2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken
  4. Volume 41, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0169-2216
  • E-ISSN: 2468-9424

Abstract

Samenvatting

Daar is de vijfde industriële revolutie. Daar is de volgende digitale technologie. En daar is de nieuwste AI-toepassing. Wie vandaag nadenkt over technologie en arbeid heeft er een hele kluif aan. Welke technologieën moeten wij, sociale wetenschappers, onderzoeken? Wijken die af van de technologieën van morgen? Hoe kunnen we als onderzoekers het tempo aanhouden waarmee nieuwe technologie verschijnt? En zitten we daarbij dan in het wiel of nemen we de kop? Om mee te kunnen in het debat zitten onderzoekers het potentieel van nieuwe technologie voortdurend achterna. Specifiek bestuderen ze hoe dit potentieel aanzet tot het genereren en het generaliseren van uitkomsten voor de factor arbeid. Deze aanpak camoufleert het daadwerkelijk gebruik van nieuwe technologie. In dit essay introduceer ik een benadering in lagen en fasen om technologiegebruik in de praktijk te begrijpen, dit als noodzakelijke voorwaarde om uitkomsten voor de factor arbeid te verklaren. Met deze benadering deel ik nieuwe technologieën op in een materiële en een functionele laag, twee lagen die ik bestudeer in drie centrale ontwikkelfasen, zijnde de ontwerp-, de implementatie- en de gebruiksfase. Ik bekijk daarvoor welke actoren een rol spelen en hoe elke rol doorwerkt in technologische en arbeidsinhoudelijke veranderingen.

