Big Data, analytics and technology can lead to better decision making and enhanced productivity, enabling companies to compete more effectively in today’s fast changing world. To reap those benefits, however, data needs to be meaningful and technology must be used appropriately. Otherwise, their beneficial impact can remain elusive. That’s why a common theme on this website has been that Big Data, analytics and technology often require human intervention. Smart computers still can’t do it all.
Along these lines, the article “Knowing the Limits of Machines” by Geoff Colvin in the July 1, 2016 issue of Fortune magazine discusses the importance of the human touch in today’s high tech world. The article’s subhead is “Some jobs really must be automated. Others need the human touch. Which are which? That’s your call.” The article points out that although numerous jobs can be performed cheaper and better by machines, retaining the human touch still has value. According to the article, in some jobs, for example, “giving financial advice, replacing too many humans could be a fatal error.”
This importance of combining the human side with technology mirrors what I’ve been saying for some time now in blog entries and newsletters posted here on my website. As times change and technology advances, companies must not forget the human element. For example, human input might often be required for more meaningful data and human intervention can improve analytics. Moreover, companies must not only evaluate when to deploy the latest technology, but also must consider whether and where they should choose not to abandon more traditional, lower tech approaches that might still offer benefits today. And, this does include the human element.
Geoff Colvin’s Fortune article identifies three situations when the human side is essential. First, there are many circumstances “when customers value the human touch.” Second, human intervention is valuable when diverse constituencies must work together and may be prone to disagreeing. Third, human involvement is important for accountability, essentially to know who is responsible for results. The article ends with a profound statement, “Just because technology can do a job brilliantly, doesn’t mean that it should.”
As I see it, deciding how things get done may call for paying attention to what it actually means to “do a job brilliantly”. This is especially important when machines allegedly can do the job brilliantly, but should not. In many of these cases, the machine may not really perform so brilliantly after all. For example, when customers strongly prefer the human touch and might be annoyed dealing with a computer, does a machine capable of customer contact really do the job brilliantly if it alienates customers?
Thus, the role of humans versus computers needs to be evaluated depending upon the situation, so companies can tap the benefits of each as is appropriate. Like business strategy overall, how much and where to incorporate technology is not one size fits all. For example, Amazon’s relatively recent foray into bricks and mortar bookselling takes a high tech approach, using techniques that worked well online where Amazon has thrived. On the other hand, some companies excel by sticking primarily with the ways of bricks and mortar. An example is TJ Maxx, which has flourished by offering its bricks and mortar shoppers the thrill of a treasure hunt at discount prices, rather than emphasizing online technology.
Thus, the value of adopting technology can differ by company. Likewise, how much and where to use humans versus machines will vary from one situation to another. That’s why thinking through the role of the human touch is crucial and can depend upon the particulars of individual companies.
