This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

1

User-Centred Change – Shaping Corporate

Transformation with Participatory Design Tools

Angelika Trübswetter*

YOUSE GmbH, Florastraße 47, 10317 Berlin, Germany.

E-mail: angelika.truebswetter@youse.de

Annabel Zettl

YOUSE GmbH, Theresienhöhe 1, 80339 München, Germany.

E-mail: annabel.zettl@youse.de

Sebastian Glende

YOUSE GmbH, Florastraße 47, 10317 Berlin, Germany.

E-mail: sebastian.glende@youse.de

* Corresponding author

Abstract: Digital transformation and automation come along with different

challenges for corporations. Change processes, like a new agile environment or

automation (e.g. human-machine-collaboration) are necessary and have a

particularly strong impact on the interactive work in companies. It is often

observed that within this change processes, companies have a one-sided focus

on technological aspects, while neglecting human factors; although it is well-

known that low acceptance among employees can lead to much higher cost of

change than originally expected. This contribution suggests, that during change

processes in socio-technical systems employees and executives should be at the

centre of attention, in order to safeguard the trust and acceptance of everyone

involved and to promote the will to change. Therefore we present the three

basic principles of ‘User-Centred Change’: ‘genuine participation’, ‘tangible

experiences’ and ‘agility and iterations’, for ensuring a successful, user-centred

transformation process.

Keywords: user-centred change; transformation; design methods; participation;

experience-based tools; agile; change management; industry 4.0; digitalization

1 Introduction: Digital challenges for corporations

Digitalization is the key to the fourth industrial revolution, on the verge of industry 4.0.

Central to this age are networks composed of intelligent systems (entirely integrated

vertically and horizontally), operating in real time, connecting humans, objects and IT-

systems (Bauer et al., 2013; Ganschar et al., 2013). Digital change and (partial)

automation come along with different challenges for corporations: traditional, rigid

organizational strategies are reaching their limits in an agile, digitized world. Such

transformation processes, like a new agile environment or automation (e.g. human-

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

2

machine-collaboration), have a particularly strong impact on the interactive work in the

company and bring about a change in the internal social interaction.

External factors, such as globalization and digitalization, not only challenge

employees and management, they also entail considerable investment costs. Low

acceptance among employees can lead to much higher cost of change than originally

expected. It often happens that companies have a one-sided focus on technological

aspects, while neglecting human factors (Lorenzi & Riley, 2000). Therefore, tools are

needed to support employees and management personnel for facing these changes and for

shaping the work of the future.

Innovation management methods, like Design Thinking, already offer first answers and

orientation for dealing with these new challenges. But preciesely how can corporate

transformation in the context of digitization and industry 4.0 be shaped? What can

companies do to ensure employees’ acceptance of transformation processes? In the

following paper, we will present an approach for the enhancement of existing change

models and established change management processes in companies, complementing

them with an all-purpose user-centred perspective. During transformation processes in

socio-technical systems, employees and executives will have to be at the centre of

attention, in order to safeguard the trust and acceptance of everyone involved and to

promote the will to change.

This contribution suggests the three basic principles of ‘User-Centred Change’ (UCC)

that ensure a successful, user-centred transformation process: ‘genuine participation’,

‘tangible experiences’ and ‘agility and iterations’.

2 Theoretical background: Socio-Technical Systems, Participatory Change

and Technology Acceptance Models

The basic principles of User-Centred Change, presented in this paper, relate to three

scientific concepts: Socio-Technical Systems, Participatory Change and Technology

Acceptance Models. These basic principles suggested here, are supposed to contribute to

a further development of these theoretical research areas.

Socio-Technical Systems

A socio-technical understanding of digitalization enables the consideration of the

interaction between social and technical components of work systems in organizations

(Emery, 1959; Ulich, 1998). Furthermore, it enables a reflection on the interdependence

of humans, technology and organisation (Ulich, 1998). Only if the technical,

organizational and psycho-social dimensions are equally being taken into account, one

can see the extent of the challenges companies have to face in the course of

transformation processes (Krallmann & Sivri, 2016).

Nevertheless, socio-technical systems do not function autonomously, but are the

outcome of the activities of human actors. Human actors are members of social groups,

which share certain characteristics (e.g. certain roles, responsibilities, norms, perceptions)

(Geels, 2004). With industry 4.0, human beings turn into fully integrated participants in a

socio-technical system. Machines, for example, are no longer deployed in separate

production cells. Presently, they are working hand-in-hand with human actors and will

increasingly do so in the future. But integrating organizational development and

technological intervention into a larger system is one of the more difficult tasks for an

executive. Organizations are profoundly affected by technological advancements and

require a flexible, customized change model to fit the social network of the specific

organization into which technology is being introduced. (Tach & Woodmann, 1994)

Today and in the future, work accordingly takes effect in socio-technological systems

and demands social interaction: leadership, communication and corporate culture can be

regarded as elements of this socio-technical system (Maucher & Rudlof, 2002).

