Jun. 10, 2017 "Rise of the Robots": Today I found this article by Drew Hasselback in the Edmonton Journal. I thought this was a positive article about automation, and jobs and technology in the present and future. There was a negative comment I found about the article:
About 180 robots are doing work that humans used to do at this GE Aviation plant in Bromont, Que., that makes parts for jet engines. But they haven’t replaced the humans.
Indeed, the opposite is true. Since a new automated section of the plant ramped up at the start of the decade, the number of people working here has risen to more than 900 from 600.
Indeed, the opposite is true. Since a new automated section of the plant ramped up at the start of the decade, the number of people working here has risen to more than 900 from 600.
“A machine is not replacing three jobs,” said Eric Bouchard, senior operations manager at the Bromont plant. “It is reopening those jobs somewhere else because of production.”
The economics are simple. Since GE Aviation’s Bromont plant started using automation in the 1990s, the number of human hours needed to produce output has dropped an average of five per cent each year.
That led to the decision to invest $85 million in the plant between 2010 and 2016 to increase automation. GE Aviation says robots are responsible for a 25-per-cent increase in output over those years.
That led to the decision to invest $85 million in the plant between 2010 and 2016 to increase automation. GE Aviation says robots are responsible for a 25-per-cent increase in output over those years.
The Bromont experience is a small example of a larger trend occurring in industries ranging from manufacturing to energy to banking: Automation unleashes gains in productivity that can actually boost employment and benefit the economy as a whole, though the experience will no doubt be disruptive for many of those who initially lose their jobs.
Even the Bank of Canada, the keeper of the country’s economy, recognizes jobs will be lost as robots replace some workers. But long-run economic history suggests that the adverse effects of robotization will be short term.
At Confederation, one-third of Canadians laboured in agriculture. Today, that figure is less than two per cent. The rest of those would be farmers seem to have found something else to do while there’s more food available than ever.
In an April speech in Toronto, Carolyn Wilkins, the BoC’s senior deputy governor, said that if you roll back the clock on Canadian manufacturing productivity to what it was 20 years ago, you’d need 750,000 more people to match today’s nationwide manufacturing output.
Yet overall unemployment is down. Fewer people might be working in manufacturing, but more people have jobs overall.
“Productivity growth is the only game in town when it comes to raising the economic and financial well-being of people over a long period,” Wilkins said.
Simply put, greater productivity boosts consumption. As manufacturing becomes more efficient and the time needed to make things drops, people switch their attention to other pursuits, and those usually involve them spreading their money around the economy. More spending means more jobs.
“Clearly, blaming the machines is not the way forward,” Wilkins said. “If we seek out and embrace new technologies while successfully managing their harmful side effects, we will create inclusive prosperity.”
To be sure, the benefits from automation that Wilkins describes may take a few years to find their way into countrywide economic statistics. The Bank of Canada expects Canadian labour productivity to improve to 1.1 per cent by 2020 from 0.6 per cent today, but it expects all of that gain to come from a cyclical pickup in investment following the oil price shock.
Yet GE Aviation’s case is an example of what could happen across the broader economy. Employment at the Bromont plant has risen because the firm is making and selling more jet engine parts. It estimates its robots replace at least 35 million tasks a year that humans used to do by hand, such as lifting or assembling parts.
The immediate payoffs at Bromont were ergonomic. Repetitive work can lead to strain, and monotonous work can cause minds to wander.
The machines replace the tasks, but they don’t necessarily replace the people. Humans are still needed to program the machines to do the work. That job is done by teams who figure out how to get the most out of the machines.
“The role has changed from dexterity to technical skills,” said Johanne Jolicoeur, senior human resources business partner at the plant.
GE Aviation, therefore, needs people who have the “soft skills” needed to problem-solve and find efficiencies within the plant. Operations manager Bouchard said the company is specifically looking for people from what he calls the “Nintendo” generation.
“We need people who are not afraid to push buttons,” he said. “People that can play video games or that have iPads, iPhones, of course, in the future, will be a requirement. But we are also looking, big time, for the cultural aspect: having employees that fit the model and the culture that we have, a culture of improvement, teamwork and innovation.”
This new type of technology loving, efficiency-driven employee is expected to be the typical plant worker of the future, and the Government of Canada recognizes it needs to prepare people for a technology-based work environment that is heavily rooted in linear thinking and algorithm-based problem-solving.
“It’s not about humans versus technologies, it’s not about humans versus robots. It’s about how we embrace technology,” said Navdeep Bains, Canada’s minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
The federal government said it will spend $950 million to fund up to five “superclusters” across the country that will link companies with colleges and universities to develop several high-tech industry applications. Functions will include training in advanced manufacturing.
And there’s no question that manufacturing has changed rapidly in a short period of time, and this has had a disruptive impact on Canadian workers. For instance, manufacturing was once the back- bone of the Ontario economy. But a study by the University of Toronto’s Mowat Centre found that in the 10 years leading up to 2014, the number of people working in the province’s manufacturing sector fell to just over 10 per cent, down from nearly 16 per cent.
