- Email: [email protected]
The impact of industrial robots on the world of work
65
The Impact of Industrial Robots on the World of Work K . - H . Ebel Manufacturing Industries Branch, International Labour Office, Geneva Despite falling prices and more varied applications, the diffusion of industrial robots is taking place at a slower pace than expected. There are not only technical snags but also social barriers to be overcome - displacement of workers, deskilling of certain operations, changes in work methods. Robots do away mostly with unskilled and hazardous jobs and can lead to dramatic employment cut-backs in individual plants. But so far robotisation has affected only a limited number of workplaces in manufacturing. While working conditions may be improved on the whole, reduced manning can contribute to the social isolation of workers. Robotisation can also put a strain on industrial relations unless the workers are properly consulted and their concerns and interests taken fully into account.
Keywords: Industrial Robots, Social and labour effects, Displacement of workers, Working conditions, Industrial relations.
I¢~rI-H. Ebel (Dipl. disc. pol.; Dr. rer. pol.) was born in 1932 in Dt~mitz, Germany. From 1951 to 1959 he studied social sciences and economics studies at the Humboldt University, Berlin, the Hochschule for Sozialwissensehaften, Wilhelmsliaven, FRG, the Antioch College, Yellow Springs, USA, and at the Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria. From 1960 to 1962 he had practice periods in industry and was foreign student adviser at Technical University Hannover, FRG. Since 1962, Dr Ebel is with the International Labour Office, Geneva. He has research assignments in vocational training, multinational enterprises and technology subjects. At present, he is industrial specialist for the metal trades. North-Holland Robotics 3 (1987) 65-72
I. Introduction
The production and use of industrial robots is expanding at an exponential rate [1]. The application of this technology in all industrial sectors is gathering pace although not as fast as certain euphoric (or alarmist) forecasts and projections of ten to five years ago wanted to make us believe. What has this meant for the world of work and what is in store? For some, industrial robotics conjures up visions of a dehumanised working environment in which jobs have been abolished and skills incorporated in machines or relegated to marginality. For others - particularly the engineer and manager it is a nightmare of a different kind. For them, it is a sophisticated but immature technology bound up with high risks. In surveying the abundant literature and case studies, one is struck by the diversity of opinions and scenarios based on relatively scant evidence. They seem to reflect more the points of view of special interest groups, technology enthusiasts, or are an expression of almost irrational fear. Much is in the eye of the beholder. The fears are, of course, fuelled by the continuing existence of high unemployment rates and the restructuring crisis in the industrialised market economy countries where robots are expected to aggravate unemployment. It is too seldom taken into consideration that they may actually be the only chance for some manufacturing industries to survive in high-wage industrialised countries. We should, however, try to have a dispassionate and realistic view of what is in the offing. After all, second generation robots have been with us for some 15 to 20 years. They are only one facet - and probably not even the most important one - of advanced manufacturing technology and automation. Robots are improved and sophisticated machine tools, one step further in rationalisation, permitting important gains in labour and capital productivity. There is, of course, the theory and threat that in the end robots endowed with artificial intelligence will reproduce themselves
0167-8493/87/$3.50 © 1987, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
66
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
without human intervention. However, this science fiction scenario does not correspond to reality quite yet. And here we are concerned with the more likely immediate future.
2. The Diffusion of Industrial Robots
A trend and impact analysis is made difficult because the effect of robotisation is closely linked with the effects of other new manufacturing and process technologies such as flexible manufacturing systems, computer integrated manufacturing and ct~c machinery. Analysts are, therefore, hedging their bets. This much is certain: robots are on the march. Their price is falling and they are getting better, while the price of labour is rising relatively and absolutely. The third generation of robots equipped with rudimentary sensory ability and artificial intelligence will soon stand ready to take over production tasks of an increasingly complex nature in many industries [2]. The adjustment of the world of work to robotisation hinges mainly on the fields of application and the rate of diffusion of this new technology. A good deal is known about technical feasibility and expected technical breakthrough. The rate of diffusion, however, depends on so many factors that any prediction would appear rash. It is, however, important to be aware of the driving and restraining factors. Industrial robots are primarily useful in the production of medium-sized batches. Their area of application is, therefore, limited. The scope of robot application is, however, constantly widening. This seems to be an evolutionary process although at a fairly rapid pace. The second generation of industrial robots (playback and numerically-controlled robots) is primarily used for material and tool handling in such fields as spot welding, spray painting, stamping, forging, palletizing, die-casting, heat treatment, surface treatment and machine-loading. The automobile industry is so far the major user of robots, but other industries are following suit. Assembly work done by third generation robots is still in its infancy, as the equipment of robots with sensors, actuators and artificial intelligence is making headway only slowly. The assembly of variable components by robots is, therefore, a technical problem still
awaiting satisfactory solutions. Frequently, such robotisation requires the redesign of components and products. Thus, the robotisation of assembly lines seems to be progressing more slowly than was predicted a few years ago. While robot research is progressing through trial and error, there seems to be some sobering up after the first enthusiastic embraces of robotisation by management. As it has often failed to bring the expected benefits or results, production management is beginning to respond more cautiously to the engineering researcher's vision of the promised land. While there is much reporting about successful applications, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence about the failures. The problems and risks involved in robotisation are well illustrated by the data from a survey in the United Kingdom [3]. Forty-four per cent of firms which started to use robots reported initial failure and 22 per cent abandoned robots altogether. The survey looked into the managerial, organisational, technical and economic reasons for success or failure which are, of course, manifold. The survey concluded that a high degree of expertise in automation is required at all levels of an enterprise to make robotisation a success. In the USSR, for example, Pravda reported that many industrial robots stay in warehouses and output of robots far exceeds demand because of resistance to them caused at least partly by installation problems and low reliability which discouraged management. This was a series obstacle to the modernisation drive. Experience in other countries may vary and be more or less favourable. But the fact remains that circumspection is required as the running-intime for such new installations and systems is between two to five years. In fact, many firms are leaving the experimenting and pioneering to others. This cautions approach and seeming lack of receptivity has solid grounds. It is mainly that the teething problems of a new technology can become very expensive indeed and even ruinous considering that investment costs for robots are high and that they must be made compatible and integrated with other equipment through information systems. There are generally great start-up and debugging problems, leading to the insight that robots will not work without people and their skills. The performance of the new installation is rarely up to expectations. It is hardly surprising