Especially executives are being assigned an important role during digitalization: as

change managers they are supposed to recognize innovations and potentials, they have to

assess possible risks, need to be courageous and assertive and they also need the ability to

integrate, inform and motivate employees.

The traditional, rigid organizational strategies are reaching their limits in an agile,

digitized world. New working time models and organizational forms in flexible matrix

structures will have to support the new management processes, cultures and

responsibilities (Bastian et al., 2017). Such an agile environment especially affects the

company’s interactive work and leads to change of the internal social interaction (Bastian

et al., 2017; Bauer & Zitzelsberger, 2017). New communication structures and an

increase in transparency alter the flow of information, access to knowledge and latitude –

e.g. when employees get access to information formerly only available to managers. This

awards many opportunities, but can also lead management personnel to perceive a loss of

control. Therefore, managers have to open up to new styles of leadership, in order to

fulfil the changing demands.

Participatory Change Management

Much can be learned from organizational change research. A literature review reveals the

importance of understanding, integrating and supporting the people affected by

transformation (e.g. Bordia et al., 2003; Lorenzi & Riley, 2000; Nesterkin, 2013).

Lorenzi and Riley (2000) point out the frequent problem, that those who design and

implement a new system do not perceive it as a major alteration, while operators do.

Thus, the result is a one-sided focus on technological aspects, while human factors are

being neglected. Kotter (2001) also emphasizes this aspect:

‘One of the reasons, why some organizations have problems with adaptation to

the rapid market or technological changes is, that many people in these

organizations feel relatively helpless’ (p. 90).

First answers to how companies can deal with change processes can be found in the

literature on organizational change management. Here, a variety of different approaches

and models are assembled. Unfortunately most of them don’t give a specific answer to

this helplessness or even the resistance to digital change that can build up. Instead, they

focus on participatory change management, i.e. approaches implying a ‘direct

participation of employees in processes of change or transformation’ (Rosemann &

Gleser, 1999, p. 134). The explicit differentiation between ‚Change Management‘ and

‚Partizipatory Change Management‘ illustrates well, that participation doesn’t seem to

get the same amount of focuse in all of the existing ‚Change-Models‘, often little

particitipative and activiating methods are utilized.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

4

In the context of transformation processes, participation plays an important role: if

members of an organization – primarily employees in this case – are allowed to

participate in transformation processes from the beginning, the support for planned

changes increases (Coyle-Shapiro, 1999). With reference to Cameron and Green (2007)

participation and psychological support of the organizational members are important

strategies for the success of organizational change. According to Steinmann and

Schreyögg (2005), the first of the ‘golden rules’ for successful organizational change is

active participation on the implementation of changes, i.e. participation in decisions,

regarding the change and sufficient information about the reasons for the upcoming

change. In addition, Kieser et al. (1998, p. 218) emphasize: ‘there is a large consistency,

that inclusion of employees is one of the most important success factors of change and of

the implementation of new organizational concepts’. Most of the time, the debates on co-

management and employee participation are ideologically charged (Kubicek & Hagen,

1999) and the concept of participation is used as a ´battle concept´ (Wächter, 1984) by

various interest groups. In reality the comprehensive inclusion of employees is a

laborious, strenuous and most of all unpredictable process.

The uncertainty about the outcome of such an involvement might be one of the main

reasons for the circumstance that ‘participation’ and ‘interaction’, to this day, are hardly

more than mere marketing buzzwords. Further factors challenging ‚genuine’ participation

are employees’ distrust concerning the company, a lack in communication and

intransparencies between management and employees (Domsch & Reineke, 1982).

Therefore, it comes as no surprise, that communication on change and support of

employees are are two decisive factors for a successful transformation (Gardner & Jones,

1999; Goodman & Truss, 2004). There is consent that strategic employee communication

is a key ingredient to successful organizational change. Not only can it provide an

analytical tool to assess and improve employee communication, strategic communication

can also facilitate a change by aligning employees with the new direction of an

organization (Barrett, 2002).

Despite research pointing to the assessment of the communication efforts as being

crucial (Cheney et al., 2011; Barret, 2002; Mills et al., 2009) and the involvement of

employees in the decision-making process as being a facilitative factor, many

organizations neglect such implications (Blaschke, 2008; Goodman & Truss, 2004) and

introduce programmed, rather than adaptive, organizational changes, which involve one-

way, rather than two-way communication (Cheney et al., 2011).

