By 2015, you'd better be a content creator

I peeled my eyes away long enough from the ongoing drama at Rutgers University (by the way, catch a special HR Happy Hour Show on all things Rutgers here), to catch the news that market research and analyst firm IDC is predicting that by 2015 global shipments of tablet devices are expected to overtake shipments of PCs.

Here are the specifics of what IDC is forecasting for tablets and PCs as reported by Bloomberg:

Tablet shipments are projected to grow 45 percent from this year to reach 332.4 million in 2015, compared with an estimated 322.7 million for PCs, according to Framingham, Massachusetts-based IDC. PC shipments may decline 7.8 percent this year, the worst annual drop on record, the researcher said, a revision from its prior projection for a 1.3 percent decrease.

Pretty interesting if not terribly surprising I suppose. Just think about how much personal computing (taken generally) has changed since the introduction of the first iPad just a few years ago. Chances are you or someone in your family, or maybe everyone in your family, had jumped into the tablet craze. And why not? Tables are fantastic for watching movies on the plane, checking up on your social networks, playing games, and sure, tapping out that odd email or two when you are on the road or on a plane.

Pretty obvious right? But worth repeating and thinking about what this means. Hers is more from the Bloomberg piece:

More portable, affordable and backed by hundreds of thousands of applications, tablets are replacing PCs as consumers’ main tool for checking e-mail, browsing websites and accessing music and movies.

Read it again and think about what, so far, you and pretty much everyone else does with a tablet. You sit back. You relax maybe. You have the TV on while you are messing with your iPad. You consume. Movies, books, your friend's updates on Facebook. Sure you might send the odd email or two, but you probably read 10 more for every one you actually create and send.

If the trends in the growth of tablet shipments that IDC predicts are accurate, then in just a couple of years more personal devices that are primarily oriented on consuming content will hit the market than ones whose primary purpose is creating content. All the content that you and me and most working stiffs create, even boring content like spreadsheets and slide decks, (that pay the bills for lots of us), are created on PCs. Even 'creative' stuff like blog posts (other blogs I mean), and graphics and podcast and video editing - all done on PCs or more powerful machines.

To date, hardly anything is created on tablets. That doesn't mean they aren't amazing tools and certainly the growth and trends indicate the market values the form factor and capability. But mostly, and probably for a while, they will exist for personal and business use cases as consumption devices.

And by 2015 and beyond, with more and more of these consumption devices out in the world it seems to me the place you want to be isn't sitting back on the couch consuming right along with everyone else. It seems to me the place you want to be is on the content creation side.

I think you want to be the person pushing content and value (and hopefully getting paid for it), to these millions and millions of consumption devices.

But that is just my opinion.

Written on a PC.

Virtual HR, or, 'Did you ask the HR chatbot?'

While I and many, many others have blogged, talked, and pontificated about how the ongoing advances in technology, automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence continue to 'hollow-out' or eliminate wide ranges of jobs formerly and traditionally that are done by humans, I also often think that many folks don't see these trends as all that interesting or potentially threatening. Most of the people who read this blog, I imagine, see themselves as knowledge workers that bring imagination, creativity, and perhaps most essentially, an understanding of subtle things like culture and attitude to their jobs and careers. Most of us, (admittedly me too), say of think things like 'My job is just too complex and ever-changing for it to even be outsourced to a less-expensive human (much less a robot).'

Possibly. But it also seems likely that given enough time, access to ever-improving technologies, and the right economic incentives, there are enterprising people and organizations that even if they couldn't completely automate or robot-icize everything you do, chances are a fair amount of even what we creative types do is already routine enough that the robots could do a passable, if not better (and cheaper and will less of a bad attitude), than we do.

But again, I know you don't really believe me, as you are (probably) and HR person that is reading this, and automation in HR has only meant changing how the transactional work of HR, (forms, time-tracking, payroll, etc), from paper-driven processes to computer-driven ones, (and often, initiated by employees and completed by managers with little direct involvement from HR). The important work in HR and in many other organizational functions still, and perhaps for a long time yet, remains the exclusive domain of humans - which humans (see the self-service HR example above), matters less today than it used to. 

But automation is coming - not just to manufacturing lines or driverless cars or better algorithms and assessments that can screen candidates much faster and more efficiently than you can. Perhaps in HR automation will have to look a little different than what we expect, since so much of the profession is about people - talking to them, understanding them, evaluating them, and motivating them - and ultimately helping, (or concluding that we can't), help them.

Those kind of interactions, even at a basic level, can't be automated yet. Right?

Well, maybe not yet, but that doesn't mean they won't be one day soon.

Don't believe me? Then ask Ivy her opinion.

