Results videos of individual sub-projects

Tiemann: Is technological change accelerating? Where and how can we see the effects? What are the challenges ahead, including in the world of work?

These questions are frequently conflated. And the media regularly reminds us that we are dealing with a shift that is still accelerating.

Our project has tried to evaluate indicators that aim to show such an acceleration of change. All of them can be found in the publication. Here we will look briefly at just two.

We take a macroeconomic view by looking at labor productivity. In the case of accelerated development, labor productivity should show an upward trend rather than just a rising line. However, development has remained constant since the 1970s, and there has eben been a slowdown in recent years.

We also investigate investments in the economy. There investments can be made in machines and plants, i.e. devices and robots. On the other hand, investments may also go into so-called other equipment. This category includes software, for example. If we divide things up into investment cycles, then we should tend to see a dominant investment pattern if development has been accelerating since the 1970s. It could, for instance, be the case that the investments over the past three or four cycles have mainly been made in this other equipment, including software.

However, we fail to notice this. The primary patter that emerges is the interaction between investments in machinery and facilities and investments in other equipment.

The project examined additional indicators of this type. 

Regardless of the area in which we looked, we found continuous developments which were sometimes changeable rather than an accelerated shift.

It becomes clear that no single process can explain these developments. Several factors are always at play. These include changes in vehaviour, demographic shifts, statuory alterations and technical developments.

All of these combined lead to the structural shift we are experiencing and which ca only be explained by the interaction between various factors.

Maybe we need to refine the available indicators, including those related to research, knowledge of structural development, occupations, and sectors at an overall economic level. 

Or perhaps they are not the right indicators. 

Therefore, we are working on a project to develop new indicators to investigate the speed of development. Information on this, on the other indicators, on their structure and developments and on the data used can be found in the publication "Beschleunigter technologischer Wandel als Herausforderung für die Berufsbwelt" ["Accelerated technological change as a challenge for the world of work"].

Lisa Fournier: Are companies still investing in continuing training at all, or do they prefer to focus on investments in technology? In order to answer his question, we took a close look at how much money different companies spend on continuing training and technological investments and at whether the companies' degree of digitalisation is significant in this regard.

We assume that companies will reduce investments in continuing training in the wake of the technical shift.

With regard to the question as to which companies are prepared to pay for the costs of continuing training, evaluations of the 2020 BIBB Training Panel show a clear difference between size, sector and degree of digitalisation in particular. In addition, and contrary to our expectations, highly digitalised companies are more likely to fund continuing training. Actually, such companies spend also more money in this area.

The results show that investments in continuing training remain consistent and have been increased in one in five companies, a figure that is expected to rise. Additionally, investiments in technology have also increased. 

It is thus shown that the technical shift does not necessarily need to result in lower employee investments - i.e. investment in us all - on the part of the companies. Quite the contrary is the case. In fact, the results indicate a positive correlation between the impacts of the technical shift and investments in human capital.

One thing which must be borne in mind is that these are merely initial descriptive results which will need to be pursued in greater detail. Nevertheless, our outcomes already emphasise that continuing training and investment in continuing training should remain a focus of labor and education policy in order to prepare employees for the new challenges of the world of work and to enable them to react to technological change.

Myriam Baum: Technical change will lead to more continuing training for us all! This is welcome news initially. But is it such an accurate statement?

The general assumption is that technical change and the use of technologies will be associated with more continuing training. The debate is still ongoing as to whether new technology at a company will result in more continuing training or whether continuing training will take place first and new technology will then be acquired. 

Moreover, many research projects do not take a whole shift into consideration. They are more likely to look at specific periods which provide an overview of the possible impacts of technical changes and innovations. The same is true of our own papers, in which we have examined the use of technologies by employees or the introduction of new technologies into the company. We then relate these to staff participation in continuing training and not to the labour force as a whole.

But what have we now specifically discovered? We are able to show, and this figure also makes it clear, that companies which are active in initial and continuing training exhibit greater use of technology than other companies regardless of their size. 

We have also found a correlation between the introduction of information and communication technologies and higher levels of participation in continuing training at the company and a positive association between a high proportion of employees using the digital technologies and participation in continuing training. This sounds good.

