Search results

The set of 2,509 documents related to the human-centric aspect of manufacturing were retrieved from Scopus database and systmatically analyzed. Using an unsupervised machine learning approach based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation we were able to identify latent topics related to human-centric aspect of Industry 5.0.

This study aims to create a scientific map of the human-centric aspect of manufacturing and thus provide a systematic framework for further research development of Industry 5.0.

In this study a 140 unique research topics were identified, 19 of which had sufficient research impact and research interest so that we could mark them as the most significant. In addition to the most significant topics, this study contains a detailed analysis of their development and points out their connections.

Industry 5.0 has three pillars – human-centric, sustainable, and resilient. The sustainable and resilient aspect of manufacturing has been the subject of many studies in the past. The human-centric aspect of such a systematic description and deep analysis of latent topics is currently just passing through.

This study addresses the implications of smart city development paths (techno-centric and human-centric) by investigating the evolution of a city strategy, focusing on how different actors in a dialogue centred on strategic planning documents for Saint Petersburg, Russia, visualised the smart city and then made it calculable.

The authors conducted a case study based on a documentary analysis supported by ethnographic elements relying on the smart city conceptual proposals, the approved city strategy and the artifacts of expert discussions leading to the strategy implementation plan.

Through the lens of dialogue theory, the authors show how government and non-government actors in different organisational settings devised techno-centric smart city calculations, which arose despite an initial human-centric vision.

While the case study allowed the study to illustrate the depth and richness of the context of the authoritarian Russian state where the role of citizens in public decision-making is rather limited, different and even contrasting results could be produced in other contexts.

There is a gap between a smart city vision and its grounding in calculations. Thus, the human-centric elements require special attention, and the organisation of the dialogue on smart city strategy must enable plurality of voices besides those of government actors.

The case suggests viewing the human-centric and techno-centric perspectives not as dichotomous, but rather emerging consecutively throughout the journey from an initial strategic vision to its implementation in the city's calculations.

Bryan Otte, Chief Human Resources Officer at MGAC, examines the shifting dynamics of remote and hybrid work models. Addressing challenges in workplace connections, mentorship and trust, Otte advocates a human-centric approach for HR leaders. This study aims to deliver insights and practical strategies, guiding HR professionals in adapting strategies to facilitate meaningful connections, robust mentorship programs and sustained professional growth within the evolving work environment.

Bryan Otte uses a qualitative approach, leveraging his role as Chief Human Resources Officer at MGAC. The methodology involves a thorough examination of the impacts of remote and hybrid work models on workplace dynamics. Otte integrates real-world examples and insights, offering practical strategies for HR leaders with a focus on a human-centric perspective. This approach combines professional expertise with a nuanced understanding of the evolving workforce, providing concise and valuable guidance for adapting HR strategies to the changing landscape of work.

Otte’s findings reveal challenges in remote and hybrid work, including potential disengagement and trust issues. The absence of a central workplace hub may contribute to feelings of isolation, particularly among younger associates who often derive relationship modeling from the workplace. The study advocates for a human-centric approach, emphasizing the enduring value of intentional team building, mentorship programs and fostering relational bonds. The research underscores the need for HR leaders to adapt strategies, ensuring positive workplace engagement, professional growth and overall well-being in the evolving work landscape.

Bryan Otte’s article brings originality through his role as Chief Human Resources Officer at MGAC, providing unique insights into challenges posed by remote and hybrid work. The practical strategies proposed, emphasizing a human-centric approach, offer innovative solutions to address issues such as disengagement and trust. The article’s value lies in shaping HR strategies for the evolving workforce, stressing the enduring importance of intentional team building and mentorship programs. Otte's blend of professional expertise and nuanced understanding contributes significantly, offering actionable guidance for HR leaders navigating the changing dynamics of work.

Following the imperative for human-centric digital innovation brought by the paradigm of Industry 5.0, the article aims to integrate the dispersed and multi-disciplinary literature on individual risks for workers to define, explain and predict individual risks related to Industry 4.0 technologies.

The paper follows the question, “What is the current knowledge and evidence base concerning risks related to Industry 4.0 technologies, and how can this inform digital innovation management in the manufacturing sector through the lens of the Industry 5.0 paradigm?” and uses the method of systematic literature review to identify and discuss potential risks for individuals associated with digital innovation. N = 51 contributions met the inclusion criteria.

The literature review indicates dominant trends and significant gaps in understanding risks from a human-centric perspective. The paper identifies individual risks, their interplay with different technologies and their antecedents at the social, organizational and individual levels. Despite this, the paper shows how the literature concentrates in studying risks on only a limited number of categories and/or concepts. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus in the theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The paper concludes by illustrating an initial understanding of digital innovation via a human-centered perspective on psychological risks.

