Thanks to Supply Chain Digest for promoting this study by Oxford Economics. Read the article here for a synopsis of its findings: Supply Chain News: Oxford Economics Says Robots Benefits will Outweigh Cons
Basically, it says robots will greatly raise productivity and take jobs with a repetitive aspect, displacing workers toward jobs with high cognitive content. But there may be local dislocations that will be hard for some people. We’d better prepare for that and put in measures to alleviate the suffering, if we care about people and their lives. They think about 1.6 jobs will be lost for every job robots take. but GNP may grow 5% as a result. China is the major user of robots now, and the revolution promises to be harder on them than any other country as it looks now.
It isn’t clear from the summary whether the 1.6 jobs lost will be found again in other sectors, such as service and sales, support of the robots, or technical work like fixing the robots. Nonetheless this kind of assessment is an eye opener to concerns we may have in our economy and political world for quite a while.
The report is available here: How robots change the world | Oxford Economics
Or here: Oxford Economics 2019 Report – How Robots Change the World
July 2, 2019 in Advanced Computing, Labor Economics, Logistics, Managerial Econ, Production Operations, Strategy, Sustainability
Tagged automation, economics, infrastructure, Jobs, technology
I found this article via Gavin van Marle of Loadstar. It’s not a surprise that automation may not deliver the results its backers were touting. So much depends on the external systems, such as the computer planning, the labor system, the users’ habits and preferences, and the timing and size of the workload presented. If they’re not all considered and planned together, results will not be as good as they could be.
The labor arguments we see nowadays surrounding automation at ports are another fascinating aspect. There hasn’t been any national conversation here in the US around the relation between automation and jobs. The present political environment here in the US works against it. This is probably true elsewhere as well.
Some jobs probably ought to be taken over by machines. Some probably shouldn’t. And what do we do for the displaced workers, or for workers who want to participate in the automation boom, but don’t have the skills yet? there needs to be a broad conversation around automation and workers.
That’s how I read the Pier 400 controversy at the Port of Los Angeles. The recent turndown of the project by the commission asks for an extended conversation between unions and the port about just this man-machine question and how it should affect the workplaces. It’s a good conversation to have. Intransigent positions aren’t going to help at all.
via Moody’s: Port Automation May Not Always Deliver Results
Apparently, healthcare is among the worst industries in terms of breaches of data security. And this is despite the dramatic increase of attention the HIPAA law has focused on their behavior with data.
In this case it was two diagnostic laboratories, Quest and LabCorp, whose data were allowed to be stolen. the data stolen consisted of financial information, such as credit card information, bank account information, and medically identifiable information such as social security numbers, as well as names, addresses dates of birth, dates of service, and balance information. No diagnostic results were stolen. And why would anyone want them except for blackmail, a hard way to earn money.
Apparently the breach was due to both firms’ use of AMCA, a billing collector for both firms. Over 12 million customers were affected. The breach of security went on for over 7 months in 2018 and 2019 before being spotted.
Health systems are often cobbled together using a variety of sources of software, and it isn’t a surprise that there might be chinks in the armor. On average, healthcare systems thke 36 days to pass between intrusion and detection. They take on average 10 days to contain the problem. An analyst at Gartner said “I think this is a hopeless situation.” A re-architecture of health care data is required that puts security first. But then it will be much harder for us to find out our test results or status.
There’s a tradeoff between security and accessibility that is a major issue for supply chains, and whenever there is a need for cooperation, as between patient and her health care providers. Computer scientists and information technologists have needed for 20 years to spend serious resources on developing a sound practice that meets both needs.
via Checking for vitals: Inside the Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp supply chain breach | CIO Dive
written by Samantha Ann Schwartz