Criteria and Guidelines for Human-Centered Work Design in a Digitally Transformed World of Work: Findings from a Formal Consensus Process
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Established Criteria for Human-Centered Design of Work Tasks
- Tasks should be free from harm;
- Workable;
- Free of impairment;
- Enhance learning and health.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Expert Workshop Using Combined Nominal Group and Focus Group Technique
2.2. Real-Time Delphi
2.3. Content Analysis
- Which criteria did the experts consider particularly important?
- What did the panel participants feel was missing from the catalog of criteria?
- What did the experts identify as genuinely new effects of the digital transformation of work?
- Which criteria, theses, or design references were unclear or interpreted differently?
- Which criteria, theses, or design guidelines did the participants regard as irrelevant?
2.4. Five-Iteration Peer-Commentary Process
- How do you evaluate the overall findings?
- How do you view the criteria? Are they coherent and complete?
- How do you evaluate the classification of the criteria into the categories, established criteria, criteria with new dynamics and new criteria? Is this classification useful?
- How do you rate the design notes? Are they applicable in practice?
- Do you have any further comments on the guideline paper?
3. Results
3.1. Expert Workshop
3.2. Real-Time Delphi
- Human decision-making authority (rated by 32.4% (N = 22) of the experts on rank one to three);
- Transparency (rated by 25.0% (N = 17) of the experts on rank one to three);
- Work densification (rated by 23.5% (N = 16) of the experts on rank one to three).
3.3. Content Analysis
3.4. Five-Iteration Peer-Commentary Process
3.5. Design Guidelines
3.5.1. Holistic Work Design
- The holistic nature of a work activity should be a central criterion when deciding on the allocation of labor between humans and technology in the production and service process.
- Ensuring holistic work tasks needs to begin during the design or development of a digital technology and it should guide decisions and actions during its implementation and evaluation in the work process.
- Adequate change of activities should be included in the job design.
3.5.2. Diversity of Requirements
- Exercise should become an active part of a sedentary workday.
- Mobile workstations should also consider physical ergonomics.
- The amount and complexity of the information provided should be processable by humans.
3.5.3. Time Elasticity
- The ratio of work quantity and working time must balance each other properly.
3.5.4. Opportunities for Interaction
- Digital work should include opportunities for direct and non-digitally mediated communication as well as collegial exchange.
- The choice of communication medium should be appropriate for the communication content.
3.5.5. Appropriate Scope of Job Control
- Degrees of freedom in task processing should be maintained, and where possible and individually desired, expanded through system design.
- It should be possible to limit one’s own responsibility for task processing.
3.5.6. Work-Integrated Learning
- The integration of technical innovations into the work process should take into account and preserve the value of human experiential knowledge.
- Digital assistance systems should support employees in their activities where necessary, but continue to provide incentives for cognitive engagement, learning and development.
- Work design should take into account opportunities offered by digital technologies for work-integrated learning.
3.5.7. Human-Centered Flexibility
- The opportunities offered by digital technologies for balancing work and family life should be seized.
- Even in flexible forms of work, employees should have a right to be unavailable outside their agreed working hours.
- To protect against motivated self-endangerment, managers should be able to assess the stress levels of their employees regardless of where they work and take preventive action.
3.5.8. Fair Evaluation Processes
- Individual performance monitoring should not be fully automated.
- Humans should regularly check decisions made by digital and especially self-learning systems for plausibility and fairness.
- To protect employees from the negative consequences of third-party performance evaluations, the design of digital systems should be robust against outliers and grant a “right to be forgotten”.
- Employees should have the possibility to independently save and use built-up digital assessment data.
3.5.9. Human Decision-Making Authority and Technical System Transparency
- Humans should be able to retain decision-making authority and control over the functions of technical systems.
- The decision of algorithms in work processes should be verifiable in all functional areas by suitable specialist personnel.
- Given the condition of technical transparency, there is a clear, communicated assignment of responsibilities for procedures and decision making.
- Interaction with autonomous systems should be immediately apparent to users.
3.5.10. Reliability of Technology
- Work support technology should have a predefined reliability and safety level assessable by means of suitable analysis methods.
- Security measures to protect against tampering should have a predefined reliability at all times and be accessible to an appropriate risk assessment that takes into account not only the type of digital application but also the context of use, such as the work task and requirements.
- For learning systems, testing mechanisms should be available to allow for verification and validation of the underlying algorithm.
- For learning systems, checking mechanisms should be in place to ensure the plausibility of data and correct results.
- Defined quality criteria exist for training data that allow for later use of the learned model with a defined reliability.
- Accompanying monitoring over a defined period after commissioning of the learning systems should occur in order to be able to analyze, evaluate, and if necessary, improve reliability in the context of use.
3.5.11. Human-Centered Use of Technical Innovations
- The use of technical innovations in the work context should enable meaningful task processing for people.
- The use of technical innovations in the work context should involve an assessment of its benefits for society.
- The individual adaptability of digital technologies for employees should receive consideration in the technical design and organizational use.
3.5.12. Inclusiveness, Consideration of Individuality and Diversity
- The opportunities that new technologies offer for work design should also provide for inclusion and diversity.
3.5.13. Clear Responsibilities for Occupational Safety and Health
- Particularly in agile forms of work, the employer should take responsibility for the safety and health of employees and make everyone involved aware of this.
- It is vital to implement OSH structures effectively even in the changed forms of work and employment.
- Managers should also exercise their responsibility for care when leading in spatially and temporally distributed forms of work.
