and at last the practical and theoretical implications.
5.1 Answering the research question
The formulated research question was: How does the (re-)design of human work to cobotics influence the task, knowledge, social and contextual characteristics of the job?
36 | the employee has no time to do small tasks in the meantime and therefore the task variety could decrease.
The task significance level was not changed due to cobotics. The employees all felt that they were still responsible for the production processes. This could be related to the fact that cobotics is not an independent technology. They could experience more meaningfulness of the work due to their experience of responsibility (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
The task identity was not changed due to cobotics because the mounting and soldering tasks are only a small step of the production process. If the cobotics technology was implemented in a more basic production process, the task identity could decrease due to technology replacement.
The feedback from the job was negatively influenced by cobotics. The feedback from the job was disabled by the fact that employees lost the ability of verifying soldering joints. The employees had to verify the soldering after the robot was done with its task.
37 | the characteristics that were influenced by cobotics did not have an significant relationship with the outcome measures.
Based on this case study, the knowledge characteristics of the job were positively influenced by cobotics. Even though the employees had to work with a robotic arm, the job complexity level was not scored higher. Only the employee that worked with the robotic arm for a short period of time mentioned a higher level of job complexity. This could be a result of learning something new and having a lower self-efficacy (Schunk, 1985).
The level of information processing was increased by cobotics. Employees that worked with the robotic arm mentioned a higher level than employees that did not work with the robotic arm. Due to handling with a computer and verifying the work that was done by the robotic arm, the amount of information increased. There was also a slight decrease observed with employees that worked longer with robotic arm. This could be due to the response towards technology. When working with technology it becomes more common over time (Siemens, 2005). Furthermore, when the information about cobotics becomes more grounded, the employees doesn‟t have to work only on own experience, but also on others. This is also shown in the level of problem solving.
38 | The score towards skill variety was increased due to cobotics. Due to the use of the computer and working with a robotic arm, the employees mentioned to use more skills then before.
The level of specialization was not influenced by cobotics. The level of specialization was not consistent and was different between employees. Whether the employee worked with the robotic arm or not did not impact the results of specialization. This could be influenced by their subjective image of themselves (Schunk, 1985). It is not common that an advance in technology doesn‟t influence the level of specialization, because technology is one of the factor of specialization according to Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). Therefore, the complication that is the most likely is that the sample size was not big enough to smooth the results. When the sample size is small, the results will have more ups and downs and one participant could influence the results a lot by giving a higher score.
39 | The social characteristics of the job were not influenced by cobotics. Due to the fact that it is a robotic arm that is placed on the desk of the employee, the employees did not have to adjust their workspace. For this reason, the employees had no changes in social connections with their colleagues and the level of social characteristics such as, interaction outside the organisation stayed the same. A new technology could have an effect on social characteristics when the employees had to relocate their workspace and therefore had to build new relationships with new colleagues.
The contextual characteristics are positively changed due to cobotics. The robotic arm took over an activity that required the employee to bend over a desk. Hence, the physical demands and the ergonomics are positively changed.
5.2 Limitations
This research used different methods to establish valid and reliable data to base this research upon. Regardless of these efforts, some limitations have been present during this research.
At first, the new concept of cobotics could only be tested with an in-depth case study. This case study could be biased due to misjudging the representativeness of a single event. The events that take place in an in-depth case study could be different than in other companies. Accordingly, there could be limits on the generalizability of the conclusions that are drawn.
40 | Thirdly, the influence of the personal characteristics was not incorporated in the findings. Due to the fact that most of the employees are females, the gender could have been an effect on the level of job satisfaction (Clark, 1997). Clark found that women‟s expectations are lower than men‟s and for this reason are more easily satisfied with their work. The differences between men and women were not part of the scope of this research and there was no evidence that it did but it could have affected the results.
At last, Hackman and Oldham (1976) stated that work enrichment such as cobotics might be more beneficial for employees with a high growth need strength level. The growth need strength level is the desire of an individual to grow and learn in a job (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). This personal characteristics could have had an effect on this research but no evidence was found that it did.