© Michiel Bal
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2025.4.003.BAL
2025-12-01
2025-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bailey, D. E., & Barley, S. R. (2020). Beyond design and use: How scholars should study intelligent technologies. Information and Organization, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100286
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bal, M., Benders, J., & Vermeerbergen, L. (2022). ‘Bringing the Covert into the Open’: A Case Study on Technology Appropriation and Continuous Improvement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106333
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bal, M., Vermeerbergen, L., & Benders, J. (2023). Putting head-worn displays to use for order picking: a most-similar comparative case study. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34(5), 1475–1499. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2021-0570
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bal, M., Benders, J., Dhondt, S., & Vermeerbergen, L. (2021). Head-worn displays and job content: A systematic literature review. Applied Ergonomics, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103285
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392767
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumer, E. P. S., & Brubaker, J. R. (2017). Post-userism. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6291-6303. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025740
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Benders, J. (1995). Output characteristics as input in the skilling debate. Work, Employment and Society, 9(2), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/095001709592006
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Benders, J., Dhondt, S., & Van Hootegem, G. (2015). Gereedschap is belangrijk, maar wat doe je ermee? Technologie, functie-ontwerp en het niveau van toekomstige banen. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 31(2), 142-146. https://doi.org/10.5117/2015.031.002.142
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Benders, J., Hoeken, P., Batenburg, R., & Schouteten, R. (2006). First organise, then automate: a modern socio-technical view on ERP systems and teamworking. New Technology, Work and Employment, 21(3), 242-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2006.00178.x
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bødker, S., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2017). Tying knots: Participatory infrastructuring at work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 26, 245-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9268-y
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Christis, J. H. P. (2011). De moderne sociotechniek als theoretische onderbouwing van Lean. M&O, Tijdschrift voor Management en Organisatie, 65(2), 96-114.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ciborra, C. U., & Lanzara, G. F. (1994). Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(2), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8022(94)90005-1
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins, P. D., & Hull, F. (1986). Technology and span of control: Woodward revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 23(2), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1986.tb00417.x
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Culot, G., Nassimbeni, G., Orzes, G., & Sartor, M. (2020). Behind the definition of Industry 4.0: Analysis and open questions. International Journal of Production Economics, 226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107617
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Vaujany, F.-X., & Mitev, N. (2017). The post-Macy paradox, information management and organising: Good intentions and a road to hell?Culture and Organization, 23(5), 379-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1103242
     [Google Scholar]
  18. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2019). Theorizing the Digital Object. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1279-1302. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/13136
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240-1253. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0612
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fitts, P. M. (Red.). (1951). Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system. National Research Council, Division of Anthropology and Psychology, Committee on Aviation Psychology.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Giddens, A., & Pierson, C. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making sense of modernity. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300-311. https://doi.org/10.1145/3166.3170
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (2013). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees. Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53-62.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kallinikos, J. (2012). Form, function, and matter: Crossing the border of materiality. In: P. M.Leonardi, B. A., Nardi, & J.Kallinikos (Reds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 67–87). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Karasek Jr, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2) 285–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Khakurel, J., Melkas, H., & Porras, J. (2018). Tapping into the wearable device revolution in the work environment: a systematic review. Information Technology & People, 31(3), 791–818. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2017-0076
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Laaser, K., & Karlsson, J. C. (2022). Towards a sociology of meaningful work. Work, Employment and Society, 36(5), 798-815. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211055998
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.-G., Feld, T., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6, 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? In P. M.Leonardi, B. A.Nardi, & J.Kallinikos (Reds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 24-48). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Information and Organization, 23(2), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoand-org.2013.02.002
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.03.001
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Madsen, D. Ø. (2019). The emergence and rise of Industry 4.0 viewed through the lens of management fashion theory. Administrative Sciences, 9(3), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030071
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10), 5. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00176
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Morgan, J. (2019). Will we work in twenty-first century capitalism? A critique of the fourth industrial revolution literature. Economy and Society, 48(3), 371-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2019.1620027
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029-1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12254
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded edition). Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Oztemel, E., & Gursev, S. (2020). Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 31(1), 127-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171-1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pfeiffer, S. (2017). The vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the making – a case of future told, tamed, and traded. Nanoethics, 11(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0280-3
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pinch, T., & Swedberg, R. (2008). Living in a material world: Economic sociology meets science and technology studies (Vol. 1). The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pot, F. (2024). Technologie en kwaliteit van de arbeid in 40 jaar Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 40(3), 304-339. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVA2024.3.004.POT
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Rejeb, A., Keogh, J. G., Leong, G. K., & Treiblmaier, H. (2021). Potentials and challenges of augmented reality smart glasses in logistics and supply chain management: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 59(12), 3747-3776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1876942
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Scott Poole, M., & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computersupported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 5-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00294.x
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163-174.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Vereycken, Y., Van Herreweghe, D., & Ramioul, M. (2022). Sociale dialoog bij technologische innovatie in België: Een Delphi-studie bij de sociale partners. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 38(3), 385-416. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVA2022.3.005.VERE
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Vereycken, Y., Guisset, A., & Ramioul, M. (2024). The same but different: Understanding variation and similarity in the outcomes of a similar technology. A comparative case study on the deployment of manufacturing execution systems in three Belgian SME’s. Information and Organization, 34(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2024.100539
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Williams, M. D., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443-488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 – Inception, conception and perception. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 61, 530-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.006
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Zammuto, R. F. (2008). Accreditation and the globalization of business. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.32712623
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Zheng, T., Ardolino, M., Bacchetti, A., & Perona, M. (2021). The applications of Industry 4.0 technologies in manufacturing context: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 59(6), 1922–1954. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1824085
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Zuidhof, N., Ben Allouch, S., Peters, O., & Verbeek, P-P. (2021). Defining smart glasses: A rapid review of state-of-the-art perspectives and future challenges from a social sciences’ perspective. Augmented Human Research, 6(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41133-021-00053-3
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2025.4.003.BAL
Loading
Technologiegebruik in de praktijk
TA 41, 445 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5117/TVA2025.4.003.BAL
/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2025.4.003.BAL
/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2025.4.003.BAL
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): functionality; job content; practice; technology design; technology use

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error