Vol. 8 No. 3 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF COMPANIES FROM INDUSTRY 4.0 PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPACT ON HUMAN RESOURCES ROLES

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Ercan ERGÜN,
  • Erdal ŞEN,
  • Osman İRİ
Ercan ERGÜN
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Gebze Teknik University
Erdal ŞEN
Assoc. Prof. Dr., İstanbul Aydın University
Osman İRİ
Expert, Gebze Teknik University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1557

Published 2020-09-25

Keywords

  • Industry 4.0 Human Resources Organizational Structure Organic Mechanic
  • Endüstri 4.0, İnsan Kaynakları, Organizasyon Yapısı, Organik, Mekanik

How to Cite

ERGÜN, E., ŞEN, E., & İRİ, O. (2020). ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF COMPANIES FROM INDUSTRY 4.0 PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPACT ON HUMAN RESOURCES ROLES. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 3393–3423. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1557

Abstract

1. LITERATURE
1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT
Industry 4.0, which Germany referred to as the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a project in 2011, refers to all of the digital technologies that allow today's product and service production methods to change from head to toe. Although Germany primarily used industry 4.0 with its emergence and applications, it is a global development in terms of its advantages and technological requirements. Although every country in the world order has started work for the transition to Industry 4.0, a full transition is not possible yet. Because although Industry 4.0 offers many physical, technological solutions, it also brings cultural change. The necessity of effectively, efficiently and influentially applying this concept, which is the principal place and importance in ranking the development levels of countries, is becoming more prominent day by day. Therefore, it is essential to keep up with Industry 4.0, to develop state policies in this regard, to raise awareness in universities, public, private sector and non-governmental organizations and to encourage new generation production models. Centralization, Mechanic / Bureaucratic (Formalization), Organic / Management Innovation are the sub-dimensions of the independent variable of Organizational Structures. Strategic Partner Role, Administrative Expert Role, Change Agent Role, Employee Champion Role are the sub-dimensions of the dependent variable Human Resources Roles of this research.
1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
This research aims to evaluate the organizational structure of the company and human resources within the scope of industry 4.0. For this purpose, a literature review on Industry 4.0, organizational structure and human resources roles were carried out. In the methodology section, implementation was carried out through companies.
1.3. CONTRIBUTION OF THE ARTICLE TO THE LITERATURE
In this study in which the variables of "Organization Structure and Human Resources Roles" are examined together. It is evaluated that the results achieved will contribute to the fields of application and the literature and maybe a starting point for future research.
2. DESIGN AND METHOD
2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
The sample of the research consists of 147 personnel working in four different companies operating in İstanbul and Kocaeli region and having characteristics by the industry 4.0 criteria in the automotive sector.
2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
How do organizational structures affect human resources roles?
What are the effects of companies of different origins on organizational structures and human resources roles?
Do the effects of national culture continue in the organizational structures of companies implementing Industry 4.0?
2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
The quantitative research method was used as a method in this research. Quantitative research is a type of research that reveals facts and events in an observable, measurable and quantifiable and demonstrable way. With the quantitative research method, the results are obtained by collecting data from the primary research mass in line with the research purpose. In other words, more superficial and more numerical data are determined, not a qualitative analysis about the subject (Şimşek and Yıldırım, 2005). The survey was used as a data collection tool. Study 1 to 5 was applied to 147 employees in 4 manufacturing companies working in the automotive sector, which used Industry 4.0 technologies with Likert-type psychometric attitude scale and started to carry out the transition steps to Industry 4.0. Face-to-face survey method was used within the scope of the research. The questionnaire consists of 58 questions grouped under three main headings together with demographic questions.
2.4. QUANTITATIVE / QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
16.0 version of SPSS program was used to analyze the data obtained within the scope of the research. Regression analyzes were used to test reliability, factor analysis, correlation analysis and research hypotheses. The findings in the study were evaluated at p<0.01 and p<0.05 significance levels. Factor analysis is used to provide clues that will reveal the relationship structure between a large number of variables. The most preferred "correlation analysis" and "regression analysis" were also performed in the social sciences.
2.5. RESEARCH MODEL

 

 

 


2.6. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The hypotheses of the study are determined as follows;
H1: There is a significant relationship between centralization and human resources roles.
H2: There is a significant relationship between mechanic/bureaucratic structure and human resources roles.
H3: There is a significant relationship between organic/management innovation structure and human resources roles.