5.3 Practical implications
41 |
5.4 Theoretical implications
This research was only the top of the iceberg. There are multiple researches necessary to fully understand the impact of collaborating with robotics on job characteristics. This study argued that relocation is an important choice for managers in influencing the social characteristics. The social characteristics are less explained in the work design theory then the task and knowledge characteristics. This study and many other researchers (Faulring et al., 2005; Peshkin et al., 2001) also argued that working with robotics increases contextual characteristics such as ergonomics. However, the contextual characteristics are not well defined in the work design theory. Researchers should relate and define more social and contextual characteristics to improve the applicability of the work design theory.
42 |
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to explore the change in job characteristics when implementing cobotics. The research question was: How does the (re-)design of human work to cobotics influence the task, knowledge, social and contextual characteristics of the job?
This research was on a single case study, where the job was enriched with a robotic arm. The data was collected by multiple interviews, observations and documentation. The results of this research indicate an overall positively influence of cobotics on knowledge and contextual characteristics. There was no change of social characteristics due to cobotics. Furthermore, there was a decrease in task characteristics on reason of cobotics. Comprehensive, the implementation of cobotics has mixed, but overall positive influences on the characteristics of the job.
Beyond the application of this research, future research should be focused on redefining the social and contextual characteristics of the work redesign theory. The social and contextual characteristics are not defined in the same extent as knowledge and task characteristics.
Furthermore, to help understand the effect that new technology has on job characteristics, future research has to be conducted on the effect that collaboration with a robot has on outcome measures. Although this research added to the base of knowledge concerning the effect of cobotics on job characteristics, the long term effects of cobotics can be further explained.
43 |
References
Billings, R. S., Klimoski, R. J., & Breaugh, J. A. (2016). The Impact of a Change in Technology on Job Characteristics : A Quasi- Experiment Author ( s ): Robert S . Billings , Richard J . Klimoski and James A . Breaugh Published by : Sage Publications , Inc . on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Managemen, 22(2), 318–339.
Campion, M. A. (1988). Interdisciplinary Approaches to Job Design: A Replication with Methodological Extensions. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 8(1), 249– 253. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.1987.17534233
Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. (1985). Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.29
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(97)00010-9
Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., & Brtek, M. D. (1999). The measurement of work: Hierachical representation of the Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 305–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00163.x
Faulring, E. L., Edward Colgate, J., & Peshkin, M. A. (2005). High performance Cobotics. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2005.1501071
Gillet, N., & Vandenberghe, C. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(3), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq
44 | and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (n.d.). Work redesign (Vol. 1980).
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). 3a_Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Harvey, R. J., Friedman, L., Hakel, M. D., & Cornelius, E. T. (1988). Dimensionality of the Job Element Inventory, a simplified worker-oriented job analysis questionnaire.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1). https://doi.org/z
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
Johns, G. (2016). The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-008-9983-x
Karasek, R. A. J. (1979). Job Demands , Job Decision Latitude , and Mental Strain : Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
Karlsson, C. (2009). Researching Operations Management.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task Interdependence and the Theory of Job Design. The Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 499. https://doi.org/10.2307/257385
45 | Lamy, X., Colledani, F., Geffard, F., Measson, Y., & Morel, G. (2009). Robotic skin structure
and performances for industrial robot comanipulation. IEEE/ASME International
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, AIM, 427–432.
