The primary reasons for individuals to be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century include job security concerns, privacy issues, and technological anxiety.

Demographic factors such as age, education, and socioeconomic status can influence attitudes towards new technology, with some individuals being more likely to exhibit Luddite-like behavior due to concerns about job displacement or unfair labor practices.

To address the concerns of 21st century Luddites, manufacturers should start by assembling the right stakeholders and creating a safe, blame-free space for open dialogue.

Companies can address the concerns of 21st century Luddites by providing innovative on-the-job training programs that incorporate technology, such as immersive training, remote onboarding, and online education.

Organizations must alter their approach to supporting end-user adoption of new tools, including evolving user adoption training for hybrid work.

Demographic factors such as age, education, and socioeconomic status are becoming less predictive of attitudes towards new technology and social trends in Japan.

Individuals may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about job security, as technological advancements can lead to job displacement.

Individuals may be opposed to new technologies due to job security concerns, as nondisruptive creation can help innovate and grow without displacing industries, companies, or jobs.

A significant percentage of American workers, 22%, fear that technology will make their jobs obsolete in the near future.

The primary reasons for individuals to be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century include job security concerns, privacy issues, and technological anxiety.

Demographic factors such as age, education, and socioeconomic status can influence attitudes towards new technology, with some individuals being more likely to exhibit Luddite-like behavior due to concerns about job displacement or unfair labor practices.

Title:

Content: Brian Merchant, author: “Luddites are more dangerous to the rich than Robin Hood”

The Luddites have been a great historical resource. Any showy enemy of anything that looked like technological progress has been called a Luddite. Today with generative artificial intelligence and its critics, the word has been revived. The author and journalist Brian Merchant (Iowa City, USA, 1983) saw it coming and has written a book that reviews the Luddite revolt in England at the beginning of the 19th century and its similarities with current technologies: Blood in the Machine (Blood in the Machine, currently without a planned edition in Spanish) thus explores the origins of the current revolt against big technology.

Although the book has appeared in the midst of the AI hype, Merchant began his research a decade ago: “Uber was growing and it was beginning to be seen that it was having a hard impact on taxi drivers, I heard the term Luddite from the pro-Uber sector and wrote an article titled You don't understand anything about Luddites”. Now in his book he remembers that the Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, at a time when unions were prohibited. In a conversation with EL PAÍS from his residence in Los Angeles, Merchant clarifies the historical impact of the Luddites and the possible similar struggles that are being played today in Silicon Valley.

1. The Luddites were not against progress

The labor revolt over the loss of rights was more important than the destruction of textile machines: “The biggest mistake about the Luddites is to say that they were against technology and progress,” says Merchant. “They were against certain technologies because they recognized the way in which they were going to be used in their context against them as workers. It was a labor movement, against poverty, not anti-technology. The British Government began to mold them in this way almost immediately, it was keen to mock the Luddites and present the argument that they were against progress. It is very similar to how today people in positions of power in technology companies accuse those who complain about poor working conditions. It's the same story for 200 years.”

The book quotes a phrase from historian Eric Hobsbawm that explains this stage: “It was collective bargaining through riots.” According to Merchant, this tactic in a workers' struggle was very powerful for two reasons: “First, it was symbolic because everyone understood that what they were destroying was not just a machine. It was also the specific machine used to transfer wealth from the workers to the employer. Second, it was useful because they destroyed the equipment that businessmen needed.”

2. Why Robin Hood is better accepted than Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd was a legendary character. No one knows for sure if he existed. It was the legend of a teenager who would have broken the first machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In 1811, rebellious workers used his legendary name to sign letters and further scare: “Ludd probably never existed. But the incarnation of it would become a mascot, an organizational tool, a wink: a powerful 19th-century meme,” Merchant writes.

See also  The Commander of the Land Forces meets in Muscat a number of Omani military leaders

Ludd lived near Nottingham (United Kingdom), like another legendary figure who has been better treated by history. There must be a reason, says Merchant: “The Luddites organized a popular and powerful rebellion. People wrote popular songs about them. They were like Robin Hood. But it is interesting that Robin Hood has endured as a positive light, while the Luddites have not. He suggests that the myth of Ned Ludd is in some ways more dangerous to the elites and the wealthy than that of Robin Hood, which is a little more nebulous and open. The Luddites say: go ahead and break the machines of your oppression. Robin Hood says: steal from the rich and give to the poor. “I think that’s a little more tolerable.”

3. How are they similar to today's problems?

The background of the book is that the history of the Luddites is similar to what happens today in Silicon Valley, where a small group of corporations dominate new technologies. “The way technologies are developed has basically not changed. You have a handful of people with access to enough capital or political influence to be able to build a factory and use automation technologies. “Back then, the most aggressive owners didn’t ask anyone how to find a way to make this a win-win.”

