TINA und die technologische Revolution

Right now we are experiencing an extensive public debate about the radical change of economy and society due to digitalization. Within this debate, technical determinism - identifying technology as the reason for social change- and neoliberalism interconnect. The guiding question is not about the how of development and application of technology, but the sheer demand of fast digitalization to boost competitivity. This article discusses the impact of digitalization on employment and quality of work, taking into consideration the debates about digitalization, industry 4.0, and labor 4.0. The impact depends on different objectives concerning development and use of digital technologies. By way of example of the so-called platform economy, we show how the formation of technology interconnects with neoliberal radical change in society.Wir erleben derzeit eine langanhaltende öffentliche Debatte über den Umbruch von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im Zuge der Digitalisierung. Dabei verbinden sich die Perspektive des Technikdeterminismus, welche die Ursache sozialer Veränderungen in der Technik sieht, und jene des Neoliberalismus. Entsprechend wird nicht die Frage gestellt, welche Technikentwicklung und -anwendung wünschenswert sei, sondern bloß eine rasche Digitalisierung zur Steigerung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit gefordert. In diesem Beitrag wird ausgehend von aktuellen Debatten über Digitalisierung, Industrie 4.0 und Arbeit 4.0 dargestellt, welche Beschäftigungswirkungen der Digitalisierung derzeit erwartet werden und wie sich die Qualität der Arbeit abhängig von unterschiedlichen Zielsetzungen bei der Entwicklung und beim Einsatz digitaler Technologien abzeichnen. Am Beispiel der sogenannten Plattformwirtschaft wird gezeigt, wie sich die Gestaltung von Technik mit der neoliberalen gesellschaftlichen Umwälzung verbindet

Technological Innovation and Inclusive Growth in Germany. Bertelsmann Stiftung Inclusive Growth for Germany|18

Economic growth in Germany is no longer as inclusive as it used to be. Between 1990 and 2010 all measures of income and wealth inequality rose considerably,1 which even led the media to portray Germany as a ‘divided nation’.2 Income inequality was relatively low before 1990, and even declined over much of the 20th century, but changed direction after German unification. The rise in income inequality from 1990 onwards is depicted in Figure 1 through various inequality indicators and the ‘at-risk-of-poverty rate’. It can be seen that all measures of income inequality (before and after tax) increased markedly after 1990 along with the ‘at-risk-ofpoverty rate’.3 Felbermayr et al. (2014) furthermore document that the rise in wage inequality was faster in Germany than in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada between the mid-1990s and 2010. This rise in income and wage inequality has been accompanied, and to a certain extent occasioned, by a simultaneous increase in wealth inequality. Using data from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), Frick and Grabka (2009) show, that the Gini coefficient for wealth increased from 0.77 to 0.80 during this period, and wealth grew particularly strongly at the top 1 percent of the wealth distribution

Die 'Rolle des Menschen' in der Industrie 4.0 - Technikzentrierter vs. humanzentrierter Ansatz