3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. FINDINGS AS A RESULT OF ANALYSIS
Relationships between centralization, mechanic / bureaucratic structure and organic / management innovation structures from organizational structure dimensions and strategic partner role, expert administrative role, change agent role and employee champion role from human resources roles dimensions were examined, and relationships were determined.
In organizations with centralization, the strategic partner role of human resources roles, administrative expert role and employee champion roles have been determined, and these roles seem to increase. The role of the change agent has no effect on organizations with centralization. In organizations with mechanic / bureaucratic structure, the role of employee champion from human resources roles has been determined, and this role appears to increase in organizations with mechanical structure. Strategic partner, administrative expert and change agent roles do not affect organizations with mechanic / bureaucratic structure. In organizations with organic / management innovation structure, the strategic partner role of human resources roles, expert administrative role, change agent role and employee champion role has been determined and these roles seem to increase in organizations with organic / management innovation structure. Also, a strong relationship was found between the role of the change agent and the strategic partner role in the research. In line with this finding, the fact that researches are evaluating the role of change agent within the strategic partner role shows the appropriateness of this finding.
3.2. HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS
The Effect of Organizational Structures Dimensions on the Strategic Partner Role:
Model 1, in which the effect of organizational structures dimensions on the strategic partner role was investigated, was found to be statistically significant (F=24.767; p<0.01). As a result of the regression analysis it is seen that the strategic partner role of centralization (: 0.442; p<0,01) and organic / management innovation structures (: 0.772; p<0,01) increases. Mechanic / bureaucratic structures do not seem to have a significant effect on the strategic partner role. In line with these findings, H1a and H3a, one of the research hypotheses, were supported, while H2a was not.
The Effect of Organizational Structures Dimensions on the Administrative Expert Role:
Model 2, in which the effect of organizational structures dimensions on the expert administrative role was investigated, was found to be statistically significant (F=10.598; p<0.01). As a result of the regression analysis, it is seen that the role of administrative expert increases in centralization (: 0.387; p<0,01) and organic / management innovation structures (: 0.554; p<0,01) from the dimensions of organizational structures. Mechanic / bureaucratic structures do not seem to have a significant effect on the expert administrative role. In line with these findings, H1b and H3b, one of the research hypotheses, were supported, while H2b was not.
The Effect of Organizational Structures Dimensions on the Change Agent Role:
Model 3, in which the effect of organizational structures dimensions on the change agent role was investigated, was found to be statistically significant (F=2.969; p<0.05). As a result of regression analysis, it is seen that the role of change agent increases in organic / management innovation structures (: 0.306; p>0,01), which is one of the dimensions of organizational structures. Centralization and mechanic / bureaucratic structures do not seem to have a significant effect on the change agent role. In line with these findings, H3c, one of the research hypotheses, was supported, while H1c and H2c were not.
The Effect of Organizational Structures Dimensions on the Employee Champion Role:
Model 4, in which the effect of organizational structures dimensions on the employee champion role was investigated, was found to be statistically significant (F=18.656; p<0.01). As a result of regression analysis, it is seen that the role of employee champion increases in organic/management innovation structures (: 0.284; p<;0,01), which is one of the dimensions of organizational structures. Centralization (: -0.225; p<0,01) and mechanic / bureaucratic structures (: -0.234; p<0,01) appear to reduce the role of employee champion. In line with these findings, H1d, H2d and H3d, one of the research hypotheses, where supported.
3.3. DISCUSSING THE FINDINGS WİTH THE LITERATURE
While the studies in the literature mostly found positive relationships between organic structures and HR, in this study, a positive effect was found between the role of HR administrative expert and the strategic partner role of HR in centralization structures. This effect was not observed in the analysis of the data of three companies in the sample. However, as a result of the analysis of the data from the German company, the typical strategic role of centralization and the positive effect of the expert administrative role were determined. The upper executive authority effect, which is the characteristics of the centralization, is also seen in the subordinate-superior relations in German culture. Therefore, it can be said that the effects of national culture will continue on the organizational structures of companies implementing Industry 4.0.
4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS
4.1. RESULTS OF THE ARTICLE
As a result of the study, it has been observed that the companies applying industry 4.0 have positive effects on the roles of the human resource in their centralization as well as organic organizational structures. However, in organizations with centralization, the strategic partner role of human resources roles has a significant adverse effect on the role of administrative expert and employee champion role, and in organizations with mechanic/bureaucratic structure, the role of employee champion from human resources roles has a significant negative effect.
4.2. SUGGESTIONS BASED ON RESULTS
The research was conducted in large-scale enterprises operating in the automotive sector. Human resources roles can be investigated by making applications in different sectors. Comparative studies can be carried out by revealing the differences in human resources roles between developed and developing countries. Also, similar researches can be carried out in the following years to determine the progress of the strategic partner role of human resources roles over the years.
4.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE ARTICLE
Within the scope of the research, taking into account the time and cost constraints, data were collected quickly by the sampling method. One of the critical limitations of the study is that the number of enterprises applying Industry 4.0 technologies is low, and the enterprises that the researcher can access are included in the sample. Findings obtained as a result of the easy sampling method represent the sample without covering the central mass. Besides, it is assumed that the survey tool, which is the data collection method, is the most appropriate method for obtaining the data, that the participants correctly understand the survey questions and answer the questions sincerely, and that the statistical methods used in the analysis are the most appropriate method for the study

