Who are C4tE

An explorer, as every team needs an explorer

now-ists rather than futurists

Weve been looking into the future of work, as have many pundits, due to a combination of:
existential angst, as automation seems to be replacing good jobs with bad jobs (sharing economy, growing
promotion of part time & casual work)
the somewhat recent emergence of AI, threatening many white collar jobs that were previously thought safe

Reactions have typically fallen into two camps:

Doom: what few new jobs will be created will be highly technical (making the machines) and many (possibly a
majority) of people wont be able to find work
Headline Verdana Bold
The future of work
AI, robots, and creating good jobs
Can we retrain bus drivers to create autonomous busses?
Peter Evans-Greenwood, 2017-10-11 Radical interventions will be required lie UBI to keep society whole
Utopia: new jobs will be created for a range of capabilities, well all be gainfully employed
This is historical norms reasserting themselves
Though we cant see where these jobs will come from, so it is a leap of faith

Both of these opinions are founded on conceiving work as collections of task

it's tasks that are automated, not jobs, as astute pundits are pointing out
consequently, the focus for much analysis is to determine
based on knowledge and skills that are unique to humans (creativity etc)
what tasks can be expected to require these knowledge and skills
predictions are then based on what are thought to be unique tasks

However, wed like to challenge this, as in our research we discovered that:

there is no knowledge of skill unique to humans, none
More to the point, if we can define the task then we can automate it (given cost-benefit)

Every time a line is drawn in the sand, AI steps over it:

Chess, Jeapody, Go
Financial advice
Developing naval strategy & tactics

Even now AI is being developed that is creative

started with writing news or other semi-formal reports
now composing music, poetry
Sure, its a narrow definition of creativity but, as always, what was dismissed as impossible is becoming
commonplace

What we also discovered in our research is that framing work in terms of tasks an processes that is the problem:
AI, after all, isnt a task performing technology like many in the past
AI is better of as automating a behaviour a response to a change in the environment and must be wrapped in
other technologies before it can perform a task

It is possible that the most effective use of AI is not simply as a means to automate more tasks, but as an enabler
to achieve higher-level goals, to create more value

The advent of AI makes it possibleindeed, desirableto reconceptualise work, not as a set of discrete tasks laid
end to end in a predefined process, but as a collaborative problem-solving effort where humans define the
problems, machines help find the solutions, and humans verify the acceptability of those solutions.

So what Id like to propose today is that we choose this third option.

 Power loom weaving. Public domain.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Power_loom_weaving._Wellcome_L0011293.jpg

A set of power looms:

A weaver responsible for ~2-5 looms with specialised helpers

We forget that our current approach to work task specialisation is a fairly recent invention. It only really took off
with the industrial revolution, like above.
make the watch spring rather than the entire watch
Indeed, if I was to pick one idea that I consider most essential to the industrial revolution, then this would be it.

Task specialisation:
makes if worthwhile for the worker to discover superior techniques
2
provides the standardised environment required for mechanisation
mechanisation improves precision (less waste, cost out)
which a precondition for automation
automation improves capacity (productivity up)

One important affect of mechanisation and automation is that the remaining (manual) tasks become more
important as they take a greater proportion of the workers time
created something of a virtuous cycle where the workers would improve techniques and identify opportunities for
mechanisation (and then automation)
indeed the majority of productivity gains came from this learning by doing
2.5x invention vs 20x learning by doing, for the power loom

Nor did this result in fewer weavers

improved productivity resulted in lower prices
lower prices stimulated demand
improved demand stimulated production
with the population of weaves only peaking in the 70s

We forget that prior to the power loom the majority of the population had few clothes, typically just the clothes they
were wearing, as clothes were expensive. It wasnt uncommon for many family to pawn their winter cloths in
summer, and their summer cloths in winter. Productivity improvements due to the power loom is a significant
contributor to the fact that we now all have all the clothes we need (or want). As the economists tell us, its
productivity improvements via innovation like these that improve our quality of life.

Today, though, this virtuous cycle seems to have ground to a halt. Productivity grown appears to have reverted to
preindustrial levels, something concerning the economists as its productivity growth through innovation that
improves our quality of life.