https://doi.org/10.1109/AIM.2009.5229975
Lamy, X., Collédani, F., Geffard, F., Measson, Y., & Morel, G. (2010). Human force amplification with industrial robot: Study of dynamic limitations. IEEE/RSJ 2010 International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2010 - Conference Proceedings, 2487–2494. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2010.5651677
Lee, J.-H., Jeongwon, R., Jolesz, F., Cho, Z.-H., & Yoo, S.-S. (2009). Brain-machine interface via real-time fMRI: Preliminary study on thought-controlled robotic arm. Biophysical Chemistry, 257(5), 2432–2437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2010.12.017.Two-stage Levin, E., Pieraccini, R., & Eckert, W. (2000). A stochastic model of human-machine interaction
for learning dialog strategies. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 8(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/89.817450
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. a., Garza, A., & Campion, M. a. (2003). Work Design. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
46 | Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice :
Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167460
Peshkin, M. A., Edward Colgate, J., Wannasuphoprasit, W., Moore, C. A., Brent Gillespie, R., & Akella, P. (2001). Cobot architecture. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 17(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1109/70.954751
Quigley, M., Conley, K., Gerkey, B., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., … Mg, A. (2009). ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System. Icra, 3(Figure 1), 5. https://doi.org/http://www.willowgarage.com/papers/ros-open-source-robot-operating-system
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self???efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22(2), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(198504)22:2<208::AID-PITS2310220215>3.0.CO;2-7
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive Effects of Growth Need Strength , Work Context , and Job Complexity On Self- Reported Creative Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330806
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism : A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (ITDL), January, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1.1.87.3793
Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, a. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The Measurement of Job Characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/255772
47 | Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 12(1), 9–12.
Stowers, K., Kasdaglis, N., Rupp, M., Chen, J., Barber, D., & Barnes, M. (2017). Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, 499. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41959-6
Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., Joensuu, M., Virtanen, P., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2005). Temporary employment and health: A review. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(3), 610–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi024
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Management ProductionManagement, 22(2), 195– 219. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414329
Wall, T., Jackson, P., & Mullarkey, S. (1995). Further Evidence on Some New Measures of Job Control , Cognitive Demand and Production Responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(5), 431–455.
48 |
Appendices
Appendix I: Interview Acknowledged Consent
This text was read and signed by every employee or manager that was interviewed. With this document they acknowledged the points that are mentioned below. They are written and explained in Dutch, because all the employees and managers were Dutch.
Mijn naam is Koen Kijk in de Vegt en ik doe een onderzoek voor de rijksuniversiteit Groningen. In dit onderzoek ben ik op zoek naar de verschillende karakteristieken van taken. Zo zal ik verschillende vragen aan je stellen over de taak die jij doet. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden en je hebt altijd de vrijheid om een vraag niet te beantwoorden.
1. Ik begrijp dat de gegevens die worden ingevuld niet worden doorgegeven aan de medewerkers van Variass maar alleen gebruikt worden in het onderzoek en dat de medewerkers van Variass alleen de uitkomst van het onderzoek te weten krijgen.
2. Ik begrijp dat ik te allen tijde aan kan geven dat ik niet meer wens door te gaan en dat het interview direct beeindigd zal worden.
3. Ik begrijp dat als ik iets niet begrijp tijdens het invullen of beantwoorden van de vragen dat ik verduidelijking kan vragen aan Koen Kijk in de Vegt.
49 | 5. Ik begrijp dat al mijn gegevens geanonimiseerd worden en dat de antwoorden die ik geef nooit meer terug te herleiden zijn naar mij en het meedoen met dit onderzoek zal geen nadelige gevolgen met zich meebrengen.
6. Na dit onderzoek kan het zijn dat Koen Kijk in de Vegt nog wat verduidelijk nodig heeft over de antwoorden die ik gegeven heb en die verduidelijk ben ik bereid om te geven.
7. Na dit interview wordt er terug gekoppeld over wat de resultaten waren van het onderzoek.
Handtekening:
50 |
Appendix II: Interview Protocol for Employees and Managers
This document has been used as an interview protocol for the employees and the managers. The employees were asked to answer the questions based on their own belief. The managers were asked to answer the questions based on their belief of the situation. Sometimes this required some empathy from the managers to answer the questions. The interview protocol is written and explained in Dutch, because all the employees and managers were Dutch.
51 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoe vrij jij bent om je eigen werkzaamheden te plannen?
Definitie: De beslissing wanneer en in welke volgorde je je werkzaamheden uitvoerd. Voorbeeld: Wanneer je welke order oppakt, wanneer je begint te monteren of te solderen?
Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoe vrij jij bent om je eigen beslissingen te maken?
Definitie: De vrijheid die jij hebt om zelf te beslissen.
52 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoe vrij jij bent om je eigen werkmethode te kiezen?
Definitie: De beslissing hoe jij de taak uitvoert.
