The Pilot’s Compass: To Make Digital Labour Work Means Making Work, Work For Humans
Let’s Avoid The Mistakes Made Again-And-Again In Technology Adoption
Get clear direction with The Pilot's Compass: freely available, opinion-based research notes from Pilot Research, offered via our website and LinkedIn
Digital Labour: The Latest Solution To All Problems
Digital Labour is, I’d say, impossible to avoid as a topic in the technology world. This is the latest iteration of a broad narrative, that the ever-present challenge of growing / maintaining / stopping a collapse in (delete as you see fit) productivity, can be solved through the use of technology. Very particularly, in this case of this conversation, digital labour is being brought to us in the form of AI “agents”; leading to the - in my view - awful term, “agentic AI’.
I believe agentic AI (sigh) and the push to digital labour is simply the latest iteration of the well-established “more technology equals more productivity” narrative that has been around as long as, well, technology has. But, not just technology in its digital form; from wheels to water mills and steam engines to quantum computers, technology continuously changes the way we live and work. In terms of how we define an AI agent, there are competing definitions, but for me the simple way to think about them is as a natural progression of AI assistants. AI agents are:
Given goals to achieve, usually within more complex or multi-step processes;
Empowered with greater ability to take action based on available information;
Require no or low human input; and,
Likely have learning built-in to improve performance.
In other words, more human-like, hence, digital labour. So far, so good.
History Teaches Us That Technology Adoption Often Leaves Humans As An Afterthought
The economic historian in me continues to tug at this train of thought, however. Let’s keep things fairly macro. The industrial revolution displaced huge swathes of the workforce, but did create many new factory jobs in cities and the supporting industries, for example, coal mining. The shift from industrial to services-based economies continues in many regions, but also disrupts workforces while creating social upheaval. In this case, let's take the coal example again and look at what has happened to many communities built around the mineral extraction industry. In each of these cases, the technology results in transformation, but not for the benefit of society-at-large, but rather technology’s sake (and the interests of those who build or buy it).
I promise I have not travelled in time either literally, or via literature, and been converted by Mssrs. Marx and Engels. Just, in each of the major shifts powered by technology, I assert that the human aspect has been, well, an afterthought.
Humans Aren’t Just Your Employees, They’re Your Customers, Partners, And Investors Too!
At risk of being worn out, various combinations of “People”, “Process”, and "Technology" have been staples of the practical guide to technology adoption. It is well-worn for a reason though, because addressing only one or two of these things and ignoring the remainder is, often, a major contributing factor to failure. or we could be generous and say limited success when it comes to delivering technology projects and programmes.
My suggested success formula takes these into account, and adds a little more:
Productivity Investment Return = (Software Tooling + Process Optimisation) X (People Upskilling + Employee Engagement + Corporate Culture)
I contend that the software tooling (technology) and, likely, the process optimisation is assumed by most; whereas the multiplier - investment in people, engagement, and culture - is quite possibly not.
Scenario 1: Invest in software tooling, but not process optimisation - make inefficient, or worse, wrong stuff happen really, really fast;
Scenario 2: Invest in software tooling and process optimisation, but forget about training people - frustrate the workforce with challenging learning curves that damage productivity. And / or people will find fun “workarounds” that break processes (law of unintended consequences, anyone?); and,
Scenario 3: Invest in software tooling, process optimisation, training, but… disregard engagement and culture - watch as your investment drives employee disengagement, burnout, and quiet quitting (amongst others…).
While each of these scenarios could be considered extreme, and perhaps are, none of them look particularly good outcomes for people. Those people might be your workforce, they could also be your customers or partners. Would you wish to impose any of the above on them? If so, that’s a conscious choice and although it wouldn’t be one that I’d make, I get it.
Digital Labour Cannot Fill The Gap Created By Underinvesting In Humans
When it comes to AI agents, as an employee I believe it is entirely justifiable to worry about the impact this latest, greatest technology is going to have on my prospects. When machines can start doing human work, humans have to find something else to do. I’ve written about this before (2019 was my last piece on the subject) and when I did, I said,
“... the problem of technological unemployment bristles with new AI-powered possibilities for putting people out of work, while radically concentrating wealth in the hands of a very small number limiting the chances of new jobs/job types, services, and products rebalancing the economy.”
I still believe this conversation does not attract the serious attention it clearly deserves. I also believe this is not an either / or conversation, but to realise that means investing in people too.
Whatever Direction Your Compass Points…
Thank you for reading this Pilot’s Compass note. It will be available on both Pilot Research's website and LinkedIn. Is it possible to tackle this subject in under a thousand words? Of course not. My hope is that it’s brief enough to take the time to read and - agree or disagree - it perhaps proved somewhat thought-provoking. I welcome your comments, feedback, and ideas at tom@pilotresearch.co.uk
