Four hours on hold this week to fix two 'simple' IT problems. Firstly, porting a number from one mobile phone SIM card to another (within the same network) and secondly, an inoperative wireless printer following the replacement of the house's broadband wireless hub. Its enough to want one to abandon new technology and revert to the Plain Old Telephony Systems (POTS) and a typewriter!
Is the future any brighter? I hope so - and there are powerful economic drivers helping. The call centres are very expensive (if they employ excellent people who can communicate well) and ineffective if they use cheap poorly trained labour. It seems that much of the time agents are driving fragmented ad hoc internal systems that could probably be improved. I am impressed by banks that allow me to move my own money around on-line, so why can't I change the network configuration of my own mobile phone? The answer is to invest in better software and to simplify systems, so people can do things for them selves much more. Invest in reducing complexity to allow DIY.
Wireless incompatibility is a major issue. The fault is perhaps in the rather poor and fragmented approach to standards. Although GSM is not particularly elegant standard, it took years to thrash out in the ETSI organisation and resulted in a very reliable and legally binding EU framework for mobile phones. If a similar approach were adopted in other areas of technology then interfaces and reliability would probably be better. One can criticise the traditional approach for being long winded but the alternative, as can be seen with many areas of Net technology as well as license free wireless, is a load of hassle!
The common factor in the above arguments is about keeping things simple. In a world where we will be doing more with less, it is imperative to make things benefit rich but (unnecessary) feature poor. To make things simple and reliable (so things don't need call centre people to sort out the problems) and to get better standards (probably enforced by a license). Things may slow down and be commercially less attractive but the aim should be for technology to be right first time and for equipment to last and last and always be compatible.
A final thought. The most resilient systems are found in nature and some have endured for billions of years. If anything changes then they adapt and evolve. There are extinctions at the level of organisms but the underlying bio-protocols are long lasting. Perhaps technologists need to study the way nature works!
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Saturday, 1 August 2009
People or Paper-Clips?
A cynic might say that The Department of Defence is about war, The Dept of Health about sickness and that Human Resources Depts. are about "resources" rather than people. Resources are things like paper clips. Surely humans are people and not resources?
In the future, the most effective people will only work for organisations who value people. In many areas of work, machines (and increasingly robots) are removing the drudge which ought to free up time for people to engage more with people. The jobs of the future that will rise will be increasingly about people to people activities e.g. tutoring, the performance arts, sales and in health care - the bed-side manner. In contrast, jobs will decline where things are very deterministic and about physical resources (and some might say its no bad thing that boring activities should be left to machines). People may choose to do a job that could be mechanised, or an economy may not be rich enough to invest in machines/robots or it may be that sometimes human-power is a more sustainable approach - but always people should not treated as machines and mere resources.
In the past, HR was called "personnel" so perhaps the future may be back-to-the-future. The author recently had the surreal experience of being wished well for the future, after working 20 years for an organisation, by a HR software-robot! Clearly, this should have been a person thing not a paper clip thing.
In the deep future however, machines may develop minds and perhaps the distinctions could blur. Perhaps a future machine may well be offended by the term HR. Offended by being categorised as a mere human and also by being treated as a mere resource!
In the future, the most effective people will only work for organisations who value people. In many areas of work, machines (and increasingly robots) are removing the drudge which ought to free up time for people to engage more with people. The jobs of the future that will rise will be increasingly about people to people activities e.g. tutoring, the performance arts, sales and in health care - the bed-side manner. In contrast, jobs will decline where things are very deterministic and about physical resources (and some might say its no bad thing that boring activities should be left to machines). People may choose to do a job that could be mechanised, or an economy may not be rich enough to invest in machines/robots or it may be that sometimes human-power is a more sustainable approach - but always people should not treated as machines and mere resources.
In the past, HR was called "personnel" so perhaps the future may be back-to-the-future. The author recently had the surreal experience of being wished well for the future, after working 20 years for an organisation, by a HR software-robot! Clearly, this should have been a person thing not a paper clip thing.
In the deep future however, machines may develop minds and perhaps the distinctions could blur. Perhaps a future machine may well be offended by the term HR. Offended by being categorised as a mere human and also by being treated as a mere resource!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)