Strategic Management Instruments for Cyber-Physical Organizations: Technological Posthumanization as a Driver of Strategic Innovation

Abstract

Background. Strategic management instruments (SMIs) are tools used to analyze an organization's strategic situation, formulate effective strategies, and successfully implement them. Despite SMIs' importance, there has been little systematic research into them -and especially regarding the impact of emerging technologies on SMIs.Research aims. Here we investigate whether the forces of technological posthumanization that are creating a new class of 'cyber-physical organizations' can be expected to affect innovation in the use of SMIs within such organizations.Methodology. Through a review of strategic management literature, we identify nearly 100 SMIs and categorize them according to their use in (a) strategic analysis, (b) strategy formulation, or (c) strategy implementation. Meanwhile, an analysis of cyber-physical systems and technological posthumanization reveals three dynamics that are converging to create an emerging class of cyber-physical organizations: (a) roboticization of the workforce; (b) deepening human-computer integration; and (c) the ubiquitization of computation. A framework is developed for mapping the impacts of these dynamics onto the inputs, agents, processes, and outputs involved with the three types of SMIs.Key findings. Application of the framework shows that technological posthumanization should be expected to both facilitate and require innovation in cyber-physical organizations' use of all three types of SMIs.

Human–machine trans roles conflict in the organization: How sensitive are customers to intelligent robots replacing the human workforce?

“…However, this is not an oversight made by preceding authors but a novel phenomenon that has developed in the Fourth Industrial Revolution due to advances in AI. The findings of this study are in line with previous posthuman investigations concerning humanmachine relations in the era of organization 4.0 (Gladden, 2017). This study, however, is the first one visibly showing that customers demarcate the roles of people and intelligent technology in a company and resist when this demarcation line is crossed.…”

Who Will Be the Members of Society 5.0? Towards an Anthropology of Technologically Posthumanized Future Societies

“…In today's world, the processes of posthumanization are often identified with the growing use of social robots, autonomous AI, and advanced human-computer interfaces. However, if-as discussed above-posthumanization is understood simply as the processes by which a society comes to include members and participants other than just natural biological human beings (Gladden 2017(Gladden , 2018, then it becomes apparent that the use of emerging 21st-century technologies is not the only way in which a society might become posthumanized. This fact was hinted at by Clarke and Hansen, who suggest (Clarke and Hansen 2009, pp.…”

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace: Implications for usability and user experience

“…The cyber-physical smart workplace is a key feature of the emerging "cyber-physical organization" (Gladden, 2017), which typically comprises an array of "cyber-physical systems" (Gill, 2008;Wang, Vuran, & Goddard, 2008), including "cyber-physical-social systems" that incorporate human beings and social robots (Liu, Yang, Wen, Zhang, & Mao, 2011;Smirnov, Kashevnik, & Ponomarev, 2015). As depicted in Figure 3, the cyber-physical organization and its cyber-physical smart workplace are characterized by the roboticization of organizational agency and action (Samani, Valino Koh, Saadatian, & Polydorou, 2012;Ford, 2015;Sachs, Benzell, & LaGarda, 2015;Gladden, 2017), deepened human-computer integration within the organizational workforce (Clark, 2004;McGee, 2008;Koops & Leenes, 2012;Gladden, 2017), and the ubiquitization and non-localization of computational processes (Greenfield, 2006;Gladden, 2016Gladden, , 2017Coeckelbergh, 2011).…”

“…The cyber-physical smart workplace is a key feature of the emerging "cyber-physical organization" (Gladden, 2017), which typically comprises an array of "cyber-physical systems" (Gill, 2008;Wang, Vuran, & Goddard, 2008), including "cyber-physical-social systems" that incorporate human beings and social robots (Liu, Yang, Wen, Zhang, & Mao, 2011;Smirnov, Kashevnik, & Ponomarev, 2015). As depicted in Figure 3, the cyber-physical organization and its cyber-physical smart workplace are characterized by the roboticization of organizational agency and action (Samani, Valino Koh, Saadatian, & Polydorou, 2012;Ford, 2015;Sachs, Benzell, & LaGarda, 2015;Gladden, 2017), deepened human-computer integration within the organizational workforce (Clark, 2004;McGee, 2008;Koops & Leenes, 2012;Gladden, 2017), and the ubiquitization and non-localization of computational processes (Greenfield, 2006;Gladden, 2016Gladden, , 2017Coeckelbergh, 2011). A robustly cyber-physical organization constitutes a type of entity within which processes of posthumanization (Gladden, 2018c;Herbrechter, 2013) have exercised significant transformative influence; more specifically, its cyber-physical smart workplace can be understood as "technologically posthumanized," insofar as its incorporation of particular advanced technologies has expanded the workplace to includes members other than "natural" biological human beings who contribute to its structure, activity, and meaning by serving within it as decision-makers and intelligent social actors (Gladden, 2018c).…”