When the Roomba Grows Up

You've heard of the Roomba, right? That cute little robot vacuum that you can set up in your family room or bedroom, hit the button, and watch it smoothly and quietly scurry about the room vacuuming up your potato chip crumbs and the excess from Fido's winter coat while you can rest on the sofa, perhaps snuggled up with a good book and wearing your Forever Lazy.The Droid can help you with your hibiscus

The Roomba, at least the idea of the Roomba is awesome, right? I mean who would not want to trade the tedious chore of vacuuming for just about any of the alternative activities you could choose from if you were freed from the weekly waltz with the trusty Hoover or Dyson? Set up the Roomba, then kick back. Or work. Or talk to one of your kids. Or more likely, post a status update on Facebook that says something like, 'Man, the Roomba is awesome.' Which all your friends will interpret as, 'I can't believe that moron is Facebooking about his Roomba again.' Or, 'What a dork. I bet he's sitting on the sofa in a Forever Lazy.'

Jokes aside, we'd all probably agree that technologies like the Roomba have clear and obvious benefit - they save us time, effort, and automate an incredibly dull and low-skill type of effort, that allow us to engage in more interesting and productive things. And as a plus, there is a whole ecosystem that has to design, build, ship, sell, support, and maintain these devices. This creates jobs, (although in fairness at some cost of the loss of similar in the 'traditional' vacuum industry), but overall it would hard to feel worried or threatened if suddenly there was a Roomba in every home.

The parallels to the domesticated Roomba were obvious when I read this Wired.com piece: 'These May Be the Droids Farmers Are Looking For'. The story, about the testing of a more advanced, more capable Roomba-like robot that can help nursery owners organize, sort, and transport large numbers of plants and trees was interesting to me not so much for the pure technological angle, but rather for the economic impetus driving the grower's needs for this kind of technology. From the piece on Wired:

Massachusetts startup Harvest Automation is beta testing a small mobile robot that it’s pitching to nurseries as the solution to their most pressing problem: a volatile labor market.

In today’s human-tended nurseries, immature potted trees and shrubs arrive at nurseries by truck and are offloaded onto the ground. Teams of migrant workers — undocumented for the most part — spread the plants out one by one following markers outlining a grid. When the plants are ready to be shipped out later in the season, workers reverse the process to group the plants for loading onto trucks. “We’ve recognized the need for robotics in the nursery industry for moving pots because it’s one of our highest concentrations of labor use,” said Tom Demaline, president of Willoway Nurseries, Inc. in Avon, Ohio

So what you might be thinking. The history of the industrial revolution, heck the past 200 years of capitalism is essentially a story of technological invention and advancement, often resulting in the displacement of workers that are found to be either too expensive, less productive, and more of a pain in the neck to manage, (or some combination thereof), than their robot replacements.

But the farm robot story is I think because of the larger economical and political factors at play that are serving to catalyze and drive further development. The farming jobs that this new family of robots usurps were typically ones held by immigrants, often undocumented ones. With increasing enforcement of existing immigration laws, and the enacting of new, even stricter ones like in Alabama, many farmers and farm related businesses find themselves in a crunch. Their previous supply of labor has left or has been frightened away, local and legal replacements seem not to be available or willing, leaving this new robotic future as one potential way out of their bind.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. There's a job that has to be done. The labor market (for whatever reason), can't fulfill the need, so a new technology develops to close the gap. But the problem is, for all the 'Farmer Roomba' design, development, and manufacturing jobs, (which probably will be outsourced), they will never amount to the many hundreds and thousands of farm laborer jobs that are going to disappear. The technology will eventually allow the same amount of work to be done, faster, cheaper, with less errors, and with far, far less human effort, labor, and of course wages.

This equation works fantastically well for the vacuum example, like I said before, the trade-off usually involves you lounging on the sofa while the Roomba works. I have my doubts that any of the farm workers replaced by the 'Droids' are chilling in their Forever Lazy's right now.

Never takes a day off, follows instructions, and is more empathetic?

I've noticed at least two things since I have gone off on my recent 'robots are going to take away all our jobs' kick. One, oddly enough my blog traffic is way up, something like 33% or so, as I seem to be getting a fair number of hits from Google searches for the word 'robot'. Which is pretty cool. So if you've found your way here looking to actually learn something about robots - how they work, their manufacturing process, or you were seeking information about Robocop or the Robot from 'Lost in Space', all I can say is 'Welcome!' and 'I apologize for possibly wasting your time.'  The second thing that I have noticed is just how many of these robot stories are out there, it is getting a little ridiculous and I swear that I am not going to great lengths or scouring obscure sources to find them.Robot - 'So, what's on your mind?'

The latest article on the growing, (and I think concerning) trend is from the MIT Technology Review, titled 'The Virtual Nurse Will See You Now', a review of a new virtual nurse and exercise coach technology program developed at Northeastern University. The virtual nurse interacts with patients, helps them to understand their diagnoses and aftercare programs, and by virtue of some additional programming, even can engage in rudimentary small talk about sports or the weather, a capability that helps to increase patient's comfort level interacting with the virtual nurses.