Merchant has received criticism for equating the great businessmen of 19th century England with 21st century America. But there are details that he does not see that far away: “The technology development process is in some ways even more undemocratic today than then. There is this immense pool of capital available to Silicon Valley innovators through venture capital. Uber wasn't profitable for 10 years, but they had access to that capital. Did anyone really like that? Did it work for workers and delivery people? Nothing mattered, they just had more money and moved on.”

See also  Just the mystery

Title:

Content: A New Look at Japan’s Demographic Divide

Tracking Japan’s Shift to a Post-Demographic Society

Society Culture

The attitudes of the Japanese are becoming more and more difficult to pigeonhole by generation, according to Kikkawa Tōru, leader of a nationwide research project to gather and analyze longitudinal data on social psychology.

During the years of high-paced growth, from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, almost everyone in Japan identified as a member of the middle class. With incomes and living standards rising across the board, Japan’s postwar mass society was converging toward a middle-class consciousness. But all was not harmony and uniformity. The older and younger generations clashed over tradition and modernity. Sharp class distinctions divided white-collar university graduates from blue-collar workers, farmers, and shop owners. Gender roles were rigidly defined, severely restricting opportunities for women. And domestic politics boiled down to a choice between left and right, reflecting the ideological and geopolitical battle lines of the Cold War. Economic leveling notwithstanding, it was a period that lent itself to clear social differentiation and demographic pigeonholing.

Fifty years on, Japanese researchers in the field of quantitative social science are finding it harder and harder to deduce who is thinking what on the basis of demographics like age. And this is making it more and more challenging to predict the direction in which Japanese society is heading.

Limits of Marxian Materialism

As project leader for the Stratification and Social Psychology Project, I have been involved in a longitudinal survey designed to maintain comparability with a survey on the same theme carried out in 1985 and 1995. The aim is to monitor and anticipate changes in Japanese society by gathering data on class identity, satisfaction with life, perceptions of economic inequality, attachment to traditional values, views on gender equality and education, anxiety about the future, trust in others, work and family life, involvement in civil society, political consciousness, and proclivity for consumption.

The demographic factors believed to influence such attitudes include gender, age, and such social attributes as class (as reflected in education level, occupation, and income), family situation, and regional ties. Our research has focused on how one’s position within the social structure influences one’s psychological state. This approach is based on a framework of understanding extending back to Karl Marx, who held that people’s social consciousness (subjective state) was determined by their economic relationships (objective status).

In Japan, however, the predictive power of analytical models predicated on this relationship between objective and subjective states has been declining since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Disparities in attitudes among people in different occupations, income brackets, and age groups have become less clear-cut. Nor do factors like family makeup, place of residence, social network, or social participation offer much insight. In other countries, attitudes often diverge along ethnic, religious, and regional lines, but the influence of these factors is relatively weak in Japanese society.

Emergence of a Post-Demographic Society

A 2023 study published by the Hakuhōdō Institute of Life and Living underscores this observation with respect to age-related differences in values. Analyzing the results of the Chronological Lifestyle Survey, carried out in Japan since 1992, researchers concluded that age-linked disparities were gradually fading. (The term they coined for this trend was shōreika shakai, a play on the ubiquitous term kōreika shakai, or aging society).

The authors of the study highlight two key features of Japan’s emerging post-demographic society. The first is the gradual blurring of age-linked differences in social attitudes among those between the ages of 20 and 70, who make up the core of adult society. In previous analyses of opinion surveys and market research, it was fairly easy to pigeonhole people by generation—baby boomers, the lost generation, the second baby boom, the employment ice age generation, and so forth. But the Hakuhōdō study concluded that the psychological disparities among such age groups have begun to fade.

This is not to say that Japanese attitudes and opinions are becoming more uniform; quite the contrary. The second characteristic of Japan’s post-demographic society is the heterogeneity of views and values within each age group. Ideological and attitudinal diversity is on the rise, but researchers are increasingly at a loss to analyze those differences in terms of demographics.

These changes are not readily visible in such descriptive statistical coefficients as mean and variance. They have taken place beneath the surface, in the connections between social consciousness and social structure. Moreover, they have occurred gradually (since there is no clear dividing line between the old and new generations), disguised in part by the large numbers of baby boomers and the relatively small number of young people in the Japanese population.

However, over the past few years, as the baby-boomers who had dominated the data for two decades began to age out of the survey sample, and youngsters born in the twenty-first century began to age in, researchers discerned a gradual dissolution of the old age-linked disparities, beginning with people born around the mid-1970s, during the second baby boom.

The Age of Low Expectations

To understand what precipitated this trend, we need to consider the economic and social background.

From the 1950s through the 1980s, near-continuous growth and development set the tone in Japanese society. But after the collapse of the 1980s asset bubble, Japan hit a postmodern plateau. The period of stagnation once dubbed the “lost decade” has dragged on for more than 30 years now.

