The Organizational Implications of Robotics

Forecasts of how many robots leave behind be determinationd In 1990 I- the u-led States range amidst 75,000 and 150,000 (Hunt & Hunt, 1983). Little Is known, however, just about how Individual employees oppose to the Introduction of robots or about the changes needed In systems to support robotics. Our research foc drug ab social occasions on deterrentsg the gentleman side of roboticshow Individuals react to robots, how and when organizations should be modified to support robotics, and what effective strategies argon for the Implementation of robotics.The zombie Institute of America defines a robot as a programmable, multi functional manipulator designed to move objects through covariant programmed motions to perform a strain of tasks (Robot Institute of America, 1982). Two characteristics heterogeneousiate taboos from most otherwise forms of auto lethargyion quadruple task cap aptitude and programmability. The robots apply most frequently in U. S. Factories today, in jobs that involve moving corporal, welding, drilling, or spray painting, argon called aim To rootage-generation robots.Researchers atomic number 18 now in the process of developing taboos, known as level II or second-generation robots, with much innovative sensing and thinking capabilities. For example, a level II robot that is capable of identifying the location of parts of diametrical shapes and sizes is menstruationly beeg developed. Other examples of level II robots include those that exploit on a lower floorground coal seams, detect gas leaks, or perform sophisticated Ispeciation tasks. Ares and Miller (1983) provide a good description of the current and conceptualiseed future capabilities of robotics. 2 11 this paper. E runner develop a GElearn framework for the effectuate of robots Ialtitudes and We Ielectorate from our sphere studies of the implementationl of robotics as rise up as from other field studies f the Impact of robotics our general framework. The methodology and cores of our field studies atomic number 18 described in greater detail In Argots, Goodman, a superannuated 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 utilize of robotics whitethorn wipe out a profound effect on the organization of work a. old on the productivity of tessellations. Robots typically require lee skills of twain reduction and technical support personnel and require enveloping(prenominal) lalterations among functional areas (Argots. Goodman, & Cascade, 1983). Robots whitethorn displace any(prenominal) Technology Assessment, 1984). Robots may in any case change organizations to be to a greater extent flexible by decrease set-up times associated WI the product changeovers. Moreover, robots may enable organizations to achieve greater consistsLLC Il the quality of their products (Ares & Miller, 1983 Guest, 1984).In this section, we develop a general framework for anticipating these effects of robots on individuals and organizations s hearty as for predictleg the conditions low which the use of robots get outing erect organizational performance. Organizational Performance L l order to present our general framework, we first must controvert the concept of organlocationala performance. Organizations can be thought of as consisting of three basic comp anentspeople, etclogy. And structure. 3 It is the compatibility mingled with these three basic compseTTS of organTiogals that determinedsees their PerformaCE (Alleviate, 1965 Emery & Trust, 1973).Organizational performance is a intricate variable with multiple dimensions (Goodman & Peninns, 1977 Katz & Kahn, 1978). Examples of performance criteria that are critical in the bring aboutleg environment are productivity, product quality, manufactureleg fle xibility, absenteeism, turnover, and employee motif and well-beeleg. These criteria may vary in importance over time and to different constituencies. For example, sales and market departments may place a higher subvention on manufacturing flexibility than other functional areas because it enables the organization to adapt to customers inevitably in a timely fashion.Similarly, manufactureleg flexibility may be ore important in early than in late stages mutilate products life cycle (Kaplan, 1983). Further, these performance crib terra are in all probability to be interrelate Ted, sometimes complex ways. For example, employee motivation may be po tauntively related to work unit productivity under conditions of uncertain permit that occur, for example, when a machine breaks down, while employee motivation may have minuscular effect on the productivity of capital-Ilatencies firms under routee or programmed condo actions (CB. Goodman, 1979).Similarly, productivity, at least measure d I the short tune, may be negatively associated with manufactureleg flexibility. The complexity of the concept of organizational performance suggests that understanding the impact and effects of lee technologies requires an appreciation of the interrelationships among the elements of organizations. It alike suggests the deed for examIleg multiple performance criteria aold the trade-offs among them. Further research is leaded to identify how the I distancel of robots will affect 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, & Cascade, 983 Argots & Goodman, 1984 world power of Technology Assessment, 1984) and thee-ethical work on Job design, ogenerational SSTstructure, ogenerational effectivesees, ad the foot of change enable us to suggest what these effects ae plausibly to be and when the use of boots is likely to ehaCE manufactureIg peefinance We want to emph asize that usg robots does non automatically imply certain consequencesees for organizations but rather it is the interplay amidst characteristics of the technology, the manner in which it is Itraduced, the organizations structure, For example, some companies povoid diminutive training of their robot operators and design the Jobs of operators such that they have little familiarity and are very dependent on technical support staff.Other comma butterflysees provide more traitins for their operators, design more autonomy into their Jobs, and promise them to be actively involved in patriotismg the operating room 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 non determine certain consequences for organiz ations. Instead it is the relationship between characteristics of the robots, the people who take to the woods and maintain the robots, and the organizational arrangements that support the robots that affect the putrescence of osanitizations. Idividable Employees We owe turn to what is known about how the Iduration of O bots typically affects individual employees I organactions. The Iduration of robots usually changes the skills and Job activities of Idividable employees. In our paper off plant in the metal-working industry, the demonstration 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, & Cascade, 1983). The Office of Technology Assessment (TOT) reports a comparable change with the accession of welding robots in the automobile industry the introduction of the robots removed some of the physical demands from the Jobs of human operators (TOT, 1984).Thus, t he 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 experience more line and less ascertain after the robot SASS introduced (Argots, Goodman, & Cascade, 1983). Similarly, the TOT report indicates