Adoption Intention for Robotisation of Assembly Processes
| dc.contributor.advisor | Kok, R.A.W. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Enzlin, Max | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021-07-09 | |
| dc.description.abstract | If I must name one thing I have learned during the process of writing my master’s thesis, it definitely would be that the grey area is where you find complexity. Black and white are just two extremes – something is either good or bad - which rarely occur in this pure form in reality. To do justice to reality, we need to appreciate the inherent complexity of real-life phenomena. Let’s look at a simple example: It is relatively easy to consider the behavior of human beings as good or bad. For example, someone who harms another person can initially be considered to be bad. However, this conclusion is based on one observation of the behavior of a person. This conclusion can be flawed in at least two ways: by considering only one situation, and by reducing a person to his behavior. First, the undesirable behavior of the person may be an exceptional event. If this is the case, it seems a bit of an overstatement to argue that this person is bad. The behavior of this person, in this particular situation, may have been bad. The second flaw could be oversimplification of the matter. That is because this reasoning does not take into account the complexity of human nature. A variety of factors may have caused this behavior, among other things, the personality traits of this person and experiences during one’s life. Imagine, this person harmed someone because of unresolved childhood traumas. Now, knowing that this person is harmed himself, can you still say that this person is bad? Someone may show ‘bad’ behavior, but that does not necessarily make him a bad person. A more appropriate conclusion could be that the particular action of this person was bad. With this short narrative, I intend to show that phenomena are not as easy as one may initially think. My supervisor, Dirk Vriens, commented more than once: “have you thought about this?” and occasionally “be careful with your statements!”. This helped me to better comprehend the complexity of SMTs in healthcare organizations. It is not as simple as “well, the teams are not functioning well, so there must be something wrong with these teams”. What if SMTs are not the problem, but there are other factors that cause their dysfunction? In my (humble) opinion, it would be a missed opportunity to abandon or dismiss the concept of SMTs, without considering other reasons that may hinder their well-functioning. At least, that is what I believe (and what theory and practice suggest). | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/11117 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.thesis.faculty | Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen | en_US |
| dc.thesis.specialisation | Innovation and Entrepreneurship | en_US |
| dc.thesis.studyprogramme | Master Business Administration | en_US |
| dc.thesis.type | Master | en_US |
| dc.title | Adoption Intention for Robotisation of Assembly Processes | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
- Name:
- Master_thesis_lise_enzlin_final_public.docx
- Size:
- 216.56 KB
- Format:
- Microsoft Word XML