 

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Acemoğlu, D. (1997). Why Do new thecnologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage ınequality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 1055–1089.
  2. Akkaya, B. (2019). Leadership 5.0 in Industry 4.0: Leadership in Perspective of Organizational Agility. In Essila, J. C. (Eds.), Managing Operations Throughout Global Supply Chains (pp. 136-158), IGI Global.
  3. Akkaya, B. & Tabak, A. (2020). The Link between Organizational Agility and Leadership: A Research in Science Parks. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 1-17.
  4. Aksoy, S. (2017). Değişen teknolojiler ve endüstri 4.0: endüstri 4.0’ı anlamaya dair bir giriş. Sosyal Araştırma Vakfı Katkı, 4, 34-44.
  5. Alpkan, L., Ergün, E., Bulut, Ç., & YILMAZ, C. (2005). Şirket girişimciliğinin şirket performansına etkileri. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 6(2), 175-189.
  6. Aydın, A. F. (2004). Bir Örgüt Geliştirme Unsuru Olarak Örgütsel Öğrenme. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Afyon.
  7. Aytar, O. (2019). Endüstri 4.0 ve bu paradigmanın örgüt yönetimi üzerindeki olası etkileri. İş, Güç Endüstri İişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 21(2), 75-90.
  8. Bartodziej, C. J. (2015). The concept Industry 4.0. BestMasters.
  9. Bortoloni, M., Bottarelli, M. & Su, Y. (2017). A study on the effect of ground surface boundary conditions ın modelling shallow ground heat exchangers. Applied Thermal Engineering, 111, 1371-1377.
  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 001-214
  11. Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation, London: Tavistock.
  12. Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  13. Damanpour, F. (1991) Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.
  14. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Review Management, 41 (2), 79–94.
  15. Duygun, A. & Şen, E. (2020). Evaluation of Consumer Purchasing Behaviors in the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in the Context of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, PazarlamaTeorisi ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 6 (1), 45-68.
  16. Ergün, E., Taşçı B. S. & Latifoğlu, N. (2019). İnsan Sermayesi: Öğrenen Organizasyonlar, Kurumsal Akademiler, Şirket Üniversiteleri. Ekin Yayınevi, Bursa.
  17. Gabaçlı, N. & Uzunöz, M. (2017). IV. Sanayi Devrimi: Endüstri 4.0 ve otomotiv sektörü. Uluslararası Politik, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Kongresi, Bildiriler Kitabı Ekonomik Araştırmalar, 2, 149-174.
  18. Kagermann, H., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A. & Wahlster, W. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0: Securing the future of German manufacturing industry; final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group, Forschungsunion.
  19. Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J., Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., Lohrke, F. T., Naumann, S. E., Haptonstahl, D. E., Baker, R., Beckstein, B. A., Handler, C., Honig, H. & Lamoureux, S. (1997). Organizational configurations and performance: a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 223-240.
  20. Koçyiğit, Y. & Akkaya, B. (2020). The Role of Organizational Flexibility in Organizational Agility: A Research on SMEs. Business Management and Strategy, 11(1), 110-123.
  21. Lam, A. (2004). Organizational Innovation. Brunel University Brunel Research in Enterprise, Innovation, Sustainability, and Ethics. Working Paper No. 1 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11539/ MPRA Paper No. 11539.
  22. Lawrence, Paul & Lorsch, Jay. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 12. 1-47. 10.2307/2391211.
  23. Lemmergaard, J. (2009). From administrative expert to strategic partner. Employee Relations, 31(2), 182 – 196.
