Old wine in new bottles? Revisiting employee participation in Industry 4.0

Abstract

This paper aims to critically examine employee participation in Industry 4.0, with a systematic literature review. A total of 58 studies were reviewed, resulting in a categorisation of the literature into three perspectives. The ‘techno‐optimist’ and the ‘socio‐technical’ perspective dominate in the reviewed papers. They both confirm a trend that frames employee participation in a unitarist tradition, which emphasises synergies between managerial efficiency and (mostly individual) participation, leading to high innovation potential. The third perspective is rooted in critical studies. Authors writing on the latter subject predict more standardisation and centralisation, and the continued demise of collective and representative forms of participation. To better understand the role of employees in Industry 4.0, we suggest confronting the current discourse with robust empirical research. On that basis, we reject both technological and social determinism, and we acknowledge the structural ambiguities and multidimensionality of employee participation in technological transformations.

Can artificial intelligence’s limitations drive innovative work behaviour?

“…AI systems use the data that has been fed to them (Albrecht et al 2021). While humans give data and models that aid AI systems in learning from the data, the data and models may contain algorithmic bias (Vereycken et al 2021). AI systems have yet to make sense of data beyond applying models.…”

Putting head-worn displays to use for order picking: a most-similar comparative case study

“…Secondly, the dominant stream in the Industry 4.0 literature believes that, parallel to the implementation of novel technologies, employee participation will perpetuate or even extend naturally (Vereycken et al. , 2021).…”

Skilled maintenance trades under lean manufacturing: Evidence from the car industry

“…Specifically, considering the above review, the rest of the article asks: how has lean manufacturing in the automotive industry impacted different skilled maintenance trades in terms of their skill, autonomy, job boundaries and status over time? Asking such a question should enable one to make a more informed assessment of current forecasts of seismic manufacturing change variously encapsulated under labels like Industry 4.0 , the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Second Machine Age (Howcroft & Taylor, 2022, p. 2 and also Edwards & Ramirez, 2016; Rolf, 2021; Stroud & Weinel, 2020; Vereyckn et al, 2021 in this journal for background discussion). However, assessments of these claimed paradigm shifts already warn of the potential for ‘hype’ and note that they are ‘speculative’ (Edwards & Ramirez, 2016, p. 110), ‘inconclusive’ (Vereyckn et al, 2021, p. 45) and characterised by forecasts and extrapolation based on incipient evidence.…”

“…Asking such a question should enable one to make a more informed assessment of current forecasts of seismic manufacturing change variously encapsulated under labels like Industry 4.0 , the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Second Machine Age (Howcroft & Taylor, 2022, p. 2 and also Edwards & Ramirez, 2016; Rolf, 2021; Stroud & Weinel, 2020; Vereyckn et al, 2021 in this journal for background discussion). However, assessments of these claimed paradigm shifts already warn of the potential for ‘hype’ and note that they are ‘speculative’ (Edwards & Ramirez, 2016, p. 110), ‘inconclusive’ (Vereyckn et al, 2021, p. 45) and characterised by forecasts and extrapolation based on incipient evidence. There is also uncertainty as to whether the direction of travelling is towards upskilling or deskilling.…”