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
that production management is wary of such risks, particularly when the enterprise is in a weak financial situation as often tended to be the case during the economic recession. As some industries have become victims of their own massive investments in the wrong equipment in the past, such attitudes are understandable. Management needs to evaluate the investment costs in terms not only of the purchase price of robots but also of factory adaptation costs, software requirements, accessory equipment, depreciation and manpower training. It must take into account existing social barriers to the installation of robots, e.g. workers' resistance to displacement, changing qualifications, including the deskilling of certain operations and changes in work methods. This being said, there are, of course, the positive trade-offs of successful robotisation which further the diffusion of industrial robots, such as reduced obsolescence of reprogrammable robots, increased productivity, faster throughput, higher and consistent output quality, improved inventory turnover, simplified safety and environmental specifications, fewer rejects and less material waste, lower accident and compensation costs and less labour turnover. They also counteract rising labour cost and are often considered the answer to reduction of working time. The most significant fact, however, is that robots help to increase the productivity of other capital goods. These factors explain the recent upsurge of investment in robotisation despite the mentioned costs and obstacles. While so far larger enterprises with a large capital base had led the race for robot 7G
population
Japan/ f
sc
1982-90('000)
//
sc
/ ,%,. / s - - -d
4¢
Estimated robot
3°
J f
/¢ (Fed. RIp. of) 20
j
~
67
Table 1 Robots per 10,000 employedin manufacturing. 1974 1978 1980 1981 1983 France Germany (Fed. Rep,) Japan Sweden United Kingdom United States
0.1 0.4 1.9 1.3 0.1 0.8
0.2 0.9 4.2 13.2 0.2 2.1
1.1 2.3 8.3 18.7 0.6 3.1
1.9 4.6 13.0 29.9 1.2 4.0
7.1 14.6 45.9 44.1 n.d. 11.3
Sources: Employment data: Indicators of industrial activity, OECD, UN//ECE.
installation, more medium-sized and smaller enterprises are also beginning to take the plunge. The following chart (Fig. 1) shows the expected increase of the robot population in some OECD countries. Similar growth rates are found in centrally-planned-economy countries with an important machine-tool industry background. Despite such growth rates it should be remembered that the robotics market is relatively small. There are some leading producers and a growing number of small firms. However, these firms find it difficult to obtain a reasonable rate of return. This is also a factor influencing the diffusion of industrial robots. Furthermore, a great deal will depend on Governments' industrial and technology policies which in an increasing number of countries are designed to promote robotisation with the objective of enhancing international competitivity. Measures may include financing of R and D, tax incentives, special training programmes and promotion campaigns. The extent of robotisation can be measured by the number of robots used per worker in manufacturing. Table 1 shows the development in the OECD countries most advanced in this field. These figures clearly indicate that, despite the high growth rate of robot applications, this technology has so far affected only a relatively limited number of workplaces in manufacturing. The predicted robot revolution is only moving slowly. This should give us a chance to cope with its inevitable social effects.
, Kingdom
3. Employment Effects 1982
1~5
1990
Fig. 1. Estimated robot populations in selected countries (1990).
(Source: M. Lynch, OECD, The Economist, 24 March 1984.)
The effect of industrial robots on employment may be considered at the plant level and at the macro-economic level.
68
K.-1t. Ebel / l m p a c t of Industrial Robots
At the plant level, the industrial robot is generally a direct replacement of human labour. Certain jobs - mostly the simple and monotonous ones, and often hazardous ones - are irretrievably lost to the machine. In certain cases, robot application has indeed meant a dramatic reduction in employment, particularly in manufacturing of discrete parts and in batch production. In others - particularly in best practice plants with a high degree of automation - the dislocation of workers has been less dramatic. As a rule, investment in robots is rationalisation investment leading to less labour input for a given unit of output. It is rarely capacity expansion investment [4]. It is also an established fact that primarily the unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing are potentially vulnerable to robotisation. Many of these jobs are held by women or older workers: two groups most vulnerable in the new manufacturing environment. According to a variety of surveys, the second generation of industrial robots eliminates between two to seven production jobs per application depending on the type of use in material handling or manipulation [5]. In the high-labour cost countries there is, in effect, a considerable incentive to use robots instead of human labour. In the United States, for example, each worker in the automobile industry costs between US$ 23-24 an hour in wages and benefits. The average robot does the work for US$ 6 an hour including depreciation and maintenance [6]. Here it is perhaps reassuring to note that, according to several case studies, only a small proportion of manufacturing tasks can be taken over by robots at the moment, although the proportion will increase in the future when assembly functions can be robotised. The example below stems from a case study of a car manufacturer in the Federal Republic of Germany (Fig. 2). The figures applied at the beginning of the 1980s but are still instructive. At the enterprise level, several measures are conceivable to alleviate labour dislocation effects of robots and to keep workers in employment. They include limitation of overtimes, flexible working hours, marketing of new products and services, expansion of production through a better competitive position and retraining and further training of workers. The problem is also that a certain proportion of new jobs in research, design, production, market-
Robotapplicationnot
\ ~
Application / conceivable(20 %, , /
/ ~
V
/
(
7
/
,o,utore
I
%) z / Applicationpossible ~7 / atpresent I \v '7 Presentapplications
100%=all employeesof anautomobilecompany
I
Fig. 2. Application of industrial robots. (Source: W. Dostal: ' Noch Platz fiir Menschen' in Materialien aus der Arbeitsmarkt und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt ]'fir Arbeit, Niirnberg, 4/1983, p. 3.)