that direct yield employees felt less control with the introduction of the welding robots, because their Jobs were now bind to an assembly line (TOT, 1984).Repair supervisors in the TOT report also experienced greater tautness upon the implementation of robots, apparently due to the pressures of maintaining a complex and highly integrated issue system (TOT , 1984). Based on front research, we expect that if the Itransduction of robots leads to employees experiencing less control over their work env ironment, thence they will be less satisfied, less motivated, and experience more stress upon the introduction of new technologies (Blabber, 6 1964 Hack & Lawyer, 1971 Hickman & Lolled, 1975 Sutton & Kahn, in press). We also expect that systems that are very complex or characterized by low reliability will be associated with change magnitude stress (Bright, 1958 TOT, 1984). The experience of garland and feedback on the Job promotes employee well-betg (Hickman & Lolled, 1975).If the use of robotics affects the form 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 maintenance workers Jobs were characterized by greater variety and more challenge (TOT, 1984). The introduction of robotics typically changes the skill requirements of both labor and technical support personnel. As celebrated earlier, the use of robots usually shift s operators Jobs from manually-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 figure the Jobs of employees, both direct and indirect, who must interact with robots. The manner in which robots are implemented may also affect employee reaction to the change. Coco and Freshs (1948) unmixed study indicates that introducing change n a participative fashion increases the likelihood that employees will react positively to change. Other researchers have also stressed exp wholenessntiation as a key variable in determining the consummation to which employees react positively to change (Cotter & Schlesinger, 1979 Deteriorate al. , 1983).While employees I the two organizations we examine did to participate at all in any decisions surrounding the Itra nsduction of the robots, employees at both organizations desired more that they actually had (Argots, Goodman, & Cascade, 1983 Argots & Goodman, 1984). The discrepancy between how much influence they actually had and how much they desired was especially enunciate at the second organization we studied, possibly because the organization was unionized and had a tradition of employee participation. While employees desired more influence, they acknowledged that the implementation 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 i ntroduction of robotics. Organizations may use a variety of communication 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 most effective or increasing their understanding of robots (Argots, Goodman. & 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 & Goodman, 1985). 8 How employee motivation, satisfaction and stress affect the performance of firms using robotics body an open question. Teethe is a growing sense in the seam literature that these human resource issues are critical too firms ability to compete that using robotics and other programmable automation in ways that enhance employee well-being leads to increased organizational competency (TOT, 1984). Consequently, it is important that we identify the conditions under which employee motivation, satisfaction, and stress affect the boilersuit performance of firms using robotics.A interesting dead reckoning 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 routine operating conditions, human motivation and attitudes ay have little effect on the performance f robotics systems. That is, human resource variables may matter 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 addition to affecting indiv idual 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 interactions teen production and technical support personnel from engineering and maintenance. Studies of other technologies connatural to robots, such as numerical control machines, report similar increases in interaction among production, engineering, and maintenance groups (Williams & Williams, 1964 TOT, 1984). 9 The use of robotics also has the potential difference to chawleg collationlisps between production aold marketsleg groups islace robots may reduce the time it takes to change from one product to another. This potential could elabel organizations both to accommodate a more varied product mix aold to retortold more easily to customer demands.Although we have lot til now witnessed aAY empirica l 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. in that location is some evidence that the use of advanced automation on the manufacturing plant floor may enable organizations to centralize production scheduling decisions (TOT, 1984). This may reduce the need for technical experts who schedule production as well as eliminate scheduling tasks from supervisors Jobs. Similarly, intelligent 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 smaller number of direct production workers (Cherty, Dunked, Jordan, & Miller, 1984).This is because intelligent systems alee capable of performing many activities, both manual and mental, traditionally performed by supervisors and certain support s taff as well as by direct production workers. There are already examples of organizations where the use of programmable automation has led to the elimination of one layer of supervisors Chem.., Sisley, Liker, Earthman, & 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 geomorphological 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 observed companies where the increased interactions went extremely smoothly, ad all groups were motivated to cooperate in the implementation of the ewe technology. We have also observed companies where the increased interaction was characterized by hostility, impedeg the implementation. What differentiates these two situations? In their analysis of interdepartmental conflict in organizations, Walton and Dutton (1969) discuss the conditions under which interdenominational relationships are characterized by conflict.These conditions include a reciprocate structure that emphasizes the performance of separate roofs asymmetric interdependence in which one group is more dependent on the other communication obstacles such as different locations or specialized languages and aggressive individuals. Applying these findings to the implementation of robotics provides appreciation in predicting when the increased interactions required by the use of robotics are likely to be smooth and when they are likely to be confliction. If a companys final payment structure emphasizes the putrescence of separate groups, we expect the introduction of robotics to be characterized by conflict. This might occur, for exa mple, if production groups are threaded according to short-term efficiency figures while engineering groups are honoured 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 fit(p) in different areas or use d ifferent terminologies, conflict is likely to surround the process.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 conduct of these individuals also will be affected, of course, by the companys reward sys tem. &other structural issue raised by the implementation of robotics concerns the balance between centralization and decentralization in a organization. Current