4. Discussion
4.1. Research Methods
4.2. Criteria and Guidelines
4.3. Implications
5. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Criterion | Theses | Design Guideline |
---|---|---|
Work Intensification | In the digital transformation, the risk of information overload increases and the complexity of the information to be processed increases. | The amount and complexity of (digital) information should be processable for humans. |
The digital transformation is contributing to an increasing workload. | The ratio of work quantity and working time must balance each other properly. If the work intensity is high, correspondingly more recovery time should be available. | |
Decision Latitude | The use of digital technologies contributes to a polarization of the scope of activities: Some employees seem to be gaining more scope for activity, while others are facing increasing restrictions. | Degrees of freedom in task processing should be preserved, and where possible and beneficial, expanded through system design. |
If digital technologies support the processing of the work task in substeps, this results in restrictions on the degree of temporal freedom in the task execution. | The degree of system support must be determinable by the human. | |
The use of digital technologies opens up scope for more personal responsibility (e.g., in location-flexible working). | Individual responsibility in the processing of tasks needs limits; organizational responsibility must occur in an appropriate way. | |
Technology reliability | Digitally networked systems carry the risk of attack or manipulation. | The use of digital technologies must have a reliability appropriate to the application, protected against manipulation at all times, especially by third parties. |
In the future, autonomous systems will make complex decisions without human intervention. | The decision of machine algorithms (AI) in technical processes must be safe and verifiable in all functional areas by suitable specialist personnel. | |
Complex and networked technical systems are prone to errors. | Work support technology should be available without disruption. | |
Social interaction and support | Communication between people is increasingly taking place digitally. | Digital work must adhere to opportunities for direct and non-digitally mediated communication. |
Social support and collegial exchange are also important resources in the digital transformation. | Digital work must promote collegial exchange and social support. | |
Technical and social innovation | In the digital transformation, human experiential knowledge receives insufficient attention. | Technical innovations must harness human experiential knowledge. |
The use of technologies is driven by the technical possibilities. | All human criteria are imperative for the design and evaluation of technical innovations and their application. | |
The increasing digitization of work systems requires a new idea of man (beyond “complex man” or “virtual man”). | Within this idea of man, the human ability to learn has an independent merit and a correspondingly high value. | |
Transparency | It will often no longer be apparent to humans whether they are interacting with another human or a machine, or which information and products exclusively algorithms create. | Interaction with, as well as the result of, autonomous systems must be immediately recognizable to users. |
Digital transformation enables the collection and processing of a wide range of information. | Functions of technical systems must be transparent to the user at all times with regard to data use and decision making. | |
Human decision-making authority | In the future, algorithms and self-learning systems will be able to make decisions faster and with the inclusion of a wide range of information. | Humans retain decision-making authority over both the functions of a technical system and how to deal with the results. |
Algorithms and self-learning systems can only make decisions based on the information available to them. | If system data are relevant for decision making, humans must check it regularly for plausibility and fairness. | |
Organizational change | Digital transformation is contributing to flatter hierarchies and agile working. | Even in agile organizational structures and processes and flat hierarchies, employers must take responsibility for the safety and health of employees and communicate this clearly. |
The digital transformation is giving rise to a large number of new forms of work and employment beyond the workplace (keyword: platform economy). | OSH structures also experience effective implementation in the new diverse forms of work and employment. | |
In the course of digital transformation, management from a distance/of virtual teams is gaining in importance | Even in spatially and temporally distributed forms of work, managers should be able to fulfill their responsibility for caring satisfactorily for themselves and their employees. | |
Inclusion, diversity, individuality | Digital technologies make it possible to take individual needs and performance requirements into account when designing work. | Users can adapt digital technologies themselves inter- and intra-individually; the competencies required for this must be ensured in order to achieve positive, health-related effects. |
Not all people are able or have the opportunities to keep up with technological progress due to their individual situation. | Digital technologies should come into play with the support of disadvantaged and low-ability people in mind; no groups of people should experience exclusion. | |
Digital technologies, through their customizability, enable learning-enhancing experiences for a wide range of employees. | Digital technologies aim to support physically or mentally impaired individuals (performance-disabled employees) to increase their skills and employability. | |
Fostering learning | Digital technologies contribute to specialization and provide work instructions in a small-scale manner (re-Taylorization). | An implementation of digital (assistance) systems/technologies must maintain and promote sufficient/multiple learning opportunities at work. |
In the digital transformation, innovation cycles are shortening and “change” is becoming the norm. | In (prospective) work design, opportunities for work-integrated (informal) learning must receive special (intensive) consideration. | |
Dissolution of boundaries | In the digital transformation, the risk of unrestricted working hours and constant availability is increasing. | Working hours and availability for work must be limited. |
In the course of the digital transformation, more and more employees will work on a mobile basis: this will make them and their stress more “invisible” to their colleagues and superiors. | In order to counteract interested self-endangerment, measures are necessary to make the stress of colleagues working on the move visible. | |
In the course of the digital transformation, the boundary between work and private life is blurring. | Digital communication should promote work–life balance—without extending working hours. | |
Error culture | The fact that technical systems can be faulty but do not assume responsibility is gaining importance in the digital transformation. | Assuming technical transparency, the assignment and communication of process and decision-making responsibility must be unambiguous. |
Digital evaluation systems are making their way into the world of work. | Algorithms convert personal data into an anonymized form for medium-term storage. Thus, employees receive the right of having their personal data “forgotten”. | |
Digital rating systems work in real time. | Real-time evaluations of personal services occur only according to established criteria (preferably with the participation of those evaluated). | |
Human consequences | Digital transformation reduces the proportion of physically stressful task elements. | Physical requirements must be integrated when designing the workflow, for instance via activity-promoting exercise concepts. |
Digital transformation is increasing the proportion of monitoring tasks with a compulsion for constant attention. | Technology design must be such that interaction with the system remains part of the task processing. | |
