Should we really be concerned with automation overtaking human jobs?

The Henn-na hotel opened its doors to the public last year, and is yet to pay its receptionist staff a single penny in salary. How have they gotten away with this? Well, as it turns out, velociraptors dressed in bow ties and bellhop hats will work for you for free. More accurately, though, it’s because 90 percent of the hotel staff are robots.

As automation technology continues to proliferate almost all areas of work, concerns have begun to surface over the security of human jobs. The Henn-na hotel is a prime example of this -- rooms cost just £36 per night, making it a low-cost automated alternative that could take away hundreds of jobs if the idea spreads.

It’s a potential trend not limited to just the hospitality industry. In its February report, the White House estimated an 83 percent chance that individuals making less than $20 an hour will eventually lose their jobs to a computer. Even higher-paying jobs are not exempt from this potential takeover: the once-revered financial analyst position is slowly playing second fiddle to a cheaper, automated alternative -- as is referenced in the NY Times article, The Robots Are Coming for Wall Street.

It seems that the notion of machines taking over, once just an ideology confined to science-fiction novels, is becoming a real possibility. But on a more serious note: how are we trying to manage the social disruption (both current and potential) caused by this technological change? One solution is that of a universal basic income -- a standardized salary distributed to citizens regardless of employment or societal status.

Put forward such a prospect to the enterprise world, and you would be met with scoffs and dismissal. And yet, the fact that prosperous countries such as Switzerland, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Brazil and India are contemplating and experimenting with the introduction of a basic income is perhaps testament to the acceleration of automation technology. The idea of standardizing income seems a far too futuristic vision for us at the present time… then again, so does the idea of a hotel run entirely (and efficiently, I might add) by robots. So is there reason to panic?

Man vs machine

Robot hotels, robochefs and the rest have allowed for a great deal of scaremongering regarding the rapid advancements in automation technology. In terms of the business, however, I would argue process automation has done nothing but improve the organizational efficiency and productivity of workers over its short tenure in the enterprise space. Let’s detail the current and near-future examples of automation in the enterprise, and the potential impact it could have on the safety of jobs.

Breaking down the technical feasibility of automation

To begin with, we should benchmark the least and most likely areas in which we can expect automation to proliferate the enterprise. This infographic from analysts McKinsey determines the technical feasibility of activities that could become automated by adapting current technology. As you may expect, activities that are consistent in areas such as predictability and physical output are more likely to witness automation than those that require real-time communication and cognitive skills. Data collection, data processing and predictable physical work are therefore far more likely to witness automation technology in the near future than professions that involve the managing of employees. Given the importance of data in the enterprise, this is quite a telling statistic. The following is the percentage of time spent on activities that could be automated by adapting current technology.

• Managing others -- 9 percent
  
• Applying expertise -- 18 percent
  
• Stakeholder interactions -- 20 percent
  
• Unpredictable physical work -- 25 percent
• Data collection -- 64 percent
  
• Data processing -- 69 percent
  
• Predictable physical work -- 78 percent
  

Technical feasibility, of course, does not act as a complete predictor that an activity will be automated. The cost of developing and deploying both the necessary hardware and software needs to be considered, and labor costs should be contrasted against the cost of running such software. And then there are further regulatory and social acceptance issues to take into account. For example: while there are some 165,000 health apps available, we are still accustomed to human interaction in industries such as healthcare, and so a robot replacing the role of a nurse -- regardless of whether it was plausible from a technological standpoint -- may prove uncomfortable for patients.

So, what’s the solution?

The Great Decoupling -- insight from renowned economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee -- found that productivity in the United States has risen by 400 percent since 1947, while employment has not risen at anywhere near such a rate. What does this mean? Well, it means that businesses are selling more, producing more and altogether doing more without having to employ more people. Further advancements and innovation in machine learning and automation will ensure this trend continues.

Larry Page, CEO of Alphabet, believes he has found a simple, affordable and realistic solution for this potential wide-scale unemployment: work less. As we are now so used to working, however, we rely on our jobs to make us feel needed and occupied. The trick, as Page says, is to redistribute jobs so everyone works a little, just less than before:

The idea that everyone needs to work frantically to meet people’s needs is just not true. I do think there’s a problem that we don’t recognize that. I think there’s also a social problem that a lot of people aren’t happy if they don’t have anything to do… …we need to feel like you’re needed, wanted and have something productive to do.

"Working less" would provide more opportunities for individuals to pursue their own interests, and it’s a very interesting -- and perhaps exciting -- idea of the future of work.

As for today; the enterprise, just like technology, is destined to change and evolve -- to ignore that fact will do nothing but hold your business back. Understanding the realities of process automation is critical to grounding hyperbolic statements about intelligent machines replacing half the global workforce. We should see statistics like these as a celebration of milestone achievements in technology, rather than viewing it as a premonition of the day robots take over. Because when that day does come, it might just allow us a little more time to ourselves.

Jason Yeomans launched ISAAC to market in Jan 2015, with a vision to help companies transform their business processes to increase engagement, and simplify collaboration. The company helps their customers both move to the cloud and positively leverage their Microsoft Office 365 investments at a pace that suits the customer. He believes passionately that all companies can benefit from the Cloud, and that technology should make people’s lives simpler and more productive. Previously Jason was founder and CEO of a large telecoms and converged technology business, and before that a successful sportsman.