Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (3) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (3)
Schlagworte
- manufacturing (3) (entfernen)
Institut
Industry 4.0
(2020)
Industry 4.0 has had a strong influence on the debate on the digitalization of industrial processes, despite being criticized for lacking a proper definition. However, Industry 4.0 might offer a huge chance to align the goals of a sustainable development with the ongoing digital transformation in industrial development. The main contribution of this paper is therefore twofold. We provide a de-facto definition of the concept "Industry 4.0" from a sociotechnical perspective based on its most often cited key features, as well as a thorough review of how far the concept of sustainability is incorporated in it.
Consumer behaviour changes and strategic management decisions are driving adaptations in manufacturing routines. Based on the theory of situational strength, we investigated how contextual and person-related factors influence workers’ adaptation in a two-worker position routine. Contextual factors, like retrieval cues (Study 1), time pressure (Study 2), and convenience (Study 3), were varied. Person-related factors included retentivity, general and routine-specific self-efficacy, and perceived adaptation costs. Dependent variables included various error types and production time before and after adaptation. In each study, 148 participants were trained in a production routine at t1 and executed an adapted routine at t2, one week later. Repeated measures ANOVA for performance at t1 and t2, and MANOVA for performance at t2, revealed that time increased for all groups at t2. For participants in Studies 1 & 2, error rates remained consistent. Retentivity significantly impacted errors at both t1 and t2, emphasising that routine changes in a ‘running business’ take time, regardless of contextual factors. Workers with lower retentivity may require additional support.
We revisit the concept of Diversified Quality Production (DQP), which we introduced about 30 years ago. Our purpose is to examine the extent to which the concept can still be considered tenable for describing and explaining the development of the interaction between the political economy and concepts of production, notably in Germany. First, we show why and in which ways DQP was more heterogeneous than we had originally understood. Then, on the basis of evidence with respect to political, business, and economic changes in Germany, we show that DQP Mark I, a regime by and large characteristic of the 1980s, turned into DQP Mark II. In the process, major ‘complementarities’ disappeared between the late 1980s and now—mainly the complementarity between production modes on the one hand and industrial relations and economic regulation on the other. While the latter exhibit greater change, business strategies and production organization show more continuity, which helps explain how Germany maintained economic performance after the mid-2000s, more than other countries in Europe. Conceptually, our most important result is that the complementarities emphasized in political economy are historically relative and limited, so that they should not be postulated as stable configurations.