Technology Acceptance

‘Acceptance’ is defined very heterogeneously. Commonly, two different dimensions of

acceptance are assumed: an attitudinal and a behavioural dimension (Schäfer & Keppler,

2013). Many studies in technology acceptance research (TAR) solely focus on the

intention to use a system and the actual use. Yet, Brown et al. (2002) indicate that there is

a difference between voluntary contexts, where users have volitional control over their

decisions to use a system, and mandatory contexts like work, where users are forced to

use a system, regardless of whether they like it or not. Therefore, in mandatory contexts,

user behaviour or intentions are not adequate indicators of acceptance. Instead, the

attitude towards using a system needs to be directly investigated as it reflects users’

actual satisfaction level. According to Schäfer and Keppler (2013), acceptance results

from a process of perception, evaluation and decision with three components having a

determinable influence: A subject, which might be an individual or collective, accepts a

certain object, which might be a physical artefact or an abstract construct like an idea,

within a given context, which refers to all external factors, like social and cultural

preconditions.

Associated with these three components are factors that might affect acceptance:

individual-related factors like age or personality, technology-related factors like

appearance or usability and context-related factors like implementation strategies or

social influences (Schäfer & Keppler, 2013). Generally, acceptance is highly individual,

which implies that the same object within the same environment might lead to very

different attitudes and behaviours. Moreover, acceptance is unstable, i.e. it can vary from

one moment to another (Schäfer & Keppler, 2013).

The technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), which

originated from TAR and sought to explain ICT (Information and Communication

Technology) use in the organizational context, is one of the most prominent and

replicated models. It claims that the intention to use a technology is determined by two

major factors: perceived usefulness, which is ‘the degree to which a person believes that

using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance’ (Davis, 1989, p.

320) and perceived ease of use, which is ‘the degree to which a person believes that using

a particular system would be free from effort’ (Davis, 1989, p. 320). However, simplicity

is also the most controversial aspect, since the model is evidently insufficient in regards

to other substantial factors like group, social and cultural aspects (Bagozzi, 2007).

Particularly in the context of digitalization and industry 4.0 the established models,

sketched above, reach their limits, because the work environment sets a non-voluntary

context of use. On this backdrop, acceptance can’t be ‘obtained’, but is based on trust in

technology and the use of technology. In turn, employees’ trust – especially where

technology perceived as risky is involved – is primarily based on emotional assessment

(Beer et al., 2011) and the lack of experience in dealing with new technologies. Usability

and the perceived usefulness are not the only factors relevant for digitalization and

industry 4.0. The discomfort associated with the use of technology also has to be taken

into account. Therefor the management of corportate digitalization processes is not only

about ensuring employees’ technology acceptance, but also about strengtening innovation

culture of the corporation.

3 Methodology: ´User-Centred Change´ by YOUSE

The approach developed by YOUSE addresses transformation processes in socio-

technical systems in the context of digitalization and industry 4.0 and aims to ensure the

adaptability of organizations. The changing demands on communication, collaboration

and management can only be met by the incorporation of a high level of adaptability. The

approach presented in this paper enhances existing change management models –

following the User-Centred Design concept1 – in order to promote a user-centred

perspective. This perspective focuses on employees and management in socio-technical

1 User-Centred Design, following DIN EN ISO 9241-210, is an established approach for the human-centred

development of products and services, aiming at higher ‘effectiveness and efficiency’, ‘accessibility and

sustainability’, ‘human well-being’ and ‘customer satisfaction’ (DIN, 2006).

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

6

systems in the course of transformation processes. It ensures trust and acceptance of all

participants as well as the will to change. The basic principles (see figure 1) consist of:

1. ´genuine´participation

2. ´tangible´ experiences

3. ´agility and iterations .́

The characteristic of this approach lies in the new user-centred outlook on transformation

processes in companies and the applied user-centred methods that lead to improved

collaborative acceptance of all actors involved and guarantee the lasting success of

change processes.

Figure 1 The YOUSE ´User-Centred Change´ approach (YOUSE, 2018).

As mentioned before, employees’ strong collaborative acceptance – described as ‘role

autonomy’ by Parish, Cadwallader and Busch (2008) that increases the employees will to

positively contribute to the organisational change – lays the foundation for the ‘User-

Centred Change’ approach. The approach is supposed to build trust and acceptance

among all participants and promote the will to change. The necessity to communicate

transformation processes (Gardner & Jones, 1999; Barett, 2002; Goodman & Truss,

2004) and the participation of employees in decision-making processes in a two-way

communication (Barret, 2002; Mills et al., 2009; Cheney et al., 2011) are fundamental to

this collaborative acceptance.

Existing change models tend to trigger defence reactions in organizations (Bovey &

Hede, 2001). As mentioned before, especially in the context of digitalization they are

enacted with a primary focus on the technology, disregarding the requirements and

emotions of all participants in the socio-technical system. Transformation processes

frequently fail, because it is not taken into account that human beings in organizations not

only act according to rational reasoning. People are not resistant to change in general;

they only shy away from a possible disadvantage caused by change (Bovey & Hede,

2001). Consequently, our approach focuses on the demands and needs of employees to

reach higher collaborative acceptance of change.

Basic principle One - ´genuine´ participation

Participation becomes ‘genuine’ when employees are not only being analysed and

informed, but actually included in the processes of change and decision-making. Genuine

participation is the precondition for high collaborative acceptance and serves as an

answer to helplessness and potential resistance to change among employees.