On the other hand, however, there is a negative correlation between the time employees spend with technologies and participation in continuing training. This leads us to conclude that the correlation between technology and continuing training is not always clear and that not all the effects for employees are positive. In particular, we find indications that inequalities of participation are still revealed in connection with technology and that the structuring of work tasks, for example greater or lesser routine, has an influence on correlation.

For this reason, the results will need to be pursued further because no comprehensive response has been arrived at with regard to the question of the correlation between technology and continuing training. The constant development of more new technology also allows fresh directions and opportunities on an ongoing basis. This means that the need for continuing training grows. 

Our results underline the fact that continuing training must remain a focus of future labour and educational policy in order to prepare employees and indeed everyone for the new requirements and technical changes in the world of work.

We thus consider continuing training to be a reaction to technology.

Myriam Baum: Does technical change actually lead to altered employment relationships?  

Many of the interviews our team conducted with well-known academic researchers addressed the danger that technical change may exacerbate social inequalities or even encourage their emergence in the first place.

One of the underlying assumptions is that the normal working relationship, i.e. 40 hours a week under a permanent contract of employment, may have run its course. The labour market is demanding increasing flexibility. Examples of this can be found in the so-called gig economy, which is continuing to expand. Under this model, companies such as Uber, Lieferando and Myhammer act as intermediary platforms without actually employing their workers. 

For this reason, our work focuses on how technical change is changing the company employment structure. We specifically examine how the introduction of information and communications technologies (ICT) correlates with the proportion of fixed-term contracts of employment at companies. We concentrate on employees who are working under time-limited contracts. Depending on the way in which these contracts are structured, they may resemble normal working arrangements. Nevertheless, such employees frequently face considerable uncertainties. We are seeking to find indications as to whether the technical change is exerting a positive or negative effect.

Our data shows that, up until 2016, companies which had introduced ICT had a higher proportion of fixed-term contracts of employment as compared to companies which had not done so. Since 2016, the proportions have been relatively similar. However, the ratio turns around if only companies with fixed-term employees are considered. Companies which have not introduced ICT now have higher proportions of employees under fixed-term contracts. 

Notwithstanding this, further analyses once again tend to suggest a positive correlation, thus indicating that companies which have introduced ICT have a higher proportion of employees with fixed-term contracts. One aspect which should be stressed is that the number of employees at the company has a very strong effect on this correlation. Our analysis emphasises that company data is an important investigation level when seeking to examine reactions to technical change. 

These are only preliminary results which require further investigations and need to become a closer focus of research. Although fixed-term employment contracts offer flexibility for both parties, they are also associated with considerable planning uncertainty for employees and indeed for employers too, since the departure of employees may mean considerable losses of knowledge.

David Samray: Everyone is talking about start-ups. They are young and innovative and thus important for the development of new products and services. They often act as an impetus for established companies, for example in respect of corporate culture, business models and the use of digital tools.

Nicolai Bör: Nevertheless, we often hear that start-ups are unable to find enough skilled employees on the labour market. At the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training, we have therefore posed the question whether vocational education and training (VET) could be an option for start-ups seeking to acquire a trained workforce. We used an online survey and interviews with founderts and with persons from the start-up scene to investigate the extent to which VET is common amongst start-ups.

Samray: Indeed, only a very small number of start-up companies provide VET, despite the difficulties they frequently experience in finding staff. Some of the start-ups which have not previously offered VET could easily imagine that they might do so in the future. One of the principal benefits is perceived as being the opportunity to provide company-specific training.

However, start-ups often require staff who are already qualified. At the outset, it may well also be the case that they lack the structures to provide their own VET. One further common statement is that start-ups are too specialised to be able to impart all the relevant contents of a training occupation. Moreover, many of these young companies are often very small. The organisational arrangements and statutory stipulations constitute a challenge when recruiting apprentices.

Bör: The interviewees also indicated that start-ups are frequently uninformed regarding the opportunities afforded by VET. For this reason, they do not perceive it as a possible strategy for the acquisition of skilled workers. They may not know, for example, that they can provide VET in conjunction with other companies. So-called cooperative trainin may, however, be an intersting option in this regard, especially for specialised and small firms.

