drjoesweeney

[drjoesweeney]

Mitigating the new risks of working from home v1

[drjoesweeney]

During 2018, I heard of several 'startups' using gig contracts with staff that are effectively working full time. One reason why startups tend towards adopting gig contracts is that in the very early days, they had many short-term, fixed work outputs to achieve: branding, marketing materials, initial coding, website, social media launches, etc. All short-term, project-based tasks that fit well with gig contracting. The problem is that these startups often get addicted to these gig contracts and use them internally. But when gig-like contracts are used with regular staff - admin staff, clerks, salespeople, drivers, etc. - the startup is not doing itself any favours. Ignoring the ethics and potential issues with regards to tax legislation, using gig-like contracts on full-time staff is a massive liability to investors. If these startups wish to go public or draw more investment, then attract additional scrutiny... and having a potential fine or union-sponsored fight is the last thing they need. If you are involved in a start-up, don't fall into the trap of thinking employment is 'easier' and 'cheaper' with gig contracts. Sure, they have a place. But you still had better get an HR professional to review your hiring and staffing and give you some professional advice. I'd even go so far as to advocate a board member be tasked with monitoring employment compliance. It's a serious investment risk to be managed.

[drjoesweeney]

Designing Cars Like Software?

So this is interesting.  Samsung scored more driverless car patents than automakers in 2018.  

The approach to designing cars has been, until recently, similar to designing monolithic software solutions: designed at great cost, up front, with longevity and consistency of components.  

In contrast, next-generation car designs are moving to more modular designs, where upgrades and changes are possible over time.  Companies like Samsung that bridge the gap between consumer tech (their phones, tablets, etc) and longer-life whitegoods are in a good position to dream up new ways to design vehicles.  

Will we be driving Samsung cars in 20 years time?  Maybe. Probably not. But it's likely we'll be riding in vehicles that contains tech based on patents from Samsung.  And that's where the $ future will be in transport.

Article here:  https://rplg.co/8f711560

[drjoesweeney]

China., the trade war and tech

China is set to surpass the US as an economic superpower. That's a well-accepted prediction. But it is also set to pummel the US in terms of tech in the near future  This has a big impact on the positioning of current US/China trade war, as detailed in this excellent report  https://rplg.co/7cf38380

To quote from the report:  "The Trump administration portrays the trade deficit between China and the US as unfair, yet US exports to China since it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 have grown very much faster than China’s exports to the United States...  

Yet if some of the economic tension between the US and China is imaginary, much is not. China is increasingly able to compete in high-technology manufacturing, one of America’s strengths. America’s complaints about “forced technology transfers” and cyber theft of commercial information trade are well made and must be addressed...  In the current negotiations, China may well agree to move on intellectual property protections, investment access, and curbing commercial espionage... The elements of a deal are there. But China will never accept handicaps on its technological advance, or adopt American views about the economic role of the state or the Chinese Communist Party."

Apple's share price collapse is in no small part a ramification of the trade war, as China's nationalism runs deep. The Chinese government does not have to explicitly put tariffs on a US icon in order for it to be shunned by the people of China.

And then there is the issue of the cost advantage of renewable energies that China is investing in heavily... but that is another post altogether.

[drjoesweeney]

Health Records: While you were out, I told you something you're not going to like...

So - an attempt to hide a report into data breaches by timing?  Maybe. It's all about trust...

“The information on the contentious My Health Record system was always going to garner attention, but the Australian Digital Health Agency’s annual report was dropped in the quiet period between Christmas and New Year’s.”  -- https://rplg.co/4219dd80

While I've written previously about why in theory I support a unified and centralised health record system,  such can only exist in an era of trust -- trust in terms of government, policy and technology.  

The government (both sides) have lost trust in all three domains.  

Ignoring public and industry opinion on NBN, data retention, encryption and use of census data have led to a collapse in trust in policy decisions.  

The government refusal put in place legal protections as to how data can be reused by future governments, announcements that they are looking for ways to monetize citizen records, and the willful handing over of private citizen data to friendly media in order to quell criticism (e.g. Centrelink Robocall), has reduced trust in the government's intentions. 

Responses to breaches - downplaying the impact and attempting to deflect the blame (e.g. Census fiasco) have collapsed trust in the government's ability to provide technical security.