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, welche Rolle dem menschlichen Arbeitshandeln in den aktuellen, unter dem Etikett 'Industrie 4.0' diskutierten Entwicklungen und Zukunftsvisionen zukommt. Um auf diese Frage eine Antwort zu geben, wird knapp der aktuelle Diskurs zur Industrie 4.0 analysiert. Zudem wird ein theoretischer Begründungszusammenhang vorgestellt, der zeigt, dass und warum auch die ‚intelligente Fabrik‘ als sozio-technisches System umfassend auf menschliche Arbeit angewiesen ist. Auf dieser Basis erfolgt eine Systematisierung aktueller konfligierender Leitbilder in der Diskussion um die Industrie 4.0 - auf den Ebenen Mensch, Technik und Organisation. Dabei werden entlang von drei den gegenwärtigen Diskurs prägenden Fragen kontrovers diskutierte Leitbilder identifiziert, die sich jeweils einem technik- und einem humanzentrierten Ansatz zuordnen lassen: 1) Führt die Digitalisierung zum kompletten Wegfall bestimmter Berufe und zu einer radikalen Polarisierung zwischen hohen und geringen Qualifikationen sowie Tätigkeiten oder handelt es sich um einen beschleunigten, aber kontinuierlichen und breit gefächerten Wandel, da manche Arbeitsanteile nicht ersetzbar sind? 2) Liegt die Zukunft der Technikentwicklung in einer Angleichung von Mensch und Technik oder in der Aufrechterhaltung einer funktionalen Differenz? 3) Führt die aktuelle integrative Vernetzung zu einer neuen, flexibleren, dezentralen Steuerung der Organisation oder liegt eine Re-Zentralisierung vor? Je nach Beantwortung dieser Fragen wird das Mensch-Technik-Verhältnis unterschiedlich gewichtet. Die gegenwärtig die Diskussion bestimmende technikzentrierte Perspektive betont den Wirkungsraum der Technik, während ein humanzentrierter Ansatz die Notwendigkeit menschlichen Handelns hervorhebt. Für Letzteres werden empirische Beispiele gegeben.The subject of this paper is the question which part human work action will play in the developments and scenarios currently discussed under the label "Industry 4.0". After a short summary and analysis of the present discussion about Industry 4.0, a theoretical approach is introduced which is apt to show that human work is also essential in concepts of a "smart factory" and why this is the case. On this basis, current models and guiding principles presented in the discussion about Industry 4.0 are arranged systematically on the levels of man, technology, and organization. This leads to an identification of three pairs of conflicting models. One part of each pair may be assigned to a technocentric approach and the other part to a human-centric perspective: 1) Will digitization lead to the complete disappearance of certain professions and a radical polarization between high and low skills and work activities, or rather to an accelerated but continuous and wide-ranging change process because certain aspects of human work are indispensable? 2) What is the future of technological development - a convergence of human and technological action or the maintenance of a functional difference between them? 3) Will the concepts of integrative networking currently pursued lead to a new kind of de-centralized and flexible governance and control of organizations or rather to a kind of re-centralization? Depending on the answers to these questions, a different weighting of the relationship of human work and technology becomes visible. The technocentric perspective currently dominating the discussion emphasizes the effects and potentials of technology, whereas a human-centric approach underlines the indispensability of human work. Finally, empirical examples for an implementation of technology in a human-centric perspective are given

The role of high-performance people management practices in Industry 4.0: The case of medium-sized Spanish firms

Purpose: This paper wants to build the case for the key role of high-performance people management practices in the development of I4.0 in SMEs. The research upon which this paper is based wants to prove that the consolidation of those practices should be a priority for any company willing to embark in this journey. The paper deals specifically with medium-sized Spanish firms which, on top, are already having significant issues with digitization. Design/methodology: The paper starts by digging into the literature to see how past technologies have impacted productivity, followed by a review of the material available on digitization and Industry 4.0. It moves on to explore the relationship between people management practices, productivity and innovation. Finally, the focus is placed on Spanish medium-sized companies, understanding their current levels of consolidation of high-performance people management practices as well as digitization. With all this information, several propositions are posited for validation using the Delphi methodology. Findings: I4.0 is, at its core, about productivity improvements through business process and business model innovation. People management practices are found to be strongly correlated with both productivity and innovation. It has also been found that Spanish medium-sized firms already have a significant initial gap compared to those of other OECD countries not only in productivity, but also people management practices and digitization. The experts seem to agree on the key role of people management practices and that they should be a high priority for any firm seriously thinking about industry 4.0. This is not to say that strategy or leadership will not play a paramount role in any digital transformation, but to emphasize the fact that the normally-forgotten people management practices will be important enablers in this process. Originality/value: It is believed that this is a topic that has been mostly neglected in the I4.0 literature. In that sense, the findings of this paper could be relevant for small and medium-sized businesses embarking on the industry 4.0 journey. This will entail a significant investment of time and money and, if the key role of people management practices is not on the radar screen, it may have significant implications for the success of those ventures.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Innovation in the European chemical industry