Samray: Even though start-ups are not the most "natural" providers of VET, there are certainly starting points for increasing their participation. Such approaches allow start-ups to counter their skilled worker shortage whilst also giving young people the chance to complete training in a modern and innovative work environment. 

Bör: Visit our project homepage to discover more about our start-up study. You will also find links to our publications.

Ehmann: Are you currently employed?

Seegers: Then think about the work tasks that you perform on a daily basis.

Ehmann: Do you often find yourself carrying out the same tasks?

Seegers: Do they follow a certain pattern?

Ehmann: There are constant media reports about more and more jobs being replaced by digital technology in the future.

Especially tasks which can be effectively divided into small steps and which always proceed in the same manner tend to be suited to completion by computer programmes or by computer-controlled machines. However, as new technologies reach market maturity, this could more and more possible for complex tasks in miore highly qualified occupations to be performed via technology.

Yet potential and actual replacement of work tasks by technology should not be equated. Legal, ethical, economic and social obstacles could also stand in the way of replacement. Work tasks are thus not replaced, although the latest status of technology would render this feasible.

From the opposite perspective, technology can help you to complete your work tasks in an easier, quicker and more efficient way. And sometimes new tasks are added because of technology.

One of the aims of our research project is to find out which different types of technology are more likely to supplement or replace work tasks and to discover the conditions under which this takes place. We are particularly interested in the influence of general conditions in the workplace and at the company on the deployment of technology which is exerted.

We examine whether the use of certain technologies depends on how the company organises work, on how your workplace is equipped and on which competencies you possess.

Seegers: In order to answer these questions, we use representative survey data of the labor force in Germany between 2006 an 2018.

We are, for example, able to show that the effect on work tasks of new software in the workplace is different to that created by a new machine. Technology is thus not always necessarily the same. Its impact also varies according to occupation.

An even more key result is the finding that tasks which could be replaced in accordance with the latest status of technology actually tend to be supplemented by technology instead. 

Despite the widespread assumptions regarding work tasks which are capable of being replaced by technology, we find no universal correlation between a certain type of technology and work tasks. This means that neither the technology in itself nor the type of task determines the impacts of technology. 

The question of whether your work tasks are replaced by technology or whether technology will tend to be of assistance to you thus depends on significantly more than the mere fact of whether this is technically possible. We are, for instance, currently investigating the significance of complex work environments. Results of this work will be available shortly.

Off: Will artificial intelligence replace doctors? Will algorithms replace legal practitioners and make lawyers superfluous to requirements? AI has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize, but it is getting closer.

Sevindik: Perhaps you trained as a bus or lorry driver? Maybe you work in retail or in logistics? Or are you a journalist, lawyer or doctor? 

Then you are someone whose occupation and work tasks will be exercised by robots or computers in the near or distant future. Or not? Machines definitely have capabilities of which we humans can only dream. But the opposite also holds true.  

Some of our human abilities have not yet proved transferable to machines, and presumably they never will. However, there is no need for these respective advantages to compete with one another. They can also be viewed as mutually enhancing. Nevertheless, we always seem to be hearing about studies which predict that very high proportions of human jobs or occupations will be replaceable. Very little prominence is given to studies which forecast that the deployment of new technologies will lead to an increase in jobs. 

But why is this so? Why is artificial intelligence presented as an immediate threat to human work even though – as has been identified from the various datasets used in the present study – only a fraction of Germany’s companies state that they use it in the first place? 

One fact seems to be clear: The dissemination of information and communication technologies is widening. This is bringing about an increase in AI technologies and raising their relevance within companies. It also already appears to be apparent that most, although by no means all, employees who work with AI are highly qualified. 

AI is thus now affecting employees at every qualification level. 

Sabine Pfeiffer has already posed one of the questions which has always been present when dealing with this problem area. If AI is so capable, why do we think about deploying it in a way which replaces us instead of making it work for us and solve the major problems of society?

This means that we have direct opportunities to shape things. We can work together to determine and negotiate the direction of travel that should be taken by the development of technology in general and by AI in particular. This applies to legal, ethical and moral aspects as well as to the technical side.