Who is Ivy? The latest in automation - this time form one of the country's largest employers, and right in your area of interest - the delivery of HR services.  Check the details from the Jobs at Intel blog.

Okay, the newest thing we’ve launched is a “virtual HR agent”. What’s that, you ask? You know when you shop online, whether it’s for new gadgets or it’s for a plane ticket to go somewhere or maybe it’s just for odds and ends, some websites have a virtual agent that will answer FAQs for you and guide you through the process. Our new virtual HR agent, we named her Ivy, is set up to do the same thing, but for our employees at Intel (so this is an internal tool.) If employees have questions about their pay, stock, benefits, or other HR programs, they simply bring Ivy up on the intranet and type in a question. Ivy uses a combination of natural language processing, artificial intelligence and optimized search to find the answer to the question. Also, magic. Okay, well, it’s like magic to me, so…  As of today, Ivy has 4,331 possible responses. How do I know that number so exactly? I led the team that wrote all the responses. You can bet we’re excited for the launch after all that work!

 Catch all that?

Ivy, or the virtual HR chat agent, has over 4,000 possible responses to any employee question about pay or benefits or other HR programs, and using the same kind of intelligence we've seen in a consumer or retail environment, provides HR services to Intel employees. As it is an internal-only tool, I'm not able to test it out, but it stands to reason that with over 4K responses, and the ability to 'learn' and adapt, that over time a tool like Ivy would be able to do more that respond to simple questions, and provide more complex answers to more difficult questions.

Yes, Intel's HR team has to provide the 'intelligence' for Ivy to work, and that, as yet, is still a human job, but what if employees at Intel begin to prefer dealing with virtual HR over real HR? 

I'll leave you with more from the Jobs at Intel blog about Ivy:

Ivy’s no chatbot and she’s not backed by a human “behind the curtain”. She’s all software. We’ve got lots of metrics in place to monitor her performance and our employees can give a star rating to each interaction. Using the performance data and star ratings, we can tune Ivy to make her even better. Beyond that, what’s weird is that she learns. Seriously. Her artificial intelligence gets better as employees ask her questions. Amazing.

The money line in that?

We can tune Ivy to make her even better. Beyond that, what’s weird is that she learns.

Can you say the same about the people in your HR organization?

Happy Tuesday.

Thinking about what no one knows they're missing

A couple of months ago I posted about the continuing advances in driverless vehicle technology, and the implications on work and worker's commutes to the office in an environment where essentially, everyone has a technological chauffeur to ferry them to their job. My point in the piece was, more or less, that driverless vehicle technology would potentially one day add hours of 'productive' time to a commuter's day - taking calls, reading documents, even creating and writing while on the go.  Freed from the task of actually driving the car, the driver becomes a passenger - and gains the benefits from reduced stress, (driverless cars probably won't pass on their road rage to you), and more flexibility. 

Whether you think driverless cars, (and trucks, and eventually even planes), are dangerous, unreliable, or even scary, the truth seems like they are coming - and probably sooner than most of us think. 

Similar could be said for some of the other latest advances in technology. Take Google Glass for example. Just a year or so ago the idea of a wearable, always-on, internet connected, and voice activated computing device seemed pretty far-fetched. Today the initial wave of beta-testers are using the device, developers are building new and purpose-built apps for the platform, and a slew of 'experts' (including me), have offered up advice and opinion about the implications and use of Glass in work and business. I saw another slightly different manifestation of wearable computing this week when my pal Lance Haun rocked a Pebble smartwatch at a recent event.

What do driverless vehicle technology and wearable computing tech like Google Glass have in common?

Probably a few things, but the one element I want to call out is this - they are technology breakthroughs that are not directly responding to some express need or desire on the part of either existing customers or the general public.  They are for the most part - green field, blue ocean, 'insert-your-favorite-hack-expression-for-something-brand-new-here'.

This week I've been at the SilkRoad Connections event - a conference for the company's customers, partners, and some media and analysts.  At the event, keynoter Dan Pink, (famous for the book Drive), offered, almost as an aside from his speech on motivation, what he thought was going to be the most important skill in the future, (paraphrased in my tweet below)

The ability to give people something they did not know they were missing is the core cognitive skill today- per @danielpink #srconnections13

— Steve Boese (@SteveBoese) May 20, 2013

Glass, planes that fly themselves, the next incredible technological or business breakthrough - the common factor will be that none of them will be really based on listening to customers or conducting focus groups.

They will spring from the imagination of innovators and from people savvy enough to 'discover' needs that today don't exist.

It's wonderful and important to spend your day thinking about and helping to solve people's problems. But even there, advances in computing threaten to turn 'problem solving' into a game for the robots and super computers.

If you want to be really memorable and outlast the rest, you have to solve problems that don't even seem to exist and to give people things that they never knew they needed.