Digital transformation can create work tasks that lead to fatigue-like conditions. | When designing the work, sufficient changes of activity must be provided, e.g., to avoid monotony (psychological requirements). | |
Holistic work design | The digital transformation harbors the danger of digital Taylorism. | The holistic nature of a work activity must also be a central criterion in the digital age when deciding on the division of labor in the production and service process. |
In the digitalized world of work, technology developers play a key role in determining the division of labor between humans and machines. | Ensuring holistic work tasks needs to begin during the design or development of a digital technology and it must also guide decisions and actions during its implementation and evaluation in the work process. |
Theses (Abbreviated) | Number of Ratings | Mean | Median | Skew | Std. Error Skew | Sig. Left-Skewed? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increasing risk of information overload | 62 | 4.55 | 5.00 | −0.75 | 0.30 | Y |
Increasing workload | 61 | 4.08 | 4.00 | −0.16 | 0.31 | |
Polarization of tasks’ scope | 55 | 3.91 | 4.00 | −0.21 | 0.32 | |
Restrictions of temporal freedom | 53 | 2.92 | 3.00 | 0.20 | 0.33 | |
Increased scope for personal responsibility | 55 | 4.65 | 5.00 | −1.18 | 0.32 | Y |
Risk of attack or manipulation of digitally systems | 55 | 5.49 | 6.00 | −1.38 | 0.32 | Y |
Systems making decisions without human in the loop | 53 | 4.04 | 4.00 | −0.28 | 0.33 | |
Error-proneness of networked technical systems | 53 | 4.23 | 4.00 | −0.22 | 0.33 | |
Increase in communication via digital media | 55 | 4.76 | 5.00 | −1.20 | 0.32 | Y |
Social support and collegial exchange remain important | 58 | 5.76 | 6.00 | −2.82 | 0.31 | Y |
Insufficient consideration of human knowledge | 50 | 2.76 | 3.00 | 0.40 | 0.34 | |
Use of technologies tailored to technical possibilities | 52 | 4.83 | 5.00 | −1.50 | 0.33 | Y |
A new image of man is required | 44 | 2.48 | 2.00 | 0.56 | 0.36 | |
Low recognizability of algorithmically shaped interaction | 52 | 4.40 | 5.00 | −0.64 | 0.33 | |
Option to capture and process a wide range of information | 54 | 5.78 | 6.00 | −3.13 | 0.33 | Y |
Faster decisions through algorithms | 51 | 5.27 | 6.00 | −2.47 | 0.33 | Y |
High dependence of algorithmic decisions on data quality | 49 | 5.18 | 6.00 | −1.49 | 0.34 | Y |
Increase in flat hierarchies and agile working | 48 | 3.13 | 3.00 | −0.12 | 0.34 | |
Rise in diverse new forms of employment | 51 | 5.04 | 5.00 | −0.52 | 0.33 | |
Rising importance of remote management, virtual teams | 52 | 5.08 | 5.00 | −1.05 | 0.33 | Y |
Better ways to address individual needs in work design | 51 | 4.39 | 4.00 | −0.42 | 0.33 | |
Differences to keep pace with technological progress | 53 | 5.06 | 6.00 | −1.25 | 0.33 | Y |
More learning experiences for a wide range of employees | 48 | 4.31 | 5.00 | −0.62 | 0.34 | |
More small-scale work instructions (re-Taylorization) | 47 | 3.51 | 4.00 | −0.23 | 0.35 | |
“Change” as the new norm due to innovation cycles | 48 | 4.29 | 4.00 | −0.67 | 0.34 | |
Risk of unlimited working hours and constant availability | 54 | 5.09 | 5.00 | −1.59 | 0.33 | Y |
Invisibility of mobile workers for coworkers and superiors | 50 | 4.70 | 5.00 | −1.05 | 0.34 | Y |
Blurring boundaries between work and private life | 53 | 4.70 | 5.00 | −1.02 | 0.33 | Y |
Problem of faulty technical systems without responsibility | 50 | 4.26 | 5.00 | −0.66 | 0.34 | Y |
Increase in digital rating systems in the world of work | 46 | 4.52 | 4.50 | −0.57 | 0.35 | |
Digital rating systems work in real time | 41 | 4.32 | 5.00 | −0.94 | 0.37 | Y |
Decrease in the amount of physically demanding tasks | 50 | 4.00 | 4.00 | −0.45 | 0.34 | |
Increased monitoring tasks requiring steady attention | 47 | 3.94 | 4.00 | −0.46 | 0.35 | |
Creation of work tasks that lead to fatigue-like conditions | 47 | 4.49 | 5.00 | −0.99 | 0.35 | Y |
Inherent danger of digital Taylorism | 42 | 4.24 | 4.00 | −0.95 | 0.37 | Y |
Key role of technology developers for the division of labor | 48 | 4.63 | 5.00 | −1.08 | 0.34 | Y |
Design Guidelines (Abbreviated) | Number of Ratings | Mean | Median | Skew | Std. Error Skew | Sig. Left-Skewed? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount and complexity of information manageable by humans | 62 | 5.00 | 5.00 | −1.54 | 0.30 | Y |
Balanced ratio between workload and working time | 60 | 4.80 | 5.00 | −1.10 | 0.31 | Y |
Preserve and expand the degree of freedom in task processing | 51 | 4.76 | 5.00 | −1.29 | 0.33 | Y |
Human determinability of the system support extent. | 55 | 4.31 | 5.00 | −0.76 | 0.32 | Y |
Limitation of personal and exercise of organizational responsibility | 51 | 4.84 | 5.00 | −1.07 | 0.33 | Y |
Reliability and protection of technologies used against tampering | 55 | 5.27 | 6.00 | −1.34 | 0.32 | Y |
Checkability of algorithmic decisions by qualified personnel | 55 | 4.96 | 5.00 | −1.07 | 0.32 | Y |
Availability of work-supporting technologies without breakdowns | 54 | 5.07 | 5.00 | −1.53 | 0.33 | Y |
Digital work aligned with non-digitally mediated communication | 56 | 4.38 | 5.00 | −0.58 | 0.32 | |
Digital work promoting collegial exchange and social support | 56 | 4.39 | 5.00 | −0.62 | 0.32 | |
Technical innovations harnessing human experiential knowledge | 52 | 4.60 | 5.00 | −0.88 | 0.33 | Y |
Use of technical innovations is evaluated based on humane criteria | 53 | 5.32 | 6.00 | −0.66 | 0.33 | Y |
Consideration of human learning ability as a significant value | 45 | 4.29 | 5.00 | −0.70 | 0.35 | Y |
User-recognizable autonomous system interaction and results | 53 | 4.77 | 5.00 | −0.83 | 0.33 | Y |
Transparent data use and the decision making of technical systems | 52 | 4.58 | 5.00 | −0.75 | 0.33 | Y |
Human decision-making authority over a technical system | 49 | 4.88 | 5.00 | −1.67 | 0.34 | Y |
Plausibility and fairness of system data verifiable | 49 | 4.80 | 5.00 | −0.93 | 0.34 | Y |
Visible employer responsibility for OSH in agile structures | 53 | 5.57 | 6.00 | −1.66 | 0.33 | Y |
Realization of OSH in new diverse forms of work and employment | 50 | 5.54 | 6.00 | −2.24 | 0.34 | Y |
Responsibility for care in work flexible in time and space | 52 | 5.50 | 6.00 | −0.81 | 0.33 | Y |
Digital technologies individually adaptable by the user | 48 | 4.69 | 5.00 | −0.88 | 0.34 | Y |
Work support for the disadvantaged and disabled via digital tools | 50 | 4.96 | 5.00 | −1.71 | 0.34 | Y |
Raising skills and employability of disabled workers via technology | 49 | 5.08 | 5.00 | −0.86 | 0.34 | Y |
Use of technology that preserves and promotes learning at work | 48 | 5.02 | 5.00 | −0.80 | 0.34 | Y |
Taking work-integrated learning into account when recruiting | 45 | 4.76 | 5.00 | −0.39 | 0.35 | |
Limited working hours and accessibility for work purposes | 53 | 5.45 | 6.00 | −1.44 | 0.33 | Y |
Counteracting motivated self-endangerment in mobile work | 50 | 4.80 | 5.00 | −1.08 | 0.34 | Y |
Use digital communication for work–life balance | 51 | 5.16 | 5.00 | −1.83 | 0.33 | Y |
Unambiguous allocation of decision ownership based technology | 51 | 5.08 | 5.00 | −1.55 | 0.33 | Y |
Anonymization of personal data in the medium run | 42 | 4.05 | 4.00 | −0.37 | 0.37 | |
Real-time evaluations of personal services only by defined criteria | 41 | 4.37 | 5.00 | −0.88 | 0.37 | Y |
Integration of physical demands into the work process | 47 | 4.68 | 5.00 | −0.63 | 0.35 | |
Interaction with the system remains part of the task processing | 43 | 4.53 | 5.00 | −0.99 | 0.36 | Y |
The design of the work provides sufficient variety of activities | 48 | 5.15 | 5.00 | −1.19 | 0.34 | Y |
The holistic nature of a task remaining central to task allocation | 47 | 5.09 | 5.00 | −0.81 | 0.35 | Y |
Ensuring holistic work tasks in the design of a digital technology | 48 | 4.92 | 5.00 | −1.05 | 0.34 | Y |
Main Code | Subcode Level 1 | Subcode Level 2 | Example Comment | Delphi Content |
---|---|---|---|---|
Evaluation of presented contents | Important: Emphasis on the special relevance, the importance | Transparent AI is important, both for the acceptance of users and for the plannability and traceability of developers. | The decision-making of machine algorithms (AI) in technical processes must be safe and verifiable in all functional areas by suitable specialist personnel. | |