Many explanations have been proposed:

measurement problems
the exhaustion of one time technologies
None is entirely satisfying though

Something we havent considered though, is if the task-based approach to constructing work has run out of steam
the bad jobs were seeing might be the result of firms trying to schedule in ever narrower slices of time -> The
Good Jobs Strategy
the lack of productivity growth due to our inability to capitalise on these newer AI technologies
Were creating jobs that a good for neither human nor machine.
 David Lapetina: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chess-king.JPG

AI came to many peoples attention when Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasperov in 1996-1997
One magazine called it the brains last stand

Eight years later, in response, the chess community created freestyle chess, a team sport with teams containing
both people and computers

Everyone assumed that it would be the most skilful player with the most sophisticated computer that would win as
chess is a game of knowledge and skill
they were all wrong, the winners were a couple of competent players with a couple of ok chess computers

The secret as it turns out is that

David Lapetina 3
its not how skilful the individual are that matters, but how they work together

This is something we saw again recently when doing some background research on a report on should everyone
learn how to code
solutions created by a people and computers tend to be superior to those created by people or computers alone
this appears to be general trend across domains

Working with AI to solve a problem forces us to create, to externalise, a model of the problem to be solved
we build the model incrementally, tweaking it as we discover more about the problem
AI (digital) behaviours respond to changes in the model, making suggestions, correcting mistakes, searching for
options
Human behaviours enrich the model, integrating new observations, defining/refining terms, evaluating options,
discovering new connections

So, if were to draw a line between humans and machine then it should be in terms of attitudes and behaviours,
rather than knowledge and skills
humans are the repository of the social behaviours that enable us to explore the world around us, notice the new
and unusual, and create new knowledge
machines are the repository of instrumental behaviours: identifying known patterns, enumerating options, and
applying knowledge

Its this social ability to create new knowledge that separates us from the machines.
knowledge is a social construct

Which brings us to the distinction between task-based and behaviour based work
work built on tasks is designed to find correct or optimal solutions to well-specified problems
work built on behaviours is designed to be effective in a complex world, in accordance with possibly many
objectives and constraints, making good use of limited resources to produce a timely and useful, rather than
optimal (but potentially late), outcome.
In our current model of using tasks and processes to define what the final outcome will be we essentially limit the
possibilities and the value created.

A good analogy is:

behaviour-based work is a team of workers standing around a shared whiteboard, each holding a marker,
responding to new stimuli, carrying out their action, and writing (or drawing) their result on the same board.
whereas
task-based work is a bucket brigade where the workers stand in a line and the work is passed from worker to
worker, with each worker carrying out their action as the work passes in front of them.

The question then is: how does this translate to the world of work?
 The image is released free of copyrights under Creative Commons CC0.
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/623875

Consider a happy retirement.

Superfunds and the like might think that they sell financial products, though what they really sell is the promise of a
happy retirement. Theres a disconnect between the
product and the problem which means that many folk are disengaged. Its all to hard and quality financial advice
is expensive, so many of us dont both and remain on the default option.

It is hard to come up with a solid definition of happy retirement, other than the recursive one in which one is
happy. We need to go from wanting a happy retirement through:
what will actually make me happy, as opposed to what I think will make me happy
4
what are reasonable expectations
how can I change my behaviour now to have the future I want
before we reach quantifiable data like income streams and desired requirement income

Robo advice which asks a bunch of questions trying to elicit the quantifiable data cant do this

The problem is that the individual doesnt know what their happy retirement is. While they might have preferences,
these need to be grounded. New knowledge needs to be created.

What we need is something like a Socratic dialogue

someone who can prod, poke and understand us to help us understand ourselves
to the point that weve teased out the details
income streams etc
At which point roboadvisor can take over

Ideally the human advisor would start capturing these details in a model at first conversation, while digital (AI)
behaviours respond to the details and present options
applying actuarial models
applying different investment strategies

enabling advisor and the client to play what-if and explore options and they find a solution

Similar to freestyle chess, we can hope that the solution created would be superior to that created by human or
machine alone

Similar to the power loom, we can expect that the automation of these simple behaviours while improve
productivity, reduce costs and extend high-quality financial advice to more people, making it more equitable

So:
if the industrial revolution as characterised by products and progressive definition and automation of tasks, then
the next revolution will characterised by problems and progressive definition and automation of behaviours

The challenge then is to reconstruct jobs along these new principles

 CityMobil2 vhicule exprimental sans chauffeur en situation de test La Rochelle Charente-Maritime France
Patrick Despoix: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:020_-_CityMobyl2_-_La_Rochelle.jpg

So what does it mean to build work on behaviours, rather than tasks?