Findings yield practical implications. In investing in the adoption, generation or recombination of new digital technologies in organizations, the paper recommends managers ensure to prevent risks at the individual level. Accordingly, the study’s findings can be used as a common starting point for extending the repertoire of managerial practices and interventions and realizing human-centric innovation.

Following the paradigm of Industry 5.0, the paper offers a holistic view of risks that incorporates the central role of the worker as crucial to the success of digital innovation. This human-centric perspective serves to inform the managerial field about important factors in risk management that can result in more effective targeted interventions in risk mitigation approaches. Lastly, it can serve to reinterpret digital innovation management and propose future avenues of research on risk.

The purpose of this viewpoint essay is to examine deathcare leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and recommend innovations to employ a more human-centric approach.

This viewpoint essay uses scholarly and popular literature to explore deathcare practices during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and to identify limitations of existing mass fatality management policies.

Deathcare leadership in the USA lacks a human-centric approach. Rationalistic mass fatality management during COVID-19 left families struggling with grief and mourning because many burial rituals could not take place. This essay suggests a humanistic approach to death management through leadership innovations as a remedy to this problem. Such leadership innovations can improve responses to deathcare during this ongoing pandemic and future public health emergencies.

This essay offers practical improvements to make deathcare more human-centric.

The emerging industrial revolution referred to as Industry 5.0 is focusing on leveraging human creativity with intelligent and autonomous systems to derive user-friendly work environment for the businesses. Industry 5.0 stresses on people centric work ecosystem, zero accident policy and the well-being of labour within the production processes. This approach of Industry 5.0 to obtain human-centric safety solutions through the deployment of digital technologies deduces workplace accidents and costs leading to the development of Safety 4.0. This chapter aims to investigate the opportunities and challenges of Safety 4.0 and its enabling technologies aspiring towards the greater impact on safety management. Further, we have proposed a framework for the role of human centric digital transformations concerning safety in the manufacturing industry propelling Safety 4.0. Concluding, we discuss the implications for managers and practitioners. We found that Safety 4.0 will strengthen industrial safety, and instead of reacting to accidents, the concept evolved towards a preventive and proactive approach for a healthy industrial ecosystem.

The study aims to investigate the integration of human and machine intelligence in Industry 4.0 (I4.0), particularly in the convergence of industrial revolutions 4.0 (IR4.0) and 5.0. It seeks to identify employee competencies aligned with industry 5.0 (I5.0) and propose a framework for deep multi-level cooperation to improve human integration within the intelligence system.

This study uses bibliometric analysis to review 296 research papers retrieved from the Scopus database between 2002 and 2022. The prominence of the research is evaluated by analyzing the publication trend, sample statistics, theoretical foundation, commonly used keywords, thematic evolution, country-based contributions and top-cited documents.

The study observed that research in I5.0 has been limited in the past but has gained momentum since 2015. An analysis of research papers from 2002 to 2022 reveals a gradual shift toward human-centric practices. The literature on I4.0, the internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), cloud manufacturing, blockchain and big data analysis has been increasingly highlighting the growing importance of digitalization in the future. An increase in the number of countries contributing to the field of study has also been observed.

This analysis offers valuable insights for managers, policymakers, information technology (IT) developers and stakeholders in understanding and implementing human-centric practices in I5.0. It emphasizes staying current with trends, embracing workforce empowerment through reskilling and upskilling, and prioritizing data privacy and security in adaptable systems. These strategies contribute to developing effective, inclusive and ethically sound approaches aligned with the principles of I5.0.

Industry 4.0 defines the application of digital technologies on business infrastructure and processes. With the increasing need to take into account the social and environmental impact of technologies, the concept of Society 5.0 has been proposed to restore the centrality of humans in the proper utilization of technology for the exploitation of innovation opportunities. Despite the identification of humans, resilience and sustainability as the key dimensions of Society 5.0, the definition of the key factors that can enable Innovation in the light of 5.0 principles has not been yet assessed.

An SLR, followed by a content analysis of results and a clustering of the main topics, is performed to (1) identify the key domains and dimensions of the Industry 5.0 paradigm; (2) understand their impact on Innovation 5.0; (3) discuss and reflect on the resulting implications for research, managerial practices and the policy-making process.

The findings allow the elaboration of a multileveled framework to redefine Innovation through the 5.0 paradigm by advancing the need to integrate ICT and technology (Industry 5.0) with the human-centric, social and knowledge-based dimensions (Society 5.0).

