WWD1.3
Exposure to Workplace Technologies
Digital inclusion
Employment
What we do
Exposure to Workplace Technologies
Work holds significant importance in people’s lives. The interplay between work and wellbeing is undeniable, shaping not only our professional future but also our overall quality of life. Automation has diverse effects on job quality and overall quality of life. As we navigate technological and workplace changes, the quality of our work and lives will undergo multifaceted transformations.
In a groundbreaking study, the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW) investigated the relationship between exposure to various workplace technologies and workers’ health-related quality of life. The study, based on a sample of nearly 5000 UK employees, examined how interactions with different technologies impact overall wellbeing. Notably, the research explored exposure to the following technologies:
- Digital ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) (for example computers, laptops, tablets, and smartphones, real-time messaging tools, as well as other devices that connect to the internet).
- Wearables (for example, CCTV cameras, proximity cards, fitness trackers, smartwatches, smart glasses, GPS devices, and other sensors that gather data).
- AI software (for example, advanced data analysis and programming software, text mining, natural language processing, speech recognition, image recognition, biometrics, decision management, touchscreen ordering, self-checkouts).
- Robotics (for example, autonomous robots, self-driving vehicles, drones, handheld monitors or scanners, measuring and diagnostic devices or robots, 3D printers, lasers, CT scans, smart whiteboards, and other technologies that can automate physical processes).
The study found that while frequent interaction with digital communication technology (such as laptops, tablets, smartphones, and real-time messaging tools) positively influenced workers’ quality of life, exposure to newer workplace technologies had varying effects. Specifically, wearables, robotics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning software were associated with negative impacts on wellbeing1. These findings have significant implications for policy, regulation, and employers as they navigate the evolving landscape of workplace technologies.
Key Value
A monetised wellbeing value of £-260
Monetised social value of a person who is exposed to workplace technologies (Digital ICTs, Wearables and Robotics) often as opposed to never in a typical work week over a year.
Let’s break down the findings from the recent study, Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing, conducted by the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW) and Imperial College London (ICL)):
- Digital ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies):
- Frequent interaction with digital ICTs (such as using laptops, smartphones, and real-time messaging tools) positively correlates with enhancements in quality of life.
- The coefficients for use ‘Often’ or ‘Always’ are 0.063 and 0.064, respectively.
- These results are statistically significant with 99% confidence interval.
- Wearables, AI Software, and Robotics:
- In contrast, frequent engagement with wearables, AI software, and robotics negatively affects quality of life.
- Notably, the coefficient for use “Often” or ‘Always’ use of wearables is -0.055 and -0.067 with 99% confidence interval
- The coefficient for use “Often” use of Robotics is -0.036 with 99% confidence interval
- On the other hand, the coefficients for exposure to AI Software is not statistically significant at 99%. Thus, we exclude them from our calculation.
We take the average of the coefficients (Digital ICTs, Wearables and Robotics) for exposure to these technologies “Often” relative to “Never”. So that the exposure to a workplace technology has a coefficient of (0.063 – (0.055 + 0.036))/3 = -0.009.
The study assesses health-based quality of life using a well-being measure across five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.
Each dimension offers three response options which means that it is on a 3-point scale. The coefficient reflects the impact of workplace technology exposure on quality of life. We standardise this coefficient based on the assumption that 1 WELLBY corresponds to one person moving 1 point on a 11-point scale for one year due to the policy or program. Given the original coefficient of -0.009, we calculate the adjusted coefficient as -0.033. Applying the recommended rate of £13,000 per WELLBY, the value of exposure to generalised workplace technologies across all types of technology is estimated at -£429 in 2019 prices.
Note that the Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing data does not have a longitudinal component and they therefore must rely on cross-sectional regressions to produce the wellbeing coefficients. This implies that the corresponding results are less robust and more likely to be upward biased; we have applied a downward adjustment of 50% to counteract this bias in line with State of Life practice for other values in the MeasureUp set.
Inflation adjusted value is -£260 in 2023 prices. Our approach to inflation adjustments is explained on our Methodology page HERE.
