Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: sebarber@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Barber) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Examples from Scandinavia Message-ID: <1723@hplabsc.HP.COM> Date: Mon, 4-May-87 20:43:37 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1723 Posted: Mon May 4 20:43:37 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 6-May-87 00:42:46 EDT Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM Distribution: world Lines: 78 Approved: taylor@hplabs Tony Marriot asks for some examples from Scandinavia describing the use of "co-determination" in technology design. Two of the three examples from the video tape I saw were (I forget the third): - An aircraft maintenence shop, the computer system in which was redesigned to allow the machinists to plan their own work. The results were an increase both in productivity and job quality (pretty important for airplane repairs, no?), which was attributed to the greater control allowed the workers in scheduling and to some notion of increased morale and sense of worth or importance. This last point is not to be overlooked, as anyone who has ever managed anyone (especially programmers!) can attest. - A bank, who while in the process of largely automating away their tellers, also developed an intergrated software/computer system (with NCR/Scandinavia) to turn the remaining tellers into "customer service reps", with more autonomy and authority and could deal with a broader range of services and responsibility. Now, given that this is a rather limited range of examples and that I know virtually nothing of Scandinavian society, I was taken by this model of "cooperation" in technological development. Co-operation is almost euphemistic in this context: what's really going on is that in the continuing struggle of labor vs. management, labor seems to be a far more powerful social group there than it is here. The society recognizes labor's claims as legitimate, and provides public monies and institutions (such as laws and a labor-oriented R&D center). Within companies, union input is necessary for the introduction of any new "technology" (I wish I knew how they define that). In America, labor has come up with less power, and has accepted management determination of the use and form of technologies (computers included) in exchange for mith NCR/Scandinavia) to turn the remaining telre in that the constant influx of relatively cheap immigrant labor dilutes the power and solidarity of the workforce in the U.S. When talking about the appropriateness of automation, there are several perspectives to consider: that of management, responsible to their shareholders and/or themselves; labor, responsible to themselves and their families; and that of the society at large which, depending on your viewpoint, may be responsible for the well-being of all, or at least concerned with maximizing productivity. Most automation causes displacement in the workforce, at least temporarily. The concern is to balance management's desire for more productivity with the worker's "desire" for steady employment. Maybe we'd be all better off if menial jobs were automated away so that we could leverage our productivity, and maybe not. If jobs lost in one sector are not replaced by jobs in another sector, then people are disemployed, wealth becomes more concentrated, and the society will destabilize. If there is a lag in job creation, the same thing can happen. My interest in these issues stem from my interest in user-interface and other software system design. Most software automates existing tasks, and it is, in my mind, a duty of the designer to understand what he is automating and why, so that the "how" is carried out correctly. To me, a system designed to increase productivity by de-skilling the worker is bad for the worker, who is de-motivated, and for management who now has a disgruntled workforce and ultimately lower quality output. The basic assumption here (borne out by history: examples on request) is that technologies don't just spring into existence, their forms determined by "science", but that they are expressions of the goals and relative power of those who designed and implemented them. I submitted the previous article to let you folks know what people with similar concerns were talking about, and to provide an alternative discussion from the dreary "literacy" discussion that has been going on for over a month. The major question: Who does the computerization of society benefit, and why? -Steve Barber sebarber@athena.mit.edu or ..!seismo!cbmvax!hutch!barber (Some further reading along these lines: D.F. Noble, "Forces of Production" and "America by Design"; Lewis Mumford, "Technics and Civilization"; Sherry Turkle, "The Second Self"; Joseph Weizenbaum, "Computer Power and Human Reason"; Robert Howard, "Brave New Workplace")