According to the MIT Technology Review piece, the virtual nurses are proving effective, with patients that had interacted with the nurse more likely to know their diagnosis and to make a follow-up appointment with their primary-care doctor than patients who had not worked with the virtual nurse. The second set of trials with overweight, sedentary adults that were exposed to the virtual exercise coach, (named Karen), were also successful, with users reported to have "checked in with Karen three times a week, while she gave them recommendations and listened to their problems. Over 12 weeks, those who talked to the coach were significantly more active than those who simply had an accelerometer to record how much they walked."

While it's not surprising anymore to read about how robots and other automation technologies like the virtual nurses are fast becoming so advanced, powerful, and capable to the extent that they can perform more and more traditional human jobs faster, more accurately, and cheaper than us mere mortals, some of the comments in the virtual nurse piece were striking for their assessment of the need and benefits of these new tools. Here's a sampling, (but you really should read the entire piece):

Patients who interacted with a virtual nurse named Elizabeth said they preferred the computer simulation to an actual doctor or nurse because they didn't feel rushed or talked down to.

Dang, that's not a ringing endorsement for patient care and bedside manner of our health care professionals. But once we get more people in the field I am sure the standard and quality of care will improve. After all, health care is one of the few consistently growing career fields.

Not so fast though, check out this quote:

Such technologies will become increasingly important with rising health-care costs and an aging population. "We already know we don't have enough health-care providers to go around, and it's only getting worse," says Kvedar. "About 60 percent of the cost of delivering health care comes from human resources, so even if you can train more people, it's not an ideal way to improve costs."

That doesn't sound good. When even health care, one of the most hands-on, high touch, and needs the human element to be effective, kinds of fields is under pressure to cut costs via increased automation, well that does not seem to bode well for the long term employment prospects for a field most of us have come to see as safe, secure, and even in more demand as our population ages.

But beyond the simple automation and efficiency play here, more alarming is the idea that the virtual nurses and coaches can be seen as more understanding, attentive, and even empathetic. How can a robot or a computer actually demonstrate empathy? It's probably a question for another day, but if the robots can start beating us on empathy, well, it's going to be tough to find something else we can still do better than them.

User Adoption and Following Orders, Sort of the Same Thing

I almost never talk or write about changes that are made to the myriad of free online services or social networking sites that for the most part have offered tremendous benefit, access to people and information, and have generally greatly improved the overall internet experience. Facebook changes the news feed? Get over it. Twitter starts pushing ads into the timeline? Log off if that offends you. These services, while occasional straddling the line that separates personal and fun from professional and critical to one's business and livelihood; are still free to adopt, to use, and to leave.Get in line.

No one has to be on Facebook, or Skype, or Dropbox, or any other service of their type. So if you decide you no longer like the rules of the game, due to some new or changed features, some additional loss of the illusion of online privacy many people still like to cling to, or perhaps a free service has decided that to actually continue to offer their service they have to generate some revenue and start charging for what had previously been free; then typically walking away, (or finding an alternate service), is your only option.

What started me down this line of thought was when last night I logged into what is still my favorite resource on the web - Google Reader, to find that -  Hurray!, I'd received the new and improved version of the venerable RSS Reader, with an improved layout, cleaner interface, and the removal of the limited 'social' features in Reader, (following people and sharing posts), with the now ubiquitous G+ sharing button. Checking my Google Reader - 'Items Shared by my Friends' list was usually the very first thing I'd do when checking Reader.  I'd been following about 75 or so people, mostly friends and colleagues from the HR industry, and do a quick scan and review of the few dozen or so posts these friends had shared in Reader that day often provided an excellent summary of the news and buzz from the day. It was my 'go-to' place online, and now of course it is gone. 

Again, I, (nor anyone else), is really allowed to whine and complain when free services change the rules of the game. I am free to find another RSS reader, convince all my 75 reader friends to share items there, set up some kind of G+ Circle to replicate the sharing function on Reader, (like that will ever happen), or do something else entirely if I feel like my online experience is irreparably harmed. It's Google's ball, their field, their rules.

Google, or any other large online service, knows that any changes they make will understandably tick off some subset of their users. They make the call on changes by balancing the ire of the (small) group of angry users with the larger business strategies they feel are important, and by (usually), offering more and better functionality and capability somewhere else. They try to do a good job of warning users about these changes, of communicating the benefits of the 'new thing' that is coming, and doing the best job they can of helping users manage through the change.

But what Google, and even those of us inside organizations that are charged with developing or deploying new technologies, (often at the expense of old technologies), sometimes forget is that even the oldest, most arcane, most underused piece of technology or functionality still likely has some incredibly active and passionate supporters. Google doesn't really have to care all that much about this, I can't convince them to re-activate sharing and following in Reader,  but inside organizations, the truth is user adoption, when 'forced', is often problematic and slow.

It is no secret that change is hard, and technology change can be even harder. Don't compound the problem by forgetting to empathize, at least a little, with those people whose worlds are having change thrust upon them.