After all, AI depends on data if it is to function properly. And who supplies this data? We do. 

Instead of speaking about the replacement of human labor, it is possible to adopt a different narrative. People can be led away from routine or dangerous work tasks and be given more complex and more motivating tasks to perform because machines will take over the former.

A positive influence on the quality of the work could also be achieved by increasing human abilities via the interaction between human and machine. This could in turn raise employee motivation and thus release unsuspected areas of potential. 

In this way, ongoing digitalisation could be a chance to change and even to redefine the role of humans in the world of work. 

We still have sufficient scope for this, as is shown by the further results to emerge from the study. These may be found by following the link below. The aim is for our findings to serve as a foundation for future research. These are already at the planning stage. 

So, the important thing is that we act now to make the most of the opportunities we have to structure events. Thank you for listening.

Where does technical change actually take place? 

If we think about technical change in the world of work, our minds turn to robots, to large machines and perhaps to the workers in blue overalls who operate them. But does technical change merely consist of this?

There are now very few people who have ever seen a typewriter in action. We find fax machines disconcertingly old. We no longer use calculating machines, and shorthand is virtually a lost art.  

Typewriters, calculating machines, fax machines and modems are all technical assistants which have disappeared from the everyday working lives of office employees over the past 40 years. Computers have taken their place.

That is technical change. In the office. And it has been going on for over 40 years. 

Around 13 percent of the labour force, over six million people, worked in an office occupation in 2017. Almost 59,000 persons commenced training in such an occupation in the same year – more than ten percent of all new training contracts concluded in 2017. Our results thus affect a large part of the labour force, both today and in the future. 

These findings are also important in policy terms. We are able to show how technical change has occurred in office occupations and how it can be steered. 

Office occupations have always been part of the history of (the application of) technology. They were frequently confronted with technical developments before other occupations. Office employees used technical innovations in a supportive manner, driven by a “pioneering spirit”.

Labour capacity requirements in almost all office occupations grew over the course of time, and employees felt that they were up to these demands. They are also prepared for this by the training provided in the dual system. Those who complete VET in office occupations are considered to be specialists with a broad range of skills. The mutability of training immunises companies against new phenomena and future developments. The integration of digital technologies on both sides – in training and at the companies – is also part of this. 

Our study “Dealing with technical change in office occupations” contains more on these findings and further results relating to continuing training programmes, the company perspective, the question of the extent to which the introduction of technology has been borne by employees, the future development of supply and demand and much more besides.

How do the qualifications of employees in more digitalised companies actually differ? Is there a lower demand for low-skilled workers, which is why their income is falling and the proportion of precarious employment is increasing?

It is true that the level of training of employees is steadily increasing with the digitalisation of the workplace. However, the situation is somewhat different at company level: In fact, in more digitalised companies, the proportion of highly qualified workers is higher and the proportion with intermediate qualifications is lower. However, there are no fewer low-skilled workers in these companies.

Regardless of the extent of digitalisation, there appears to be a relatively constant proportion of jobs for unskilled workers in companies that are less digitalised. If the change in company digitalisation from 2011 to 2016 is examined, no effect on the qualification composition of the company can be seen. Nevertheless, there is a general trend towards higher qualifications and, of course, more digitalisation during this period.

Therefore, the proportion of precarious employment does not increase with increasing digitalisation. Overall, professional integration is even more successful in more digitalised companies. However, this is mainly due to the fact that companies with high turnover are particularly digitised and can afford to pay higher wages. If the turnover of a company is taken into account, there are hardly any differences between more and less digitalised companies. However, the proportion of lower incomes tends to be slightly lower in more digitalised companies.

In a comparison between 2011 and 2019, the professional integration of individual employees increased. This can be explained on the one hand by the reduction in the general unemployment rate and on the other hand by the greater individual professional experience of those surveyed. However, digitalisation has no influence on this.

Overall, the impact of digitalisation tends to be positive or at least neutral with regard to the professional integration of employees. Even within individual industry groups and occupational fields, no negative effects on professional integration can be detected in a time comparison.