Opportunities of digitalization for work design are addressed | Yes, of course—in addition, digitization also opens up the possibility of responding to individual needs. Employers should also take this into account | Even in agile organizational structures and processes and flat hierarchies, employers must take responsibility for the safety and health of employees and communicate this clearly. | ||
Irrelevant: should not be considered further | Why does this have to be recognizable? What difference does it make to the user? | Interaction with, as well as the result of, autonomous systems must be immediately recognizable to users. | ||
New: Influence of digitalization shows in a special way | Again, tech systems could help foster collegiality, sharing, and social support. | Digital work must promote collegial exchange and social support. | ||
Already known/nothing new described | This is old, no news value. | Work support technology should be available without disruption. | ||
Not specific to digitization | I think this statement is important, but I don’t see why this should be special in the digitization context. | Individual responsibility in the processing of tasks needs limits; organizational responsibility must occur in an appropriate way. | ||
Inapplicable: inappropriate context shown | I don’t think digital working has to have this goal. I rather think that it is generally important to design work in a way that promotes collegial exchange and social support. | Digital work must promote collegial exchange and social support. | ||
Unclear/ambivalent: difficult to assess, direction of developments difficult to estimate | Individually set limits are of particular relevance. Considered period of working time too unclear. | Digital communication should promote work-life balance—without extending working hours. | ||
Opposite direction of action: as the represented | No. When developing a technology, this must first be left out of the equation, since technology is not necessarily developed for a specific work task. Only in connection with the concrete application context can a guarantee of holistic work tasks take place. [...] | Ensuring holistic work tasks needs to begin during the design or development of a digital technology and it must also guide decisions and actions during its implementation and evaluation in the work process. | ||
Activity/individuality: influence the effects differently | Limitations should be negotiated individually | Working hours and accessibility must be limited. | ||
Limited agreement: to parts of the thesis/design note. | However, the protection must not lead to the technology application then not becoming more complicated/cumbersome for the user or being associated with a higher susceptibility to malfunctions. | The use of digital technologies must have a reliability appropriate to the application, protected against manipulation at all times, especially by third parties. | ||
Utopia difficult to implement | This is logical, but seems unrealistic. | Work support technology should be available without disruption. | ||
Missing so far | In my opinion, the perspective of a potentially too high scope of activities is missing here. | Degrees of freedom in task processing should be preserved and, where possible and beneficial, expanded through system design. | ||
Control/monitoring: as a problem to be considered | [...] It is also important that this does not lead to a form of surveillance that endangers data protection and (mental) health. | Functions of technical systems must be transparent to the user at all times with regard to data use and decision-making. | ||
Argument/reason/example | I tend to agree with this. However, it must also be taken into account that in the initial or familiarization phases, many employees can develop a negative attitude toward new technical solutions that levels out over time. [...]. | The degree of system support must be determinable by the human. | ||
Literature/projects/relevant research on the topic | Has been true for many years and continues to have great significance (Ironies of Automation, out-of-the-loop phenomenon). | Digital transformation is increasing the proportion of monitoring tasks with a compulsion for constant attention. | ||
Society/company: social and company aspects are emphasized | [...] In terms of sustainability, however, the requirement should be reconsidered, since in my opinion digital communication is the key to avoiding unnecessary business travel. [...] | Digital work must adhere to opportunities for direct and non-digitally mediated communication. | ||
Invisibility: references to people not considered in the work system | [...] Solutions are also needed for precarious activities, e.g., in areas that come under strong price and competitive pressure due to the platform economy and/or are currently not regulated by formal self-employment. | The ratio of work quantity and working time must balance each other properly. If the work intensity is high, correspondingly more recovery time should be available. | ||
Ethics/values/meaning: significant | Interactions between system and man are constantly being renegotiated. It is likely that people will fall behind. Especially then, questions of ethics and meaning will gain in importance. | The degree of system support must be determinable by the human. | ||
Linkage other criterion: reference to other thematic assignment | Doesn’t this statement belong more to the human-related consequences? | Users can adapt digital technologies themselves inter- and intra-individually; the competencies required for this must be ensured in order to achieve positive, health-related effects. | ||
Transparency: Linking with the topic of transparency | However, the machine algorithms must in particular be transparent and comply with values (e.g., the European precautionary principle) | The decision-making of machine algorithms (AI) in technical processes must be safe and verifiable in all functional areas by suitable specialist personnel. | ||
Dissolution of boundaries: linking with the topic of dissolution of boundaries | The outsourcing of employer duties is not desirable (interested self-endangerment and dissolution of boundaries). Subjectivization of work and (too) high autonomy always bear the risk of endangering health. | Even in agile organizational structures and processes and flat hierarchies, employers must take responsibility for the safety and health of employees and communicate this clearly. | ||
Formulation: Rewording/clarification is proposed | Not future, but present: systems already in use, effects already observable | ...that also applies now. | Assuming technical transparency, the assignment and communication of process and decision-making responsibility must be unambiguous. | |
Lack of work relevance: of the digitization effects described | Relation of this thesis to the world of work? | Digital technologies should come into play with the support of disadvantaged and low-ability people in mind; no groups of people should experience exclusion. | ||
Two statements: division desired, only one of the two statements is agreed to | I would fully underline the first sentence. I find the second sentence especially in relation to the first sentence misleading [...]. | The ratio of work quantity and working time must balance each other properly. If the work intensity is high, correspondingly more recovery time should be available. | ||
Lack of depth: wording too trivial, too few facets considered | Very vague wording. It remains unclear what these measures could be. | In order to counteract interested self-endangerment, measures are necessary to make the stress of colleagues working on the move visible. | ||
Discriminatory power: of the terms/formulation required | See also DSGVO and BDSG for valid formulations related to data protection. | Algorithms convert personal data into an anonymized form for medium-term storage. Thus, employees receive the right of having their personal data “forgotten”. | ||
New formulation example: or hints on words to be replaced | “The responsibility for the safety and health of employees lies with the employer. Particularly in agile structures/processes, care must be taken to ensure that this can be sensibly exercised and that everyone involved is aware of the responsibility.” | Even in agile organizational structures and processes and flat hierarchies, employers must take responsibility for the safety and health of employees and communicate this clearly. | ||