Love, Peace, and Technology

The other day someone I don't really know 'circled' me on Google+, and while that is not a particularly interesting or attention grabbing way to kick off a blog post, (I must have been absent the day they taught, 'grab their interest early' section in blogging school), I was struck by their tagline, or headline, or whatever the heck it is called on Google+.  It reads, simply:

Love, Peace, and Technology.

Kind of unusual, no? I mean the Love and Peace bits, well we've all seen them before, usually listed with Peace before Love I think, but somehow it seems to make more sense having the Love part first I suppose. But the third part about Technology? That is pretty out there. Do a quick Google 'look ahead' type search for Peace, 'Love and...' to see what pops up. 'Peace, Love, and Understanding', the old Elvis Costello song simply owns those results. Way to go Elvis.A meta 'Metta' reference.

Force the Google search to return hits for 'Love, Peace, and Technology, and the closest thing to interesting that hits on Page 1 of results is a blog called, oddly enough, Peace, Love, and Technology. It appears to be written by a technology teacher, or a teacher interested in technology, but either way, it doesn't seem to be too active, with the last post over four months old.

So it is a little disconcerting to the idea that peace and love and technology can, uh, peacefully co-exist when from what I can tell the definitive blog on the subject seems to have run out of inspiration some months back.

Perhaps it is an indication that the concepts can't really co-exist - that advances in technology can make us more efficient, save money, help us process things faster, better, more accurately and so on, but that technology doesn't really belong in the same conversation with Peace and Love. Technology has traditionally been the domain of the engineer, the builder, the craftsman - not typically the types we'd think were all that preoccupied or even concerned with ideas around love and peace. And of course so much of our most significant technological advances of the last two hundred years or so went toward technologies to help us get better and more efficient at blowing each other up on the battlefield.

The point of all this? Again, a fail on my part from Blogging 101 class. 

I suppose I think that I am disappointed that I founde the Google+ user's tagline of Love, Peace, and Technology so striking and unusual. It seemed so contradictory given our typical relationship and experience with technology as cold, efficient, and uncaring. I guess I want something much more meaningful than a well-intentioned but mostly barren teacher's blog to come up on Page 1 when someone Googles 'Love, Peace, and Technology.'

I think technology, and technologists can do better.

I have been thinking of a blog re-branding, maybe I will see of lovepeacetechnology.com is available.

In which I admit to my robot obsession...

Just a quick one today, and yes just like yesterday's post the subject is robots, and their slow, steady, inexorable march to world domination. And quite frankly I don't have a problem with all the robot posts, since my favorite source of inspiration and content, the National Basketball Association, seems intent on remaining in a labor impasse for who knows how long, and I have to write about something.How are you feeling? That will be a $50 co-pay.

So for a busy Friday, the day before getaway day to Las Vegas and HRevolution (tickets still available), and the HR Technology Conference, another dispatch from the Robots vs. Humans front lines, this time from Slate.com:

Will Robots Steal Your Job? - Why the highest-paid doctors are the most vulnerable to automation

Yep, another take on the upcoming, heck already started process of further automation and supplementation of traditional careers and functions by complex and dedicated robot technology. But like yesterday's post where I featured robot technology beginning to make inroads into farming, the piece from Slate shows us even highly specialized, highly paid, and highly complex tasks like the evaluation of medical samples for signs of cancer can and are beginning to be encroached by robot labor.

I don't keep reading and posting about these 'robot stories' here because I find them to be surprising, or that most readers might not be aware that automation in all facets of industry, from low-tech to high-tech is an unstoppable boulder rolling down hill. It can't and won't be stopped.

But why I like to read these pieces, and think about them, is more about our reaction and response to these developments.  And on that note, I'd like to end this post with the most compelling point from the Slate.com piece:

By definition, specialists focus on narrow slices of medicine. They spend their days worrying over a single region of the body, and the most specialized doctors will dedicate themselves to just one or two types of procedures. Robots, too, are great specialists. They excel at doing one thing repeatedly, and when they focus, they can achieve near perfection. At some point—and probably faster than we expect—they won't need any human supervision at all.

There's a message here for people far beyond medicine: If you do a single thing—and especially if there's a lot of money in that single thing—you should put a Welcome, Robots!doormat outside your office. They're coming for you.

Boom. Specialization, even high-touch, highly complex, valuable specialization that requires spending years training, developing, and perfecting, still that is no guarantee or security against a robot that van do it better, cheaper, and faster. Even if those skills are ones that society needs and highly values, that's no protection in the long term.

The message? Invent something new, stay one step ahead of the robot masters? You'd better be prepared to keep inventing.

Or possibly the message is to continuously explore, challenge, and differentiate yourself as being more than a highly trained, highly skilled one-trick pony. Because if all you are only bringing one thing to the table, no matter how wonderful and complex that one thing is, chances are, eventually, someone else, maybe ever a robot, can do it better.

I promise no more posts about robots for a while, unless the NBA season gets canceled!

Have a great weeekend and if you are heading out to HRevolution or the HR Technology Conference be sure to find me and say hello.