The high-commitment work force and advanced manufacturing technology

Advanced manufacturing systems are often designed from technical perspectives without considering the physical, psychological, and social requirements of the people who must operate and maintain them. These systems may have low acceptance with the work force and often require post-implementation redesign. The systems may never reach design expectations. Integrating human factors considerations into the design process may be difficult. Equipment designers tend to follow historical assumptions about the work force when designing advanced technology. New models of work force management are only now developing and their requirements, particularly with respect to technology, are not fully defined.;This study investigates the equipment design team and its role in the consideration of human factors in the design process. Two models of equipment design teams are defined: (1) traditional teams which include only engineers and technical specialists, and (2) participatory teams which include others such as: human resource specialists, manufacturing personnel, human factors engineers and safety specialists.;The conceptual model for the study predicts that the equipment design team has a direct effect on job design and this has a second order effect on the effectiveness outcomes of the technology. Job design may follow either a commitment or control model. The relationships in the model are mediated by the organizational environment and internal group processes. Two alternative hypotheses are offered: (1) a participatory design team functioning in a supportive organizational climate will design commitment model jobs and will have maximum effectiveness outcomes, and (2) a traditional equipment design team functioning in a limited organizational climate will design control model jobs and will have limited effectiveness outcomes.;The research methodology was case study. Two organizations which had recently implemented advanced manufacturing technology were investigated. One had a strong human factors orientation; the other did not. The job design and technology outcomes in the strong human factors organization did confirm the first hypothesis. The second organization fit the model with respect to the composition of the equipment design team and the technology outcomes. The job design model, however, was not as predicted. Several alternatives are offered to explain this inconsistency with the model.