The Design of “Future Work” in Industrial Contexts

Abstract

This chapter proposes to discuss work transformation management as a key issue to designing working conditions to ensure safe, healthy and performant work in a context of technological transitions. Here, we view the design of future work as a transition process and as a set of projects—social, organisational, technological—that will together shape a “future of work”. We consider lessons from the past regarding: (1) cooperation between workers and technology and (2) project management of work transformations, as resources to manage this transition. These lessons will be discussed with reference to ongoing research dealing with introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) or collaborative robotics at work in the French industrial context, as an illustration of the transformation of industry at a global level.

Aside from Deterministic Prophecies, What Is Missing in the Contemporary Debate on Automation and the Future of Work? The Case of Automated Vehicles

“…Of relevance here is what Howcroft and Taylor (2022) point out regarding the belief that technology possesses an intrinsic momentum, which presupposes the absence of alternatives by portraying a single and inevitable direction for future work. Through this deterministic lens, technology is seen as a panacea for economic, competitiveness, safety and production problems, like "remedies", with a lack of systematic analysis of these problems (Barcellini 2022). Additionally, commentators like Dellot and Wallace-Stephens (2017) recognise that this logic can in fact result in a significant omission in recent studies on automation and work.…”

“…When the attention is fixated on estimating the number of jobs that could be displaced, we are distracted from the ways automation transforms other aspects of the worker landscape, such as the division of labour, the quality of working conditions, productivity demands, risk factors (and related occupational health policies), or workers' organisation and bargaining power (e.g., weakening workers' bargaining positions; Balliester and Elsheikhi 2018). For example, Rabardel (1995) and, more recently, Gaudart (2021) and Barcellini (2022) call attention to the reductions that arise whenever work is exclusively thought of for its "techno-centred properties". Concrete, "[the worker], his/her actual activity, and the ecosystem in which he/she evolves are rarely considered in guiding the development and diffusion of technological systems: technology is not a solution, but it is the solution ( .…”

A Systematic Review Discussing the Sustainability of Men and Women’s Work in Industry 4.0: Are Technologies Gender-Neutral?

“…While the future is still yet to be unraveled [20], the various risks which have been pointed out-and that threaten the sustainability of work-should not be undermined. Those risks are more than just labor market risks, as threats for the health and well-being of workers also emerge in the context of I4.0 technology-induced changes [21]. For instance, work intensification, human-machine conflicts, increased cognitive workload, feelings of job insecurity, and even physical hazards can be found in the literature [22][23][24][25].…”

“…Still, the gender dimension remains generally underexplored in the I4.0 literature, even though these risks are, simultaneously, determinants and effects of different dimensions such as gender, age, and/or territorial employment distribution [26]. That is, while some studies have pointed out that I4.0-induced changes can hold risks for health, e.g., [23,24], the differentiated impacts on women and men remain unclear, as I4.0 research that includes the gender dimension is scarce [21,22]. The predominantly technology-centered discourses tend to focus on the development and implementation of technology, which are often distant from real work contexts, neither considering those who shape its use nor their specific health consequences [21,22,27].…”

“…That is, while some studies have pointed out that I4.0-induced changes can hold risks for health, e.g., [23,24], the differentiated impacts on women and men remain unclear, as I4.0 research that includes the gender dimension is scarce [21,22]. The predominantly technology-centered discourses tend to focus on the development and implementation of technology, which are often distant from real work contexts, neither considering those who shape its use nor their specific health consequences [21,22,27].…”