LAMAS Working Group 13-14 June 2018 Agenda Item 2.5 Module "Job Skills" (2022) Havard.LIEN@ec.europa.eu 13 June 15:10-16:10. 15 min presentation. max 10 slides

Objectives of the job skills module Find out which jobs are at risk of being automated Analysis of types of tasks across occupations Hi all, The module has two goals, one is to predict technological unemployment, and the other is to find out which tasks are done in which jobs.

Timeline This meeting will give guidance to task force 2 in its further development of the module Task force 2 will review and discuss during the autumn Decision on which variables to be tested must be taken in the December 2018 LAMAS Tests until July 2019 We are now in the third of eight development steps (LAMAS decision on topic, TF, LAMAS now, TF selection of variables, LAMAS, tests, review of tests, LAMAS final decision). The outcome of this meeting will make the foundation for the further development work by task force 2 this autumn, and then we will come back with a list of variables for approval for tests in December. ---------- Then for the interesting part: the results of the exchange of views

Using the tasks/tools/methods framework: among the countries with formal voting rights we have 25 yes, and zero no The comments you gave are of a practical nature, so no one say they are against this approach on principle Your comments are that The approach seems to be promising as a theoretical model, but it is necessary to develop it in an adequate way to be implemented in the LFS. Yes, there will be further development and tests More information needed to decide. Ok, no problem, we will provide further details This approach is not entirely clear for us. The actual examples of questions which will be addressed to a respondent would be useful. The task force papers have pages up and down with possible questions, we can share that with you if you want We are concerned about implementation and use of the findings. Would this be a standalone block of questions or better fit as an integrated module with the occupation and industry coding. (placement in the questionnaire) Good question, to be decided after the tests. Could be a specified point in the test regime. Debate, 5 min. we are on a strict time frame, so short and to the point please

Then the target population (persons in employment and persons not in employment but who worked in the last 12 months) We have 18 yes and 6 no. We have different wishes from you: only persons in employment. X4 Easier, but misses the actual effects of lost jobs now employed and unemployed (instead of all persons not in employment). X2 as far as I know several do not transcode the ILO status during the interview, so not really possible Employed and those who have lost their jobs due to automation interesting group, but how to filter it?? It depends: if the additional question concerns the future, it is not useful to include the persons not in employment. If it concerns the past, both are important. Yes, fully agree, the target population must be designed for the final selection of variables Open floor, 5 minutes

For the measurement unit, we have 19 yes and 5 no (Likert scale for proportion of usual working time) Generally support for this, but seven want further tests before they make up their mind for sure. Sure, we will anyway test the module Debate on the labels of the answer options (3/4 of time is too technical). For testing as per LAMAS tradition, further comments on that the current number of answer options (7) is good, too high, and too low, ranging from 5 to 10. Basically a never ending debate in social science 5 minutes open floor

The 'fear of job loss' variable has strong support, but I also have to say that the arguments that are presented against it are strong First of all: it already exists in the Eurobarometer, and is therefore not needed in a LFS module. True that it exists, but the LFS offers much more analytical possibilities for labour market analysis Secondly, following one of the general guidelines of surveys, don’t ask about what respondents don’t know And finally, this is a subjective variable and therefore not suited to proxy answers Debate, 5 minutes

x x x x x x x x x x x x Then for your view on the selection of variables. If you have your papers, you can read the text there, the slide shows you the pattern of the selection. As you see, we are very heavy on the methods and tools (on the right hand side), covering all of them on the most detailed level (autonomy, teamwork, routine repetitiveness, routine standardisation - non ict machines, basic ict, programming) For the tasks part, we have strength and both sub groups of problem solving (information gathering, and creativity) Split 11th place between dexterity, technical literacy and managing (in brighter colour crosses) None of the information processing tasks and none of the social tasks made it to the top. We will of course just use this as advice, not for direct implementation, but it is quite clear that the general LAMAS view is to focus the module heavily on the technological unemployment part, and much less so on the 'which tasks are done in which jobs' part. Debate, 10 minutes x

Definition of routine work (focusing on technological unemployment) Routine ≠ risk of automation Routine is very subjective Avoid using the word 'routine' in the questions Ask about repetition and standardisation Requires several variables Needs thorough testing, in many countries Then for the additional comments you provided on how to operationalise automation risk, and routine work. read out the slide list None of these statements are controversial. It is clear that routine work in itself is not a risk of automation, and that routine for sure has different meanings and connotations in the languages represented in this room. What we are looking for is the combination of repetition and standardisation. The problem we are facing, as I see it, is rather that everything in principle is possible to standardise, given a large enough instruction manual, or complex enough algorithm. And the capability of machines to handle large algorithms and data sets fast is increasing. Where should we draw the line between standardised and not standardised work? That is the big debate It is entirely clear that, since this is a new topic for a module, that it will need heavy testing. FR, HU, NL applied for test grants.

Other issues / comments Select one main focus: added info on occupations or risk of automation Title of module does not match the content Provide examples of questions Caring task dimension is missing Other issues you have raised in the exchange of views round is that we should select one main focus: either automation risk or tasks in occupations. It is something for task force 2 to consider, but it is clear from the selection of variables in which direction you want to collectively go The title does not any longer reflect the content of the module. That is easy enough to remedy, but maybe wait until December when we have the list of variables for testing Several of you have asked for examples of questions. We will be happy to send you the underlying task force papers, which have more example questions that you probably will want to read Finally, it has been pointed out that caring tasks are not listed in the framework. It could however reasonably be classified under 'attending', so we can add something for that. But, I don’t know if we want, as that dimension did not reach the top 11 list for variables

Summing up Broad agreement on the task/method approach Clear majority for the proposed target population Need to re-discuss the measurement unit Quite clear wish list for the variables Large debate on the definition of 'routine work' , 'standardisation' , and 'automation' Summing up The task/method framework is the way to go The target population (persons in employment and persons not in employment but who worked in the last 12 months) looks to be fine for you The Likert scale has broad support, but we will look at the details of how many answer options and their names after the tests You have given task force 2 a clear starting point for selecting variables And, not at all surprisingly, the large debate is on the operationalisation of 'automation risk' and its elements.