What this means in terms of today’s population is that everyone born prior to the second baby boom entered adult society at a time when things still seemed to be getting better year by year. Young people equated their own era with progress in the form of greater affluence, a more democratic society, innovation, and advancement. They also lived in a world where—for better or for worse—employment was generally permanent, gender roles were clearly defined, and there was widespread agreement on the basic course people’s lives should follow. Although not everyone went along with this framework, almost all acknowledged it, and their place within it provided a firm basis for defining their own identity.

The products of the second baby boom were the last to grow up with the promise of a better life for everyone who followed the rules. Those born later, from the aptly named “lost generation” (young victims of post-bubble restructuring) to Generation Z, were raised amid the same level of affluence, but with a sense that things were going downhill. Unlike those born in the 1940s and 1950s, they perceived little quantitative difference, and only a subtle qualitative difference, between their lives and the lives of their elders.

Moreover, as the stagnation persisted beyond the first generation, young people grew more pessimistic about their chances of outstripping their parents in educational attainment, job advancement, and economic well-being. They were apt to dismiss the rules of a game that no longer delivered on its promise of a better life. The rejection of structures that previous generations took for granted has given rise to greater variability within each age group.

The Rise of Individualism

The result of all this is a new degree of individuality among the younger generations.

Political behavior offers an instructive example. For those born prior to the second baby boom, participation in national elections was a basic civic duty, and the choice was generally clear-cut: conservative or progressive, right or left. Within this polarized framework—which persists to this day—a person’s social and economic affiliations determined his or her political views and voting behavior.

For the younger generations, however, to vote or not to vote is purely a matter of individual choice, and how to vote, if one chooses to do so, hinges on one’s own judgment at that point in time. The typical young Japanese citizen, while politically literate, is an independent swing voter. This is what we mean when we talk about not knowing what members of the younger generation are thinking.

This is not to say that members of the younger generation are detached from society. Social forces continue to affect each person’s state of mind. But the crude conceptual framework by which sociologists once explained social trends no longer applies. Personal identity is no longer tied to such categories as “women,” “senior citizens,” “urbanites,” “university graduates,” or “high-income households.” For this reason, it is becoming difficult to characterize Japan as a society stratified by either class, age, or gender.

Another way to put it is that the views of the Japanese today defy our old demographic stereotypes. They are complex and varied, differentiated at the individual level. In sociological circles, we call this individualization.

As young people brought up during the lost decades have taken their place in adult society, generational disparities have faded. At the same time, individualization has intensified, making it a challenge to chart attitudes by gender, class, region, and other demographic factors. Without these tools to rely on, it is becoming more and more difficult to identify overarching trends and predict future developments in Japanese society.

(Originally published in Japanese. Banner photo: © Pixta.)

population demographics generation

Title:

Content: 1. “A rising number of American workers fear technology will make their jobs obsolete in the near future,” Axios reported Thursday, Sept. 14. A total of 22% of U.S. workers feel that way, according to the latest Gallup poll. That is up from the 15% of workers with those feelings in 2021. “The jump is being driven ‘almost entirely’ by college-educated workers.”

2. Fear of becoming obsolete (FOBO) is gaining more recognition in the work environment. According to the poll, younger workers aged 18-34 are more concerned than their older counterparts that technology like artificial intelligence will make their jobs obsolete. The fear also is commonly felt by workers who make less than $100,000 per year.

To address the concerns of 21st century Luddites, manufacturers should start by assembling the right stakeholders and creating a safe, blame-free space for open dialogue.

Title:

Content: Create a free Manufacturing.net account to continue

3 Key Steps to Modernize Your OT

The consequences of inadequate backup strategies, and other deficient upgrades, can be severe.

The manufacturing industry is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by the need to boost resiliency, maximize efficiency, and keep pace with ever-tightening market demands. One crucial aspect of this transformation is the shift from reactive code backup strategies to more proactive, automated approaches. Let’s face it, traditional backup methods are no longer sufficient in the face of modern automation, and as the gap between code production volumes and backup coverage widens, it poses significant risks to the efficiency and safety of automated systems.

The consequences of inadequate backup strategies can be severe, ranging from unplanned downtime and product recalls to on-site injuries. These issues not only impact the bottom line, but also damage the reputation of the organization by eroding both employee and customer trust. When you consider the risks, manufacturers cannot afford to overlook the importance of taking a proactive approach to operational technology (OT).

Embracing the Industrial DevOps Mindset

Fortunately, the DevOps movement, which emerged in the IT sector around 2007, offers us a proven set of practices that can revolutionize the way manufacturing teams perform their jobs. By implementing an Industrial DevOps approach, organizations can achieve increased system-wide transparency, minimize risks associated with data loss, gain efficiency through automation, and save costs by reducing downtime and implementing proactive prevention measures.