ing and maitenance of robots is created, but these jobs are usually at a higher skill level than the displaced workers possess: they are often in a different location and concentrated in a few robot producing firms: they are also fewer than the robot-induced redundancies. At the enterprise level, the industrial robot can therefore easily be perceived as a "job-killer", particularly when displaced workers are not redeployed within the enterprise. At times of high unemployment and during the present restructuring crisis, this may indeed cause severe hardship to workers where there are no adequate income maintenance measures and where no alternative employment is available. But what is the alternative? In the competitive world of manufacturing, the obsolescence of industrial equipment spells the decline of an undertaking. This is a far more serious threat to all jobs than robotisation. Obsolescence finally causes the wholesale loss of jobs and eventually the disappearance of undertakings - the providers of employment and income. The assessment of the macro-economic effects of robotisation on employment is a very complex matter. They depend on industrial output and its growth, demand factors, government policies, public expenditure, international trade in capital goods. It is virtually impossible to get all these variables right. It can be affirmed that in labour
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of lndustrial Robots
statistics a net labour displacement caused by robotics cannot be shown. So far, robotisation has at the most had a marginal effect on aggregate employment. Unemployment is caused mainly by other factors, namely the slowdown of economic growth, structural imbalances, demographic developments and shedding of hoarded surplus labour. There have, of course, been numerous forecasts. The US Delphi projections of 1978 were that 50 per cent of manpower involved in assembling small components would have been displaced by 1988. We are nowhere near that projection. In the Federal Republic of Germany, 400,000 manufacturing jobs are said to be menaced. Another forecast concerning the United States (Carnegie-Mellon University) arrived at the conclusion that the present second generation robots could replace up to 1.3 million manufacturing jobs and that the next generation with sensors would be able to displace 3 million more [7]. This would mean that 65 to 75 per cent of the production workforce would potentially be redundant. However, such forecasts take only the likely technical capabilities into account. The rate of introduction of robots will depend also on the relative costs of new technology and labour, on supply and demand for goods and services, on the performance of the training system, on the attitude of the workforce and management [8]. No realistic scenario of the future taking all these factors into account is known. Since technical innovation is a continuing and a more incremental than revolutionary process, we should not be overly and exclusively concerned with short-term economic and social considerations and by present high unemployment figures. Demographic development in industrialised countries with a diminishing labour force is likely to reabsorb unemployment. Automation, including robotisation, with higher productivity in its wake will be urgently needed to maintain and hopefully raise the standard of living. In the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, the shortage of labour partly caused by structural rigidities and inadequate labour allocation - is today already one of the main driving forces of automation. The problem of the future is clearly how to create sufficient wealth with less labour input. Considerable productivity increases are required. The distribution of the wealth created is the real crux. In this respect, solutions will have to be
69
found. In our societies, income and social status are primarily determined by employment and this works against policies to increase productivity, i.e. to produce with less labour input, as soon as workers have to fear the loss of employment [9]. If the payroll could be met under all circumstances, job creation would present no problem since according to Parkinson's law: "The amount of work always expands to fit the number of workers assigned to do it".
4. Working Conditions The impact of industrial robots on working conditions is mostly on the positive side although in this field robotisation can hardly be looked at in isolation from other automation. Their most significant contribution is that they eliminate much monotonous and heavy manual work and frequently work in unsafe, dirty and hazardous conditions. They are used in conditions that increasingly fewer workers are willing to accept and have taken over workplaces with a particularly high labour turnover. Workers are also increasingly reluctant to work night shifts. Robots could make "manless" night shifts feasible. However, so far this has rarely happened. The tendency seems to be to shorten working hours through robotisation. As regards work organisation, the effects are much less clear-cut and depend on the situation in individual plants. As a general rule the robot takes over most tasks and only some residual manual tasks are left for operators. However, the latter must take over new tasks, mainly maintenance and control functions, which implies a wider range of duties and higher skill level. This modification of the structure of tasks and work methods may lead to adaptation problems. The reduced manning of plants makes for greater distance between work stations which means less contact among workers and may contribute to their social isolation. Another phenomenon in robotised plants is fewer levels of supervision, but on the other hand much closer supervision because of the cost of plant breakdown and also tighter scheduling of jobs. As there are fewer supervisory functions there are also fewer opportunities for advancement. This could lead to frustration. Moreover, remuneration systems are bound to be affected. Since output cannot be
70
KI-H. Ebel / Impact of lndustrial Robots
attributed directly to operator performance any more, payment-by-result systems cannot easily be applied in a robotised plant. There also tends to be a reduction in overtime work. This could result in loss of income for the workers if no compensation is negotiated. It has already been pointed out that robots contribute to a better working environment since they eliminate or limit the exposure of workers to arduous conditions. However, industrial robots themselves may contribute a hazard and they are known to have caused even fatal injuries. Particular robot-related hazards are unpredictable action patterns, sometimes even within supposedly safe areas, electric shocks and fire. Most accidents occur during repair, maintenance, inspection and testing. Most of these hazards can be overcome through better and safer design. Designers must therefore be more safety-conscious and apply strict safety standards. There is an advantage in the early collaboration of designers and safety experts in this field and it may avoid high refitting expenditures. Some progress has, in fact, already been made in defining safety standards. The Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association, for instance, has brought out technical guidelines for the prevention of accidents due to industrial robots [10]. Various European occupational safety and health institutes are active in this field. The ILO'S Encyclopaedia of Health and Safety also provides guidelines. However, this is a new and fast-expanding area of research which calls for continuous effort. While industrial robots can be made safer through appropriate devices, better programming, warning systems and demarcation of unsafe areas in plants, it is essential that workers should receive adequate instruction in the proper handling of robots and that the occupational safety inspection services should assist in overcoming any hazards that may exist in robotised plants.
