Advertisement

Gestaltung von Arbeitsumgebungen

  • Cornelia GerdenitschEmail author
  • Christian Korunka
Chapter
First Online:
  • 9k Downloads
Part of the Die Wirtschaftspsychologie book series (DWP)

Zusammenfassung

Die Frage nach der optimalen Gestaltung von Arbeitsumgebungen wird innerhalb unterschiedlicher Disziplinen erforscht. Neben der (Innen-)Architektur, die sich mit der Gestaltung von Räumen und Bürogebäuden befasst, versucht auch die Psychologie das Erleben und Verhalten in Arbeitsumgebungen zu verstehen, zu erklären und vorherzusagen. Der Begriff Arbeitsumgebung umfasst hierbei einerseits Arbeitsräume und Büroumgebungen, betrifft aber auch generell die aktuelle Umgebung, in der sich der/ die Arbeitende befindet. In dem Kapitel werden neue Ansätze in der Gestaltung von Arbeitsumgebungen berichtet und deren Effekte auf das arbeitende Individuum diskutiert. Dies geschieht getrennt für die Wissensarbeit sowie handwerkliche Industriearbeit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literatur

Literatur zu Abschn. 3.2

  1. Appel‐Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P., & Janssen, I. (2011). An end‐user’s perspective on activity‐based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13, 122–135.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14630011111136830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Been, I., & Beijer, M. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12, 142–157.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-02-2013-0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blok, M. M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New Ways of Working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work, 41, 2605–2610.  https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-2012-1028-2605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2008). Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction among employees. Environment & Behavior, 40, 636–668.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507307459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bodin Danielsson, C., Chungkham, H. S., Wulff, C., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Office design’s impact on sick leave rates. Ergonomics, 57, 139–147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.871064.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, G. (2009). Claiming a corner at work: measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 44–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 577–594.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.17293710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  11. Desor, J. A. (1972). Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 79–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elsbach, K. D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office décor. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 25, 99–128.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). The physical environment in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 181–224.  https://doi.org/10.1080/078559809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerdenitsch, C., Korunka, C., & Hertel, G. (2017). The effects of an activity-based flexible office redesign on office workers: A longitudinal study. Environment and Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517697766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative „description of personality“: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodrich, R. (1986). The perceived office: The office environment as experienced by its users. In J. D. Wineman (Hrsg.), Behavioral issues in office design (S. 109–133). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  17. Hertel, G., Rauschenbach, C., Thielgen, M. M., & Krumm, S. (2015). Are older workers more active copers? Longitudinal effects of age-contingent coping on strain at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 514–537.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoendervanger, J. G., de Been, I., van Yperen, N. W., Mobach, M. P., & Albers, C. J. (2016). Flexibility in use: Switching behavior and satisfaction in activity-based work environments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18, 48–62.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-10-2015-0033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63, 83–106.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kraut, R. E., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Unterstanding effects of proximity on collaboration: implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Hrsg.), Distributed work (S. 137–162). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Meel, J. (2011). The origins of new ways of working: office concepts in the 1970s. Facilities, 29, 357–367.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771111146297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meijer, E. E., Frings-Dresen, M. H. W., & Sluiter, J. K. (2009). Effects of office innovation on office workers’ health and performance. Ergonomics, 52, 1027–1038.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130902842752.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Millward, L. J., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (2007). Putting employees in their place: the impact of hot desking on organizational and team identification. Organization Science, 18, 547–559.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pongratz, H. J., & Voß, G. G. (2003). From employee to ‘entreployee’: towards a ‘self-entrepreneurial’ work force? Concepts and Transformation, 8, 239–254.  https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.8.3.04pon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratt, M. G., & Rafaeli, A. (2001). Symbols as a language of organizational relationships. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23004-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robertson, B. J. (2016). Holacracy: Ein revolutionäres Management-System für eine volatile Welt. München: Vahlen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ruostela, J., Lönnqvist, A., Palvalin, M., Vuolle, M., Patjas, M., & Raij, A.-L. (2015). „New Ways of Working“ as a tool for improving the performance of a knowledge-intensive company. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13, 382–390.  https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seddigh, A., Berntson, E., Bodin Danielsson, C., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thielgen, M. M., Krumm, S., & Hertel, G. (2014). When being old pays off: age mitigates adverse effects of low implicit-explicit motive congruency on work motivation. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 459–480.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: how people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review, 51, 97–108.  https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.5114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: the cultural match. Trainings and Development Journal, 37, 28–36.Google Scholar
  35. Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: the role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 20, 239–255.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wohlers, C., & Hertel, G. (2016). Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1188220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Literatur zu Abschn. 3.3