Features vs. Benefits

You probably have a smartphone with a data plan. When you turn on the phone you see those little bars letting you know the strength of the current signal, (sort of easy to understand - more bars is better even if we aren't totally sure how much better).Do I need this? I don't know, really.

You probably also see on the phone some kind of 'network' indicator as well - it could be something like 3G or 4G or LTE - that kind of thing. And while we recognize, or at least assume, that '4G' has to be better than '3G', after all it's a whole additional 'G', once LTE or LTZ or any other tiny technical code gets introduced to the equation, well then it gets much tougher unless you are really into this kind of thing, what is better or worse and how much better or worse. I suppose there are folks who have upgraded their devices or switched carriers in order to obtain that additional 'G', and have some direct and hands-on experience that allows them to more precisely judge the addtional benefits of the extra 'G'. But most of us, and for sure most non-technical folks, or as they are sometimes called 'normals', we only know that 4G is better, somehow, and we think we should want it. 

A message certainly, reinforced by millions and millions of dollars of carrier and device manufacturer advertising. If you don't think so, just think about the AT&T TV spots with the little girl going on and on about 'more' and 'we want more.' I'm sick of that kid.

But 3G or 4G or even the things like coverage maps that the carriers talk about all the time aren't really why anyone has a smartphone and pays for a data plan. The 'G' level is just a feature. It matters to engineers and I suppose marketers, but not to probably 95% of the actual smartphone users. What matters is what additional work or entertainment or fun that the extra 'G' will provide. What matters are the benefits of the technology.

Almost no one not directly involved in the creation of a technology cares all that much about features.

But just about everyone cares about benefits.

Even the little girl who can't stop talking about 'more'.

The obligatory 'Commencement Address' post

It seems that May for the last few years that one or two 'famous person college commencement addresses' gets significant attention from the press, blogosphere, and social media. The reasons that any one of these generally similar and forgettable speeches seems to catch on in the zeitgeist are sometimes different though - it could be that the speech-maker is so famous and powerful that the speech itself begets coverage, or it could be, and I think this is more  interesting, is that it allows said famous person to share his/her thoughts in forum and manner in which we are no accustomed.

I think that reason, largely, was why the commencement address given at Bard College by Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke got so much play over the last few days.

We are used to, and expect, economists like Bernanke to focus on the nuts and bolts of economic policy. Interest rates and inflation. Money supply and surpluses and deficits. The kinds of eyeballs are glazing over topics many of us have last thought about in Economics 101 and then spent years trying to forget. The brain only has so much room for stuff, and did you hear a new season of Arrested Development is getting made?

But what made Bernanke's speech interesting was I think two things - that is wasn't really, primarily what we are used to hearing from him; and secondly, that the essence and importance of the entire message is relevant not just for 21 year-old new grads about to return to Mom and Dad's house, but for all professionals that need to come to terms with how work, workplaces, and careers are changing - mainly driven by technological advances.

Here's Bernanke's money quote:

"During your working lives, you will have to reinvent yourselves many times. Success and satisfaction will not come from mastering a fixed body of knowledge but from constant adaptation and creativity in a rapidly changing world. Engaging with and applying new technologies will be a crucial part of that adaptation."

 I'd suggest that his advice - about adaptation, creativity, and mastering, (or at least coming to terms with), the changing nature of human-technology relationships in the workplace (and in society), are crucial not only for people just starting out in their careers, but perhaps more acutely, for mid-career professionals as well. 

Change, especially change to the definitions, organization, and execution of work and industry impacts the people caught up in the middle much more that the new grad that often is still on outside looking in.

A new grad might spend the next year or three on the sofa at home coming to terms with the fact that the shiny, expensive degree they went $86,000 in debt to obtain doesn't really matter to many employers, or that the all-knowing market and its career-selection process seems to equate their skills, experience, and degree with 'barista'. That kind of stinks, but it isn't, at least not yet, a fatal outcome. When you are that young you still have time to react, to pivot, to try out a Plan B or C even. 

At least until Mom and Dad kick you out, you lousy freeloader.

But if you are say, 44, been working for two decades, have a house, mortgage, big SUV, kids that need new iPhones - well getting caught up unprepared for the kinds of dramatic shifts we are seeing and will continue to see in the workplace is a much more serious matter.

While it seems like the game is more and more getting rigged to the detriment of the new college grads at least they have something that the mid-career pro doesn't - lots and lots of time. And also, often, the luxury of being able to make a mistake or two.

Bernanke's address really isn't that remarkable on it's own. But instead of giving it to the class of 2013, it should be read at all the 20 and 25 year class reunions coming up. Those folks need the advice more.

Have a great week!