Competing with the algorithms
Elvis Ziu, MBA, CA, LA
Can my job be run by machines?
Many of us believe what we do is indispensable. Some of it comes from our need for self-comfort or a common adopted approach to aggressively protect our position in the workplace, but a lot is a result of the fact that, immersed as we are in our daily work routine, we seldom realize the impact of the change that happens around us.
If you think about it, in the simplified sense, most of what we do every day now is look at some information and take a decision/action. The information increasingly comes in the digital form of message, document, report or simply data while the decisions are increasingly standardized by growing pressure to boost efficiency and control. So most people at desk jobs, but not only, are facing standardized work processes where their tasks are often repetitive and have to interact well with a series of applications in order to produce the required action or decision. For years now this has evolved under the impression that the applications, the digital inputs and outputs are in fact just some enablers of the core element of work that has to be done by humans.
(source: Motley Fool)
But machines are getting better at doing complex tasks and we are getting better at finding ways to utilize them more in business processes. Moreover, there is a whole industry behind automation now with huge investment backup and well-structured development plans going after the tasks that humans are doing.
A well-referenced Oxford University study analyzed the probabilities of about 700 professions of being automated in the near future and there are many professions with very high probability scores. Below, I included a list of a few of these professions with 90%+ probability of automation as an illustration. See if you can find your own profession in there.
Study from Oxford University – Selection of some 90%+ probability professions:
However, even from studies like the Oxford University one, we take some comfort in believing that eventually machines will cover mostly REPETITIVE work (that we would rather not do anyways) and that we will be doing mostly work that requires LEADERSHIP and CREATIVITY, thus transitioning into a future world of work made up mostly of managers.
To complement the picture, other studies try to make comparisons to other instances in human history when development in technology replaced work positions but developed new and better ones thus eventually not resulting in loss of work but in an increase in effectiveness and work satisfaction.
So is it going to be a smooth transition?
Based on the analysis so far it would seem that at the end everything will be ok and our induced evolution of machines will turn out for the best as it always has.
But when we think about it some more, a few key issues clearly remain unchecked.
FIRSTLY, who said machines cannot be creative? While a machine may not be able today to tell a joke or write a nice poem, creativity in the production of products and services is not of the same nature. Can machines be set to identify improved/optimized workflows in a production process or service delivery, to create product/service characteristics that customers prefer best or anticipate their behavior for the future, to find better ways to allocate resources or run marketing campaigns etc.? Most people working in AI nowadays seem to believe that they currently can or will be able to do so shortly. Well, that is creative enough for the workplace.
SECONDLY, even if machines cannot be that creative at first, how many employees or even managers are really creative in their job? From what I’ve seen from studies and experienced in person, large portion of what management does is not at all creative. Even beyond routine tasks, most managers operate “within a box” of rules either imposed by the organization, regulators etc. or self-imposed after years of being “in the safe zone” or just repeating what they have learned from their own supervisors from previous years in their career. Management nowadays is so weak when it comes to innovation that most companies have to run innovation initiatives in order to change/update management practices, ways of thinking and operation and most managers just get the new (innovated) practices in their inbox after the new policies are adopted and have become the new rule.
THIRDLY, being creative or a leader is not for everyone. It is quite demanding to be always on the search for new frontiers or lead people and influence thinking. That is why most of people have settled for the comfort of the repetitive, of the slow and constant growth in a professional career by moving from one step to the next at a speed they feel comfortable with. Being given a new title as they progress in their career, in itself, gives them a certain sense of comfort and achievement. So, we shouldn’t assume that most people will gladly and fluently transition to a more elevated role requiring leadership and creativity.
And FOURTHLY, the previous industry revolutions are nothing like this one. Yes, machines substituted most physical activities of production in the past but we always ultimately relied on the human brain to run things. All other technological advancement were viewed consistently as enablers of processes that were eventually intended to be directed or finalized by human thinking. However, when we moved initially to standardizing processes and then automating them and now slowly to engaging machines in gathering and analyzing data with the purpose of taking and executing decisions on an ongoing basis we have significantly reduced the need for basic thinking in a large number of business processes. While most of physical aspects of work were removed from previous industrial revolutions, the current one is aiming to find a substitute for our thinking involvement in processes.
Are we prepared for what comes next?
In truth although automation has come in waves, following the various industrial revolutions it is really one connected long process. If you think about it, all significant automation, from the first conveyer belt in the 19th century to today, has always aimed by definition to substitute the human utilization in a process with cheaper and better quality resource options. It has never stopped and probably never will until humans are largely removed from the cost equation. Industrial revolutions were not led by employees but by the profit motive of corporations. It is the same with the fourth industrial revolution – the so called Industry 4.0.
(source: Researchgate)
Consider for a moment how corporations refer to their employees in collective:
Human RESOURCES.
In a corporate world equation, employees are a resource like any other and the economics of the corporation constantly demands for resources to be cheaper and more effective.
We see a lot of investment in AI and Automation precisely because it is a well justified investment from the corporate economics prospective. However, the amount of investment going towards studies of impact of AI and Automation or how to plan and prepare the workforce of tomorrow to deal with the challenges ahead is not even comparable. There seems to be a lack of foresight and engagement even from governments, which have their own responsibility towards the workforce of today and that of tomorrow.
It is clear that this is an important evolutionary moment for humanity. So, while it is difficult to predict the speed at which AI and Automation will advance and be so feasible as to substitute human labor at a large scale, for a smooth transition to occur, several interventions are necessary to go in parallel with technology developments and their planning needs to start Right Now, including: adaptation of the education and training systems, workforce re-planning and re-deployment, revisiting incentive models and company income distribution, changes to corporate cultures and new regulation etc.
At the end we are left with the hope that AI and Automation developments will not outpace our preparations and the ability to cope with the change.
Fingers crossed…