Consider autonomous busses

Predictions are that autonomous vehicles are going to be a disaster for professional drivers
This, however, ignores the fact that driving is only a part of what a bus driver does

Bus drivers also deal with:

challenging weather; heavy rain or extreme glare, when image recognition, LIDAR and RADAR as insufficient
unexpected events accidents, road work, or an emergency that require a humans judgement to determine
which road rule to break
Patrick Despoix 5
routes might need to be adjusted, anything from teaching the bus where a temporarily moved stop is through to
modifying routes due to an incident or roadwork.
a human presence might be legally required, from monitoring underage children through representing the vehicle
at an accident.

Rather than replace the driver lets accept that automation will replace the simple behaviours:
lane following, separation maintenance, route following, etc.
adhering to a schedule, or, if frequent enough, the collection of busses might behave as a flock

As with the power loom, this breaks the requirement for a bus driver to be constantly present. Rather than drive
one bus they can drive a collection of busses:
These busses could all be on the same route. A mobile driver (on a motor scooter) might be responsible for 4-5
sequential buses on the route, following along zipping between them as needed, managing accidents and other
events, or dealing with customer complaints (or disagreements between customers).
The driver might be responsible for all busses in geographic area, on multiple routes, dealing with problems over
a few blocks.
We might split the work, creating a desk-bound driver responsible for remote operation of a larger number of
busses, while mobile and stationary drivers restrict themselves to incidents that require a physical presence.
School or community busses, for example, might have remote video monitoring while in transit, complimented by
a human presence at stops to help passengers embark and disembark.

We should note that these jobs do not require training in AI or software development. Its a shift from driving
busses to shepherding busses.

The question then is: what to do with the productivity benefit?

take the saving and make a currently subsidised form of public transport profitable
make an unreliable form of public transport reliable by increasing frequency, improving quality
transform public transport and eliminate public transport shadows, making it more equitable

As with the power loom, its possible for the right choice to result in increased patronage, a higher quality of life,
and a more equitable system that creates more jobs, not destroy them.

The choice, though is ours.

 Most of this was drawn from the following reports, along with an additional report that were preparing for
publication now.
Feel free to contact me or one of the team if you would like a copy.
Or download them from the web site.

Issue 20 | 2017 Issue 21 | July 2017

Complimentary article reprint Complimentary article reprint

Cognitive Reconstructing
collaboration work
Why humans and computers Automation, artificial
think better together intelligence, and the essential
role of humans
By James Guszcza, Harvey Lewis, and
By Peter Evans-Greenwood,
Peter Evans-Greenwood
Harvey Lewis, and James Guszcza
Illustration by Josie Portillo
Illustration by Doug Chayka

To code or not to code,

is that the question?
2017

About Deloitte About Deloitte

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (DTTL), its network of member firms, and their
which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see http://www/deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Toucherelated entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as Deloitte Global) does not provide ser-
Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. Please see http://www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of the US member firms vices to clients. In the United States, Deloitte refers to one or more of the US member firms of DTTL, their related entities that operate using the Deloitte name in
of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and their respective subsidiaries. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of the United States and their respective affiliates. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Please 6
public accounting. see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms.

Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. With a globally connected Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. With a globally connected
network of member firms in more than 150 countries and territories, Deloitte brings world-class capabilities and high-quality service to clients, delivering the network of member firms in more than 150 countries and territories, Deloitte brings world-class capabilities and high-quality service to clients, delivering the
insights they need to address their most complex business challenges. Deloittes more than 200,000 professionals are committed to becoming the standard of insights they need to address their most complex business challenges. Deloittes more than 200,000 professionals are committed to becoming the standard of
excellence. excellence.

This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively, This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively,
the Deloitte Network) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services. No entity in the Deloitte network shall be responsible for the Deloitte Network) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services. No entity in the Deloitte network shall be responsible for
any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this communication. any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this communication.

Copyright 2017. Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright 2017. Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
This publication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively the Deloitte Network) is, by
means of this publication, rendering professional advice or services.
Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your
business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network
shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this
publication.
2017 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Peter Evans-Greenwood