Why do we need ‘genuine’ participation? Quite often, the knowledge of employees is

the key to a company’s success. Competitive advantages can only be attained by

competence, ideas and the employees’ know-how. However, this knowledge is hardly

documented, if it is documented at all. Therefore, the task is to establish cross-functional

modes of learning and understanding. Cross-functional modes of learning and

understanding also require an appreciative, non-hierarchical and open communication

strategy as well as functional processes of knowledge transfer. Employees are supposed

to be encouraged to have a positive attitude towards transformation processes.

Accordingly, ‘genuine’ participation is based on the understanding of the organization’s

‘ecosystem’. In order to achieve this, we recommend a qualitative method, because

attitudes, needs, expectancies and emotions of participants are highly important for the

change process. Only by observing, listening and engaging closely, possible resistance

can be reduced, collaborative acceptance can be fostered and longterm success for the

transformational process can be accomplished. Participative methods are particularly apt

in strengthening the (operational) self-confidence of employees, which is linked to the

perceived ability to participate (Lammers, 1989).

How can ‘genuine’ participation be shaped? Regarding methodology, we act at the

intersection of design and social sciences. We combine methods from both disciplines in

order to stimulate collaborative acceptance among employees. These tools (e.g. Cultural

Probes or Exceptional Places; see Use Case) are characterized by a high degree of

freedom for interpretations and associations. They aim to uncover implicit emotions,

values and attitudes, which usually remain hidden in transformation processes. Thus,

employees’ and managements’ implicit knowledge is externalized, analysed and made

available for the transformation process. By explicitly shaping the transformation

process, discomfort can be made tangible in order to become the basis for corporate

change. Visualisations also serve as an effective means, making implicit knowledge

accessible – images often speak louder than words. Especially when dealing with critical

issues within the company (e.g. if an open dialogue on problem areas is difficult),

visualization can prove to be an effective measure. The use of visualizations and

metaphors enables the investigation of issues in different contexts.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

8

Basic principle Two - ´tangible´ experiences

This principle makes a claim for possible changes and new technologies to appear less

frightening, more tangible and manageable. By using empirical methods, trust can be

used as the foundation for acceptance.

Why are tangible experiences important? They ensure the employees’ trust in the

transformation process in the context of digitalization and industry 4.0, by addressing the

(implicit) causes for resistance and fears. Acceptance is related to trust in technology, in

the ‘unknown’ and the ‘new’, in the value of innovation and in improved working

environments. Presently, there is a lack of communication tools that are comprehensible

and can make complex (technological) processes tangible. We are convinced that an

alternative approach to change and new technologies is necessary. Employees often

struggle to grasp the complexities and potentials of new technologies; they stay abstract

and therefore don’t seem trustworthy. Taking up the concept of experience-based

understanding and learning (Lakoff & Johnson 2011; Gallese & Lakoff 2005) the

principle of tangible experiences utilizes metaphorically-based conceptual systems of our

everyday activities and creates understanding of new technologies through sensory

perception, body movement, and direct interaction with the physical and social

environment.

How to manage tangible experiences? In this regard, we profit, once again, from the

intersection of social sciences and design: By re-contextualizing established methods in

the field of applied design and by linking them to sociological research methods,

experience-based tools emerge. Experience-based methods enable us to translate and

transform abstract and intangible phenomena, processes and issues (e.g. digitalization and

industry 4.0) into tangible experience. Through physical interaction with the material

environment, complexity can be reduced and subjected to analysis and discussion.

Experience-based tools bring together aspects of play, construction and imagination.

Their development is based on the insight that there is a particularly strong sensomotoric

link between the hands and the brain (Papert, 1993). The issues at stake are supposed to

become tangible not only as visualizations, as described above, but through the use of

metaphorical models the issues become ‘tangible’ in the proper sense of the word. Thus,

the experience with new technologies offers a new and easy access to highly complex

issues like digital change and industry 4.0. Employing material substitutes complex

issues and contexts as well as otherwise too big, too small, too fast, too slow or too

dangerous materials and processes can be tackled in this tactile approach. During so-

called State of Matter workshops (Hülsen et. al., 2018) common, harmless and reactive

substances like flour and water are being put to use.

Basic principle Three - ´agility and iterations´

‘Genuine’ participation is only possible and efficient in the context of a corresponding

agility. The success of the change process and the focus on the user has to be ensured by

sufficient agility.

Why are agility and iteration important? Uncertainty and transformation have always

been an important subject in organizations, in management literature and research.

Already in 1967, Thompson suggested that one of the most important tasks for any

organization is the management of uncertainties. Today, this statement is still valid.