  24. Li Da Xu, Eric L. Xu & Ling Li (2018) Industry 4.0: State of the Art and Future Trends, International Journal of Production Research, 56(8), pp. 2941-2962.
  25. Lemmergaard, Jeanette. (2009). From administrative expert to strategic partner. Employee Relations. 31. 182-196. 10.1108/01425450910925328.
  26. Mert, G. (2020). “Kurumların Stratejik Yönetim Süreçlerinde Dijitalleşmenin Rolü”, Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 6(22): 41-58.
  27. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Kurumsallaşmış örgütler: mit olarak resmi yapı ve töreni. Amerikan Socio Dergisilogy, 83 (2), 340-363.
  28. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organization. USA: Prentice-Hall,
  29. Nik Mat, N. H., Zabidi, Z. N. & Salleh M. (2015). Linking the line managers' HRM role to HRM effectiveness: Some evidence from Malaysia. Advanced Science Letters, 21.
  30. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  31. Ouchi, W. G., & Maguire, M. A. (1975). Organizational control: Two functions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(4), 559–569
  32. Öğüt, A., Akgemci, T. & Demirsel, M. (2004). Stratejik insan kaynakları yönetimi bağlamında örgütlerde işgören motivasyonu süreci. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi.
  33. Özalp, İ. (1998). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Birlik Ofset, Eskişehir.
  34. Pierce, J. & Delbecq, A. (1977). Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation. The Academy of Management Review. 2. 27. 10.2307/257602.
  35. Raub, S., Alvarez, L. & Khanna, R. (2006). The different roles of corporate and unit level human resources managers in the hospitality ındustry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(2), 135-144.
  36. Saraiva, H. (2011). The balanced scorecard: the evolution of the concept and its effects on change in organizational management. Estonian Business School Review, 28.
  37. Sayılgan, E. & İşler, Y. (2017). Medikal Endüstri 4.0 ile tıbbi cihaz sektörü. Medical Technologies National Congress (TIPTEKNO).
  38. Sumer, B. (2018). Impact of Endustry 4.0 on occupations and employment in Turkey. European Scientific Journal, 14, 1–17.
  39. Sung, T. K. (2018). Industry 4.0: "A Korea perspective: Technological forecasting and social change. Department of MIS. Kyonggi University, Republic of Korea. 132, 40–45.
  40. Şen, E. (2020), Global Virus of the Digital Village COVID-19 and Senism, Eurasian Journal of Social and Economic Research, 7(3), 176-204.
  41. Şen, E., (2017). Kurumsallaşma ve Kurumsal Yönetişim. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul.
  42. Şimşek, H. & Yıldırım, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  43. Tüysüz, M. (2019). İnsan kaynakları departmanı rollerinin yöneticilerin insan kaynakları yönetimine ilişkin algısına etkisi ve bu süreçte örgüt yapısının düzenleyici rolü. (Doktora Tezi), İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  44. Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resource Champions. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
  45. Ünal, Ö. F. & Mete, M. (2012). The ımpact of ınformation technology on human resource practices and competencies. Süleyman Demirel University FEAS Social Work Department, Dicle University FEAS Department of Management. 3 rd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, (May 31-June 01 2012), Sarajevo.
  46. Wagner, T., Herrmann, C., & Thiede, S. (2017). Industry 4.0 impacts on lean production systems. Procedia CIRP, 63, 125 – 131.
  47. Wilkesmann, M. & Wilkesmann, U. (2018). Industry 4.0 – organizing routines or innovations? Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 88(2), 238-254.
  48. Yazıcı, E. & Düzkaya, H. (2016). Endüstri devriminde dördüncü dalga ve eğitim: türkiye dördüncü dalga endüstri devrimine hazır mı?. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama (Journal of Education and Humanities: Theory and Practice), 7(13), 49-88.