The problem is not that national data services are not feasible. Nor that we don't need sensible laws for security. But rushed policies informed by ideology more than research and industry-specific expertise are leading to projects that are doomed to suffer 'unintended consequences'.   This is not a Labor vs Liberal complaint. It's a systemic problem with Australian tech policy formation and execution.

Tech policy, without public trust, is simply not feasible and will come back to haunt future politicians - as we are seeing with the NBN (right or wrong, see my post on facebook).  Worse, the more it happens in a hyper-connected world, the less people will trust in future.

Metcalfs law applied here.  

[drjoesweeney]

Designing Cars Like Software?

So this is interesting.  Samsung scored more driverless car patents than automakers in 2018.  

The approach to designing cars has been, until recently, similar to designing monolithic software solutions: designed at great cost, up front, with longevity and consistency of components.  

In contrast, next-generation car designs are moving to more modular designs, where upgrades and changes are possible over time.  Companies like Samsung that bridge the gap between consumer tech (their phones, tablets, etc) and longer-life whitegoods are in a good position to dream up new ways to design vehicles.  

Will we be driving Samsung cars in 20 years time?  Maybe. Probably not. But it's likely we'll be riding in vehicles that contains tech based on patents from Samsung.  And that's where the $ future will be in transport.

Article here:  https://rplg.co/8f711560

[drjoesweeney]

Why glass is not the next big thing... and what will be.

Q: Logically the next phase of personal technology will move the computer screen to eyeware. So why has no one done this yet?

  The above question came in today... my take.

  The next phase of personal technology may *not* be eyewear screens.

The smartphone did not simply move a desktop screen to a mobile device. Microsoft was attempting to do that for almost a decade before Apple delivered the iPhone. What caused the massive uplift in mobile screens was an entirely new user experience/interface.

Even today, desktop aps that try to simply squeeze themselves to handhelds fail miserably in the market.

So let’s reframe this question: what is the next big shift in user experience?

This gives us a whole slew of new questions to ask…

what activities are not currently being well serviced by desktop, mobile or wearable devices?

what entire new activities can be made available with new interfaces/user experience designs?

how intrusive (to the user) will a new user experience be, and will that intrusiveness be a fair trade against the use gained?

is the economics of the new user experience justified versus the benefit gained?

When I look at these issues, I see that the next hot thing will not be new visual user experiences, but rather a combination of a wearable camera, audio and AI. This of this: a small button camera that is continually on, linked to a standard headset (via Bluetooth.) The device continually monitors the world around and provides spoken advice as needed. The user interacts with the device and gesture.

This sort of user experience is suited to very different use cases from those offered by phones (those attempts have been made to achieve those ends with smartphones). It enabled all manner of new activities and augments human cognition in powerful ways - most of which we’ve not even begun to consider.

Moreover, it would be relatively inexpensive (with 5G) and harvest new sources of information for advertising/behavioural driven enterprises. Which means services on such a platform it would be low (zero) financial cost for the user.

In short, the future personal computing leap forward will be visual capture and audio feedback… not some ‘head up display’ that we already know is overly intrusive for everyday use.

[drjoesweeney]

Irony:  When it's NOT the Dunning-Kruger Effect but you thought it was!

I'm reviewing data captured from over 250 business leader interviews regarding enterprise solutions and cloud deployment and I noticed something odd.  If the interviewees believed their organisation's teams had 'low' or 'high' cloud awareness, they were likely to invest in Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS).  However,  those expressing 'moderate' awareness of cloud options were more likely to adopt IaaS and MUCH more likely to adopt Software-as-a-Service.  

This looked a lot like the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) in action: the notion that competent people underestimate their performance, while incompetent overestimate it.  But was this really what the data was telling us?

After searching google for a while, I found this excellent article ( https://rplg.co/e83ac050) on the DKE and have determined that I am probably NOT seeing the effect. What I've got is "a drift to the median." 

Moral to the story?  Whenever you have good insight from data, make a conscious effort to disprove it. The only thing you've got to lose is a fallacy.  

[drjoesweeney]

A dangerous addiction: Startups and their love of gig work contracts

During 2018, I heard of several 'startups' using gig contracts with staff that are effectively working full time.  

One reason why startups tend towards adopting gig contracts is that in the very early days, they had many short-term, fixed work outputs to achieve: branding, marketing materials, initial coding, website, social media launches, etc.  All short-term, project-based tasks that fit well with gig contracting. 