Concretization desired | How is “safe”, “suitable specialist personnel” and “all functional areas” defined? [...] Apart from these vague formulations, the statement is to be agreed with. | The decision-making of machine algorithms (AI) in technical processes must be safe and verifiable in all functional areas by suitable specialist personnel. | ||
Thesis and statement do not fit together | In my opinion, the statement does not fit the thesis. What then is the design proposal regarding blurred boundaries? [...] | Digital communication should promote work-life balance—without extending working hours. | ||
Process-related comments on the course of the Delphi | Apart from that, I thought it was good to be involved in the process, but it was very time-consuming. [...] | Do you find the developed criteria important and suitable? Does the designation seem appropriate to you or do you have alternative suggestions? |
References
- Svadberg, S.; Holand, A.; Breunig, K. Beyond the Hype: A Bibliometric Analysis Deconstructing Research on Digitalization. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2019, 9, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govers, M.; Amelsvoort, P. A Socio-Technical Perspective on the Digital Era: The Lowlands view. Eur. J. Workplace Innov. 2019, 4, 142–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cascio, W.F.; Montealegre, R. How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016, 3, 349–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, P.H.; Donoghue, R.; Heinold, E.; Moore, P.; Niehaus, S.; Wischniewski, S. Cognitive Automation: Implications for Occupational Safety and Health; EU-OSHA Report; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Bilbao, Spain, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa, G.; Sá, J.C.; Santos, G.; Silva, F.J.G.; Ferreira, L.P. The Contribution of Obeya for Business Intelligence. In Design, Applications, and Maintenance of Cyber-Physical Systems; Rea, P., Ottaviano, E., Machado, J., Antosz, K., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 244–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stacey, N.; Ellwood, P.; Bradbrook, S.; Reynolds, J.; Williams, H.; Lye, D. Foresight on New and Emerging Occupational Safety and Health Risks Associated with Digitalisation by 2025; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurofound. Telework and ICT-Based Mobile Work: Flexible Working in the Digital Age; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazmanian, M.; Orlikowski, W.J.; Yates, J. The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals. Organ. Sci. 2013, 24, 1337–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuh, G.; Gartzen, T.; Rodenhauser, T.; Marks, A. Promoting Work-based Learning through INDUSTRY 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2015, 32, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harborth, D.; Kümpers, K. Intelligence augmentation: Rethinking the future of work by leveraging human performance and abilities. Virtual Real. 2022, 26, 849–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehnbostel, P. Lern- und kompetenzförderliche Arbeitsgestaltung in der digitalisierten Arbeitswelt. Arbeit 2018, 27, 269–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacker, W. Arbeitsgestaltung bei Digitalisierung. Z. Für Arb. 2022, 76, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, J.; Amorim, M.; Melão, N.; Matos, P. Digital Transformation: A Literature Review and Guidelines for Future Research. In Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royakkers, L.; Timmer, J.; Kool, L.; van Est, R. Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2018, 20, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- BAuA. Arbeits- und Forschungsprogramm 2018–2021. Forschung für Arbeit und Gesundheit; Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Dengler, K.; Matthes, B. Substituierbarkeitspotenziale Von Berufen: Wenige Berufsbilder Halten Mit der Digitalisierung Schritt; (IAB-Kurzbericht 04/2018); Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung: Nürnberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, P.H.; Heinold, E.; Fries-Tersch, E.; Moore, P.; Wischniewski, S. Advanced Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and the Automation of Tasks: Definitions, Uses, Policies and Strategies and Occupational Safety and Health; EU-OSHA Report; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Bilbao, Spain, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothe, I.; Wischniewski, S.; Tegtmeier, P.; Tisch, A. Arbeiten in der digitalen Transformation—Chancen und Risiken für die menschengerechte Arbeitsgestaltung. Z. Für Arb. 2019, 73, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rothe, I.; Adolph, L.; Beermann, B.; Schütte, M.; Windel, A.; Grewer, A.; Lenhardt, U.; Michel, J.; Thomson, B.; Formazin, M. Mental Health in the Working World—Determining the Current State of Scientific Evidence; (baua: Report); Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Agency for Safety Health at Work. Digitalisation and Occupational Safety and Health (OSH): An EU-OSHA Research Programme; Publications Office of the European Union: Bilbao, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacker, W.; Sachse, P. Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie. Psychische Regulation von Tätigkeiten. 3., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S.; Gajdzik, B. Industry 5.0: Improving humanization and sustainability of Industry 4.0. Scientometrics 2022, 127, 3117–3144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, S.K.; Grote, G. Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World. Appl. Psychol. 2022, 71, 1171–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. Digitalisierung industrieller Arbeit. In Digitalisierung Industrieller Arbeit, Die Vision Industrie 4.0 und Ihre Sozialen Herausforderungen (2. Auflage); Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Ittermann, P., Niehaus, J., Eds.; Nomos: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2018; pp. 13–32. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, S.R.; Johnson, T.; Adlon, T.; Larreina, J.; Casla, P.; Parigot, L.; Alfaro, P.J.; Otero, M.d.M. Adaptive automation assembly: Identifying system requirements for technical efficiency and worker satisfaction. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 139, 105772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogler-Ludwig, K. Beschäftigungseffekte der Digitalisierung—Eine Klarstellung; (Konferenzband: Roboter—Assistenz-Systeme—Künstliche Intelligenz. Neue Formen der Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion); IZGA: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 51–62. [Google Scholar]
- Robelski, S.; Sommer, S. ICT-Enabled Mobile Work: Challenges and Opportunities for Occupational Health and Safety Systems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reavley, N.J.; Ross, A.M.; Killackey, E.; Jorm, A.F. Development of guidelines for tertiary education institutions to assist them in supporting students with a mental illness: A Delphi consensus study with Australian professionals and consumers. PeerJ 2013, 1, e43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trickey, H.; Harvey, I.; Wilcock, G.; Sharp, D. Formal consensus and consultation: A qualitative method for development of a guideline for dementia. Qual Health Care 1998, 7, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carter, P.; O’Donoghue, K.J.M.; Dworzynski, K.; O’Shea, L.; Roberts, V.; Reeves, T.; Bastounis, A.; Mugglestone, M.A.; Fawke, J.; Pilling, S. A demonstration of using formal consensus methods within guideline development; a case study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2021, 21, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niederberger, M.; Spranger, J. Delphi Technique in Health Sciences: A Map. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DIN EN ISO 6385:2016; Grundsätze der Ergonomie für die Gestaltung von Arbeitssystemen [ISO 6385:2016]. Beuth: Berlin, Germany, 2016.
- DIN EN ISO 9241-2; Ergonomische Anforderungen für Bürotätigkeiten mit Bildschirmgeräten, Teil 2: Anforderungen an die Arbeitsaufgaben. Beuth: Berlin, Germany, 1992.