Please note the following when using this value:
• Wellbeing was measured using the EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L in the Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing. This measure differs from the ONS wellbeing measure recommended in the HM Treasury Green Book Supplementary Guidance.
• The report does not provide information on the duration of exposure to workplace technologies. In the absence of a specified duration, we have assumed a one-year period based on the definition of 1 WELLBY. Please keep this in mind when interpreting the value.
If you’re just starting out, start with Bronze first. The result of a Bronze measurement is just an estimate, but requires the least effort; whereas Silver, Gold and Gold+ give more accurate results but require more effort.
Each level has an effort to accuracy indicator, choose the one that’s right for you.
Bronze
Effort
Accuracy
Monetised value:
Monetised social value: Multiply the number of your employees that are exposured to workplace technologies by -£260 per person per year.
If you are unable to capture information about which technologies people are being exposed to, or you are estimating this based on current or future employee community size, then you can use this value as a proxy for those exposured to generalised workplace technologies.
Example: You are aiming to estimate the current impact of exposure to generalised workplace technologies for your current employees. Using your current employee numbers from HR you find you currently have 50 employees.
- Monetised social value = 50 × (-£260) = -£13,000
You can use this information as a baseline to work with your employees on methods to mitigate for the negative effects of exposure to workplace technologies, and enhance the positive impacts.
Silver
Effort
Accuracy
Monetised value:
Monetised social value: Consider realistically the number of workers who are exposed to either Digital ICTs, Wearables or Robotics. Then, you can calculate a more accurate value of the exposure to workplace technology based on the different types in use.
Consider which technologies people are being exposed to. You can calculate a more accurate estimate of the impact with more information.
The value for exposure to Digital ICTs is positive at £1,795 (0.064*11/3*15300)/2 rounded to £1,800.
The value for exposure to Wearables is negative -£1,543 (-0.055*11/3*15300)/2 rounded to –£1,500.
The value for exposure to Robots is negative -£1,009 (-0.036*11/3*15300)/2 rounded to –£1,000.
Example: Suppose you’re managing a workplace well-being initiative, and you want to assess the impact of mitigating exposure to two specific technologies: Digital ICTs and Wearables. Let’s assume that 100 workers are exposed to Digital ICTs and 50 of those workers are also exposed to Wearables and 10 of them exposed to Robots.
- Monetised value for Digital ICTs = £1,800× 100 = £180,000
- Monetised value for Wearables = -£1,500 × 50 = -£75,000
- Monetised value for Robots= -£1,000 × 10 = -£10,000
The estimated monetised social value for exposure to workplace technology is £95,000 for the whole group.
For those negatively impacted as well as positively you can then use this figure to track improvements based on engaging in workplace support activities.
Gold
Effort
Accuracy
Monetised value:
Monetised value: Measure actual amounts of difference that exposure to the different types of workplace technology makes to people’s lives.
At Gold level you are looking to build on your silver estimations by engaging with the person or people affected.
How to measure exposure to technology?
To measure technology exposure, we recommend using the method from the study conducted by the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW). Participants were asked about their interaction with four types of technologies in the context of their work using the following question:
‘In the course of your job, in a typical work week, how often do you interact with the following technologies?’, ( answer on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘always’)) :
- Digital information or communication technologies ‘ICTs’ (for example computers, laptops, tablets, and smartphones, real-time messaging tools, as well as other devices that connect to the internet).
- Wearable and remote sensing technologies (for example, CCTV cameras, proximity cards, fitness trackers, smartwatches, smart glasses, GPS devices, and other sensors that gather data).
- Software technologies using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) (for example, advanced data analysis and programming software, text mining, natural language processing, speech recognition, image recognition, biometrics, decision management, touchscreen ordering, self-checkouts).
- Automated tools, equipment, machines and robotic technologies (for example, autonomous robots, self-driving vehicles, drones, handheld monitors or scanners, measuring and diagnostic devices or robots, 3D printers, lasers, CT scans, smart whiteboards, and other technologies that can automate physical processes).