However, today's change is taking place at a much faster speed than ever before (Zhang

& Sharifi, 2000). Therefore, we argue for a set of methods appropriate to the

requirements. Companies should spend sufficient time to create an agile and target-

oriented set of methods for the transformation process in an iterative approach. There is

no other way to effectively design ‘genuine’ participation and to spur a will to change.

Latitude promotes the collaboration acceptance as well as agility and consistent user-

focus. We don’t consider the what but the how as indicators of the important question at

the centre of transformation: changes should be planned step-by-step and intermediate

results should be reflected, new insights should be considered promptly and, if

applicable, the change process should be adapted accordingly. By choosing an iterative

approach companies safe time and – consequently – money.

How can agility and iteration be shaped? In many lines of business, customer requests

feel like they were sent from the 22nd century. Of course, these demands don’t match the

organizational structures and collaborative models, stemming from the 20th century, at

best, marked by silo mentality and coordination problems. It comes as no surprise if

employees and management come to the end of their rope, both physically and

psychologically. This is the moment when management signals to create latitude for agile

working conditions have a positive effect. The established silo mentality has to be

abolished and collaboration across team boundaries has to be supported (for example by

Design Sprints in self-organized interdisciplinary teams or Shared Leadership1

approaches). Furthermore, the enactment of this basic principle includes a participative

inventory. Consequently, areas can be identified where improvements are necessary.

Corresponding to the iterative approach, employees are able to contribute improvements

continuously, rate them and carry them out single-handedly. The implementation of new

technologies or innovative tools takes place with the intensive participation of the

employees. They test new tools, e.g. in usability tests or out Out-Of-The-Box-Tests, and

encounter their practical use. Such test settings across team boundaries can reduce

employees’ fear of contact with new technology. In an ideal case, they enable employees

to participate in the implementation process of new technologies, but at least employees

collaborate in the implementation of these applications. This ensures the acceptance of

the specific technical applications and can also have a positive effect on the

transformation process in general.

4 Findings: The three basic principles in the context of Human-Robot-

Collaboration within the project `SafeMate´

Background

Due to the rising demands on productivity and flexibility, assembly processes are

currently subject to substantial transformation. Workstations where humans and robots

work closely together are becoming increasingly popular as they provide major

advantages in comparison to manual assembly and full automation. In order to profit

from the potential of industrial robots, which have a lower agility a priori, and to benefit

from the employees’ experiences at the same time, we need safe and flexible HRC. At

present, the use of these HRC systems requires a considerable amount of financial and

human resources. Additional barriers consist in the hitherto inadequate inclusion of

1 According to Pearce and Conger (2003) models of Shared Leadership attempt to redistribute tasks and

responsibilities across hierarchies. Thus, Leadership is defined as social process for which conditions have to be

set that create a ‘collective learning’ experience.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

10

employees in decision-making and the design phase of a collaborative workspace, which

can lead to the fear of loosing one’s responsibility or even the position. HRC can only be

successful if the workforce is ready to accept it. Charalambous et al. (2015) claim to be

the first who investigate human factors that need to be considered during the

implementation of HRC. Although they have a more general focus on implementation

success, many of the factors they are presenting, like communication, participation,

support, training and empowerment of the workers, are also important for the user

acceptance. Our research within the project adds the insight that these recommendations

are not easily applicable if the relationship between workers and executives is disrupted,

because workers might not trust executives’ statements. This calls for simple and

applicable methods and approaches, in order to find the best shape of HRC workspaces in

collaboration with the employees. It is the goal of the research project SafeMate to

develop a generic guideline for that matter drawn from five exemplary application

scenarios at Lenze, Lufthansa Sky Chefs, Miele, Sennheiser and Weidmüller. The

guideline includes introduction strategies and design concepts. YOUSE is developing the

‘User-Centred Change’ approach in the context of this project. In the following lines, we

will sketch the aproachs applicability in relation to the basic principles, presented above.

Basic principle One - ´genuine´ participation

For understanding the social interaction within the involved corportation, in the

discovering phase we focus not only on the factual but also the relationship level.

Therefore, Cultural probes (Gaver et al., 1999) are used. They enable us to gain insights

into the thoughts and feelings of our employees through their explorative and open

character. Through different objectives and documentation options, a variety of employee

impressions on corporate culture, working atmosphere and communication in the

company can be collected in a short time. As a concrete example, the employees involved

in the change process are given the task of visualizing and explaining the company and

their workplace via a metaphor. This simple method not only quickly provides insights

into the corporate culture, but also allows employees to reflect on their own practices and

their own personality and position within the company. Another useful participation

method are so-called ´Exceptional Places´. Employees are invited to so-called ‘table

talks’. Because for most people, lunch is part of the daily routine, and that is what we´re

taking advantage of. In an unusual, but easily accessible lunch format, employees get in

touch with HRC. These moderated lunch breaks provide insights into the corporate

culture and offer space for concerns about the implementation of HRC. They provide an

easy and quick starting point for a cross-team exchange.

But also executives have to be involved. Therefore, we do so called ‘walk-and-talks’.