  1. Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (applications and Reviews), 23, 383–400.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D., & Schwartz, J. (2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 84–93.  https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.7.1.84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deskmag (2016). Coworking Spaces and their members. Final results of the global coworking survey. Präsentation gehalten auf der GCUC Canada, Montréal. https://www.slideshare.net/carstenfoertsch/the-first-results-of-the-2017-global-coworking-survey, Zugegriffen am 21.10.2018.Google Scholar
  9. Eckenrode, J. (1983). The mobilization of social supports: some individual constraints. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 509–528.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00896802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Foertsch, C. (2015). First results of the new global coworking survey. Deskmag. http://www.deskmag.com/en/first-results-of-the-new-global-coworking-survey-2015-16, Zugegriffen am 21.10.2018.Google Scholar
  11. Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Bacevice, P. (2014). Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 14004–14004.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2014.139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerdenitsch, C., Scheel, T. E., Andorfer, J., & Korunka, C. (2016). Coworking spaces: a source of social support for independent professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 581.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00581.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerdenitsch, C., Korunka, C., & Hertel, G. (2018). Need-supply fit in an activity-based flexible office: a longitudinal study during relocation. Environment & Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517697766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1412–1421.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structure and process of social support. Annual Review Sociology, 14, 293–318.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. (1980). Convoys over the life course: attachment, roles and social support. Life-span Development and Behavior, 3, 253–286.Google Scholar
  17. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place. New York: Marlowe & Company.Google Scholar
  18. Osca, A., Urien, B., González-Camino, G., Martínez-Pérez, D. M., & Martínez-Pérez, N. (2005). Organisational support and group efficacy: a longitudinal study of main and buffer effects. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 292–311.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Ostren, N. (2011). The art of hosting. Deskmag. http://www.deskmag.com/en/how-to-be-a-good-host-165, Zugegriffen am 21.10.2018.Google Scholar
  20. Pohler, N. (2012). Neue Arbeitsräume für neue Arbeitsformen: Coworking spaces. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 37, 65–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-012-0021-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Searle, B., Bright, J. E. H., & Bochner, S. (2001). Helping people to sort it out: The role of social support in the job strain model. Work & Stress, 15, 328–346.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370110086768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shinn, M., Lehmann, S., & Wong, N. W. (1984). Social interaction and social support. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 55–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01107.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26, 399–441.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stephens, C., & Long, N. (2000). Communication with police supervisors and peers as a buffer of work-related traumatic stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taha, L. H., & Caldwell, B. S. (1993). Social isolation and integration in electronic environments. Behavior & Information Technology, 12, 276–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01449299308924391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vega, G., & Brennan, L. (2000). Isolation and technology: the human disconnect. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 468–481.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010377435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Literatur zu Abschn. 3.5