5. Industrial Relations The introduction of industrial robots cannot and will not leave industrial relations unaffected. Jobs are at stake and unions have to do all they can to protect their members against any loss of employment. They must fulfil their responsibilities to their members and to society. It is, of course,
relatively easy to identify the robot as a "jobkiller" if only the effects at the workplace and on the unskilled and semi-skilled workforce are looked at. This is done. However, unions also generally favour the use of robots in hazardous and dangerous workplaces. Moreover, they usually understand and accept the importance of industrial efficiency, productivity and competitiveness for the preservation of employment in undertakings and are not outright against technological change. Rather they favour its carefully planned and sensitively executed introduction. Their attitude is, therefore, inevitably ambivalent as they know any attempts to slow down robotisation and other automation could be at the price of industrial decline and even more severe job losses. In addition, their negotiating basis can be eroded. Relatively low-skilled workers tend to be organised in unions. However, they are the ones who are often replaced by fewer more highly-qualified workers and technicians less inclined to be organised in unions. But the most serious predicament of the union movement is that in times of low economic growth, workers made redundant by robots cannot easily be absorbed elsewhere, which used to be the case in the automation and rationalisation drive of the 1960s. There is, therefore, clearly a possibility of serious conflict of interest between management and workers and their representatives and the possibility of such conflict acts as a brake on the introduction of robots. How can resistance be overcome and receptivity to technological change be enhanced? Obviously, both management and workers must perceive the change to be in their interest if the transition is to be smooth. This is more easily said than done when workers know full well that the essence of robotics engineering is the elimination of the human factor in production. Also decision-making in technology matters still tends to be regarded as an exclusive managerial prerogative. At any rate, for surmounting tensions and fears of the unknown, it is essential that workers and their representaties should be kept fully in the picture about impending robotisation and that genuine consultation and participation should take place at the plant level. This consultation process must be effective and meaningful and not only ex-post - as is far too often the case - when the important decisions affecting workplaces have al-
K..H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
ready been taken by management [11]. An adversarial type of industrial relations in this kind of situation is generally counterproductive. This direct involvement of the workforce from the start is, of course, also the best insurance policy for the new equipment to work. Unfortunately, industrial relations systems are frequently not well adapted to solving shopfloor problems. It is likewise important that protection should be negotiated for those negatively affected through deskilling or made redundant. This may include retraining, guaranteed redeployment and income compensation and new wage systems. Worker's organisations are, of course, aware that more moderate wage and fringe benefit demands are not going to stop the course of automation. The flexibility of robotised plants tend to be more important to manufacturers than labour cost savings, Flexibility permits profitably even at low levels of output [12]. However, such scaling down of demands may allow enterprises to expand and thus facilitate more investment and job creation.
6. The ILO and Robotisation
In accordance with its mandate, the ILO closely scrutinises the labour effects of robotisation. It is, in fact, conducting an increasing number of ILO meetings where government and employers' and workers' representatives gather to devise policies and recommendations on employment, working conditions, training, occupational safety and health and industrial relations. The latest of these meetings was, for instance, the First Session of the Advisory Committee on Technology (Geneva, 15-19 April 1985) which, among others, arrived at certain conclusions on the socio-economic impact of new technologies and encouraged the Office to assist its constituents in their efforts to adapt to new technologies mainly through dissemination of information, development of occupational health and safety standards, training programmes and action-oriented research [131. Another Meeting of Experts on the Implications of New Technologies for Work Organisation and Occupational Safety and Health in Industrialised Countries was held in March 1985 and made
71
detailed recommendations on further work on robotics safety, appropriate forms of work organisation and industrial relations [14]. The Eleventh Session of the Metal Trades Committee (Geneva, September 1983) was already preoccupied with these issues and insisted on the adaptation of training systems and programmes to the new industrial realities and assigned a central role to collective bargaining and technology agreements in the solution of labour problems [15]. The Office continues to follow up in this field and is directing its research activities to emerging problems. It has published a comprehensive study on Automation and Work Design [16]. A study on the impact of robotisation on employment in the automobile industry will shortly be published as this is the manufacturing sector in which most robots are used at present. There is also ongoing work regarding the skill and araining implications of new technologies and a publication on this subject is intended. It might also be noted that dissemination of information on new developments is done, notably, through the ILO quarterly Social and Labour Bulletin which carries a special section on "Effects of new technology" and through the ILO'S World Labour Report. Moreover, the ILO maintains an information and database on the subject accessible to researchers.
7. Final Remarks
Fascination with the potential of robotisation and its technical challenges should not make us forget that it cannot be done without people and that it must finally serve people. There needs to be commitment of the workforce to technical change and co-operation between management and the shopfloor is crucial for success. Both sides have a stake in innovation and that of the workers needs to be fully recognised and taken into account. The inevitable social and labour problems brought about by robotics will best be overcome in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and understanding in which workers are not victimised through decisions disregarding their legitimate interests in jobs, income, training, working conditions, work organisation and occupational safety and health.
72
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
References [1] For the purpose of this paper the ISO/tm/ECE definition of industrial robot applies: "The industrial robot is an automatic position-controlled reprogrammable multifunctional manipulator having several axes capable of handling materials, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed operations for the performance of a variety of tasks". [2] OECD: Industrial Robots: Their Role in the Manufacturing Industry, Paris, 1983, pp. 54 ft. [3] J. Fleck: "Introduction of the Industrial Robot in Britain" in Robotica, Vol. 2, 1984, pp. 169-175. [4] OECD: Industrial Robots, op. cit., pp. 78 ff. [5] M. Wolfsteiner: "Einfluss der Robotertechnik auf Besch~iftigung und T~itigkeiten" in Mitteilungen aus der Arbeits- und Berufsforschung, Niirnberg, No. 2, 1983, pp. 167-176. [6] "It is Harder to Find a Job than to Do it" in The Economist, 24 March 1984, pp. 67-68. [7] R.U. Ayres and St. M. Miller: "Robotic Realities: Near Term Prospects and Problems" in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 470, Nov. 1983, pp. 28-55.
[8] S.A. Levitan and C.M. Johnson: "The Future of Work: Does it Belong to Us or the Robots?" in The Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 105, No. 9, Sept. 1982, pp. 10-14. [9] J.S. Albus: "Robots and the Economy" in The Futurist, Vol. 18, No. 6, Dec. 1984, pp. 38-44. [10] Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association: Prevention of lndustrial Accidents due to Industrial Robots, 49 pp. [11] G.C. White: "Technological Changes and the Content of Jobs" in Employment Gazette, August 1983, pp. 329-334; and "Workers and New Technology" in European Industrial Relations Review, No. 134, March, 1985, pp. 22-30. [12] OECD: Industrial Robots, op. cir., p. 77. [13] ILO, Advisory Committee on Technology, Report on the First Session, Geneva, 15-19 April 1985, A C T / I / 1 9 8 5 / IV, 20 pp. [14] ILO, Meeting of Experts on the Implications of New Technologies for Work Organisation and Occupational Safety and Health in lndustrialised Countries, Geneva, 25-29 March 1985, 21 pp. [15] ILO, Metal Trades Committee, Eleventh Session, Geneva, September 1983, Note on the Proceedings, 77 pp. [16] F. Butera and J.E. Thurman (eds.): Automation and Work Design, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1984.