Voorbeeld: Mag jij zelf beslissingen nemen betreffende welke activiteit je doet om je taak te voltooien?
Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoeveel verschillende taken/activiteiten jij doet?
Definitie: De variatie in je taak.
53 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoe belangrijk jij je werk vindt?
Definitie: De belang van je taak.
Voorbeeld: Hoeveel effect heeft jou werk op de het grotere geheel? Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, of jij een geheel product maakt van begin tot eind?
Definitie: De identiteit van de taak.
54 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, in welke mate je inzicht krijgt over je (taak)prestaties tijdens het werk?
Definitie: De feedback die je ontvangt van het werk
Voorbeeld: Hoeveel informatie krijg jij over je prestaties zoals snelheid of kwaliteit? Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoe complex het uitvoeren van je taak is?
Definitie: De moeilijkheid die jou taak heeft.
Voorbeeld: Moet jij meerdere activititeiten tegelijkertijd doen? of bestaat jou taak uit relatief eenvoudige taken?
55 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoeveel informatie je moet verwerken om je taak uit te kunnen voeren?
Definitie: De hoeveelheid van informatie die je moet verwerken tijdens je taak
Voorbeeld: Tijdens je werk moet je veel informatie controleren en veel je kennis gebruiken.
Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoeveel problemen moet je oplossen?
Definitie: De creativiteit en probleemoplossendheid van je taak
Voorbeeld: Je werk gaat veel gepaard met het omgaan met problemen die je niet eerder gezien hebt
56 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, hoeveel verschillende vaardigheden je nodig hebt om je taak uit te kunnen voeren?
Definitie: De variatie in je vaardigheden.
Voorbeeld: Hoeveel vaardigheden heb jij nodig, hoeveel variatie zit daar in? Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, in welke mate je gespecialiseerd bent om je taak te kunnen uitvoeren?
Definitie: De vereiste kennis en expertie die de taak of functie vereits.
Voorbeeld: Ik werk met zeer gespecialiseerde gereedschap om mijn taak te kunnen uitvoeren
57 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, in welke mate anderen afhankelijk zijn van jou?
Definitie: De afhankelijkheid die andere hebben op jou, jou verantwoordelijkheid
Voorbeeld: Als ik mijn werk niet op tijd af heb, zijn er mensen die niet verder kunnnen met werken.
Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waar 1 staat voor helemaal mee oneens en 7 staat voor helemaal eens, in welke mate jij afhankelijk bent van anderen?
58 | Vraag: Ga je buiten je werk ook om met collega‟s?
Definitie: Het sociale aspect
Voorbeeld: Door de gezelligheid ga ik ook met mijn collega‟s om buiten het werk. Antwoord + Doorvragen:
Vraag: Kan je aangeven hoe tevreden je bent over je werk? Definitie: De tevredenheid die jij hebt over je werk.
59 | Vraag: Kan je aangeven hoe jij je werk anders zou inrichten?
Definitie: De verbetering die doorgevoerd kan worden op jou taak.
Voorbeeld: Ik zou graag met een robot-arm willen werken omdat dit sneller en efficienter is.
60 |
Checklist voor Koen Check Helemaal
mee oneens Oneens Gedeeltelijk oneens Neutraal Gedeeltelijk
eens Eens Helemaal
mee eens Vrijheid om te plannen
Beslissingsvrijheid Vrijheid in werkmethode Taak variatie
Belang van de taak Identiteit van de taak Feedback van de taak Complexiteit
Informatie verwerking Probleem oplossend Variatie in vaardigheden Specialisatie
Afhankelijkheid (Op jou) Afhankelijkheid (Op anderen)
Sociaal
61 |
Appendix III: Results Interviews Employees
Withouth Cobotics With Cobotics
Interviewee #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
Work scheduling autonomy 6 6 6 6 5 4 6 6 5
Decision-making autonomy 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6
Work methods autonomy 6 5 6 6 6 4 2 6 4
Task Variety 6 7 6 7 7 7 5 6 7
Task Significance 7 5 7 6 6 7 6 5 6
Task Identity 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 4 2
Feedback from the job 2 3 2 6 6 1 4 4 6
