A Worker-Centric Design and Evaluation Framework for Operator 4.0 Solutions that Support Work Well-Being

Abstract

Future factory work is developing towards knowledge work, making it more demanding but also more enriched and flexible. The change described as Operator 4.0 has high potential to increase work well-being but it will require careful design of future factory tools and work practices focusing on the worker point of view. We introduce a design and evaluation framework that supports design, evaluation and impact assessment activities that target at Operator 4.0 solutions with a positive impact on work well-being.

The Promotion of Technology Acceptance and Work Engagement in Industry 4.0: From Personal Resources to Information and Training

“…The study contributes to the literature on technology acceptance in different ways: (1) it investigated its antecedents considering personal and organizational resources; (2) it is one of the first that considered the relationship of technology acceptance with a dimension of workers' wellbeing, namely work engagement; and (3) it is one of the few studies in work and organizational psychology literature that involved blue-collar workers and compared them with white-collar colleagues. Moreover, findings supported the use of the Worker-Centric Design and Evaluation Framework for Operator 4.0 [21] in order to investigate the implementation of new technologies within factories focusing on users' characteristics and their wellbeing.…”

“…More recently, Kaasinen and colleagues [21] proposed a new broader framework that supports design, evaluation and impact assessment of work systems. Contrary to previous models, the Worker-Centric Design and Evaluation Framework for Operator 4.0 ( Figure 1) has the advantage of having considered workers' wellbeing and satisfaction.…”

“…With this focus, authors particularly referred to Danna and Griffin's model [22], according to which the wellbeing of workers is influenced by different antecedents (personality traits and work environment) and may impact on individual and organizational outcomes. The framework of Kaasinen and colleagues [21] aims to aid the design and evaluation of new systems and tools and to facilitate the assessment of their impact on the wellbeing of workers and The framework of Kaasinen and colleagues [21] aims to aid the design and evaluation of new systems and tools and to facilitate the assessment of their impact on the wellbeing of workers and organizational outcomes. In this framework, the intervention (e.g., the introduction of a type of new technology) is differentiated by its antecedents and consequences, thus three macro-categories are identified.…”

“…In this framework, the intervention (e.g., the introduction of a type of new technology) is differentiated by its antecedents and consequences, thus three macro-categories are identified. (1) Antecedents refer to "the original context of use [23] where the intervention-in the form of new tools and new work practices-is implemented" [21] (p. 266). Among antecedents, the framework includes user characteristics, the task and goal involved by the use of the system, other tools, the environment where the user performs his/her activities, and the organizational resources and barriers.…”

User Experience of a Social Media Based Knowledge Sharing System in Industry Work

“…The SoMeP usability, pros/cons and development ideas were discussed in two groups. In addition, a project specific evaluation framework [10] was used when creating questionnaires and discussion topics. The questionnaires were used to collect participant demographics, UX (with smiley faces on 5 point Likert scale), the system usability scale (SUS) [11] and knowledge sharing questions (5 point Likert scale).…”