An Ethical Issue: Pushing the Automation Boundary Destroys Jobs
One of the key justifications for system projects is to increase efficiency. This implies reducing employee headcount as the automation boundary moves into activities previously performed by human beings. Put another way, to generate business benefits in the form of increased efficiencies, the implication is that the new system capabilities must reduce the amount of labor hours expended in return for a given amount of business revenue.
The topic of the case is automation. While there is a present boom in manufacturing and distribution of goods, many global businesses from Amazon to Ford are investing into automation for the consistency of business process execution. As a result, there is a risk that future work may not require staff to be as experienced or skilled, enabling the remaining work to be performed by less-skilled, more junior staff. This deskilling of work means that older, more experienced workers may be displaced by younger, more junior staff.
When we investigate and learn about the production of software and integrated business systems, the goals of these technology products are similar to those of automation. Companies thrive on efficiency and consistency, if the business software is capable of running with rules is it equally capable of running without human interaction?
Given this, a business analyst frequently is in the middle, often interviewing employees whose jobs may be under threat of being automated, in whole or in part, by the new software. Expressed in more human terms, these business staff members ultimately may be downsized if the software project is successful.
What is creative destruction?
There is a widely-held concept in economics called creative destruction, often attributed to economist Joseph Schumpeter. Creative destruction argues that, for example, the replacement of inefficient activities such as manual, human-driven calculations with automated, software-driven calculations frees up human resources to be re-employed in more creative, higher-value activities. More concretely, increasing efficiencies in this way across many businesses (and business processes) increases the size of the overall economic pie, ultimately increasing overall human incomes in the overall economy. This was expressed in an old IBM slogan: Machines should work; people should think.
However, in the short term, creative destruction may hurt the specific employees displaced by software automation. First, such employees obviously lose their jobs. Second, if software automation for a certain type of task is widespread, an employee with that skill set may see her longer-term earnings fall, unless she can retrain with new, more in-demand skill sets. Not surprisingly, such affected employees may view software automation negatively and may even try to sabotage a system project.
The central issue in the case is the notion that Information Systems are much more than just technology, and end users are factors in both development and value creation.
The mini-case focuses squarely on the contextual issues, and the following questions to respond with in paragraph form.
As a present or to-be analyst:
How do you view the idea of creative destruction? (Problem Statement)
How should the employees impacted by software automation be treated? By the company? By the government? (Problem Solution)
How would you handle negative reactions to your work by affected employees? (Key Decision Criteria)
Suggest how employees can be best supported by software-driven changes and disruption. (Reflection and Recommendation)
Prepare your document in the form of a summary report including both a title page and page for references if used in the document.
