Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:36:24.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRANS-EPISTEMIC DESIGN-(RESEARCH): THEORIZING DESIGN WITHIN INDUSTRY 4.0 AND COGNITIVE ASSISTIVE SYSTEMS

Part of: Design Organisation and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

A. Keller  and
S. M. Weber
A. Keller*
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer IFF, Germany Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany
S. M. Weber
Affiliation:
Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany
*
*alinde.keller@iff.fraunhofer.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The paper suggests an innovative design research and intervention approach using a poststructuralist organizational education perspective. The potential of a high impact trans-epistemic design process is shown for the field of industry 4.0 and the specific context of cognitive assistive systems (CASs). The multi-layered approach addresses the design of technical, social and educational complexity to implement CASs sustainably on the shopfloor and exploit their potential in industry 4.0. Finally, we will shed light on how the approach can enhance deep organizational transformation in industry.

Keywords

cyber-physical systemscomplexityorganisational education theorymulti-/cross-/trans-disciplinary approaches
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 627 - 636
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (2013), “Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Quintuple Helix and Social Ecology”, In: Carayannis, E.G. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1293–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C. et al. (2019), “Industry Trends to 2040”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2121–2128. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.218Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000), “The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations”, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Y. and Fundin, A. (2018), “Visual management for a dynamic strategic change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 712–727. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DIN e.V. (2006), DIN EN ISO 9241-110: Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion -- Teil 110: Grundsätze der Dialoggestaltung, Beuth, Berlin.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. (2002), Managing in the next society, Truman Talley Books, New York.Google Scholar
Göhlich, M., Schröer, A. and Weber, S.M. (2018), Handbuch Organisationspädagogik, Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07512-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graessler, I. and Poehler, A. (2019), “Human-centric design of cyber-physical production systems”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 84, pp. 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haase, T. (2017), Industrie 4.0: Technologiebasierte Lern- und Assistenzsysteme für die Instandhaltung, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Hassannezhad, M. et al. (2019), “Managing Sociotechnical Complexity in Engineering Design Projects”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 141 No. 8, p. 981. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelmann, M.-A., Weber, S.M. and Klös, T. (2020/forthcoming), “Zukunfts-Wissen im Diskurs: WWB-Didaktik für organisationspädagogische Professionalisierung”, In: Cendon, E., Elsholz, U. and Mörth, A. (Eds.), Hochschuldidaktik der wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, Vol. 14 No. 4.Google Scholar
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2019), “Entwicklung und Gestaltung digitaler Arbeit”, In: Becker, M., Frenz, M. and Jenewein, K. (Eds.), Digitalisierung und Fachkräftesicherung: Herausforderung für die gewerblich-technischen Wissenschaften und ihre Didaktiken, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
Iureva, R. et al. (2019), “Creation of a laboratory of cyber-physical systems: Interdisciplinary integration”, International Scientific Journal of “Industry 4.0”, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
Jachmann, D. and Adler, S. (2017), “Modulare Assistenzsysteme in der Instandhaltung”, In: Schenk, M. (Ed.): Digital Engineering technischer System - Der Weg zur Smart Factory. Tagungsband der 20. IFF-Wissenschaftstage, Magdeburg, pp. 125–132.Google Scholar
Kadir, B.A. et al. (2019), “A Framework for Designing Work Systems in Industry 4.0”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2031–2040. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.209Google Scholar
Keller, A. (2018), “Kognitive Assistenzsysteme in der Prozessindustrie - Mitarbeiter werden zu Mitgestaltern”, In: Schenk, M. (Ed.), Industrie 4.0 – (R)Evolution der Produktion, 20. Forschungskolloquium am Fraunhofer IFF, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
Keller, A. and Fischer, E. (2019), “Cognitive Assistance Systems as Boundary Objects. Theorizing and analyzing digitally networked communication practice”, Proceedings at WORK2019 Conference, August 14-16, 2019, Helsinki. In: WORK2019 Abstract Book, Turku, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Kopp, R. (2016), Industrie 4.0 und soziale Innovation - Fremde oder Freunde?, FGW, Forschungsinstitut für gesellschaftliche Weiterentwicklung, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Mareis, C. (2016), Theorien des Designs zur Einführung, Junius, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Moulaert, F. et al. (2013), The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. (2002), “Future challenges and directions for theory”, In: Hofer, B. and Pintrich, P. (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychological beliefs about knowledge and knowing, Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 389–414.Google Scholar
Schenk, M. and Berndt, D. (2016), “Zentrum für Kognitive Autonome Arbeitssysteme für den Anlagen- und Sondermaschinenbau, Magdeburg”, Industrie 4.0 Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 62–63.Google Scholar
Schlick, C., Bruder, R. and Luczak, H. (2018), Arbeitswissenschaft, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56037-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strati, A. (1999), Organization and aesthetics, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Verhagen, W.J.C. et al. (2012), “A critical review of Knowledge-Based Engineering: An identification of research challenges”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, K. and Fukuda, K. (2019), “Designing Digital Technology for Service Work: Systematic and Participatory Approach”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1453–1462. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.151Google Scholar
Weber, S.M. (2005), Rituale der Transformation. Großgruppenverfahren als pädagogisches Wissen am Markt, VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Weber, S.M. (2014a), “Change by Design!? Wissenskulturen des “Design” und organisationale Strategien der Gestaltung”, In: Weber, S.M., Göhlich, M., Schröer, A. and Schwarz, J. (Eds.), Organisation und das Neue, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03734-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, S.M. (2014b), “Zukunftspfade organisationspädagogischer Forschung und Gestaltung: Stakeholderbasierte Innovations-Strategien zwischen Forschung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft”, In: Engel, N. and Sausele-Bayer, I. (Eds.), Organisation: Ein pädagogischer Grundbegriff, Waxmann, Münster, New York, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
Weber, S.M. (2015), “Die Analyse organisationaler Diskurse in Veränderungsprozessen. Auf dem Weg zu einer multimodalen Methodologie pädagogischer Organisationsforschung”, In: Schröer, A. et al. (Eds.), Organisation und Theorie: Beiträge der Kommission Organisationspädagogik, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10086-5Google Scholar
Weber, S.M. and Wieners, S. (2018), “Diskurstheoretische Grundlagen der Organisationspädagogik”, In: Göhlich, M., Schröer, A., Weber, S.M. (Eds.), Handbuch Organisationspädagogik, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, S.M. (2018a), “Innovationsmanagement als Gegenstand der Organisationspädagogik”, In: Göhlich, M., Schröer, A., Weber, S.M. (Eds.), Handbuch Organisationspädagogik, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, S.M. (2018b), “Strategieentwicklung als Gegenstand der Organisationspädagogik”, In: Göhlich, M., Schröer, A., Weber, S.M. (Eds.), Handbuch Organisationspädagogik, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, S.M. (2019/forthcoming), “MOOCS, CAPS, U-Labs & Co: Translational Settings and Translational Strategies in Global Digital Temporary Organizations”, In: Trans|Wissen, (Eds.), Transwissen. Wissen in der Transnationalisierung: Zur Ubiquität und Krise der Übersetzung, transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations. Foundations for organizational science, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Wichmann, R.L., Eisenbart, B. and Gericke, K. (2019), “The Direction of Industry: A Literature Review on Industry 4.0”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2129–2138. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.219Google Scholar