Originally coming from therapeutic work (Hays, 1994; McKinney, 2011), they represent

a special coaching approach, whose effectiveness is based on the combination of walking

and speaking. Physical exercise in nature makes it easier for managers to reflect their

own attitudes and behaviors, to think out of the box, stress is reduced and new energy can

be gathered.

Basic principle Two - ´tangible´ experiences

Charalambous, Fletcher, and Webb (2016) indicate, that trust is formed by operators’

mental models of a robot. To foster initial trust, they propose that operators should not

only be trained in how to use the robot, but also should be provided with knowledge

about the robot’s abilities. Moreover, to promote continuous trust, operators should be

empowered to rectify errors, as this would extend their understanding of the robot. Trust

in not being harmed is likely to prevent robot anxiety (Bröhl et al., 2016; Heerink et al.,

2010). Thus, giving workers the opportunity to get in contact with the robot as early as

possible might be helpful.

Therefore, we want to achieve the demystification of the technology by providing

those skills and experiences that will enable employees to realistically estimate the

possibilities of digitization and new technologies. In the context of human-robot

collaboration, this can mean creating a setting that provides an understanding of the

space of opportunities of technology through emotions and experiences. This can be

achieved, digitally via virtual reality (VR), where employees experience the prospective

collaboration with a robot in their workplace directly via VR glasses. Or analogously via

metaphorical concepts such as the ‘State of Matter’ Workshop (see general description),

where employees gain access to the unknown of new technologies through low-threshold

metaphorical concepts. Experience-based methods - whether digital or analogue –

provide a better access to the potential chances of the technology and create trust, the

precondition for an active support and use of new technologies.

Basic principle Three – ´agility and iterations´

The literature on change-management models provides a variety of methods that support

transformation, innovation, creativity or reflection processes. Within the SafeMate

project, we believe that a composition and selection of methods based on the employees

and executives needs is essential in order to actively involve them in the transformation

process. After completing the discovering phase, which primarily brings into action the

first and second basic principle, the appropriate methods for the transformation process

are selected. For each of the five participating companies an agile and iterative procedure

instead of a general scheme is created for the HRC implementation process, to ensure the

highest level of effectiveness. For this, respecting the two basic principles of agility, is

essential (Zhang & Sharifi, 2000, p. 496):

1. Responding to changes (anticipated or unexpected) in proper ways and due time

2. Exploiting changes and taking advantage of changes as opportunities

Especially the early participation of all relevant actors (see principle one) turned out

to be a central factor of success, in order to not unnecessarily slow down processes. The

early and comprehensive involvement of the works council was indispensable for the

implementation of HRC, for instance. Only with the help of this early and extensive

inclusion of stakeholders, coordination processes can be implemented and handled fast

and flexible and the transformation process can be communicated in a clear an

transparent matter within the company. Methods of User-Centred Design such as ‘Co-

Creation Workshops’ are good starting points for implementing agility and iterations

within the corporate setting.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

12

5 Discussion

Our ´User-Centred Change´ approach puts employees and executives in the centre of

socio-technical system and provides new access to transformation processes in the

context of digitization and Industry 4.0 with the help of participatory and experience-

based methods. The approach seeks to reduce the complexity of implementing nouvelle

technologies through unusual methodological approaches, by externalizing hidden

assumtions, apprehensions and emotions. Thus trust in new technologies can be promoted

systematically. Through a strictly participatory, iterative and agile process, employees

and executives are continously involved in the process of change, their fears of new

technologies can be addressed more easily and change processes can be designed and

managed mor efficiently and effectively.

Limitations and future research

Due to the early development stage, the approach still shows some weaknesses on a

content and methodological level. These shortcomings are supposed to be addressed with

further research activities and practical testing in the near future.

The process presented as part of the use case is still being implemented, as the

SafeMate project will last until December 2019. Therefore, the evaluation of the

procedure is still pending and thus important findings for the review and further

development of the approach are not yet complete. Furthermore, the measurability of the

approaches success is currently still to be proofed. However, with increasing number of

change processes utilizing this approach, a comparison of results will allow to face this

shortcoming in the future.

In prospecitve change processes, the presented principles should be tested in

combination with different change management models. Only by way of this trial and

error process, it can be ensured that the suggested approach can actually be used in

combination with all sorts of change-management models. Although this article already

provides a helpful set of effective methods for implementing the shown principles, no

claim is made to completeness. A variety of other existing methods can find applications

for the implementation of the principles, as well as methods that are still under

development. We also make no claim to completeness with regard to the basic principles,

depending on the application - here with a focus on digitization and Industry 4.0 - further

principles may be of relevance.

Taking the listed limitations into account, the approach presented in this article

should be tested and developed step by step in order to supplement it and to be able to

achieve a holistic and extensively evaluated participative change model in the long term.