- Ulich, E. Arbeitspsychologie; Schäffer Poeschel: Stuttgart: Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rohmert, W. Aufgaben und Inhalt der Arbeitswissenschaft. Die Berufsbild. Sch. 1972, 24, 3–14. [Google Scholar]
- Hacker, W.; Richter, P. Psychologische Bewertung von Arbeitsgestaltungsmaßnahmen: Ziele und Bewertungsmaßstäbe; VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften: Berlin, Germany, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Luczak, H.; Volpert, W. Arbeitswissenschaft: Kerndefinition, Gegenstandskatalog, Forschungsgebiete; RKW: Eschborn, Germany, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Schulte, P.A.; Delclos, G.; Felknor, S.A.; Chosewood, L.C. Toward an Expanded Focus for Occupational Safety and Health: A Commentary. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Volpert, W. Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten. In Arbeitspsychologie. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Themenbereich D; Kleinbeck, U., Rutenfranz, J., Eds.; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 1987; pp. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
- Strohm, O.; Ulich, E. Unternehmen Arbeitspsychologisch Bewerten: Ein Mehr-Ebenen-Ansatz unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung von Mensch, Technik und Organisation; vdf Hochschulverlag AG: Zürich, Switzerland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, C.; Tegtmeier, P.; Sommer, S.; Tisch, A.; Wischniewski, S. Kriterien einer menschengerechten Gestaltung von Arbeit in der digitalisierten Arbeitswelt. In Sicherheit und Gesundheit in der digitalisierten Arbeitswelt. Kriterien Für Eine Menschengerechte Gestaltung; Tisch, A., Wischniewski, S., Eds.; Nomos: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2022; pp. 11–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H. A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1971, 7, 466–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manera, K.; Hanson, C.S.; Gutman, T.; Tong, A. Consensus Methods: Nominal Group Technique. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; Liamputtong, P., Ed.; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2019; pp. 737–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, T.; Pease, A. RT Delphi: An efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2006, 73, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnatzy, T.; Warth, J.; von der Gracht, H.; Darkow, I.-L. Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach—A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2011, 78, 1681–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung, 2nd ed.; Beltz Juventa: Weinheim/Basel, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lamnek, S.; Krell, C. Qualitative Sozialforschung; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. Digitalisierung industrieller Einfacharbeit. Arbeit 2017, 26, 7–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mlekus, L.; Ötting, S.K.; Maier, G.W. Psychologische Arbeitsgestaltung digitaler Arbeitswelten. In Handbuch Gestaltung Digitaler und Vernetzter Arbeitswelten; Maier, G.W., Engels, G., Steffen, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 87–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, D.; Butschek, S.; Steffes, S.; Müller, D. Digitalisierung am Arbeitsplatz. BMAS-Forschungsbericht; BMAS: Nürnberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 468. [Google Scholar]
- Shrestha, N.; Kukkonen-Harjula, K.T.; Verbeek, J.H.; Ijaz, S.; Hermans, V.; Pedisic, Z. Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 2018, CD010912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Backé, E.M.; Kreis, L.; Latza, U. Interventionen am Arbeitsplatz, die zur Veränderung des Sitzverhaltens anregen. Zent. Für Arb. Arb. Und Ergon. 2019, 69, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, K.G.; Kotowski, S.E.; Daniel, D.; Gerding, T.; Naylor, J.; Syck, M. The Home Office: Ergonomic Lessons From the “New Normal”. Ergon. Des. 2020, 28, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tegtmeier, P. A scoping review on smart mobile devices and physical strain. Work 2018, 59, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gimpel, H.; Lanzl, J.; Regal, C.; Urbach, N.; Wischniewski, S.; Tegtmeier, P.; Kreilos, M.; Kühlmann, T.M.; Becker, J.; Eimecke, J.; et al. Gesund Digital Arbeiten?! Eine Studie zu Digitalem Stress in Deutschland; Fraunhofer-Institut für Angewandte Informationstechnik FIT, Projektgruppe Wirtschaftsinformatik & Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin: Augsburg/Dortmund, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junghanns, G.; Morschhäuser, M. (Eds.) Immer Schneller, Immer Mehr: Psychische Belastung bei Wissens- und Dienstleistungsarbeit; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacker, W. Vernetzte künstliche Intelligenz/ Internet der Dinge am deregulierten Arbeitsmarkt: Psychische Arbeitsanforderungen. Psychol. Des Alltagshandelns 2016, 9, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, S.-C.; Tisch, A.; Hünefeld, L. Arbeitsintensivierung und Handlungsspielraum in digitalisierten Arbeitswelten—Herausforderung für das Wohlbefinden von Beschäftigten? Ind. Bezieh. 2019, 26, 207–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kordsmeyer, A.-C.; Mette, J.; Harth, V.; Mache, S. Gesundheitsorientierte Führung in der virtuellen Teamarbeit. Zent. Für Arb. Arb. Und Ergon. 2020, 70, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, C. Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2017, 27, 648–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baym, N.K. Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 2nd ed.; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, J.R.; George, J.F. Media appropriateness in the conduct and discovery of deceptive communication: The relative influence of richness and synchronicity. Group Decis. Negot. 2004, 13, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boßow-Thies, S.; Zimmer, M.; Kurzenhäuser-Carstens, S. Mobil-flexibles Arbeiten und Stress—Eine quantitative Analyse mit PLS. In Arbeitswelten der Zukunft: Wie Die Digitalisierung Unsere Arbeitsplätze und Arbeitsweisen Verändert; Hermeier, B., Heupel, T., Fichtner-Rosada, S., Eds.; Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; pp. 361–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirchner, S. Konturen der digitalen Arbeitswelt. Eine Untersuchung der Einflussfaktioren beruflicher Computer- und Internetnutzung und der Zusammenhänge zu Arbeitsqualität. Kölner Z. Für Soziologie Und Soz. 2015, 67, 763–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pangert, B.; Pauls, N.; Schüpbach, H. Die Auswirkungen Arbeitsbezogener Erweiterter Erreichbarkeit auf Life-Domain-Balance und Gesundheit; (baua: Bericht); Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bigalk, D. Lernförderlichkeit von Arbeitsplätzen—Spiegelbild der Organisation? Schriftenreihe Personal- und Organisationsentwicklung 3; Sträter, O., Frieling, E., Eds.; University Press: Kassel, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Hacker, W. Lern-, gesundheits- und leistungsförderliche Arbeitsgestaltung in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen—Warum und wie? (Projektberichte, Heft 86); Technische Universität Dresden: Dresden, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Richter, G.; Ribbat, M.; Mühlenbrock, I. Lernförderliche Arbeitsgestaltung im Dienstleistungssektor am Beispiel der Sachbearbeitung: Die doppelte Rolle der Führungskraft; (baua: Fokus); Bundesanstalt für Arbeitschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terhoeven, J.; Mühlenbrock, I.; Mehler, L.; Ribbat, M.; Tisch, A.; Wischniewski, S. Lernförderlichkeit im Kontext einer menschengerechten Arbeitssystemgestaltung. In Arbeit interdisziplinär Analysieren-bewerten-Gestalten. 65. Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft; GfA-Press: Dresden, Germany, 2019; p. C.10.5. [Google Scholar]
