Designing wearables for use in the workplace: The role of solution developers

Wearables (such as data glasses and smartwatches) are a particularly visible element of Industrie 4.0 applications. They aim at providing situation-specific information to workers, but at the same time they can also be used for surveillance and control because they generate data on the work process and sometimes even on movement patterns and vital data of the employees. Wearables technology is at an early stage of development, in which the interests and perspectives of relevant stakeholders, especially technology developers and the management, are of particular importance. This article explores the role of solution developers and their understanding of work processes in which wearables are to be used. It is based on expert interviews with solution developers, academic and company experts. The analysis shows an ambivalent understanding of work: On the one hand, it is characterized by the perception of workers as potential sources of error. It focuses on the optimization of individual workplaces and their ergonomics, while broader questions of work design and work organization are ignored. On the other hand, the technology developers see and discuss the potentials and dangers of wearables technologies with regard to individualization, data protection and control in a differentiated manner.

[1]  Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft.  Leistungsanreize, Leistungsverhalten und die Bedeutung des soziokulturellen Kontextes aus ökonomischer, psychologischer und soziologischer Perspektive , 2014 .

[2]  F. Thomas,et al.  Informationstechnik für Logistiksysteme , 2002 .

[3]  W. Bijker.  The social construction of bakelite: toward a theory of invention , 1987 .

[4]  W. Orlikowski.  Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work , 2007 .

[5]  Ulrich Dolata.  Risse im Netz — Macht, Konkurrenz und Kooperation in der Technikentwicklung und -regulierung , 2001 .

[6]  Philipp Staab,et al.  Kybernetik und Kontrolle: Algorithmische Arbeitssteuerung und betriebliche Herrschaft , 2017 .

[7]  Brigitte Moench,et al.  From Counterculture To Cyberculture Stewart Brand The Whole Earth Network And The Rise Of Digital Utopianism , 2016 .

[8]  Marina Levina,et al.  The Silicon Valley Ethos: Tech Industry Products, Discourses, and Practices , 2017 .

[9]  J. Wajcman.  New connections: social studies of science and technology and studies of work , 2006 .

[10]  Hannes Baumann,et al.  Order Picking Supported by Mobile Computing , 2012 .

[11]  Abigail Marks,et al.  Industrie 4.0 in the Making – Discourse Patterns and the Rise of Digital Despotism , 2017 .

[12]  P. Leonardi.  Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems: What Do These Terms Mean? How are They Related? Do We Need Them? , 2012 .

[13]  E. Morozov,et al.  To Save Everything, Click Here , 2013 .

[14]  Willibald A. Günthner,et al.  Pick-by-Vision: Augmented Reality unterstützte Kommissionierung , 2009 .

[15]  T. Langer,et al.  Ortsunabhängige Mitarbeitereinbindung in der Fertigung , 2016 .

[16]  Udo Kuckartz.  Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung , 2016 .

[17]  Michael Schumann.  Trendreport Rationalisierung : Automobilindustrie, Werkzeugmaschinenbau, chemische Industrie , 1994 .

[18]  Andrew Zimbalist,et al.  Case studies on the labor process , 1979 .

[19]  Johannes Weyer,et al.  Technik, die Gesellschaft schafft. Soziale Netzwerke als Ort der Technikgenese. , 1997 .

[20]  H. Hirsch-Kreinsen.  Industrie 4.0 als Technologieversprechen , 2016 .

[21]  H. Braverman.  Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century , 1996 .

[22]  Martin Krzywdzinski,et al.  Automation, Skill Requirements and Labour‐Use Strategies: High‐Wage and Low‐Wage Approaches to High‐Tech Manufacturing in the Automotive Industry , 2017 .

[23]  Matthias Schumann,et al.  Enabling the Adoption of Wearable Computers in Enterprises - Results of Analyzing Influencing Factors and Challenges in the Industrial Sector , 2017, HICSS.