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352, 1573–1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf265.Google Scholar
  3. Boyle, R. (2016). NASA uses Microsoft’s HoloLens and ProtoSpace to build its next Mars rover in augmented reality. GeekWire. http://www.geekwire.com/2016/nasa-uses-microsoft-hololens-build-mars-rover-augmented-reality, Zugegriffen am 21.10.2018Google Scholar
  4. Cavoukian, A. (2009). Privacy by design. The 7 foundational principles. https://iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/fred_carter.pdf, Zugegriffen am 21.10.2018.Google Scholar
  5. Constantinescu, C., Popescu, D., Muresan, P.-C., & Stana, S.-I. (2016). Exoskeleton-centered process optimization in advanced factory environments. Procedia CIRP, 41, 740–745.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.12.051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davinson, N., & Sillence, E. (2010). It won’t happen to me: promoting secure behaviour among internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1739–1747.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DIN EN ISO 10218-1:2012-01, Industrieroboter – Sicherheitsanforderungen – Teil 1: Roboter (ISO 10218-1:2011); Deutsche Fassung EN ISO 10218-1:2011Google Scholar
  9. DIN EN ISO 10218-2:2012-06, Industrieroboter – Sicherheitsanforderungen – Teil 2: Robotersysteme und Integration (ISO 10218-2:2011); Deutsche Fassung EN ISO 10218-2:2011Google Scholar
  10. DIN EN ISO 12100:2011-03, Sicherheit von Maschinen – Allgemeine Gestaltungsleitsätze – Risikobeurteilung und Risikominderung (ISO 12100:2010); Deutsche Fassung EN ISO 12100:2010Google Scholar
  11. DIN EN ISO 9241-110, Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion – Teil 110: Grundsätze der Dialoggestaltung (ISO 9241-110:2006); Deutsche Fassung EN ISO 9241-110:2006Google Scholar
  12. DIN EN ISO 9241-11:2016-01, Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion – Teil 11: Gebrauchstauglichkeit: Begriffe und Konzepte (ISO/DIS 9241-11:2015); Deutsche und Englische Fassung prEN ISO 9241-11:2015Google Scholar
  13. Dünser, A., Grasset, R., Seichter, H., & Billinghurst, M. (2007). Applying HCI principles to AR systems design. HIT Lab NZ. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35460442.pdf, Zugegriffen am 21.10.2018.Google Scholar
  14. Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., & Beller, J. (2012). Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: Authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0191.Google Scholar
  15. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grau, O. (2003). Virtual art. From illusion to immersion. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hacker, W., & Sachse, P. (2014). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie – Psychische Regulation von Tätigkeiten (3. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  19. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 59–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign (organization development). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Hansen, M., & Thiel, C. (2012). Cyber-physical Systems und Privatsphärenschutz. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit, 1, 26–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11623-012-0007-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koren, Y. (2010). The global manufacturing revolution: Product-process-business integration and reconfigurable systems. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470618813  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470618813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lackes, R. & Siepermann, M. (2014a). Datensicherheit. In Springer Gabler Verlag (Hrsg.), Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, Stichwort: Datensicherheit. Abgerufen von http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/74976/datensicherheit-v8.html
  24. Lackes, R. & Siepermann, M. (2014b). Software-Ergonomie. In Springer Gabler Verlag (Hrsg.), Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, Stichwort: Software-Ergonomie. Abgerufen von http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/75685/software-ergonomie-v10.html
  25. LaViola Jr., J. J. (2000). A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 32, 47–56. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~jjl/pubs/cybersick.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markis, A., & Ranz, F. (2016). Sicherheit in der Mensch-Roboter Kollaboration – Grundlagen, Herausforderungen, Ausblick. https://www.fraunhofer.at/content/dam/austria/documents/WhitePaperTUEV/White%20Paper_Sicherheit_MRK_Ausgabe%201.pdf, Zugegriffen am 21.10.2018.Google Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michalos, G., Makris, S., Tsarouchi, P., Guasch, T., Kontovrakis, D., & Chryssolouris, G. (2015). Design considerations for safe human-robot collaborative workplaces. Procedia CIRP, 37, 248–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nerdinger, F. W., Blickle, G., & Schaper, N. (2011). Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie (2. Aufl.). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16972-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Onnasch, L., Maier, X., & Jürgensohn, T. (2016). Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion. Eine Taxonomie für alle Anwendungsfälle. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.  https://doi.org/10.21934/baua:fokus20160630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riccio, G. E., & Stoffregen, T. A. (1991). An ecological theory of motion sickness and postural instability. Ecological Psychology, 3, 195–240.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0303_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rifkin, J. (2016). Das Ende der Arbeit und ihre Zukunft. Neue Konzepte für das 21. Jahrhundert (4. Aufl.). Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  36. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M. S., Jacobs, S., Elmqvist, N., & Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction (6. Aufl.). Essex: Pearson. http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/DTUI6Google Scholar
  38. Siller, H. (2013). Phishing. In Springer Gabler Verlag (Hrsg.), Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, Stichwort: Phishing. Abgerufen von http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/1408512/phishing-v4.html
  39. Spath, D., Ganschar, O., Gerlach, S., Hämmerle, M., Krause, T., Schlund, S. (2013). Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft-Industrie 4.0. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Stegmann, S., van Dick, R., Ullrich, J., & Wu, T.-C. T. (2010). Der Work Design Questionnaire: Vorstellung und erste Validierung einer deutschen Version. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1026/0942-4089/a000002.Google Scholar
  41. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision sciences, 27, 451–481.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Voigt, K.-I. (2017). Losgröße. In Springer Gabler Verlag (Hrsg.), Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, Stichwort: Losgröße. http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/57174/losgroesse-v6.html.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Institute of Technology GmbHWienÖsterreich
  2. 2.Universität WienWienÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options