The Impact of Industrial Robots on the World of Work K . - H . Ebel Manufacturing Industries Branch, International Labour Office, Geneva Despite falling prices and more varied applications, the diffusion of industrial robots is taking place at a slower pace than expected. There are not only technical snags but also social barriers to be overcome - displacement of workers, deskilling of certain operations, changes in work methods. Robots do away mostly with unskilled and hazardous jobs and can lead to dramatic employment cut-backs in individual plants. But so far robotisation has affected only a limited number of workplaces in manufacturing. While working conditions may be improved on the whole, reduced manning can contribute to the social isolation of workers. Robotisation can also put a strain on industrial relations unless the workers are properly consulted and their concerns and interests taken fully into account.
Keywords: Industrial Robots, Social and labour effects, Displacement of workers, Working conditions, Industrial relations.
I¢~rI-H. Ebel (Dipl. disc. pol.; Dr. rer. pol.) was born in 1932 in Dt~mitz, Germany. From 1951 to 1959 he studied social sciences and economics studies at the Humboldt University, Berlin, the Hochschule for Sozialwissensehaften, Wilhelmsliaven, FRG, the Antioch College, Yellow Springs, USA, and at the Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria. From 1960 to 1962 he had practice periods in industry and was foreign student adviser at Technical University Hannover, FRG. Since 1962, Dr Ebel is with the International Labour Office, Geneva. He has research assignments in vocational training, multinational enterprises and technology subjects. At present, he is industrial specialist for the metal trades. North-Holland Robotics 3 (1987) 65-72
I. Introduction
The production and use of industrial robots is expanding at an exponential rate [1]. The application of this technology in all industrial sectors is gathering pace although not as fast as certain euphoric (or alarmist) forecasts and projections of ten to five years ago wanted to make us believe. What has this meant for the world of work and what is in store? For some, industrial robotics conjures up visions of a dehumanised working environment in which jobs have been abolished and skills incorporated in machines or relegated to marginality. For others - particularly the engineer and manager it is a nightmare of a different kind. For them, it is a sophisticated but immature technology bound up with high risks. In surveying the abundant literature and case studies, one is struck by the diversity of opinions and scenarios based on relatively scant evidence. They seem to reflect more the points of view of special interest groups, technology enthusiasts, or are an expression of almost irrational fear. Much is in the eye of the beholder. The fears are, of course, fuelled by the continuing existence of high unemployment rates and the restructuring crisis in the industrialised market economy countries where robots are expected to aggravate unemployment. It is too seldom taken into consideration that they may actually be the only chance for some manufacturing industries to survive in high-wage industrialised countries. We should, however, try to have a dispassionate and realistic view of what is in the offing. After all, second generation robots have been with us for some 15 to 20 years. They are only one facet - and probably not even the most important one - of advanced manufacturing technology and automation. Robots are improved and sophisticated machine tools, one step further in rationalisation, permitting important gains in labour and capital productivity. There is, of course, the theory and threat that in the end robots endowed with artificial intelligence will reproduce themselves
0167-8493/87/$3.50 © 1987, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
66
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
without human intervention. However, this science fiction scenario does not correspond to reality quite yet. And here we are concerned with the more likely immediate future.
2. The Diffusion of Industrial Robots
A trend and impact analysis is made difficult because the effect of robotisation is closely linked with the effects of other new manufacturing and process technologies such as flexible manufacturing systems, computer integrated manufacturing and ct~c machinery. Analysts are, therefore, hedging their bets. This much is certain: robots are on the march. Their price is falling and they are getting better, while the price of labour is rising relatively and absolutely. The third generation of robots equipped with rudimentary sensory ability and artificial intelligence will soon stand ready to take over production tasks of an increasingly complex nature in many industries [2]. The adjustment of the world of work to robotisation hinges mainly on the fields of application and the rate of diffusion of this new technology. A good deal is known about technical feasibility and expected technical breakthrough. The rate of diffusion, however, depends on so many factors that any prediction would appear rash. It is, however, important to be aware of the driving and restraining factors. Industrial robots are primarily useful in the production of medium-sized batches. Their area of application is, therefore, limited. The scope of robot application is, however, constantly widening. This seems to be an evolutionary process although at a fairly rapid pace. The second generation of industrial robots (playback and numerically-controlled robots) is primarily used for material and tool handling in such fields as spot welding, spray painting, stamping, forging, palletizing, die-casting, heat treatment, surface treatment and machine-loading. The automobile industry is so far the major user of robots, but other industries are following suit. Assembly work done by third generation robots is still in its infancy, as the equipment of robots with sensors, actuators and artificial intelligence is making headway only slowly. The assembly of variable components by robots is, therefore, a technical problem still
awaiting satisfactory solutions. Frequently, such robotisation requires the redesign of components and products. Thus, the robotisation of assembly lines seems to be progressing more slowly than was predicted a few years ago. While robot research is progressing through trial and error, there seems to be some sobering up after the first enthusiastic embraces of robotisation by management. As it has often failed to bring the expected benefits or results, production management is beginning to respond more cautiously to the engineering researcher's vision of the promised land. While there is much reporting about successful applications, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence about the failures. The problems and risks involved in robotisation are well illustrated by the data from a survey in the United Kingdom [3]. Forty-four per cent of firms which started to use robots reported initial failure and 22 per cent abandoned robots altogether. The survey looked into the managerial, organisational, technical and economic reasons for success or failure which are, of course, manifold. The survey concluded that a high degree of expertise in automation is required at all levels of an enterprise to make robotisation a success. In the USSR, for example, Pravda reported that many industrial robots stay in warehouses and output of robots far exceeds demand because of resistance to them caused at least partly by installation problems and low reliability which discouraged management. This was a series obstacle to the modernisation drive. Experience in other countries may vary and be more or less favourable. But the fact remains that circumspection is required as the running-intime for such new installations and systems is between two to five years. In fact, many firms are leaving the experimenting and pioneering to others. This cautions approach and seeming lack of receptivity has solid grounds. It is mainly that the teething problems of a new technology can become very expensive indeed and even ruinous considering that investment costs for robots are high and that they must be made compatible and integrated with other equipment through information systems. There are generally great start-up and debugging problems, leading to the insight that robots will not work without people and their skills. The performance of the new installation is rarely up to expectations. It is hardly surprising
