People and Technology in the Workplace (1991) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Designing for Technological Change: People in the Process
Designing for Technological Change: People in the Process
Pages 1-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
There is tension because of conflicting goals and expectations: the theoretical interests of scholars versus the clay-to-day concerns of managers; the technological priorities of engineers versus the human resource priorities of personnel managers and labor leaders; underlying values of autonomy or control, individualism or collaboration. Nowhere were these differences more obvious than among the advisory group planning this symposium.
|
From page 2... ...
The opening chapter expands the discussion beyond microlevel project changes to larger questions of organizational structures and interorganizational cooperation. Out of this diversity emerge some common views on what is known about people and the implementation process, enabling us to offer some ideas for organizations considering the adoption of new workplace technologies.
|
From page 3... ...
These utilization problems are linked to (lecTining productivity in the increasingly global economy as well as to deteriorating product and service delivery at home. While clearly many businesses continue to innovate ant!
|
From page 4... ...
Historically, engineers have assumed that implementing technology means that people will adapt and learn to use the new equipment. This approach has been reinforced by social scientists studying worker satisfaction, motivation, and organizational structures to better understand ant!
|
From page 5... ...
In most organizations the decision to invest in new technology appears to be primarily a management decision, with professional or technical consultation, although there are some joint labor/management initiatives. Depending on the scope of the technology and its organizational implications, the case studies provide examples of decisions that rest with office managers, unit directors, district or division managers, vice presidents, chief executive officers, or the board of directors.
|
From page 6... ...
In the Shearson Lehman case, new leaclers were chosen to identify the main purposes and goals and methoclically guide the technological changes to accomplish these goals. In this case, the new leader communicated a clear vision of a successful application of new technology and macle the structural changes that made success possible: new personnel, new incentive schemes, new organizational structures.
|
From page 7... ...
The case studies provide several examples of employee participation. First, in the Boeing case a major planning meeting was clesigne(1 to gather employee input into the plant design from all levels, including production workers, union representatives, ant!
|
From page 8... ...
Yet there was and continues to be staff resistance to the new technology because the responsibility and control of the medical staff were shifted to other meclical professionals without staff involvement in the decision. Although employee participation is generally seen as a factor contributing to successful technological implementation, there Is also a fundamental problem defining what employee participation in decision making actually means and reconciling employee participation with the reality of job Toss, cleskilling, or reclucec!
|
From page 9... ...
This would allow for comparative studies over time between industries. Better measurement of current and projected skill levels and training needs are necessary for realistic and effective educational reforms as well employment planning on indiviclual, organizational, and national levels.
|
From page 10... ...
Group awards on the other had are expected to shorten the time neecled for innovation implementations and to increase the number of incremental innovations or small improvements on existing work processes or products. Reward structures work better if they ensure equal pay for equal work and the same types of special benefits to all employees who contribute to Productivity improvement.
|
From page 11... ...
Subjectivity in personnel evaluation is often perceived, and sometimes rightly so, as putting more power in the hands of managers and supervisors at the expense of the technical and nonmanagement workers. Many questions remain unanswered in developing appropriate reward systems to support implementation.
|
From page 12... ...
in the innovation project itself. A major strategy to increase flexibility is to develop flatter organizational structures, with fewer layers of management, thus reducing the hierarchy of the traditional management pyramid.
|
From page 13... ...
The LA Times case offers an interesting contrast. When the process started there was no satisfactory technology available, so newspaper employees worker]
|
From page 14... ...
The human resource factors identified here as contributing to or hindering successful implementation are not meant to be exhaustive, nor are the remaining questions. Rather they highlight important issues discussed in detail in the remainder of this volume and provide valuable information to engineers, managers, labor representatives, and social scientists who are designing, implementing, and studying technological changes so important to future U.S.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.