Why Industry 4.0 needs Workplace Innovation: a critical look at the German debate on advanced manufacturing

Abstract

Behind labels in the international debate such as “autonomics” and “advanced manufacturing” hides the attempt to accelerate the digitalisation of production. In Germany, the future of manufacturing is intimately bound up with the vision of Industry 4.0. Despite considerable uncertainties and risks, and despite negative experiences with such technology-centred approaches in the past (e.g. with concepts such as the “fully automated factory” or “Enterprise 2.0”), there is a broad, almost unbroken consensus between social partners and policy-makers. Widespread implementation of this technology-centred vision appears to be necessary and crucial for competitiveness, and without alternatives, so that only the question of its socially acceptable design remains to be answered. Our article aims to show, however, that there are alternatives to a concept based on a one-sided, technology-oriented understanding of innovation. It therefore makes an important difference whether Industry 4.0 or Workplace Innovation stands at the centre of such far-reaching plans for the future.

The Emergence and Rise of Industry 4.0 Viewed through the Lens of Management Fashion Theory

“…In practice, this literature search process started by using Google Scholar to find key papers raising the possibility that the I4.0 concept could be characterized as a fad, fashion and/or a buzzword. Based on these initial searches, some key papers were identified (Hofmann and Rüsch 2017;Kopp et al 2016;Pfeiffer 2017). These identified key papers can be considered the "seed set" (Felizardo et al 2016).…”

“…In the years following its introduction, there have been numerous formal and informal activities and initiatives to further develop I4.0. For example, in 2012, a working group was founded, which later resulted in the creation of an "Industry 4.0 Platform" (Kopp et al 2016). Moreover, it has been noted that there has been a "vivid public debate" (Fuchs 2018) surrounding I4.0.…”

“…Governments of several countries have enacted policies in support the concept, and in effect legitimized the concept. For example, there have been several national strategic initiatives related to I4.0 such as "Made-in-China 2025" (Kopp et al 2016;Xu et al 2018) as well as similar efforts in countries such as Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Austria and Japan (Hamada 2019).…”

“…One explanation for the concept's mainstream appeal, societal legitimacy and perceived relevance is the fact that it is backed and boosted by many powerful actors (e.g., consulting and big tech firms), and that there is a high degree of consensus among socio-political actors about the concept's importance and applicability across borders (Hirsch-Kreinsen et al 2016;Kopp et al 2016). The topic of I4.0 has been high on the agenda of governments, politicians and business elites, evidenced by the fact that I4.0 was a key topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2016, a year when there several other major events and crises related to, for instance, climate and refugees (Schneider 2018).…”

Hybrid project management for sociotechnical digital transformation context

“…Since the acceptance and diffusion of digital technologies depends on social innovation, excessively technology-oriented innovation approaches may restrain their potential (Kopp et al, 2016). DT initiatives should be viewed as an opportunity to address this issue and balance the responsibilities attributed to humans and machines according to the Sociotechnical approach (Mumford, 2006).…”