The committee recommends that the Army consider building a prototype of a system whose functional capabilities include those in the AP*NET concept.
Our committee used a blend of theoretical perspectives and methodologies and data drawn from multiple disciplines to assess how work is changing and its implications. In doing so, we both broadened the perspectives most scholars and practitioners use to study work and to make decisions that affect work structures and their consequences. In our view, this type of cross-disciplinary collaboration is essential to future progress in this field. However, we do not suggest that all individual studies should abandon their disciplinary focus or traditions. Instead, communication and dialogue across disciplines is needed to inform both the framing of questions and the interpretation of results from multiple disciplines.
We have been critical of both the popular and analytic images and categories typically used to characterize and study work and occupations that have been carried over from an earlier era when industrial and manufacturing work dominated the economy. These images and categories reflect the historical periods in which they were formed. To gain the full advantage of the opportunities available from new technologies and organizational forms and the changes in the characteristics of the labor force, the images need updating to better reflect: (1) the diversity of the workforce, (2) the dominance of the service economy, (3) the growing role of cognition and analysis, interactions and relationships, and digital technologies in the work people do, and (4) the blurring of the traditional boundaries across which work was divided in the industrial era. The blue-collar-managerial divide in particular no longer captures what people do at work. How to adapt practices, institutions, and public policies that rely on this