- Richter, G.; Mühlenbrock, I.; Ribbat, M. Lernförderliche Arbeitsgestaltung in der Sachbearbeitung—Eine Aufgabe für Team- und Gruppenleitungen? Arbeit 2018, 27, 317–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senderek, R.; Geisler, K. Assistenzsysteme zur Lernunterstützung in der Industrie 4.0. In Proceedings of the DeLFI Workshops 2015 co-Located with 13th e-Learning Conference of the German Computer Society (DeLFI 2015), Munich, Germany, 1 September 2015; CEUR-WS.org: Munich, Germany, 2015; pp. 36–46. [Google Scholar]
- Dehnbostel, P. Arbeit lernförderlich gestalten—Theoretische Aspekte und praktische Umsetzungen. Lern. Und Lehren (Ll) 2004, 76/2004, 148–156. [Google Scholar]
- Backhaus, N.; Knittel, M.; Weisner, K.; Benter, M.; Wischniewski, S.; Jaitner, T.; Deuse, J. Förderung gesunder Arbeit durch kontextsensitive Assistenzsysteme in der industriellen Fertigung und Montage. In ARBEIT(S).WISSEN.SCHAF(F)T. Grundlage Für Management & Kompetenzentwicklung. 64. Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft; GfA-Press: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2018; p. B.1.1. [Google Scholar]
- Senderek, R.; Heeg, K. Der Einsatz digitaler Lern- und Assistenzsysteme im industriellen Wandel—Softwarelösungen erfolgreich implementieren. In Proceedings of the DeLFI Workshops 2016, Co-Located with 14th e-Learning Conference of the German ComputerSociety (DeLFI 2016), Potsdam, Germany, 11 September 2016; CEUR-WS.org: Potsdam, Germany, 2016; pp. 223–229. [Google Scholar]
- Apt, W.; Bovenschulte, M.; Priesack, K.; Weiß, C.; Hartmann, E.A. Einsatz von digitalen Assistenzsystemen im Betrieb; BMAS Forschungsbericht 502; Institut für Innovation und Technik: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- BMAS. Weissbuch Arbeiten 4.0; BMAS: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Funk, M.; Tegtmeier, P.; Waßmann, M.; Wischniewski, S. Menschzentrierte Einführung digitaler Arbeitsmittel—Erwartungen und Rahmenbedingungen. In Arbeit Interdisziplinär Analysieren-bewerten-Gestalten. 65. Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft; GfA-Press: Dresden, Germany, 2019; p. C.1.14. [Google Scholar]
- Abendroth, A.-K.; Reimann, M. Telework and Work–Family Conflict across Workplaces: Investigating the Implications of Work–Family-Supportive and High-Demand Workplace Cultures. In The Work-Family Interface: Spillover, Complications, and Challenges; Blair, S.L., Obradović, J., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2018; pp. 323–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lott, Y. Work-Life Balance im Homeoffice: Was Kann der Betrieb Tun? WSI Report; The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ducki, A.; Nguyen, H.T. Psychische Gesundheit in der Arbeitswelt-Mobilität; (baua: Bericht); Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backhaus, N.; Wöhrmann, A.M.; Tisch, A. BAuA-Arbeitszeitbefragung: Telearbeit in Deutschland; baua: Bericht kompakt; Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Yperen, N.; Rietzschel, E.; De Jonge, K. Blended Working: For Whom It May (Not) Work. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sauer, S. Wertschätzend Selbst Organisieren. Arbeitsvermögens- und Anerkennungsbasierte Selbstorganisation bei der Projektarbeit; Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vuori, V.; Helander, N.; Okkonen, J. Digitalization in knowledge work: The dream of enhanced performance. Cogn. Technol. Work 2019, 21, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janda, V.; Guhlemann, K. Sichtbarkeit und Umsetzung—Die Digitalisierung Verstärkt Bekannte und Erzeugt neue Herausforderungen für den Arbeitsschutz; (baua: Fokus); Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backhaus, N. Review zur Wirkung Elektronischer Überwachung am Arbeitsplatz und Gestaltung Kontextsensitiver Assistenzsysteme; 1. Auflage ed. (baua: Bericht); Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. In Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI; Publications Office: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zweig, K.A. Algorithmische Entscheidungen: Transparenz und Kontrolle; (Analysen und Argumente); Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Feldmann, C.; Hemsen, P.; Giard, N. Crowdworking: Einlüsse der Arbeitsbedingungen auf die Motivation der Crowd Worker; (Forschungsschwerpunkt Digitale Zukunft: Working Paper); Universität Bielefeld: Bielefeld, Germany; Universität Paderborn: Paderborn, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Leimeister, J.M.; Durward, D.; Zogaj, S. Crowd Worker in Deutschland. Eine empirische Studie zum Arbeitsumfeld auf Externen Crowdsourcing-Plattformen; (Study 323); Hans Böckler Stiftung: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Raghu, M.; Blumer, K.; Corrado, G.; Kleinberg, J.M.; Obermeyer, Z.; Mullainathan, S. The Algorithmic Automation Problem: Prediction, Triage, and Human Effort. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1903.12220. [Google Scholar]
- Rahwan, I.; Cebrian, M.; Obradovich, N.; Bongard, J.; Bonnefon, J.-F.; Breazeal, C.; Crandall, J.W.; Christakis, N.A.; Couzin, I.D.; Jackson, M.O.; et al. Machine behaviour. Nature 2019, 568, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beining, L. Wie Algorithmen verständlich werden. Ideen für Nachvollziehbarkeit von algorithmischen Entscheidungsprozessen für Betroffene; Stiftung Neue Verantwortung e. V.; Bertelsmann Stiftung: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. On Artificial Intelligence—A European Approach to Excellence and Trust; (White Paper); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Merritt, S.M.; Lee, D.; Unnerstall, J.L.; Huber, K. Are Well-Calibrated Users Effective Users? Associations Between Calibration of Trust and Performance on an Automation-Aided Task. Hum. Factors 2015, 57, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, R.; Manzey, D.H. Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Hum. Factors 2010, 52, 381–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jaume-Palasí, L.; Spielkamp, M. Ethik und Algorithmische Prozesse zur Entscheidungsfindung Oder -Vorbereitung; (Arbeitspapier Nr. 4); AlgorithmWatch: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ayyagari, R.; Grover, V.; Purvis, R. Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 831–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. Bericht über die Auswirkungen künstlicher Intelligenz, des Internets der Dinge und der Robotik in Hinblick auf Sicherheit und Haftung; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Tarafdar, M.; Gupta, A.; Turel, O. Special issue on ‘dark side of information technology use’: An introduction and a frame-work for research. Inf. Syst. J. 2015, 25, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Antonovsky, A. Unraveling the Mystery of Health. How People Manage Stress and Stay Well; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Waltersbacher, A.; Zok, K.; Böttger, S.J.; Klose, J. Sinnerleben bei der Arbeit und der Einfluss auf die Gesundheit. In Fehlzeiten-Report 2018; Badura, B., Ducki, A., Schröder, H., Klose, J., Meyer, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 23–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voswinkel, S. Work and Subjectivity. In Capitalism and Labor; Dörre, K., Mayer-Ahuja, N., Sauer, D., Wittke, V., Eds.; Campus Verlag: Frankfurt, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 269–282. [Google Scholar]
- Rastetter, D. Vielfalt gleichstellen? Gleichstellung, Antidiskriminierung und Diversity Management im Kontext von digitalisierter Arbeit. In Standards guter Arbeit. Disziplinäre Positionen und interdisziplinäre Perspektiven; Alewell, D., Matiaske, W., Eds.; Nomos: Baden Baden, Germany, 2019; pp. 81–106. [Google Scholar]
