None of this is wrong, per se, but we like to add another word when we think about automation: productive. For us, automation is all about giving humans superhero capes. We think about it as a way for productive automated work technologies to amplify humanness and economic productivity. Or, instead of focusing on how automation replaces humans, honing in on how it can improve our work.
Take, for example, a quality check in a bakery production line. A computer scans the belt and identifies which buns don’t look standard. It then sends this feedback to a human, who checks the bun in question and then decides whether the bun should stay on the belt or be discarded. In other words, the two are working together, capitalizing on and amplifying each of their strengths.
At People Rocket, we wear many hats, and in our various roles as lecturers at universities or designers, we try to bring in this frame of productive automation. To break it down into more easily digestible parts, we conceive of productive automation as having four central rules.
Making productive automation work:
Historically, we’ve put a premium on automation increasing efficiency. But we don’t think efficiency is always the right goal. We’d like to make a case for making individual humans more productive. Opportunities for efficiency are, by its very nature, limited. Opportunities for amplifying the abilities of humans are infinite.
Seeing the utility of this frame in a real-world example can be pretty straightforward.
Take Walmart. The retail giant adopted the use of robots to help check inventory on some of its stores’ shelves. The idea, according to the Wall Street Journal, was that robots could bring down costs while increasing sales. In other words, increase efficiency. But now Walmart has decided to return to human labor after finding that they could do the job just as well.
This doesn’t mean the retailer is ridding itself of robots or tech. That’s why we think this example is a perfect representation of how we can make humans more productive alongside automation to propel us forward. Rather than simply assume that the robots would do a better job than humans, Walmart saw that each could be used in their own ways, capitalizing on their individual strengths.
More broadly, the end goal doesn’t have to be maximizing efficiency and replacing humans. Robots and humans can be peers or colleagues. We can amplify each other’s strengths and assets. This can take many forms: anything from using machines for lifting heavy objects or processing large amounts of data, or relying on humans for creative thinking or decision making.
Ultimately, it’s not written in stone that automation will define the future of work. Our design choices will define what the future looks like. And we think there’s a pretty good case for robots and mankind to work together—not against each other.
A circular approach means going from a "take-make-waste" use of the world's resources to a "reduce-redesign-reuse". It means keeping as much of the materials we use in the same system. It's an approach that can help us reach net-zero and opens the door for innovation, job creation and economic development.
A moonshot is an iconic, enormous goal — one that takes enormous perseverance to achieve. Humans imagined themselves on the moon, and scientists, engineers, and astronauts eventually made it happen. Creating a successful consulting agency, while not as grand in scale, was our moonshot idea a decade ago.
Innovation is not exclusive to a few elite visionaries. It is not a simple formula you can just follow. And it doesn’t happen for a lone genius overnight. The truth is, there’s a myth to innovation, and it’s important that all of us understand the mythical nature of this story.
None of this is wrong, per se, but we like to add another word when we think about automation: productive. For us, automation is all about giving humans superhero capes. We think about it as a way for productive automated work technologies to amplify humanness and economic productivity. Or, instead of focusing on how automation replaces humans, honing in on how it can improve our work.
Take, for example, a quality check in a bakery production line. A computer scans the belt and identifies which buns don’t look standard. It then sends this feedback to a human, who checks the bun in question and then decides whether the bun should stay on the belt or be discarded. In other words, the two are working together, capitalizing on and amplifying each of their strengths.
At People Rocket, we wear many hats, and in our various roles as lecturers at universities or designers, we try to bring in this frame of productive automation. To break it down into more easily digestible parts, we conceive of productive automation as having four central rules.
Making productive automation work:
Historically, we’ve put a premium on automation increasing efficiency. But we don’t think efficiency is always the right goal. We’d like to make a case for making individual humans more productive. Opportunities for efficiency are, by its very nature, limited. Opportunities for amplifying the abilities of humans are infinite.
Seeing the utility of this frame in a real-world example can be pretty straightforward.
Take Walmart. The retail giant adopted the use of robots to help check inventory on some of its stores’ shelves. The idea, according to the Wall Street Journal, was that robots could bring down costs while increasing sales. In other words, increase efficiency. But now Walmart has decided to return to human labor after finding that they could do the job just as well.
This doesn’t mean the retailer is ridding itself of robots or tech. That’s why we think this example is a perfect representation of how we can make humans more productive alongside automation to propel us forward. Rather than simply assume that the robots would do a better job than humans, Walmart saw that each could be used in their own ways, capitalizing on their individual strengths.
More broadly, the end goal doesn’t have to be maximizing efficiency and replacing humans. Robots and humans can be peers or colleagues. We can amplify each other’s strengths and assets. This can take many forms: anything from using machines for lifting heavy objects or processing large amounts of data, or relying on humans for creative thinking or decision making.
Ultimately, it’s not written in stone that automation will define the future of work. Our design choices will define what the future looks like. And we think there’s a pretty good case for robots and mankind to work together—not against each other.
A circular approach means going from a "take-make-waste" use of the world's resources to a "reduce-redesign-reuse". It means keeping as much of the materials we use in the same system. It's an approach that can help us reach net-zero and opens the door for innovation, job creation and economic development.
A moonshot is an iconic, enormous goal — one that takes enormous perseverance to achieve. Humans imagined themselves on the moon, and scientists, engineers, and astronauts eventually made it happen. Creating a successful consulting agency, while not as grand in scale, was our moonshot idea a decade ago.
Innovation is not exclusive to a few elite visionaries. It is not a simple formula you can just follow. And it doesn’t happen for a lone genius overnight. The truth is, there’s a myth to innovation, and it’s important that all of us understand the mythical nature of this story.
