Hypotheses
Over the course of 2 one-day workshops, all 12 foresight files were presented to the members of the group, who were able to comment on them and add to them. Working from the material in the files, hypotheses on how the macro-variables might evolve were built collectively, distinguishing between:
- Trend-based hypotheses: which relate to dynamics already under way.
- Contrasting hypotheses: which take up uncertainties, controversies and the seeds of change.
- Disruptive hypotheses: which relate to disruptions.
Trend-based hypothesis: Towards a process industry
Production is geared towards processes that are automated, standardised and better used. This particularly affects industries such as food, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, but less so those such as mechanical engineering, where specific features slow standardisation down. The aim of production is to produce more, more efficiently and more cheaply, in order to meet demand and consumption that continue to rise.
Company jobs are mainly non-human and robots are heavily represented. The few humans still present have very specific tasks relating to the processes and their maintenance. Jobs such as process engineers, development engineers, logistics engineers and e-maintenance technicians remain human. This transfer of skills raises major questions about continuing training arrangements, in order to carry it out in the best possible conditions.
In this model, France remains behind because people are considered crucial to production. This corresponds to a strong social sticking point. The automation of tasks and the increased presence of robots are not well accepted by society, thus creating distrust towards the world of industry 4.0.
Contrasting hypothesis: Local craft-factories
Production methods here are geared towards the single unit and the local level - in a word, craftsmanship. The aim of production is to produce less, better and closer to home. This is possible because a fall in consumption and a clampdown on overconsumption rest on a strong logic of recycling, sharing and repairing objects that already exist. There is a return to the craft and resourcefulness logic of the 1950s, when people sought to reuse what existed, even by repurposing it.
Goods, services and processes are not standardised; production is carried out by individuals or by (very) small companies. The latter produce in a circular and shared way in fab labs equipped with additive manufacturing. The production characteristics of a piece of furniture are closer to a cabinetmaker than to IKEA.
Humans are still very much present there and even growing relative to robots and automation. New sources of employment in repair and recycling generate positive prospects, notably within a local framework where demand is individual and non-standardised.
Disruptive hypothesis: Consumable human resources
Production methods here are geared towards demand, based on little standardisation, with questions raised about the status of human resources within companies. Human resources are regarded as consumables, with companies having adopted very high production flexibility and a less strict working framework.
Contracts are set up on demand, according to the quantities to be produced and can fluctuate significantly. In an attempt to maintain a sufficient level of employment and thus avoid falling into mass unemployment, which would cause society to collapse, quotas are established to require companies to maintain a certain number of human jobs.
Human resources are thus regarded as physical capital by companies. The company is treated as a means and a place of production; factories are occupational.
Each individual is a self-employed entrepreneur who must regularly look for new contracts.