- Engels, D. Chancen und Risiken der Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt für die Beschäftigung von Menschen mit Behinderung. Kurzexpertise für das BMAS; (Forschungsbericht 467); Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik: Köln, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kremer, D.; Hermann, S.; Schneider, M.; Henkel, C. Mensch-Roboter-Kollaboration für schwerbehinderte Produktionsmitarbeiter. Z. Für Arb. 2019, 73, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, S.E.; Chobany, C.M.; Beam, A.A.; Hoover, B.N.; Hull, T.T.; Linsenbigler, M.; Makdad-Light, C.; Rubright, C.N. Use of speech generating devices can improve perception of qualifications for skilled, verbal, and interactive jobs. Work 2017, 56, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassiliadis, M. Industrie 4.0 braucht soziale Innovationen. In Digitalisierung und Industrie 4.0. Technik Allein Reicht Nicht; Vassiliadis, M., Ed.; Industriegewerkschaft Bergbau, Chemie, Energie: Hannover, Germany, 2017; pp. 13–37. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, C.; Thomson, B.; Pundt, F. Die Notwendigkeit von Führung in Einer Digitalisierten Arbeitswelt—Eine Netnografie; (baua: Fokus); Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA): Dortmund, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marrold, L. Mit Holacracy auf dem Weg zur agilen Organisation. In Arbeitswelt der Zukunft; Fortmann, H.R., Kolocek, B., Eds.; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; pp. 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gargon, E.; Crew, R.; Burnside, G.; Williamson, P.R. Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2019, 108, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junghanns, G.; Kersten, N. Informationsüberflutung am Arbeitsplatz. Zent. Für Arb. Arb. Und Ergon. 2019, 69, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragu-Nathan, T.; Tarafdar, M.; Nathan, R.; Tu, Q. The Consequences of Technostress for End Users in Organizations: Conceptual Development and Empirical Validation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2008, 19, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Waschull, S.; Bokhorst, J.A.C.; Wortmann, J.C.; Molleman, E. The redesign of blue- and white-collar work triggered by digitalization: Collar matters. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 165, 107910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilms, P.; Schröder, J.; Reer, R.; Scheit, L. The Impact of “Home Office” Work on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton, S.; Fitzsimons, C.; Jepson, R.; Saunders, D.H.; Sivaramakrishnan, D.; Niven, A. What works to reduce sedentary behavior in the office, and could these intervention components transfer to the home working environment?: A rapid review and transferability appraisal. Front. Sports Act. Living 2022, 4, 954639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauffeld, S.; Tartler, D.; Gräfe, H.; Windmann, A.-K.; Sauer, N.C. What will mobile and virtual work look like in the future?—Results of a Delphi-based study. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Z. Für Angew. Organ. GIO 2022, 53, 189–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awang, Y.; Shuhidan, S.M.; Taib, A.; Rashid, N.; Hasan, M.S. Digitalization of Accounting Profession: An Opportunity or a Risk for Future Accountants? Proceedings 2022, 82, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro Martínez, O.; Igual García, J.; Traver Salcedo, V. Transferring Healthcare Professional’s Digital Competencies to the Workplace and Patients: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babapour Chafi, M.; Hultberg, A.; Bozic Yams, N. Post-Pandemic Office Work: Perceived Challenges and Opportunities for a Sustainable Work Environment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niebuhr, F.; Borle, P.; Börner-Zobel, F.; Voelter-Mahlknecht, S. Healthy and Happy Working from Home? Effects of Working from Home on Employee Health and Job Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, L.; Pénard, T.; Poussing, N. Are Employees Happier when Staying Connected with their Companies Outside Working Hours? Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2022, 40, 1035–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oleksa-Marewska, K.; Tokar, J. Facing the Post-Pandemic Challenges: The Role of Leadership Effectiveness in Shaping the Affective Well-Being of Healthcare Providers Working in a Hybrid Work Mode. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koivunen, S.; Ala-Luopa, S.; Olsson, T.; Haapakorpi, A. The March of Chatbots into Recruitment: Recruiters’ Experiences, Expectations, and Design Opportunities. Comput. Supported Coop. Work (CSCW) 2022, 31, 487–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cranefield, J.; Winikoff, M.; Chiu, Y.-T.; Li, Y.; Doyle, C.; Richter, A. Partnering with AI: The case of digital productivity assistants. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2022, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuzior, A.; Kettler, K.; Rąb, Ł. Digitalization of Work and Human Resources Processes as a Way to Create a Sustainable and Ethical Organization. Energies 2022, 15, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dietz, C.; Bauermann, P.; Zacher, H. Relationships between ICT Use for Task and Social Functions, Work Characteristics, and Employee Task Proficiency and Job Satisfaction: Does Age Matter? Merits 2022, 2, 224–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomczak, M.T.; Mpofu, E.; Hutson, N. Remote Work Support Needs of Employees with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Poland: Perspectives of Individuals with Autism and Their Coworkers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turk, M.; Šimic, M.; Pipan, M.; Herakovič, N. Multi-Criterial Algorithm for the Efficient and Ergonomic Manual Assembly Process. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roša, A.; Lobanova, L. Ethical Responsibility of a Company in the Context of Digital Transformation of Work: Conceptual Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, M.L.; Laursen, C.S.; Dyreborg, J. Who takes care of safety and health among young workers? Responsibilization of OSH in the platform economy. Saf. Sci. 2022, 149, 105674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedl, R. On the stress potential of videoconferencing: Definition and root causes of Zoom fatigue. Electron. Mark. 2022, 32, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Looy, A. Employees’ attitudes towards intelligent robots: A dilemma analysis. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 2022, 20, 371–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.H.M.; Hurbean, L.; Davison, R.M.; Ou, C.X.J.; Muntean, M. Working around inadequate information systems in the workplace: An empirical study in Romania. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 64, 102471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tegtmeier, P.; Weber, C.; Sommer, S.; Tisch, A.; Wischniewski, S. Criteria and Guidelines for Human-Centered Work Design in a Digitally Transformed World of Work: Findings from a Formal Consensus Process. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15506. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315506
Tegtmeier P, Weber C, Sommer S, Tisch A, Wischniewski S. Criteria and Guidelines for Human-Centered Work Design in a Digitally Transformed World of Work: Findings from a Formal Consensus Process. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(23):15506. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315506
Chicago/Turabian StyleTegtmeier, Patricia, Corinna Weber, Sabine Sommer, Anita Tisch, and Sascha Wischniewski. 2022. "Criteria and Guidelines for Human-Centered Work Design in a Digitally Transformed World of Work: Findings from a Formal Consensus Process" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 23: 15506. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315506