The study detects guidelines for managers, entrepreneurs and policy-makers in the adoption of effective strategies to promote human resources and knowledge management for the attainment of multiple innovation outcomes (from technological to data-driven and societal innovation).

Bitner’s (1992) concept of servicescape has received widespread academic attention, resulting in many conceptual and empirical studies. By scanning the servicescape literature and other relevant concepts, Pizam and Tasci (2019) provided experienscape, an expanded version of servicescape, to be measured from different stakeholders’ perspectives with a multidisciplinary approach. This paper aims to build on Pizam and Tasci’s conceptualization of experienscape and expand its nomological network with other pertinent concepts related to different stakeholders with an interdisciplinary approach.

This is a conceptual study analyzing diverse literature related to servicescape, experienscape and other related concepts and theories to provide an integrated and holistic picture of experienscape for more robust theory development. Several new relationships are synthesized for hypothesis development and testing in future research.

The review of past research reveals that servicescape literature has mostly focused on outcomes for the benefit of brands and firms and missed outcomes for consumers and other stakeholders. In addition, servicescape literature lacks several critical concepts in the affective, cognitive and behavioral reaction domains, as well as moderator factors. The relevance of some theories such as branding (e.g. brand identity, personality, image, perceived quality, consumer value, brand value and self-congruity), cocreation/coproduction/codestruction, transformation, subjective happiness, subjective well-being and quality of life is completely overlooked.

Experienscape is a container of complex systems where needs, wants and expectations of multiple stakeholders are entertained, often at the same time through dynamic interactions among multiple stakeholders. Thus, a holistic understanding of experienscape requires dynamic integration of theories explaining the behavior of different stakeholders by cross-fertilizing theories through interdisciplinary research rather than unidisciplinary or multidisciplinary research conducted in separate silos.

By adopting Pizam and Tasci’s (2019) experienscape concept, this study expanded the relational network of service environment components (i.e. sensory, functional, social, natural and cultural components of experienscape) by incorporating diverse theories and concepts that explain cognitive, affective and conative reactions of different stakeholders to an experience environment. Additionally, the current study recommends attention to human-centric outcomes such as transformation, subjective well-being, subjective happiness and quality of life, which were completely overlooked in previous servicescape research.

The paper aims to examine the environmental challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in EU law that regard both illicit uses of the technology, i.e. overuse or misuse of AI and its possible underuses. The aim of the paper is to show how such regulatory efforts of legislators should be understood as a critical component of the Green Deal of the EU institutions, that is, to save our planet from impoverishment, plunder and destruction.

To illustrate the different ways in which AI can represent a game-changer for our environmental challenges, attention is drawn to a multidisciplinary approach, which includes the analysis of the initiatives on the European Green Deal; the proposals for a new legal framework on data governance and AI; principles of environmental and constitutional law; the interaction of such principles and provisions of environmental and constitutional law with AI regulations; other sources of EU law and of its Member States.

Most recent initiatives on AI, including the AI Act (AIA) of the European Commission, have insisted on a human-centric approach, whereas it seems obvious that the challenges of environmental law, including those triggered by AI, should be addressed in accordance with an ontocentric, rather than anthropocentric stance. The paper provides four recommendations for the legal consequences of this short-sighted view, including the lack of environmental concerns in the AIA.

The environmental challenges of AI suggest complementing current regulatory efforts of EU lawmakers with a new generation of eco-impact assessments; duties of care and disclosure of non-financial information; clearer parameters for the implementation of the integration principle in EU constitutional law; special policies for the risk of underusing AI for environmental purposes. Further research should examine these policies in connection with the principle of sustainability and the EU plan for a circular economy, as another crucial ingredient of the Green Deal.

The paper provides a set of concrete measures to properly tackle both illicit uses of AI and the risk of its possible underuse for environmental purposes. Such measures do not only concern the “top down” efforts of legislators but also litigation and the role of courts. Current trends of climate change litigation and the transplant of class actions into several civil law jurisdictions shed new light on the ways in which we should address the environmental challenges of AI, even before a court.

A more robust protection of people’s right to a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment follows as a result of the analysis on the legal threats and opportunities brought forth by AI.

The paper explores a set of issues, often overlooked by scholars and institutions, that is nonetheless crucial for any Green Deal, such as the distinction between the human-centric approach of current proposals in the field of technological regulation and the traditional ontocentric stance of environmental law. The analysis considers for the first time the legal issues that follow this distinction in the field of AI regulation and how we should address them.