Firms in the European chemical industry have been among the most successful firms world wide. However, they have had to undertake severe restucturing in order to maintain their market position. These efforts focused in particular on strengthening their innovative capability as product and process innovation have become the most decisive factors in global competition. In order to improve the innovative conditions, the European Commission has supported the Community Innovation Survey (CIS). 1992/1993 was the first time that large-scale harmonised innovation surveys were carried out in all Member States of the European Union. This study uses the CIS micro data from nearly 2000 European chemical firms. This study focuses on the identification of innovative trends within the chemical industry between 1984 and 1993. Using data from annual reports of nine selected European stock companies, the study identifies those areas of the chemical industry currently having the highest innovative potential. Three speciality categories are identified as having the highest number of innovations during this ten year period: chemicals, paints/varnishes, and plastics. -- Obwohl viele europäische Unternehmen der chemischen Industrie in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten zu den erfolgreichsten in der Welt zählten, mußten sie sich Anfang der neunziger Jahre einem gravierenden Strukturwandel unterziehen, um ihre Position behaupten zu können. Die Fähigkeit der Unternehmen, Innovationen hervorzubringen, stand und steht dabei im Mittelpunkt. Mit dem Ziel, die Rahmenbedingungen für Innovationen zu verbessern, führte die EU-Kommission 1993 eine europaweite Innovationserhebung, den Community Innovation Survey (CIS) durch. In dieser Studie wurden die anonymisierten Antworten von nahezu 2000 Unternehmen der chemischen Industrie analysiert. Um Innovationstrends aufzuzeigen zu können, wurden darüber hinaus Geschäftsberichte von neun großen europäischen Chemieunternehmen ausgewertet. So wurden die Sparten Spezialitäten, Farben/Lacke und Kunststoffe als diejenigen Sparten identifiziert, die im Untersuchungszeitraum (1984-1993) die meisten Innovationen aufwiesen.

Internet of Things and Their Coming Perspectives: A Real Options Approach

Internet of things is developing at a dizzying rate, and companies are forced to implement it in order to maintain their operational efficiency. The high flexibility inherent to these technologies makes it necessary to apply an appropriate measure, which properly assesses risks and rewards. Real options methodology is available as a tool which fits the conditions, both economic and strategic, under which investment in internet of things technologies is developed. The contribution of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it offers an adequate tool to assess the strategic value of investment in internet of things technologies. On the other hand, it tries to raise awareness among managers of internet of things technologies because of their potential to contribute to economic and social progress. The results of the research described in this paper highlight the importance of taking action as quickly as possible if companies want to obtain the best possible performance. In order to enhance the understanding of internet of things technologies investment, this paper provides a methodology to assess the implementation of internet of things technologies by using the real options approach; in particular, the option to expand has been proposed for use in the decision-making process

Capacity for Innovation: Among Leading Industrial Countries, Germany Only Manages a Middle Rank

The capacity of people and companies to bring about innovations, that is, to create new knowledge and implement this in new marketable products and services, is of prominent importance for growth and prosperity in highly developed industrial countries. On commission of Deutsche Telekom Stiftung and Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI, Federation of German Industries), DIW Berlin has prepared an overall indicator of innovative capacity for the first time this year, in which Germany and 12 other leading industrial countries are studied. Germany takes sixth place following frontrunner USA, three Scandinavian countries and Japan, but does not have any clear advantages over the other large European countries, Great Britain and France.

The new EFQM model: What is really new and could be considered as a suitable tool with respect to Quality 4.0 concept?

Purpose: The paper offers a set of original information based on critical analysis of description two last versions of excellence models presented by the European Organisation for Quality Management (EFQM). The principle goal is to present the main advantages and weaknesses of the latest version of The EFQM Model, especially from a practical point of view with respect to a Quality 4.0 era. Methodology/Approach: Comparative analysis of two relevant documents (EFQM, 2012; EFQM, 2019a) was used as a key method. Discussions with 18 quality professionals from Czech production organisations served as a complementary approach. Findings: The basic structure of a new model was completely changed. But the description of certain recommendations by way of guidance points are superficial and confusing. It lays stress on the necessity to transform organisations for the future as well as on comprehensive feedback from key stakeholders. Research Limitation/implication: The latest version of The EFQM Model was published in November 2019, and general knowledge related to this version is naturally limited. Published studies or publicly available experience completely absent. That is why a more in-depth literature review focused on the latest version of The EFQM Model could not be included in this text. Originality/Value of paper: The paper brings an original set of information that was not published yet before. The value of this set should be examined not only from theoretical but primarily from a practical viewpoint.Web of Science241281