Industrial DevOps introduces tools and processes that enhance teamwork and heighten visibility in industrial operations. For instance, a manufacturing company adopting this approach could centrally manage its multi-vendor control solutions to reduce reliance on proprietary, siloed tools. This fosters a unified environment where changes are tracked and managed efficiently, enhancing operational agility to help ensure higher uptime and quicker problem resolution.

Moreover, storing information in the cloud allows team members and approved vendors to access, audit, and modify data, putting the power of intellectual property at the fingertips of those who need it while also rigorously enforcing security protocols. This enables strategic optimization of operational technology on a much greater scale while reducing the need for tedious, repetitive manual backup tasks and freeing up employees to focus on valuable business tasks and new innovations.

Build A Strong Team

To modernize operations with an Industrial DevOps approach, manufacturers should start by assembling the right stakeholders. Create a safe, blame-free space for open dialogue, encourage discussions about pain points, review existing disaster recovery strategies, and consider the practicality of implementing strategic changes. It is crucial to involve representatives from various departments, including IT, operations, and management, to ensure that all perspectives are considered and that the proposed changes align with your organization's goals and objectives.

Next, identify and address potential concerns and process changes, such as establishing governance to protect intellectual property, instituting best-practice security, and examining the impact on existing workflows and processes. This may involve consulting with experts, conducting thorough testing, and implementing proof of concept and pilot programs to iterate on design before scaling up.

It is essential to approach this transformation through the lens of cultural change. Ensure that all team members are on board with the changes and provide necessary training and support to facilitate a smooth transition. Identify early wins and regularly communicate progress, while also creating space to address any concerns or challenges that arise. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement and open communication, organizations can build trust and buy-in among employees, making the transition to an Industrial DevOps approach more successful.

Benefits Beyond Backup

Embracing a modern backup strategy not only enhances operational efficiency but also serves as a valuable recruitment tool. Today’s young, skilled workers value companies that prioritize data security, technological innovation, and future-proof solutions. By implementing an Industrial DevOps approach, organizations can demonstrate a commitment to these values and the future success of the business and its employees, making them more attractive to top talent in the industry.

Additionally, adopting an Industrial DevOps approach can help manufacturers stay ahead of the curve in terms of regulatory compliance and industry standards. As the manufacturing sector becomes more and more digitized and connected, the risk of cyber threats and data breaches also increases. By implementing robust backup and recovery strategies, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to data security and privacy, which can help to build trust with customers, partners, and regulators.

By assembling the right stakeholders, identifying and addressing concerns, and formulating a comprehensive roadmap, manufacturing organizations can maximize the benefits of Industrial DevOps for their own automated operations. This, in turn, can lead to increased efficiency, reduced risk, and improved bottom-line results, ultimately positioning them for long-term success in the face of fast-increasing market demands and technological advancements. This approach is no longer a luxury but a necessity for manufacturers seeking to remain competitive. By embracing this transformation and investing in the right tools, processes, and talent, organizations can unlock new levels of efficiency, resiliency, and innovation, setting themselves up for success in the years to come.

Adam Gluck founded startup Copia on a mission to accelerate the digital revolution within U.S. manufacturing. Along with co-founder Matthew Lee, Adam was recognized in 2022 on Forbes’ “30 Under 30” for driving a movement to reshape manufacturing through software innovation.

More in Cybersecurity

Companies can address the concerns of 21st century Luddites by providing innovative on-the-job training programs that incorporate technology, such as immersive training, remote onboarding, and online education.

Title:

Content: Subscribe to Entrepreneur for $5
Subscribe

How Companies Are Using Innovative Technology to Improve On-the-Job Training

A new era of learning and development has emerged, in which companies induct employees into the company's workplace culture through programs tailored to each company, its expectations and its core values.

By
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Since the dawn of time, methods have existed for to perform new or unfamiliar tasks. From facilitating mentorship between highly competent colleagues and other employees to developing user manuals for technical skills, most already have the resources necessary to train their workforce.

But the question arises: Why are companies now choosing to develop new-era on-the-job training programs?

Adaptability is crucial in the modern business world. New platforms, markets and technologies appear to emerge every quarter, making each new venture risky, because the environment is susceptible to change at any moment.

A rise in the number of employees working remotely or through a hybrid model has necessitated these rapid changes in the workplace and industries. Even if a company can adjust its goals and strategy to accommodate these changes, it is an entirely different challenge to ensure that its employees have the skills necessary to adapt rapidly.

Related: 6 Ways to Keep Your Employees Learning At Work

How are companies utilizing technology to create innovative on-the-job training programs?

Companies incorporate technology into training programs in a variety of ways. Three of the most innovative include:

Opening up future-oriented education to all:

Offering free training via the internet is part of a larger movement to make information readily available and empower individuals to determine their futures. From to tutorials, it is evident that the internet is revolutionizing education, particularly skill-based education.

