The Organizational Implications of Robotics

Forecasts of how many automatons will be habituated In 1990 I- the u-led States graze amongst 75,000 and 150,000 (Hunt &038 Hunt, 1983). Little Is kn consume, however, about how Individual employees react to the Introduction of robots or about the changes needed In constitutions to jut out robotics. Our research focuses on deterrentsg the tender-hearted side of roboticshow Individuals react to robots, how and when organizations should be modify to underpin robotics, and what subdivisional strategies be for the Implementation of robotics.The Robot Institute of America defines a robot as a programmable, multi usable manipulator conceptioned to move objects through versatile star programmed motions to perform a physical body of tasks (Robot Institute of America, 1982). Two characteristics differentiate taboos from roughly other forms of automation multiple task capability and programmability. The robots used roughly frequently in U. S. Factories today, in jobs that inv olve moving material, welding, drilling, or disperse painting, are called take To first-generation robots.Researchers are now in the process of down the stairsdeveloped taboos, known as level II or second-generation robots, with to a majusculeer extent sophisticate sensing and thinking capabilities. For example, a level II robot that is equal of identifying the location of parts of different shapes and sizes is currently beeg developed. Other examples of level II robots include those that mine underground coal seams, detect float leaks, or perform sophisticated Ispeciation tasks. Ares and Miller (1983) provide a good description of the current and forestalled future capabilities of robotics. 2 11 this paper. E first develop a GE nail framework for the make of robots Ialtitudes and We Ielectorate from our field studies of the go throughationl of robotics as well as from other field studies f the jar of robotics our spherical framework. The methodology and results of ou r field studies are des shot glassed in great detail In Argots, Goodman, a elder Cascade (1983) aold Argots and Goodman (1984). We conclude the paper with suggestions for researchers who are analyzing the Implementation of robotics and with recommendations for managers who plan to utilize robotics In their organizations.A General Framework The use of robotics whitethorn perk up a rudimentary entrap on the organization of work a. old on the harvest-timeivity of tessellations. Robots typically require lee skills of both reduction and technical tin personnel and require closer lalterations among functional areas (Argots. Goodman, &038 Cascade, 1983). Robots whitethorn throw out a great deal(prenominal) or less(prenominal) engineering science Assessment, 1984). Robots may also enable organizations to be more(prenominal) flexible by decreasing set-up times associated WI the product changeovers. Moreover, robots may enable organizations to achieve greater consistsLLC Il th e grapheme of their products (Ares &038 Miller, 1983 Guest, 1984).In this section, we develop a general framework for anticipating these effects of robots on souls and organizations s well as for predict offshoot the conditions under which the use of robots will enhance organisational achievement. Organizational Performance L l order to present our general framework, we first must discuss the concept of organlocationala achievement. Organizations bay window be thought of as consisting of three underlying componentspeople, etclogy. And structure. 3 It is the compatibility amidst these three basic compseTTS of organTiogals that determinedsees their PerformaCE (Alleviate, 1965 Emery &038 Trust, 1973).Organizational performance is a complex variable with multiple dimensions (Goodman &038 Peninns, 1977 Katz &038 Kahn, 1978). Examples of performance criteria that are critical in the conciliateleg environment are productivity, product quality, manufactureleg flexibility, absenteei sm, warpover, and employee indigence and well-beeleg. These criteria may vary in splendor over time and to different constituencies. For example, sales and marketing departments may space a higher premium on manufacturing flexibility than other functional areas because it enables the organization to adapt to clients needs in a timely fashion.Similarly, manufactureleg flexibility may be ore important in proterozoic than in late stages off products life cycle (Kaplan, 1983). Further, these performance crib terra are presumable to be interrelate Ted, sometimes complex ways. For example, employee demand may be positively related to work unit productivity under conditions of uncertainlet that pass by, for example, when a appliance breaks down, while employee motivation may rush little effect on the productivity of capital-Ilatencies firms under routee or programmed condo actions (CB. Goodman, 1979).Similarly, productivity, at least measurable I the short tune, may be ostracise ly associated with manufactureleg flexibility. The complexity of the concept of organisational performance suggests that extrapolateing the impact and effects of lee technologies requires an appreciation of the interrelationships among the elements of organizations. It also suggests the deed for examIleg multiple performance criteria aold the trade-offs among them. Further research is lead to identify how the Idurationl of robots will fall the elements of an organization aold the conditions under which these elements may be 4 compatible. He few existsg memekcal studies of the of robots (Argots, Goodman, &038 Cascade, 983 Argots &038 Goodman, 1984 Office of Technology Assessment, 1984) and thee-ethical work on hire out bod, ogenerational SSTstructure, ogenerational effectivesees, ad the excogitation of change enable us to suggest what these effects ae likely to be and when the use of boots is likely to ehaCE manufactureIg peefinance We deficiency to emphasize that usg robots do es not automatically imply certain answersees for organizations but rather it is the inter bet between characteristics of the technology, the manner in which it is Itraduced, the organizations structure, For example, some companies povoid little training of their robot operators and design the Jobs of operators such that they have little autonomy and are very dependent on technical support staff.Other commasees provide more traitins for their operators, design more autonomy into their Jobs, and expect them to be actively involved in patriotismg the operation of the robots. Our sense is that the latter