Freer trade and better transportation has led to the creation of globalized value chains. Many firms have moved low-end productivity jobs to low-cost jurisdictions offshore. It’s unlikely those low-cost jobs will ever come back.
But subject to business cycles, the Mowat Centre study found that Ontario’s higher productivity jobs remained in place. The report concluded that Ontario should focus on remaining an attractive jurisdiction for high-tech, advanced manufacturing at the upper end of the value chain.
“This will mean higher-paying manufacturing jobs, more profitable firms, more large firms, more export-orientation, and greater diversity of export markets — all of which will generate more jobs and more GDP for the overall Ontario economy, not just in the manufacturing sector,” the Mowat Centre report said.
For its part, the Bank of Canada is counting on automation eventually contributing to economic growth for a simple reason: it has to. Canada’s economy is in a slow growth mode, and the percentage of older workers in the economy is creating an overhang. Something is needed to fill the gap.
“We know this is a reality going forward,” said Stephen Gardiner, managing director in Canada for consulting firm Accenture Digital. “For our clients, this is something that they need to remain competitive and to be able to essentially generate well-being for their employees, their shareholders and the society they are in.”
This automated future involves more than physical robots. Developments in software and artificial intelligence will make it easier for human beings to interact with machines and computers.
Victoria Bovaird, a management consultant at Deloitte, said her firm has just released research showing that 41 per cent of companies have either fully implemented or made significant progress in adopting cognitive and AI technology within their workforce.
“Our research is showing that in many cases organizations do it right and it will create new jobs,” she said.
“Our research is showing that in many cases organizations do it right and it will create new jobs,” she said.
If we seek out and embrace new technologies while successfully managing their harmful side-effects, we will create inclusive prosperity.
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20170610/282089161748699
Jul. 7, 2017 "So long, Future of Work … Hello, New World of Work": Today I found this article by Naomi Titleman Colla in the Globe and Mail:
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20170610/282089161748699
Jul. 7, 2017 "So long, Future of Work … Hello, New World of Work": Today I found this article by Naomi Titleman Colla in the Globe and Mail:
Naomi Titleman Colla is the founder of Collaborativity Leadership Advisory and the former chief human resources officer of American Express Canada
Future of Work, or #FoW, has become a darling catch-all term that triggers all sorts of images: from millennials working at coffee shops to robots taking over the planet.
It can be a daunting topic, especially for business leaders who don’t know where to start or how to “do” future of work. While technology is a significant enabler, FoW is equally, if not more so, about your work force.
Let’s attempt to demystify FoW, because, let’s get real, you cannot afford to continue working the way you always have.
But first, I propose retiring the term #FoW in favour of #NWoW, or New World of Work. The future is now, there’s no waiting for the future. Organizations that don’t adjust to NWoW risk stagnation, or worse, obsolescence.
So, here they are – the basics of NWoW, broken down by the five Ws and H.
Why should I do work any differently?
A valid question – the typical way of thinking is, “Don’t fix what ain’t broke.” But we know this is not a strategy for success. In this new world of work, barriers to entry are coming down and, thanks to emerging technologies, it is easier than ever to hang up a shingle and start a business.
New entrants are often more innovative and more nimble than traditional players and they are embracing some aspects of NWoW (if not all) to quickly become viable competitors in most industries.
New entrants are often more innovative and more nimble than traditional players and they are embracing some aspects of NWoW (if not all) to quickly become viable competitors in most industries.
With this as a backdrop, think about other changes to your business or talent landscape:
Are there performance or growth challenges?
Are there cost pressures?
Are there leadership or succession gaps?
These are all triggers to think differently about how work gets done.
The good news is, thanks to the exponential acceleration of technology coupled with demographic and other economic shifts, there are countless ways to get work done. The bad news is that change is hard.
Are there performance or growth challenges?
Are there cost pressures?
Are there leadership or succession gaps?
These are all triggers to think differently about how work gets done.
The good news is, thanks to the exponential acceleration of technology coupled with demographic and other economic shifts, there are countless ways to get work done. The bad news is that change is hard.
What is the work that needs to be done differently?
Once you’ve come to grips with the fact work must be done differently, and understand why, the next step is to plan out “what” the work is that needs to be structured or done differently.
However, it is important to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Some work will continue to get done exactly as it always has, so focusing on either net new work or work that’s not meeting expectations are great places to start experimenting with new approaches.
However, it is important to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Some work will continue to get done exactly as it always has, so focusing on either net new work or work that’s not meeting expectations are great places to start experimenting with new approaches.
Who is the best candidate to do the work?
In this new world of work, there are countless ways to get things done. Full-time and part-time employees, supplemented by offshoring, are no longer your only options. Now, freelancers (the “gig economy”), crowd sharing and automation are also part of the worker ecosystem.
Approaching work differently may cause teams or even individual roles to be disbanded, in order to think at a more micro level about “who” the best candidate is to do each piece of work.