Outlook and Transfer

The presented principles of the UCC approach are a first attempt to put employees and

executives more at the center of change processes in the context of digitization and

industry 4.0. The transferability of the approach to other HRC projects, apart from the

outlined SafeMate use case, is considered to be very high. Currently, there is also a

further systematization and review of the approach in research projects in the areas of

service robotics and health.

Based on the current status, however, a transfer to other fields of application that are

closely related to digitization topics is to be assumed: One specific example is the area of

public service administration. Here, digital transformation offers the opportunity to use

public resources more efficiently and more purposefully, to reduce the burden on citizens

and businesses and to strengthen social cohesion.

The digital public service administration remains behind the expectations of citizens

and companies as well as successes of other states. IT administration remains disparate

and interoperable in administration, and a lack of an overall strategic governance can be

seen (Beck et al., 2017). Public service administrations face increasingly complex

challenges – e.g., aging populations, migration and integration or increasing expectations

of citizens for the quality of service provided by public institutions. Isolated approaches

to traditional policymaking and change management models are reaching their limits.

Therefore, a change is necessary.

Numerous initiatives1, known by various names, such as ‘change labs’, ‘innovation

teams’, and ‘innovation labs’, have set themselves the goal of accompanying public

service administration within the digital transformation in new ways. These initiatves aim

at creating a new working culture in such organizations by adding an injection of

creativity and experimentalism and bringing together new ideas and solutions. We expect

the User-Centered Change approach to be a great tool for accompanying this change in

the long term.

Acknowledgment

The use case derives from the research project SafeMate, which is supported by the

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under grant number

02P15A084 within the research program ‘Innovation for manufacturing, services and

labour of tomorrow’.

References

Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for

a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), pp. 244-254.

Barrett, D. (2002). Change Communication: using strategic employee communication to

facilitate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. 7(4), pp.

219-23.

Bastian, M., Francine Heidt, F., Benz, L., Nickels, A. (2017). Digitalisierung braucht

Führung und Kommunikation - Bedarfe und Status Quo. Hochschule Darmstadt (Eds.).

Mittelstand 4.0 Agentur Kommunikation.

1 Examples are: MindLab: http://mind-lab.dk/en, NESTA http://www.nesta.org.uk or Politics for

Tomorrow: https://www.politicsfortomorrow.eu/.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

14

Bauer, K., Diegner, B., Diemer, J., Dorst, W., Ferber, S. & Glatz, R. (2013).

Umsetzungsempfehlung für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0. Deutschlands Zukunft als

Produktionsstandort sichern. acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften.

Bauer, W., Zitzelsberger, R. (2017). Kurzstudie: Arbeit in der Industrie 4.0 in Baden-

Württemberg. Allianz Industrie 4.0 Baden-Württemberg.

Beck, R., Fischer, D.-H., Hilgers, D., Hunnius, S., Krcmar, H., Krimmer, R., Margraf,

M., Parycek, P., Schliesky, U., Schuppan, T. & Stocksmeier, D. (2017). Digitale

Transformation der Verwaltung Empfehlungen für eine gesamtstaatliche Strategie.

Bertelsmann-Stiftung.

Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding robot

acceptance: Technical report HFA-TR-1103. Atlanta, GA.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2003). Uncertainty during

organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 18(4), pp. 507-532.

Bovey, W. H., Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence

mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 16(7), pp. 534-548.

Brown, S. A., Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Burkman, J. R. (2002). Do I

really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of

Information Systems, 11(4), pp. 283-295.

Bröhl, C., Nelles, J., Brandl, C., Mertens, A., & Schlick, C. M. (2016). TAM reloaded: A

technology acceptance model for human-robot cooperation in production systems. In C.

Stephanidis (Ed.), Communications in Computer and Information Science. 18th

International Conference, HCI International 2016, Toronto, Canada, July 17-22, 2016,

Proceedings, Part I (Vol. 617, pp. 97–103). Cham: Springer.

Cameron, E., Green, M. (2007). Making sense of change management: A complete Guide

to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change. London: Kogan Page.

Charalambous, G., Fletcher, S., & Webb, P. (2015). Identifying the key organisational

human factors for introducing human-robot collaboration in industry: An exploratory

study. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 81(9-12), pp.

2143-2155.

Charalambous, G., Fletcher, S. R., & Webb, P. (2016). Development of a human factors

roadmap for the successful implementation of industrial human-robot collaboration. In C.

Schlick & S. Trzcieliński (Eds.), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing: Vol.

490. Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future.

Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Aspects of

Advanced Manufacturing, Orlando, FL, July 27-31, 2016, pp. 195-206.

Cheney, G, Christensen, L. T., Zorn T. E, Shiv, G. (2011). Organizational

communication in an age of globalization: issues reflections and practices. Waveland

press, inc.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of organizational

change intervention: A three-wave study of total quality management. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science. 35, pp. 439-456.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319-340.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer

technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), pp.

982-1003.

