English writing

Technology has been growing recently, and so it did in the workplace. Technology and machines in the workplace have been a part of our daily lives as it improves productivity and performance, help in reducing errors, improve quality, and increase speed. But there has been a trend in the impact of technology in the workplace and in organizations. This trend is enhancing the nature of work in new ways, where technology assists in tasks that require higher cognitive functions as well as physical tasks. In this report, we analyze and evaluate multiple research papers regarding the topic of people and machines, how technology and machines have affected the workplace and productivity of organizations and many other factors.

First Article:

Title: Robots that Work in Collaboration with People (Hoffman and Breazeal, 2019)

Structure:

The collaboration of robots with humans provides a supportive and helpful role in performing tasks. The article is primary and original research includes theories, tasks, and results. Furthermore, the most effective section was how robots perform tasks with humans, which increases interest in implementing robots efficiently.

Methodology:

Although it was a qualitative study, robots as Burke et al. (2001) noted doesn’t speak only understand spoken words, which was a weakness. Also, the author emphasized on robot's ability to perform tasks but Baldwin and Baird (2001) argued that humans are different from robots, because of human actions based on personal goals. The methodology was weak in those issues such as the explanation of robot coding and the design of the study addresses a small part of the hypothesis, which needs further studies and observation of current results.

Reasons/Evidence:

Evidence was peer-review journals and deductive reasoning. Moreover, evidence was basically empirical and logical but unfortunately, evidence faced gaps in reasoning since it doesn’t provide enough reasons in order to support the hypothesis.

Conclusions:

There is no doubt that the subject presents an interest, but robots aren’t able to handle complex tasks and commit ordered behaviors regardless of the state (see Bratman, 1992) (see Cohen and Levesque, 1991). The author concluded, robots could collaborate with humans, which I agree to ensure efficient results. Despite that, he offered valuable theoretical insight and objective basis research. Unfortunately, his argument didn’t include any recommendations.

Logic:

Authors assume that robots can work in collaboration with people to perform tasks efficiently and have effective results. The data included small portions of information to support the hypothesis and logical flaws were addressed impact on the quality of the article and there were no alternative perspectives.

Second Article

Title: Haptic cooperation between people, and between people and machines (Ieeexplore.ieee.org, 2019)

Structure:

Methodology:

Reasons/Evidence:

Conclusions:

Logic:

Third Article

Title: Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People (Lake, B.M. et al., 2016)

Structure:

Methodology:

Reasons/Evidence:

Conclusions:

Logic:

Fourth Article

Title: The Rise of Robots! Effects on Employment and Income (ÖZCAN, 2019)

Structure

Methodology

Reasons/Evidence

Conclusions

Logic

Fifth Article:

Title: The Impact of Robotics and Automation on Working Conditions and Employment (Pham et al., 2019)

Structure:

Methodology:

Reasons/Evidence:

Conclusions:

Logic:

Combined Summary of all articles:

In conclusion, technology has affected the tasks and activities regarding the job roles, which is relevant directly to the human resources (HR) department. Furthermore, the recent technologies have resolved most of the obstacles and challenges that used to confront the HR employees in diverse functional businesses. Moreover, the technology intervention in the HR tasks, activities and actions have sufficiently increased the efficiency and effectiveness of the outcomes regarding talent acquisition, retention, recruitment, etc. In the stated discussion, many research papers were reviewed and criticized regarding the interest of this topic and it emphasizes the effectiveness of these technologies. Therefore, the findings and results showed that the hypothesis was addressed and designed well to present significant ideas, but the lack of application and implementation has an impact on the review outcomes. These impacts also can’t be addressed or finalized because of the lack of statistical evidence and hypothesis application.

References:

Hoffman, G. and Breazeal, C. (2019). [online] Aaai.org. Available at: https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2004/FS-04-05/FS04-05-004.pdf [Accessed 30 Nov. 2019].

Burke, R., Isla, D., Downie, M., Ivanov, Y., and Blumberg, B. 2001. Creature Smarts: The art and architecture of a virtual brain. Proc. of the Computer Game Developers Conference.

Baldwin, D., and Baird, M. 2001. Discerning intentions in dynamic human action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 4: 171-178.

Bratman, M. 1992. Shared Cooperative Activity. The Philosophical Review 101,2: 327-341.

Cohen, P., and Levesque, H. 1991. Teamwork. NOÚS 25: 487-512

Ieeexplore.ieee.org. (2019). Haptic cooperation between people, and between people and machines - IEEE Conference Publication. [online] Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4058694 [Accessed 30 Nov. 2019].

Reed, K., Peshkin, M., Hartmann, M., Grabowecky, M., Patton, J. and Vishton, P. (2006). Haptically linked dyads: are two motor control systems better than one? Psychological Science. 17(5), pp.365–366.

Reinkensmeyer, D., Lum, P. and Lehman, S. (1992). Human control of a simple two-hand grasp. Bilogical Cybernetics. 67(6), pp.553– 564.

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G. and Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? (11–21).