Companies have noted this change. They have begun offering skill-based training programs to talented individuals outside the organization.

TheSoul Publishing is an example of a company that has previously opened up its on-the-job training programs to offer educational experiences to everyone. It transformed its internal Boost Academy into three future-focused camps open to the public. This allowed TheSoul to provide practical training methods that have helped individuals learn skills such as social media management, animation and video production.

Immersive technology:

Immersive training utilizes the power of next-generation technology to develop human-centered on-the-job training programs. They are individualized and do not assume that all employees learn in the same manner and at the same rate.

Immersive technologies combine the physical and digital worlds, including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR). This technology enhances the elements of the most effective forms of on-the-job training, such as gamified online platforms and demonstrator videos aimed at particular skills.

Additionally, VR and AR experiences increase employee engagement to new heights. Employees participate in a hands-on, practical manner by manipulating objects in a digital environment. Thus, employees can perform tasks independently while being permitted to make mistakes from which they can learn and enhance their skills.

Remote onboarding:

A 700-page training manual with a mile-long table of contents may be exhaustive, but it is not engaging for employees.

Another complication is that it is becoming increasingly common for new employees to be onboarded without ever setting foot in a company's office — if the company even has a physical office space. Companies have started re-onboarding employees in response to the rapid technological change occurring across all industries to ensure they can utilize the new technologies they have implemented.

Companies can make training significantly more engaging, exciting and digestible by leveraging the dynamic and integrated nature of the latest tools. Employers can ensure employees are truly absorbing and contextualizing content by incorporating entertaining and informative videos and gamification into their programs.

Related: Gamified Training: An Infallible Way For Employee Engagement

How on-the-job training programs can benefit from new technologies

Workforces become progressively more flexible:

New technology permits the company-wide implementation of more effective training programs. Digital methods for teaching employees skills are significantly less expensive than traditional, pre-pandemic methods.

A workforce can become flexible and adaptable to whatever the business world throws at it if training is facilitated at the level of the individual employee and the entire organization.

When you have well-trained employees, the attitude that "this is not really part of my job" will disappear. Although you shouldn't train each employee to do everything, training can expand an employee's capabilities beyond the minimum requirements of their initial role. When it comes to unfamiliar tasks, the "no-can-do" philosophy disappears. Instead, employees ask, "Where can I learn how to do this?"

Then a new issue arises: Employees wonder, "Will my boss be upset if I take the time to educate myself?" Therefore, companies must foster an environment in which employees are encouraged and empowered to pursue additional on-the-job training so that employees feel comfortable acquiring new skills. It produces long-term benefits for both the employer and the employee.

Progress evaluation is streamlined:

When it comes to ensuring that employees comprehend complex technical procedures, adhere to essential guidelines and comply with health and safety protocols, companies must do more than simply provide lengthy documents and assume that employees will retain all the information.

This information must be assimilated thoroughly. Companies must determine whether employees have comprehensively understood the topic. Using technology's adaptability, companies can evaluate an employee's progress in real-time using multimedia tools such as games, quizzes and videos. The company can then determine if the on-the-job training was effective or if modifications are required.

Related: Where to Deploy Innovative Tech to Create a More Flexible, Engaging Organization

Employers must adopt the philosophy that if you continue to train, teach and develop your employees, you will always have the most qualified candidates in the roles — this is especially beneficial if the company's industry makes it challenging to recruit skilled workers.

On the other hand, this type of philosophy is also attractive to potential employees who not only want to get paid, but also want to develop their own sets of skills via the on-the-job training opportunities the company provides. Improving and expanding access to skill-based training will always benefit both employers and employees.

Entrepreneur Editors' Picks

Organizations must alter their approach to supporting end-user adoption of new tools, including evolving user adoption training for hybrid work.

Title:

Content: This content is part of the Conference Coverage: Everything Enterprise Connect 2021: News, trends and insights

UC user adoption training must evolve for hybrid work

Learn why industry leaders at Enterprise Connect said user adoption training is key to UC success in the hybrid workplace -- and how employee experience platforms can help.

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed how people work. The adoption and use of unified communications tools, for example, skyrocketed to support remote workers. But, as workflows have changed, organizations must alter their approach to supporting end-user adoption of new tools.

At the start of the pandemic, organizations rolled out whatever tools they felt necessary to support remote work. As a result, employees learned how to use the tools on the fly as the traditional methods of user adoption training -- such as classroom-style trainings in the office -- were no longer possible.

Now, as organizations have become more strategic about their unified communications (UC) investments to support a hybrid workplace, they must also consider employee training to ensure adoption success. There is a direct correlation between preparing end users before deploying a new tool and user productivity post-deployment, COMMfusion LLC President Blair Pleasant said.