Then ask your group about their wellbeing.
The measure of wellbeing used in this study is the EQ-5D-3L (EuroQol Group, 1990; EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018), which measures health-based quality of life across five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.
Each dimension has three response options: 1=no problems, 2=some problems,and 3=extreme problems.
Mobility
- No problems in walking about
- Some problems in walking about
- Confined to bed
Self-Care
- No problems with self-care
- Some problems with washing or dressing myself
- Unable to wash or dress myself
Usual Activities
- No problems with performing my usual activities (e.g. work, study, housework, family or leisure activities)
- Some problems performing my usual activities
- Unable to perform my usual activities
Pain/Discomfort
- No pain or discomfort
- Moderate pain or discomfort
- Extreme pain or discomfort
Anxiety/Depression
- Not anxious or depressed
- Moderately anxious or depressed
- Extremely anxious or depressed
For more information please visit Gold: Surveys and measurements of actual results.
Support in developing your Gold survey approach is available through the Measure Up partners, so please do reach out to Impact, State of Life or PRD.
Gold+
Effort
Accuracy
Monetised value:
At the Gold+ level, you are building on your Gold value calculation by assessing the value against the counterfactual, or ‘what would have happened anyway’.
To do this you should identify a control group suitable to assess in line with your intervention, in order to more accurately attribute any changes to your intervention.
For this value, you could look for a comparable group of employees who are not exposed to the technologies your employees are and assess the differences in their wellbeing scores.
You could also consider any other discount or causality elements linked to your groups exposure to workplace technologies.
Support in developing your Gold+ counterfactual, causality and discount approach is available through the Measure Up partners, so please do reach out to Impact, State of Life or PRD.
| Value Type: | Outcome |
What's this?
This is the type of value. Some values are outcomes, which means many different interventions might lead to them, others are specific interventions that have a set value. |
|---|---|---|
| UN SDG Categories: |
|
What's this?
The UN Sustainable Development Goals are global goals adopted in 2015 for all signed up nations to achieve for us to have a sustainable global future by 2030. There are 17 Goals that address the global challenges we face, including those related to poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice. The Goals are all interconnected, and in order to leave no one behind, it is important that we achieve them all by 2030. |
| PN06/20 Categories: |
|
What's this?
PPN 06/20 Taking account of social value in the award of central government contracts introduced the Central Government Social Value Model in 2020 which all Central Government contracting authorities must use in their in scope procurements. It consists of 5 themes, 8 policy outcomes, and 24 Model Award Criteria which outline key priority areas to achieve more social value. |
Evidence
Measure Up focuses on empowering you to numerically measure the impact you’re having. We recommend that numeric reports are backed up with stories and other types of evidence to help illustrate, in human terms, the impact that’s being made on individuals.
We recommend seeking consent from participants in your intervention to collect and tell their story. This should include a little background on the participant, a summing up of life before the intervention, the human impact of the intervention, and the longer term (if known) impact on the person’s life outside of, and after, the intervention.
Providing photographs, audio recordings, video interviews or even artefacts from the intervention (for example, writing, paintings, music from creative interventions) can add more to the story, and convey the emotional impact of interventions more directly.
In some cases it’s appropriate to anonymise or abbreviate the personal information of case study participants. No story should be published or shared without the recorded consent of the individual(s) it concerns. Individuals continue to own the rights to their stories and if they request you stop sharing the story or making it available online you should do so promptly and without need for justification.
Feedback
Measure Up is an open, collaborative and transparent. If you have any suggestions or feedback on our pragmatic, recommended approach to measuring and valuing social value, including wellbeing, economic, and fiscal impact, and effects on our environment, please get in touch so we can share and discuss this at our next Advisory Group meeting.
More help
We want to empower anyone to perform and improve their impact measurement – without needing a degree in economics.
If you need any more help, or just someone to do the legwork for you we can help signpost you to software, training, consultancy, and strategic support to help you get to grips with the impact you’re having.