approach to designins the operators Job results in more motivated operators and a speedier and smoother implementtaxation than the boomer. The technology in each approach is the same. It is the supporting organizational arrangements that are different. Thus, the use of robots does not determine certain consequences for organizations. Instead it is the relationship between characteris tics of the robots, the people who operate and maintain the robots, and the organizational arrangements that support the robots that imply the putrescence of osanitations. Idividable Employees We owe turn to what is known about how the Iduration of O bots typically strickles individual employees I organactions. The Iduration of robots usually changes the skills and Job activities of Idividable employees. In our study off whole kit and caboodle in the metal-working industry, the entree of a robot that performed material handling activities caused a shift in the robot operators Jobs from primarily manual to primarily mental activities (Argots, Goodman, &038 Cascade, 1983). The Office of Technology Assessment ( sum up) reports a similar change with the introduction of welding robots in the automobile industry the introduction of the robots removed some of the physical demands from the Jobs of adult male operators ( total, 1984).Thus, the introduction of robots in both studies had a positive effect on employees work environments the robots assumed some of the very physically demanding tasks otherwise performed by humans. At the same time, both studies found that the introduction of robots had certain negative effects on employees. Operators in our study reported that they experienced more focus and less construe after the robot SASS introduced (Argots, Goodman, &038 Cascade, 1983). Similarly, the rack up report shows that direct ware employees felt less control with the introduction of the welding robots, because their Jobs were now tied to an assembly line (TOT, 1984).Repair supervisors in the TOT report also experienced greater stress upon the executing of robots, seemingly due to the pressures of maintaining a complex and highly integrated drudgery outline (TOT , 1984). Based on previous research, we expect that if the Itransduction of robots leads to employees experiencing less control over their work environment, thence they will be less satisfi ed, less motivated, and experience more stress upon the introduction of brisk technologies (Blabber, 6 1964 trollop &038 Lawyer, 1971 Hickman &038 Lolled, 1975 Sutton &038 Kahn, in press). We also expect that carcasss that are very complex or characterized by low reliability will be associated with increased stress (Bright, 1958 TOT, 1984). The experience of variety and feedback on the Job promotes employee well-betg (Hickman &038 Lolled, 1975).If the use of robotics affects the variety and feedback employees experience, then we expect corresponding changes in their satisfaction and motivation. Along these lines, the TOT report Idictates that mattenancy introduction of welding robots the forethought workers Jobs were characterized by greater variety and more challenge (TOT, 1984). The introduction of robotics typically changes the skill requirements of both production and technical support personnel. As remark earlier, the use of robots usually shifts operators Jobs from manual ly-oriented to mentally-oriented activities. If these changes are compatible with employees skills and preferences, employees will feel more satisfied and less stress with the change.Strategies are suggested later in this chapter for maximizing the fit between employees and their Jobs and for designing the Jobs of employees, both direct and indirect, who must act with robots. The manner in which robots are implemented may also affect employee reaction to the change. Coco and Freshs (1948) classic study indicates that introducing change n a participative fashion increases the likelihood that employees will react positively to change. Other researchers have also stressed participation as a pigment variable in determining the extent to which employees react positively to change (Cotter &038 Schlesinger, 1979 strike down al. , 1983).While employees I the two organizations we studied did to participate at all in any decisions surrounding the Itransduction of the robots, employees at b oth organizations desired more that they actually had (Argots, Goodman, &038 Cascade, 1983 Argots &038 Goodman, 1984). The discrepancy between how much influence they actually had and how much they desired was especially pronounced at the second organization we studied, by chance because the organization was unionized and had a tradition of employee participation. While employees desired more influence, they acknowledged that the execution of instrument of robotics is a complex activity requiring technical expertise that they generally do not possess. Hence, employees did not expect a great deal of influence in decisions regarding robotics.They did feel, however, that they had some expertise, especially concerning work processes and machines in their department, and that they should be involved in socio related to their areas of expertise. Another dimension of the implementation process is the method organizations use to communicate with employees about the introduction of roboti cs. Organizations may use a variety of chat mechanisms, including talks by the plant manager, meetings with first-line supervisors, and demonstrations. L our research, we examined how effective employees rated the various communication sources their organizations used to introduce robotics. Our results indicate that demonstrations of the operation of robots are dated by employees as just about effective or increasing their understanding of robots (Argots, Goodman. &038 Cascade, 1983).This result is corroborated by the finding that the demonstration had a greater impact on employees beliefs about and attitudes towards robotics than any other communication source the organization used (Argots &038 Goodman, 1985). 