Domsch, M. & Reinecke, P. (1982). Mitarbeiterbefragung als Führungsinstrument. In H.

Schuler & W. Stehle (Eds.), Psychologie in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung, pp. 127-148.

Stuttgart: Poeschel.

Emery, F. E. (1959). Characteristics of socio-technical systems. Tavistock Institute of

Human Relations, Document No. 527.

Gallese, V., Lakoff, G. (2005). The Brain´s concepts: The Role of The Sensory-Motor

System in Conceptual Knowledge. In: COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 21(0).

Ganschar, O., Gerlach, S., Hämmerle, M., Krause, T., Schlund, S. (2013). D. Spath

(Eds.), Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft – Industrie 4.0. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag.

Gardner, J., Jones, E. (1999). Problematic communication in the workplace: beliefs of

superiors and subordinates. International Journal Of Applied Linguistics. 9(2), pp. 185-

203

Gaver, W., Dunne, A. & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural Probes. Interactions. 6. pp.

21-29.

Geels, F., W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems

Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research

Policy 33, pp. 897-920.

Goodman, J., Truss, C. (2004). The medium and the message: communication effectively

during a major change initiative. Journal of Change Management. 4(3), pp. 217-228.

Hays, K. (1994). Running therapy: Special characteristics and therapeutic issues of

concern. Psychotherapy, 31(4), pp. 725-734.

Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing acceptance of

assistive social agent technology by older adults: The almere model. International

Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), pp. 361-375.

Hülsen, J.; Schwabe, S.; Trübswetter, A.; Winkler, C. (2018; accepted). State of Matter -

Transformationen und Innovationen durch erfahrungsbasierte Werkzeuge gestalten.

innteract2018 conference.

Kieser, A., Hegele, C., Klimmer, M. (1998). Kommunikation im organisatorischen

Wandel. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschl.

Kotter, J.( 2001). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review. 79, 11, pp. 85- 96.

Krallmann, H., Sivri, S. (2016). Soziotechnische Betrachtung der Digitalisierung.

Auswirkungen der Industrie 4.0. technologie & management 03/2016, pp. 12-15.

Lakoff, G., Johnson, K. (2011). Leben in Metaphern: Konstruktion und Gebrauch von

Sprachbildern, Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag; 7. Auflage.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovation, The Name of The

Game, Stockholm, Sweden on 17-20 June 2018. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

16

Lammers, C. (1989). Competence and organizational democracy: Concluding reflections.

In G. Széll, P. Blyton, & C. Cornforth (Eds), The state, trade unions and self-

management, pp. 339-357.

Lorenzi, N. M., Riley, R. T. (2000). Managing change: An overview. Journal of the

American Medical Informatics Association, 7(2), pp. 116–124.

Maucher, I. H., Paul; C. Rudlof, C. (2002). Modellierung in Soziotechnischen Systemen.

GI-Proceedings, Prozessorientierte Methoden und Werkzeuge für die Entwicklung von

Informationssystemen, pp. 128-137.

McKinney, B. L. (2011). Therapist's Perceptions of Walk and Talk Therapy: A Grounded

Study. University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 1375.

Mills H, J., Dye, K, Mills J, A. (2009). Understanding Organizational Change.

Routledge.

Nesterkin, D. A. (2013). Organizational change and psychological reactance. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 26(3), pp. 573-594.

Papert, S. (1993.: The Children’s Machine. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Parish, J., Cadwaller, S., Busch, P. (2008). Want to, need to, ought to: employee

commitment to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

21(1), pp. 32-52.

Pearce, C. L., Jay A. Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and

Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rosemann, B., Gleser, C. (1999). Partizipatives Change Management: Eine Methode zur

Mitarbeiterbeteiligung bei Veränderungsprozessen in Unternehmen. Zeitschrift Fühurng

& Organisation, 68, pp. 134-139.

Schäfer, M., Keppler, D. (2013). Modelle der technikorientierten Akzeptanzforschung:

Überblick und Reflexion am Beispiel eines Forschungsprojekts zur Implementierung

innovativer technischer Energieeffizienz-Maßnahmen (Discussion paper No. 34). Berlin.

Steinmann, H., Schreyoegg, G. (2005). Management, Grundlagen der

Unternehmensführung. 6. Aufl., Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Thach, L., Woodman, R. (1994). Organizational change and information technology:

managing on the edge of cyberspace, Organizational Dynamics, 23, pp. 30-46.

Thompson, J. (1967). Organisation in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ulich, E. (1998). Arbeitssysteme als Soziotechnische Systeme - eine Erinnerung. Journal

Psychologie des Alltagshandelns/Psychology of Everyday Activitiy, 6(1).

Ulich, E. (2011). Arbeitspsychologie (7. Ed.). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag. Stuttgart:

Schäffer Poeschel.

Zhang, D., Sharifi, H. (2000). A Methodology for Achieving Agility in Manufacturing

Organizations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20, pp.

496-513.