Most end users who felt they were well prepared with training before a deployment believed the new tool made them more productive, according to a BCStrategies survey of end users and IT leaders. Of those end users who said they weren't adequately trained, only 17% said they felt more productive.

Pleasant and other industry analysts and leaders spoke at the Enterprise Connect virtual conference. One key topic was the importance of supporting user adoption in a hybrid workplace to ensure UC deployment success and employee productivity, regardless of location.

Hybrid work means new training models

As organizations think about user adoption programs in a hybrid workplace, they have to ensure training is equal for both remote and office-based employees, said Eric Hanson, chief marketing officer at cloud-based communications provider Fuze.

Some user adoption training methods, like classroom-style instruction, will be set aside as employees work remotely. Other training strategies will emerge, like Yammer community forums, to create more of an online discussion, said Alan Shen, CTO at IT management software provider Unify Square.

Video training will also be key, especially to recreate the feeling of in-office training. For more successful video training, organizations should consider virtual events that combine real-time activities with asynchronous, on-demand content, Hanson said.

Training structured with synchronous and asynchronous content can address the different ways people learn and create a more engaging experience, he said. On-demand materials can also be used for reference after a training session.

"Adoption isn't something that happens right after deployment," Hanson said.

However, using video for training can be challenging, despite the overall growth of video across organizations, Pleasant said.

"The problem is end users can do it on their own time, but it doesn't mean they're going to," she said.

Training goes beyond business workflows

Organizations need to remember that UC tools are not just for business workflows and communication.

"When deploying new technology, we just think about the technology," Pleasant said. "We don't think about the organizational changes, the cultural impact and change management."

Rolling out a new application or system is not the main and end goal. The deployment needs to help employees collaborate more effectively, she said.

For example, many employees have used UC tools not just for collaboration workflows, but to maintain company culture and personal connections with their co-workers during the pandemic. User adoption training could include educating employees on how to use a new tool for social communications, like virtual happy hours, to support team cohesion, Shen said.

Employee experience platforms support user adoption

While training is key to boost user adoption, a major roadblock to adoption is the actual experience when using the tools. According to a global Omdia survey on the future of work, the biggest barrier to achieving successful outcomes with digital workplace technology is employee resistance.

"It's not a surprise as employees and line-of-business decision-makers have an idea of what tools they need to be successful, and IT isn't listening to them," Omdia analyst Tim Banting said.

According to the survey, 45% of companies said the IT department determines the need for workplace tools and makes the final recommendation. Only 15% of companies involve other stakeholders in the business when making buying decisions.

The result of not including employees and lines of business in buying decisions is not achieving ROI because employees aren't using the tools, he said.

Employee experience platforms can help highlight where user adoption is faltering and where more training may be necessary.

Addressing the gap between performance and experience

The operational data and application performance metrics that IT sees do not always reflect what employees are experiencing, said Johnny Russ, general manager of employee experience management at Qualtrics, a provider of employee experience tools.

IT may see data about the tools employees are logging in to or the number of help desk tickets filed, but they don't see data around situations where employees are logged in to an app but having frustrating UX.

"We're often missing appropriate understanding of why this is happening," Russ said.

Employee experience platforms, such as Qualtrics and Microsoft Viva, can provide greater insight into how employees are engaging with tools through features such as training effectiveness surveys, pulse surveys and AI-driven analytics. Without these metrics, IT could have a hard time addressing UX.

Or, as Pleasant put it, "You can't fix what you don't measure."

Dig Deeper on Developing a UC Strategy

SearchNetworking
SearchITChannel
Close

Demographic factors such as age, education, and socioeconomic status are becoming less predictive of attitudes towards new technology and social trends in Japan.

Individuals may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about job security, as technological advancements can lead to job displacement.

Title:

Content: The new is the old well forgotten.
Where in the Network there was a fashionable insult to the opponents of AI
In the Internet discourse, deep in the study of sarcastic comments of anonymous persons, you can find the term "Luddite".
This label is often referred to as people who dare to express the slightest inclination to inhibit the constant development of artificial intelligence (AI).
Related video
Interestingly, such prominent figures as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates have been awarded the Luddite Award, which is recognition of their cautionary position regarding the potential dangers associated with artificial intelligence.
During the ceremony, Robert D. Atkinson, the organizer of the award, noted: “Unfortunately, luminaries such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have contributed to the feverish refraction of hands about the impending apocalypse of artificial intelligence, ” writes IFLScience.
In Focus.Technology appeared its own Telegram-channel.
Subscribe not to miss the latest and exciting news from the world of science!
Atkinson also explained: "Do we consider any of them personally Luddites?
No, of course not.
They are pioneers of science and technology.
But they and others have done a disservice to the public — and undoubtedly have helped and comforted the increasingly common neo-Luddist impulse in modern society — by demonizing AI in the popular imagination.
But how did the term come about?
Its roots can be traced back to the early 1800s in England.
Before the industrial revolution, skilled craftsmen who knew a lot about textile production made clothes using their own machines and specialized tools.
However, a situation arose when new technologies and methods of mass production appeared, as a result of which artisans were unable to compete.
The result was a movement whose purpose was the destruction of the textile industry and the destruction of new machines.
Although there is some truth to this story, it does not reflect the whole essence of the Luddite movement.
Their actions were not driven solely by a reaction to new technologies; rather, they were a response to the profound transformations taking place in their professional activities.
While it is true that they often attacked a knitting machine known as a stocking frame, as well as other mechanized fixtures, their main concern was the labor practices associated with these machines.
Kevin Binfield, editor of the Luddite and Compassionate Works, explained their motives: "They simply wanted machines to produce high-quality goods, and that these machines employed workers who had been trained and received fair wages.
It was their only concern. ”
The nickname "Luddites" comes from the nickname "Ned Ludd", an apocryphal figure who allegedly sabotaged a textile factory in 1779, although historical evidence suggests that this man was most likely a fictional one.
In a 2007 paper, researcher David Linton explained: “Some say that a young man, possibly with cognitive impairment, named Ned Ludd once misunderstood an order and accidentally broke his frame machine.
Others argue that this was done deliberately, in a fit of anger.
Whatever the motive, it seems to have become a joke phrase that whenever the machine breaks, for whatever reason, you can say something like, "Ludd must have been here."
From this construction, it is a short step to the ironic application of the name Ludd to vandalism for political purposes. "
Between 1811 and 1816, the Luddite movement held sporadic and somewhat unorganized protests, characterized by the destruction of cars and the burning of factories.
In response, the mill owners resorted to extreme measures, using deadly force against the Luddites.
In April 1812, there was a grim turning point in Huddersfield, where at least four people died at the hands of the mill owners.
In retaliation, the Luddites killed the owner of the mill, William Horsfall, who boldly declared his intention to "smear himself with Luddite blood to the saddles."
Horsfall was shot while sitting on his horse.
Faced with these uprisings, the government immediately sent thousands of soldiers to quell the protests.
Moreover, they adopted a law according to which the breakdown of cars was subject to the death penalty or sending to colonies.
Subsequently, the movement dissipated, but the stable expression "Luddite" could not accurately convey the ideals and goals of the Luddites.
Previously, Focus wrote about the first IPSO in the history of mankind.
It turns out that it was invented in Babylon and it concerns the Flood.

Individuals may be opposed to new technologies due to job security concerns, as nondisruptive creation can help innovate and grow without displacing industries, companies, or jobs.

Title:

Content: Skip to content
Thinking

How to create a better world without massive social disruption

In the spirit of the 1969 moon landing, we now have a golden opportunity to pursue “nondisruptive” creative solutions.
Key Takeaways
  • Rather than offering disruptive breakthrough solutions to existing problems, we can focus on “nondisruptive” creation.
  • Nondisruptive creation is a way to innovate and grow without displacing industries, companies, or jobs.
  • An aging population, the rise in surveillance, and the new frontiers of space are examples of areas ripe for nondisruptive thinking.

Excerpted from BEYOND DISRUPTION: Innovate and Achieve Growth without Displacing Industries, Companies, or Jobs, by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne. Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review Press. Copyright 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved.

In your hand, in your phone, with an internet link and a Wi-Fi connection, you have a supercomputer where, with a simple Brave or DuckDuckGo or Google search, you can access knowledge and expertise relevant to virtually any problem you wish to solve or opportunity you aim to create. You can also connect and communicate with millions of people simultaneously or with any single individual — free.

Today, the average person with a smartphone and a broadband connection has greater information power than the US government had thirty years ago. This digitally enabled power isn’t restricted to an elite few. It is the growing province of an increasing number of people as the digital divide that once separated the rich from the poor, the urban from the rural, and developed nations from less developed ones continues to narrow.

What we ultimately achieve through our imagination and digitally enabled power, however, is dependent on the kind of problems we set out to solve and the kind of opportunities we set out to create. Instead of confining our imaginations to offering breakthrough solutions to existing problems, which leads to disruption, the opportunity for all of us is to go beyond disruption and displacement of the old for the new, to what we have come to call nondisruptive creation. Nondisruptive creation opens a path for all of us to innovate and grow without displacing industries, companies, or jobs — by solving brand-new problems and creating brand-new opportunities beyond existing industry boundaries, whether those problems and opportunities are existing but unexplored or newly emerging.