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
that production management is wary of such risks, particularly when the enterprise is in a weak financial situation as often tended to be the case during the economic recession. As some industries have become victims of their own massive investments in the wrong equipment in the past, such attitudes are understandable. Management needs to evaluate the investment costs in terms not only of the purchase price of robots but also of factory adaptation costs, software requirements, accessory equipment, depreciation and manpower training. It must take into account existing social barriers to the installation of robots, e.g. workers' resistance to displacement, changing qualifications, including the deskilling of certain operations and changes in work methods. This being said, there are, of course, the positive trade-offs of successful robotisation which further the diffusion of industrial robots, such as reduced obsolescence of reprogrammable robots, increased productivity, faster throughput, higher and consistent output quality, improved inventory turnover, simplified safety and environmental specifications, fewer rejects and less material waste, lower accident and compensation costs and less labour turnover. They also counteract rising labour cost and are often considered the answer to reduction of working time. The most significant fact, however, is that robots help to increase the productivity of other capital goods. These factors explain the recent upsurge of investment in robotisation despite the mentioned costs and obstacles. While so far larger enterprises with a large capital base had led the race for robot 7G
population
Japan/ f
sc
1982-90('000)
//
sc
/ ,%,. / s - - -d
4¢
Estimated robot
3°
J f
/¢ (Fed. RIp. of) 20
j
~
67
Table 1 Robots per 10,000 employedin manufacturing. 1974 1978 1980 1981 1983 France Germany (Fed. Rep,) Japan Sweden United Kingdom United States
0.1 0.4 1.9 1.3 0.1 0.8
0.2 0.9 4.2 13.2 0.2 2.1
1.1 2.3 8.3 18.7 0.6 3.1
1.9 4.6 13.0 29.9 1.2 4.0
7.1 14.6 45.9 44.1 n.d. 11.3
Sources: Employment data: Indicators of industrial activity, OECD, UN//ECE.
installation, more medium-sized and smaller enterprises are also beginning to take the plunge. The following chart (Fig. 1) shows the expected increase of the robot population in some OECD countries. Similar growth rates are found in centrally-planned-economy countries with an important machine-tool industry background. Despite such growth rates it should be remembered that the robotics market is relatively small. There are some leading producers and a growing number of small firms. However, these firms find it difficult to obtain a reasonable rate of return. This is also a factor influencing the diffusion of industrial robots. Furthermore, a great deal will depend on Governments' industrial and technology policies which in an increasing number of countries are designed to promote robotisation with the objective of enhancing international competitivity. Measures may include financing of R and D, tax incentives, special training programmes and promotion campaigns. The extent of robotisation can be measured by the number of robots used per worker in manufacturing. Table 1 shows the development in the OECD countries most advanced in this field. These figures clearly indicate that, despite the high growth rate of robot applications, this technology has so far affected only a relatively limited number of workplaces in manufacturing. The predicted robot revolution is only moving slowly. This should give us a chance to cope with its inevitable social effects.
, Kingdom
3. Employment Effects 1982
1~5
1990
Fig. 1. Estimated robot populations in selected countries (1990).
(Source: M. Lynch, OECD, The Economist, 24 March 1984.)
The effect of industrial robots on employment may be considered at the plant level and at the macro-economic level.
68
K.-1t. Ebel / l m p a c t of Industrial Robots
At the plant level, the industrial robot is generally a direct replacement of human labour. Certain jobs - mostly the simple and monotonous ones, and often hazardous ones - are irretrievably lost to the machine. In certain cases, robot application has indeed meant a dramatic reduction in employment, particularly in manufacturing of discrete parts and in batch production. In others - particularly in best practice plants with a high degree of automation - the dislocation of workers has been less dramatic. As a rule, investment in robots is rationalisation investment leading to less labour input for a given unit of output. It is rarely capacity expansion investment [4]. It is also an established fact that primarily the unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing are potentially vulnerable to robotisation. Many of these jobs are held by women or older workers: two groups most vulnerable in the new manufacturing environment. According to a variety of surveys, the second generation of industrial robots eliminates between two to seven production jobs per application depending on the type of use in material handling or manipulation [5]. In the high-labour cost countries there is, in effect, a considerable incentive to use robots instead of human labour. In the United States, for example, each worker in the automobile industry costs between US$ 23-24 an hour in wages and benefits. The average robot does the work for US$ 6 an hour including depreciation and maintenance [6]. Here it is perhaps reassuring to note that, according to several case studies, only a small proportion of manufacturing tasks can be taken over by robots at the moment, although the proportion will increase in the future when assembly functions can be robotised. The example below stems from a case study of a car manufacturer in the Federal Republic of Germany (Fig. 2). The figures applied at the beginning of the 1980s but are still instructive. At the enterprise level, several measures are conceivable to alleviate labour dislocation effects of robots and to keep workers in employment. They include limitation of overtimes, flexible working hours, marketing of new products and services, expansion of production through a better competitive position and retraining and further training of workers. The problem is also that a certain proportion of new jobs in research, design, production, market-
Robotapplicationnot
\ ~
Application / conceivable(20 %, , /
/ ~
V
/
(
7
/
,o,utore
I
%) z / Applicationpossible ~7 / atpresent I \v '7 Presentapplications
100%=all employeesof anautomobilecompany
I
Fig. 2. Application of industrial robots. (Source: W. Dostal: ' Noch Platz fiir Menschen' in Materialien aus der Arbeitsmarkt und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt ]'fir Arbeit, Niirnberg, 4/1983, p. 3.)