The problem is that these startups often get addicted to these gig contracts and use them internally. 

But when gig-like contracts are used with regular staff - admin staff, clerks, salespeople, drivers, etc. - the startup is not doing itself any favours.  

Ignoring the ethics and potential issues with regards to tax legislation, using gig-like contracts on full-time staff is a massive liability to investors.  If these startups wish to go public or draw more investment, then attract additional scrutiny... and having a potential fine or union-sponsored fight is the last thing they need. 

If you are involved in a start-up, don't fall into the trap of thinking employment is 'easier' and 'cheaper' with gig contracts.  Sure, they have a place. But you still had better get an HR professional to review your hiring and staffing and give you some professional advice.  I'd even go so far as to advocate a board member be tasked with monitoring employment compliance.  It's a serious investment risk to be managed.

[drjoesweeney]

The Power Suit is about to get a whole new meaning!

Wearable robotic work suits (aka power-suits) will be here much sooner than most people think.

LG is nearing commercialisation of its CLOi SuitBot  (see  https://rplg.co/f1d569c0) which supports & strengthens a worker's ability to lift.

Wearable bots will be attractive to warehousing groups. Australia is well ahead of other Western markets in terms of visual augmentation for warehouse control (smart-glasses) and the very same factors that drive that adoption will play out well for wearable bots: speeding up staff activities, reducing downtime and reducing misplacement.  In short, reducing errors while getting more out of Australia's comparatively pricey staff (because our society values a livable wage) without injuring them in the process.

From the press release: " The new LG CLOi service robots have been updated with a more advanced autonomous navigation system as well as enhanced connectivity to allow for communication with mechanisms such as elevators and automatic doors. Using AI technology, LG CLOi robots analyze customers' usage patterns to constantly learn and improve performance. "

LG's wearable bots are being unveiled in Berlin this month. It won't be long before we see this sort of tech in actual use here in Oz.

#futureworkforce #futureofwork

[drjoesweeney]

A massive ICT project bites the dust with a loss of $26m - and I'm ok with this?  Why?

$26m lost on biometric project  - https://rplg.co/aff6a3a0 

From the article:  "Mr Phelan said the project would have required a further $47 million to be completed, and that it would only provide a “marginally better” service than the existing system."

While this is not great news on the surface, I'm very pleased with the candour and honesty. Looking at a huge project like this, and making the hard decision to kill it, is something that is all too often avoided.

It's a bit like suspecting that skin blemish is cancerous, but not going it and checked out for fear of hearing bad news. Very macho, but more expensive and painful in the long run. 

Case in point:

Some years ago, I was part of a team reviewing a multi-million dollar ICT project.  I was the product domain specialist in this case.  The project had been going for 3 years and nothing of value had been delivered. The project was already over budget and was now expected to cost more than three times original estimates. We actually projected five times, based on current burn rates!

Furthermore, one of my colleagues identified what could most charitably be described as 'odd' billings.  But the project had really gone off the rails right a the point of procurement. In short, a total mess.

Needless to say, our preference was to kill the project. Yes, that would be perceived as a slap in the face to the ICT group and vendor. But that was going to happen soon or later...

Unfortunately, the project continued to bleed for several more years before a 'new strategy' was developed. By that time, the original project team had long since departed.   And the company in question lost millions more that really should have been saved, instead of saving face.

So - well done to Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission management who stood up and made the hard decision. 

[drjoesweeney]

Walorska makes an interesting observation: "Unlike the industrial revolution of the 19th century, the technological unemployment of the 21st century will not only affect low-skilled workers - but the highly-skilled white-collar jobs as well, argued Walorska. Men will lose their power thanks to the field that is currently so dominated by man: artificial intelligence." In my research into the future of work (partly sponsored by #Dell) we noted the biggest resisters to changing work practices was cutting down gender lines, but not because of gender, but rather tenure and ageism... but these factors end up looking identical. In Australia, women have been disproportionately casualised in the workforce. Which means they have learned to cope with more and varied workplaces. In contrast, men within the last 15 years of their largely singular career beleive they will not able to gain new employment should they be made 'obsolete' by new technology-enabled processes. There is some truth to their fears. Men within the last 5 years of their careers are far less concerned, as are those coming into a new career, regardless of age. The end result is that the resisters to workforce changes - especially those involving technology - tend to be men. https://rplg.co/5b664a60