IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v70y2024i3p1580-1595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automation Enables Specialization: Field Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Gong

    (Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong)

  • I. P. L. Png

    (National University of Singapore Business School, National University of Singapore, 119245 Singapore)

Abstract

Becker and Murphy proposed that task specialization raises productivity but is limited by the costs of coordinating workers. We propose that automation enables workers to specialize without coordination costs. To the extent that the cost of effort exhibits increasing differences, workers increase effort in nonautomated tasks and productivity. The proposition is supported by a field experiment among supermarket cashiers. Conventionally, supermarket cashiers perform two tasks: scanning purchases and collecting payment. Cashiers exhibited increasing differences in the cost of effort: when they scanned faster, they took longer to collect payments. We rotated cashiers between the conventional job design and one in which they specialized in scanning. The new job design increased cashier productivity in scanning by more than 10%. The faster scanning was not due to customer sorting or cashier learning. The proposition is also validated by a survey of taxi drivers. Drivers who reported that difficulties in finding their way affected their driving were more likely to use map apps.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie Gong & I. P. L. Png, 2024. "Automation Enables Specialization: Field Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(3), pages 1580-1595, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:70:y:2024:i:3:p:1580-1595
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.4760
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4760
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4760?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:70:y:2024:i:3:p:1580-1595. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.