ing and maitenance of robots is created, but these jobs are usually at a higher skill level than the displaced workers possess: they are often in a different location and concentrated in a few robot producing firms: they are also fewer than the robot-induced redundancies. At the enterprise level, the industrial robot can therefore easily be perceived as a "job-killer", particularly when displaced workers are not redeployed within the enterprise. At times of high unemployment and during the present restructuring crisis, this may indeed cause severe hardship to workers where there are no adequate income maintenance measures and where no alternative employment is available. But what is the alternative? In the competitive world of manufacturing, the obsolescence of industrial equipment spells the decline of an undertaking. This is a far more serious threat to all jobs than robotisation. Obsolescence finally causes the wholesale loss of jobs and eventually the disappearance of undertakings - the providers of employment and income. The assessment of the macro-economic effects of robotisation on employment is a very complex matter. They depend on industrial output and its growth, demand factors, government policies, public expenditure, international trade in capital goods. It is virtually impossible to get all these variables right. It can be affirmed that in labour
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of lndustrial Robots
statistics a net labour displacement caused by robotics cannot be shown. So far, robotisation has at the most had a marginal effect on aggregate employment. Unemployment is caused mainly by other factors, namely the slowdown of economic growth, structural imbalances, demographic developments and shedding of hoarded surplus labour. There have, of course, been numerous forecasts. The US Delphi projections of 1978 were that 50 per cent of manpower involved in assembling small components would have been displaced by 1988. We are nowhere near that projection. In the Federal Republic of Germany, 400,000 manufacturing jobs are said to be menaced. Another forecast concerning the United States (Carnegie-Mellon University) arrived at the conclusion that the present second generation robots could replace up to 1.3 million manufacturing jobs and that the next generation with sensors would be able to displace 3 million more [7]. This would mean that 65 to 75 per cent of the production workforce would potentially be redundant. However, such forecasts take only the likely technical capabilities into account. The rate of introduction of robots will depend also on the relative costs of new technology and labour, on supply and demand for goods and services, on the performance of the training system, on the attitude of the workforce and management [8]. No realistic scenario of the future taking all these factors into account is known. Since technical innovation is a continuing and a more incremental than revolutionary process, we should not be overly and exclusively concerned with short-term economic and social considerations and by present high unemployment figures. Demographic development in industrialised countries with a diminishing labour force is likely to reabsorb unemployment. Automation, including robotisation, with higher productivity in its wake will be urgently needed to maintain and hopefully raise the standard of living. In the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, the shortage of labour partly caused by structural rigidities and inadequate labour allocation - is today already one of the main driving forces of automation. The problem of the future is clearly how to create sufficient wealth with less labour input. Considerable productivity increases are required. The distribution of the wealth created is the real crux. In this respect, solutions will have to be
69
found. In our societies, income and social status are primarily determined by employment and this works against policies to increase productivity, i.e. to produce with less labour input, as soon as workers have to fear the loss of employment [9]. If the payroll could be met under all circumstances, job creation would present no problem since according to Parkinson's law: "The amount of work always expands to fit the number of workers assigned to do it".
4. Working Conditions The impact of industrial robots on working conditions is mostly on the positive side although in this field robotisation can hardly be looked at in isolation from other automation. Their most significant contribution is that they eliminate much monotonous and heavy manual work and frequently work in unsafe, dirty and hazardous conditions. They are used in conditions that increasingly fewer workers are willing to accept and have taken over workplaces with a particularly high labour turnover. Workers are also increasingly reluctant to work night shifts. Robots could make "manless" night shifts feasible. However, so far this has rarely happened. The tendency seems to be to shorten working hours through robotisation. As regards work organisation, the effects are much less clear-cut and depend on the situation in individual plants. As a general rule the robot takes over most tasks and only some residual manual tasks are left for operators. However, the latter must take over new tasks, mainly maintenance and control functions, which implies a wider range of duties and higher skill level. This modification of the structure of tasks and work methods may lead to adaptation problems. The reduced manning of plants makes for greater distance between work stations which means less contact among workers and may contribute to their social isolation. Another phenomenon in robotised plants is fewer levels of supervision, but on the other hand much closer supervision because of the cost of plant breakdown and also tighter scheduling of jobs. As there are fewer supervisory functions there are also fewer opportunities for advancement. This could lead to frustration. Moreover, remuneration systems are bound to be affected. Since output cannot be
70
KI-H. Ebel / Impact of lndustrial Robots
attributed directly to operator performance any more, payment-by-result systems cannot easily be applied in a robotised plant. There also tends to be a reduction in overtime work. This could result in loss of income for the workers if no compensation is negotiated. It has already been pointed out that robots contribute to a better working environment since they eliminate or limit the exposure of workers to arduous conditions. However, industrial robots themselves may contribute a hazard and they are known to have caused even fatal injuries. Particular robot-related hazards are unpredictable action patterns, sometimes even within supposedly safe areas, electric shocks and fire. Most accidents occur during repair, maintenance, inspection and testing. Most of these hazards can be overcome through better and safer design. Designers must therefore be more safety-conscious and apply strict safety standards. There is an advantage in the early collaboration of designers and safety experts in this field and it may avoid high refitting expenditures. Some progress has, in fact, already been made in defining safety standards. The Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association, for instance, has brought out technical guidelines for the prevention of accidents due to industrial robots [10]. Various European occupational safety and health institutes are active in this field. The ILO'S Encyclopaedia of Health and Safety also provides guidelines. However, this is a new and fast-expanding area of research which calls for continuous effort. While industrial robots can be made safer through appropriate devices, better programming, warning systems and demarcation of unsafe areas in plants, it is essential that workers should receive adequate instruction in the proper handling of robots and that the occupational safety inspection services should assist in overcoming any hazards that may exist in robotised plants.