This is called “disaggregating the work”, a concept explored by John Boudreau, Ravin Jesuthasan and David Creelman in their book, Lead the Work: Navigating a World Beyond Employment.
Once you break a role down to its parts, you may discover that you can achieve better results by assigning components across the worker ecosystem.
Once you break a role down to its parts, you may discover that you can achieve better results by assigning components across the worker ecosystem.
Thanks to technology, bringing in temporary or freelance resources is becoming easier via talent platforms such as Kahuso or Upwork. And consider layering in automation such as robotic process automation, which is a great option for mundane, repetitive processes or artificial intelligence , which can handle higher-level decision making.
How should the work get done?
Next is to figure out “how” work will get done – how teams are organized, how they interact and communicate with one another, how decisions are made, how work is delegated, how people behave based on values and norms.
More and more organizations are swapping traditionally siloed departments and reporting lines to more agile models, such as chapters, tribes and guilds, better suited to accomplish the work more collaboratively and efficiently.
When and where should the work get done?
Finally, decisions regarding when (mandated shifts, 24/7) and where (traditional office space, “workplace of the future”, remote location) work gets done must be made carefully to drive the right behaviours, performance and culture.
Again, thanks to technology, workers no longer need to be in the same office, same country or even same time zone to complete work effectively. Depending on the objectives of the organization and of a project or task more specifically, decisions around when and where work gets done can evolve.
While organizations are approaching the New World of Work in various ways, one thing is for certain: Doing nothing is not an option. By answering these simple questions, consider the opportunity to reimagine your organization and talent strategy to better future-proof your business.
Now, off to a coffee shop to complete my next assignment
Comments:
bob adamson
1 day ago
Globally & nationally, for the past 3 or so decades the balance of power has increasingly shifted from labour to capital, not as Marx foresaw but because of the growing impact of Information Technology (IT), the Communications Revolution (CR, Robotics (R) & Globalization. The pace of this shift grows exponentially & the future cumulative impact will grow correspondingly.
The scope of the human element in the typical job is increasingly outpaced by the scope of the technological element (i.e. IT+CR+R) & the employer, investor & financier (much more than the individual worker) provides that technological element. Further, through globalization the human element can be sourced increasingly on a global basis.
The future of economic stability &the New World of Work will become increasingly grim in consequence if left purely to the free market.
1 Reaction
bob adamson
1 day ago
This article describes how human resource advice & jargon are shifting to accommodate (& uncritically justify in too many cases) this trend.
Most professional, skilled & unskilled work will be impacted.
The challenge will be:
(a) to maintain the share of wealth & income derived from human labour rather than be concentrated increasingly in an ever smaller segment of society, &
(b) to make work satisfying for individuals.
Orderkaos
1 day ago
In reply to:
Globally & nationally, for the past 3 or so decades the balance of power has increasingly shifted from labour to capital, not as Marx foresaw but because of the growing impact of Information...
— bob adamson
I have posted similar thoughts elsewhere in the Globe, noting that capital rather than labour will become the source of all value. I have suggested that AI and Robotic companies should be required to cover the social costs of their inventions by allocating non voting shares to all adults for the payment of dividends out of a set percentage of their profits.
This would have to be a global approach to prevent jurisdiction shopping by such companies and the dividends would have to be low enough to encourage work.
1 Reaction
bob adamson
1 day ago
Orderkaos,
Thanks for making me aware of you thought on this matter.
Not only are too many of us unaware of the enduring nature of this trend, even fewer are aware of the compounding nature of the impact over time given its exponential rather than linear aspect.
Amongst its more dangerous aspects is that the resulting of the shift of income and wealth away from the general population to an ever smaller minority not only increases social and political inequality, it also makes the economy much more unstable.
Put plainly, whose going to but the goods and services of the economy if incomes of the large majority of the population stagnate or diminish on an ongoing basis (i.e. a classic deflationary recession effect)?
1 Reaction
Hide 3 replies
Orderkaos
1 day ago
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...FOW or NWOW,,,, who cares ....worker ecosystem... there is a phrase I already hate. Lots of management consultant jargon being created (chapters, guilds and tribes? Please...) but not much beef here... Yeah, automation and contract workers are upon us... I think most of us have already figured that out, for better or worse...
1 Reaction
Ken__W
1 day ago
Just more of the same obfuscation and complication from the young entitled class who are taking over the workplace.
Glad I am retired and financially secure.
1 Reaction
may_u
1 day ago
"Thanks to technology, bringing in temporary or freelance resources is becoming easier via talent platforms such as Kahuso or Upwork. And consider layering in automation such as robotic process automation, which is a great option for mundane, repetitive processes or artificial intelligence , which can handle higher-level decision making."
Nightmare for most workers who want a family and a home
2 Reactions
jrutcliffe
1 day ago
Work is overrated, at least according to Kathleen Wynne who wants to start paying us not to work, funded by global bond markets or whichever poor sods worked hard and made it.