Consider just a few areas that are ripe for nondisruptive creation in the near future. There’s the aging of the world’s population — especially the senior bulge in developed nations. As family ties have weakened and the easy mobility of people has led families to live farther and farther apart, seniors are increasingly isolated, living without heartfelt connection and physical touch. This challenging fact of modern life invites nondisruptive opportunities to enrich the physical and emotional lives of the elderly. Likewise, as people live longer, there are new demands for personal care to sustain a healthy and vibrant life: they experience new health challenges that need to be resolved; they need platforms that show them how to leverage the rich wisdom they’ve accrued through time to create a new, empowering chapter in their lives. And for people of any age who face vital-organ failure, fully functional bioengineered human organs are a nondisruptive opportunity.

As digital technology increasingly penetrates every aspect of our lives, demands for individual sovereignty and new levels of privacy and protection from widespread electronic surveillance are growing rapidly. These issues trigger concerns about the sanctity of our private thoughts and moments and about people’s right to express dissenting views. Solutions are needed for new and mounting problems such as the sharing (or blocking) of personal data to influence free elections, politically and ideologically motivated censoring of online news and events, and a breakdown of trust with the costs that accompany it. Efforts to solve these emerging problems will potentially unleash a huge wave of nondisruptive creation.

World energy demand is on track to be 50 percent higher in 2030 than it was in 2016. What’s more, with cars increasingly transitioning from fossil fuel to electric, the demand for electricity is expected to explode. Where will this doubling of energy come from, and how will the world meet the growing surge in demand for electricity? Although new energy sources such as wind and sun are increasingly being harnessed, the huge gap between current energy capacity and future needs suggests ample opportunity for the nondisruptive creation of reliable, affordable, and clean new energy sources and for carbon capture in traditional, low-cost energy sources.

Then there is the emergence of rapid urbanization in developing countries, where migration from rural areas to densely populated cities is creating both huge social and economic opportunities and unprecedented problems regarding infrastructure, physical safety, health, community well-being, poverty, and resources. In Africa alone, 800 million people are expected to move into the continent’s cities over the next thirty years. These unprecedented, emerging challenges are areas ripe for nondisruptive creation.

As we look beyond Earth and its atmosphere to space, we can imagine a host of nondisruptive opportunities.

We should also think about crucial emerging issues associated with the environment. The rising production of waste, for example, creates ecological issues such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area three times the size of France that contains more than a trillion pieces of plastic, posing safety and health issues for marine life, damaging our food chain, and destroying the ocean’s divine beauty. Such issues present numerous nondisruptive opportunities to create a more sustainable world for ourselves and our children.

As we look beyond Earth and its atmosphere to space, we can imagine a host of nondisruptive opportunities, from mining in space for terrestrial sources of metals in asteroids, to the creation of space travel and even space tourism, to Elon Musk’s commitment to create a brand-new opportunity for an interplanetary existence for humans, allowing us to probe deeper into our place in the universe: Are there other species out there? How did we get here? Today Musk and SpaceX are working fervently to realize this nondisruptive opportunity, with the goal of establishing a self-sustaining community on Mars — which in itself would give rise to a wealth of nondisruptive opportunities unimaginable today.

The world is what we make it. The question is not, will these problems be solved or these opportunities created? It is, who will bring us the future and do so in a nondisruptive way that creates growth and prosperity for business and society? As important as disruptive creation has been and will continue to be the time has come for an expanded view of innovation and growth that expressly recognizes, names, and opens a gateway to nondisruptive creation.

We believe that nondisruptive creation, has the potential to serve as a counterbalancing and socially stabilizing economic force as domestic economies and the global economy as a whole thirst for growth but meet the new wave of radically transforming technologies on track to displace a wealth of existing core players, core markets, and current jobs. As we ponder the many challenges faced by our planet and the human race, we will need innovative market-creating solutions. If they can be nondisruptive rather than largely displacing, we believe there will be a greater chance to create a better world and bring people together instead of dividing us. We offer not some perfect formula in our research but the start of a fresh conversation and the basic patterns our research revealed to help you identify, unlock, and realize nondisruptive opportunities.

When President John F. Kennedy aimed to build a rocket that could carry a man to the moon and bring him back safely to Earth, he was challenging the United States to reach for nondisruptive creation. This would create a brand-new opportunity that would inspire the nation and demonstrate America’s scientific leadership to the world. Many people saw that challenge as little more than a dream, not a realistic opportunity to be created and seized. When asked what it would take to create and seize that nondisruptive opportunity, Wernher von Braun, the leading NASA engineer, answered in five telling words, “The will to do it.”

What had appeared impossible, with will and effort became possible. The nondisruptive creation of Apollo 11 landed humans on the moon on July 20, 1969. Its scale and impact are historic, recognized as “one giant leap for mankind.”

Nondisruptive creation need not be just an intellectual understanding. With the will to make it happen, together with the guidance and frameworks in Beyond Disruption, it can become a more systematic pursuit and reality. We can then build a better world in which growth for business can be achieved without socially disruptive consequences.

Related

Up Next

A significant percentage of American workers, 22%, fear that technology will make their jobs obsolete in the near future.