8 How employee motivation, satisfaction and stress affect the performance of firms using robotics remains an open question. Teethe is a growth sense in the business literature that these human resource issues are critical too firms ability to compete that using robotics an d other programmable automation in ways that enhance employee well- existence leads to increased organizational ability (TOT, 1984). Consequently, it is important that we identify the conditions under which employee motivation, satisfaction, and stress affect the overall performance of firms using robotics.A interesting hypothesis developed from previous research is that these human resource variables affect the overall performance of work units when nonprogrammer situations occur, for example, a machine breakdown or the introduction of a new product (CB. Goodman, 1979). under(a) routine operating conditions, human motivation and attitudes ay have little effect on the performance f robotics systems. That is, human resource variables may exit more when tech. eulogies are first being implemented, when new products alee being introduced, To when unexpected problems arise than when systems are operating routinely. Organizational Structures In profit to affecting individual employees , the introduction of robots may also change the basic structures of organizationscommunication within and between departments, decision-making responsibilities, role relationships and the like.In our study, we found that the introduction of a robot led to increased fundamental interactions teen production and technical support personnel from engineering and maintenance. Studies of other technologies similar to robots, such as quantitative control machines, report similar increases in interaction among production, engineering, and maintenance groups (Williams &038 Williams, 1964 TOT, 1984). 9 The use of robotics also has the authorization to chawleg collationlisps between production aold marketsleg groups islace robots may mow the time it takes to change from one product to another. This potential could e denounce organizations both to accommodate a more varied product assortment aold to responseold more easily to customer demands.Although we have lot yet witnessed aAY empirical evidence of modified relationships between production and marketing due to the introduction of robots, these changes might occur as more robots are put on line and linked in integrated systems. There is some evidence that the use of ripe(p) automation on the factory floor may enable organizations to focus production scheduling decisions (TOT, 1984). This may reduce the need for technical experts who scroll production as well as eliminate scheduling tasks from supervisors Jobs. Similarly, prehensile robots that perform inspection tasks may reduce the requirement for facial quality control staff. Indeed the use of intelligent robots may lead to fewer hierarchical levels within organizations as well as too littler piece of direct production workers (Cherty, Dunked, Jordan, &038 Miller, 1984).This is because intelligent systems alee capable of do many activities, both manual and mental, traditionally performed by supervisors and certain support staff as well as by direct producti on workers. There are already examples of organizations where the use of programmable automation has led to the liquidation of one layer of supervisors Chem.., Sisley, Liker, Earthman, &038 Thomas, 1984). At the same time, the use of intelligent robots may require more individuals with expertise maintaining and programming robots. R Thus far, we have focused on describing how the use of robotics is likely to change these structural changes may be associated with improved manufacturing performance.As noted earlier, the use of 10 robotics typically Icreases the ItrepannedCE of activities performed by members of different functional groups. HeCE the use of robotics usually requires more interaction among these functional areas. We have ascertained companies where the increased interactions went extremely smoothly, ad all groups were motivated to aid in the implementation of the ewe technology. We have also observed companies where the increased interaction was characterized by hostil ity, impedeg the implementation. What differentiates these two situations? In their analysis of interdepartmental contest in organizations, Walton and Dutton (1969) discuss the conditions under which interdenominational relationships are characterized by conflict.These conditions include a reward structure that emphasizes the performance of separate roofs irregular interdependence in which one group is more dependent on the other communication obstacles such as different locations or specialize languages and aggressive individuals. Applying these findings to the implementation of robotics provides insight in predicting when the increased interactions involve by the use of robotics are likely to be smooth and when they are likely to be confliction. If a companys reward structure emphasizes the putrescence of separate groups, we expect the introduction of robotics to be characterized by conflict. This might occur, for example, if production groups are weave according to short-term efficiency figures while engineering groups are rewarded for the number of ewe equipment pieces they introduce. Asymmetric interdependence is also likely to contribute to conflict.This situation characterizes most introductions of new technology where, at least in certain stages of the implementation, production is more dependent on engineering for hardware and software then engineering is dependent on production. The effect of asymmetric needs on conflict is 11 moderated by the companys reward system. A reward system that emphasizes the performance of operate groups will only amplify the conflict potential of asymmetric interdependence. Instead, a reward system that has a more global and long-term orientation may foster cooperation and reduce the potential for conflict caused by asymmetric interdependence. When the functional groups that must interact to implement new technology are turn up in different areas or use different terminologies, conflict is likely to surround the proc ess.Conversely, if the different groups are located near each other, sit in on each others meetings to understand each others goals and constraints, and use a common language, then we expect the interactions required by the introduction of robotics to be more graceful. Finally, the nature of people who play key roles in the introduction, such as the lead engineer, affects the level of conflict. When key positions are occupied by . aggressive, authoritarian individuals concerned primarily with their own careers, the probability of conflict increases. The behavior of these individuals also will be affected, of course, by the companys reward sys tem. &038other structural issue raised by the implementation of robotics concerns the balance between centralization and decentralization in a organization. up-to-date