5. Industrial Relations The introduction of industrial robots cannot and will not leave industrial relations unaffected. Jobs are at stake and unions have to do all they can to protect their members against any loss of employment. They must fulfil their responsibilities to their members and to society. It is, of course,
relatively easy to identify the robot as a "jobkiller" if only the effects at the workplace and on the unskilled and semi-skilled workforce are looked at. This is done. However, unions also generally favour the use of robots in hazardous and dangerous workplaces. Moreover, they usually understand and accept the importance of industrial efficiency, productivity and competitiveness for the preservation of employment in undertakings and are not outright against technological change. Rather they favour its carefully planned and sensitively executed introduction. Their attitude is, therefore, inevitably ambivalent as they know any attempts to slow down robotisation and other automation could be at the price of industrial decline and even more severe job losses. In addition, their negotiating basis can be eroded. Relatively low-skilled workers tend to be organised in unions. However, they are the ones who are often replaced by fewer more highly-qualified workers and technicians less inclined to be organised in unions. But the most serious predicament of the union movement is that in times of low economic growth, workers made redundant by robots cannot easily be absorbed elsewhere, which used to be the case in the automation and rationalisation drive of the 1960s. There is, therefore, clearly a possibility of serious conflict of interest between management and workers and their representatives and the possibility of such conflict acts as a brake on the introduction of robots. How can resistance be overcome and receptivity to technological change be enhanced? Obviously, both management and workers must perceive the change to be in their interest if the transition is to be smooth. This is more easily said than done when workers know full well that the essence of robotics engineering is the elimination of the human factor in production. Also decision-making in technology matters still tends to be regarded as an exclusive managerial prerogative. At any rate, for surmounting tensions and fears of the unknown, it is essential that workers and their representaties should be kept fully in the picture about impending robotisation and that genuine consultation and participation should take place at the plant level. This consultation process must be effective and meaningful and not only ex-post - as is far too often the case - when the important decisions affecting workplaces have al-
K..H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
ready been taken by management [11]. An adversarial type of industrial relations in this kind of situation is generally counterproductive. This direct involvement of the workforce from the start is, of course, also the best insurance policy for the new equipment to work. Unfortunately, industrial relations systems are frequently not well adapted to solving shopfloor problems. It is likewise important that protection should be negotiated for those negatively affected through deskilling or made redundant. This may include retraining, guaranteed redeployment and income compensation and new wage systems. Worker's organisations are, of course, aware that more moderate wage and fringe benefit demands are not going to stop the course of automation. The flexibility of robotised plants tend to be more important to manufacturers than labour cost savings, Flexibility permits profitably even at low levels of output [12]. However, such scaling down of demands may allow enterprises to expand and thus facilitate more investment and job creation.
6. The ILO and Robotisation
In accordance with its mandate, the ILO closely scrutinises the labour effects of robotisation. It is, in fact, conducting an increasing number of ILO meetings where government and employers' and workers' representatives gather to devise policies and recommendations on employment, working conditions, training, occupational safety and health and industrial relations. The latest of these meetings was, for instance, the First Session of the Advisory Committee on Technology (Geneva, 15-19 April 1985) which, among others, arrived at certain conclusions on the socio-economic impact of new technologies and encouraged the Office to assist its constituents in their efforts to adapt to new technologies mainly through dissemination of information, development of occupational health and safety standards, training programmes and action-oriented research [131. Another Meeting of Experts on the Implications of New Technologies for Work Organisation and Occupational Safety and Health in Industrialised Countries was held in March 1985 and made
71
detailed recommendations on further work on robotics safety, appropriate forms of work organisation and industrial relations [14]. The Eleventh Session of the Metal Trades Committee (Geneva, September 1983) was already preoccupied with these issues and insisted on the adaptation of training systems and programmes to the new industrial realities and assigned a central role to collective bargaining and technology agreements in the solution of labour problems [15]. The Office continues to follow up in this field and is directing its research activities to emerging problems. It has published a comprehensive study on Automation and Work Design [16]. A study on the impact of robotisation on employment in the automobile industry will shortly be published as this is the manufacturing sector in which most robots are used at present. There is also ongoing work regarding the skill and araining implications of new technologies and a publication on this subject is intended. It might also be noted that dissemination of information on new developments is done, notably, through the ILO quarterly Social and Labour Bulletin which carries a special section on "Effects of new technology" and through the ILO'S World Labour Report. Moreover, the ILO maintains an information and database on the subject accessible to researchers.
7. Final Remarks
Fascination with the potential of robotisation and its technical challenges should not make us forget that it cannot be done without people and that it must finally serve people. There needs to be commitment of the workforce to technical change and co-operation between management and the shopfloor is crucial for success. Both sides have a stake in innovation and that of the workers needs to be fully recognised and taken into account. The inevitable social and labour problems brought about by robotics will best be overcome in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and understanding in which workers are not victimised through decisions disregarding their legitimate interests in jobs, income, training, working conditions, work organisation and occupational safety and health.
72
K.-H. Ebel / Impact of Industrial Robots
References [1] For the purpose of this paper the ISO/tm/ECE definition of industrial robot applies: "The industrial robot is an automatic position-controlled reprogrammable multifunctional manipulator having several axes capable of handling materials, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed operations for the performance of a variety of tasks". [2] OECD: Industrial Robots: Their Role in the Manufacturing Industry, Paris, 1983, pp. 54 ft. [3] J. Fleck: "Introduction of the Industrial Robot in Britain" in Robotica, Vol. 2, 1984, pp. 169-175. [4] OECD: Industrial Robots, op. cit., pp. 78 ff. [5] M. Wolfsteiner: "Einfluss der Robotertechnik auf Besch~iftigung und T~itigkeiten" in Mitteilungen aus der Arbeits- und Berufsforschung, Niirnberg, No. 2, 1983, pp. 167-176. [6] "It is Harder to Find a Job than to Do it" in The Economist, 24 March 1984, pp. 67-68. [7] R.U. Ayres and St. M. Miller: "Robotic Realities: Near Term Prospects and Problems" in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 470, Nov. 1983, pp. 28-55.
[8] S.A. Levitan and C.M. Johnson: "The Future of Work: Does it Belong to Us or the Robots?" in The Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 105, No. 9, Sept. 1982, pp. 10-14. [9] J.S. Albus: "Robots and the Economy" in The Futurist, Vol. 18, No. 6, Dec. 1984, pp. 38-44. [10] Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association: Prevention of lndustrial Accidents due to Industrial Robots, 49 pp. [11] G.C. White: "Technological Changes and the Content of Jobs" in Employment Gazette, August 1983, pp. 329-334; and "Workers and New Technology" in European Industrial Relations Review, No. 134, March, 1985, pp. 22-30. [12] OECD: Industrial Robots, op. cir., p. 77. [13] ILO, Advisory Committee on Technology, Report on the First Session, Geneva, 15-19 April 1985, A C T / I / 1 9 8 5 / IV, 20 pp. [14] ILO, Meeting of Experts on the Implications of New Technologies for Work Organisation and Occupational Safety and Health in lndustrialised Countries, Geneva, 25-29 March 1985, 21 pp. [15] ILO, Metal Trades Committee, Eleventh Session, Geneva, September 1983, Note on the Proceedings, 77 pp. [16] F. Butera and J.E. Thurman (eds.): Automation and Work Design, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1984.