Acerca do futuro do trabalho

Um estudo sobre o futuro do trabalho, que merece ser lido: "Shift: The Commission on Work, Workers, and Technology - Report of Findings".

Por exemplo:

"We took several trends as givens, so we could focus on the uncertainties on which the future of work depends. We identified four almost-inevitable forces:
1. An aging workforce;
2. The decline of “dynamism,” the movement of people
between jobs, firms, and places;
3. A societal shift to non-work income;
4. Growing geographic gaps.
By 2024, nearly one-quarter of the workforce is projected to be 55 or older — more than double the share in 1994.
...
Accepting these economic trends as givens, our members then considered the most important uncertainties about the future. After initially considering 16 variables, we selected these two as most important:
1. the structure of work — will there be more “tasks” (a catchall including contracting, projects, the “gig economy,” and the like) or will work remain concentrated in traditionally structured jobs?
2. the effect of automation — will technological changes result in more or less work to go around?"

"em ambientes cada vez mais complexos os gigantes falham"

Mongo é variedade, é diversidade, é explosão de tribos.

Ao mesmo tempo os gigantes criam organizações-cidade para lidar com os desafios de crescente complexidade:

"an increase in variety was associated with an increase in sourcing complexity, and that an increase in sourcing complexity was associated with worsened coordination performance.
...
This paper focused specifically on the tension between scale and scope economies to suggest that the pursuit of economies of scale generates production rigidity, while pursuing downstream synergies through cross-selling creates organizational interdependencies and complexity. We also empirically explored product line extension — the purest form of firm scope expansion — to demonstrate that complexity- induced coordination burden may, indeed, reduce economies of scope.
...
These results also extend recent attempts to conceptualize the locus and limitation of coordination in complex task systems. As complexity increases, these loci of coordination turn into organizational bottlenecks due to limits on their coordination capacity. Organizations face a tradeoff in designing these hubs, which might reduce complexity in the overall network but become a bottleneck themselves due to local congestion. This further illustrates the point that economies of scope “may decline not because of exogenous opportunity constraints but because of the rising costs of coordinating interdependencies”"

Por isto é que em ambientes cada vez mais complexos os gigantes falham. Ninguém quer ser tratado como plancton.



Trechos retirados de "Product Variety, Sourcing Complexity, and the Bottleneck of Coordination" publicado por Strat. Mgmt. J., 38: 1569–1587 (2017)

Uma coisa é uma coisa, outra coisa é outra coisa (parte III)

Parte I e parte II.

"Supply chains in many other industries suffer from an excess of some products and a shortage of others owing to an inability to predict demand. One department store chain that regularly had to resort to markdowns to clear unwanted merchandise found in exit interviews that one-quarter of its customers had left its stores empty-handed because the specific items they had wanted to buy were out of stock.
...
Before devising a supply chain, consider the nature of the demand for your products.
.
The first step in devising an effective supply-chain strategy is therefore to consider the nature of the demand for the products one’s company supplies.
...
if one classifies products on the basis of their demand patterns, they fall into one of two categories: they are either primarily functional or primarily innovative. And each category requires a distinctly different kind of supply chain. The root cause of the problems plaguing many supply chains is a mismatch between the type of product and the type of supply chain.
...
With their high profit margins and volatile demand, innovative products require a fundamentally different supply chain than stable, low-margin functional products do. To understand the difference, one should recognize that a supply chain performs two distinct types of functions: a physical function and a market mediation function. A supply chain’s physical function is readily apparent and includes converting raw materials into parts, components, and eventually finished goods, and transporting all of them from one point in the supply chain to the next. Less visible but equally important is market mediation, whose purpose is ensuring that the variety of products reaching the marketplace matches what consumers want to buy.
...
The predictable demand of functional products makes market mediation easy because a nearly perfect match between supply and demand can be achieved. Companies that make such products are thus free to focus almost exclusively on minimizing physical costs—a crucial goal, given the price sensitivity of most functional products.
...
That approach is exactly the wrong one for innovative products. The uncertain market reaction to innovation increases the risk of shortages or excess supplies. High profit margins and the importance of early sales in establishing market share for new products increase the cost of shortages. And short product life cycles increase the risk of obsolescence and the cost of excess supplies. Hence market mediation costs predominate for these products, and they, not physical costs, should be managers’ primary focus.
...
Although the distinctions between functional and innovative products and between physical efficiency and responsiveness to the market seem obvious once stated, I have found that many companies founder on this issue. That is probably because products that are physically the same can be either functional or innovative."

Trecho retirado de "What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?"

Continua.

Curiosidade do dia

Tudo dito.

Acerca do crescimento da produtividade

"Our standard mental model of productivity growth reflects the transition from agriculture to industry. We start with 100 farmers producing 100 units of food: technological progress enables 50 to produce the same amount, and the other 50 to move to factories that produce washing machines or cars or whatever. Overall productivity doubles, and can double again, as both agriculture and manufacturing become still more productive, with some workers then shifting to restaurants or health-care services. We assume an endlessly repeatable process."

Os 100 lavradores iniciais passam a 50, depois a 25, depois a 12.

Agora imaginem que numa nova iteração, um dos 12 decide sair desta guerra e opta por produzir uma menor quantidade sob o regime de agricultura biológica? Vai produzir menos quantidade mas vai vender a um preço superior e com muito menos concorrência. Como a quantidade produzida é muito menor e a estrutura indirecta a alimentar é muito menor a facturação é menor.

Desta forma a produtividade global dos 12 baixou, porque um já está noutro campeonato com outras regras.

Desta forma a distribuição de produtividades alarga-se

Trecho retirado de "Is Productivity Growth Becoming Irrelevant?"

Lean vs seru

Sabiam que o Toyota Production System parte do pressuposto que o planeamento da produção está congelado 8 semanas para a frente?

Acham que isso é realista para quem quer operar em Mongo?

Quantas empresas que trabalham com o lean conhecem esta condição?

Já ouviram falar no seru?

Como é que ao fim de tantos anos, num país como Portugal, continuo a ouvir falar no lean e nunca tinha ouvido falar no seru?

À atenção dos comentadores económicos de bancada

Um texto tão bom mas tão bom!!!

"Obvious...
We respond to Obvious problems by picking the appropriate Best Practicse. We have looked at all possible game and have figured out the best possible way. They are called Best, because there is always exactly one best response.
...
Complicated...
In complicated problems the relationship between cause and effect is predictable, but (very) hard to predict. Complicated problems are the domain of expert, who are better able to predict what is likely going to happen. Which is exactly what top chess players do. They need to predict what the likely moves of their opponents are going to be. Experts can simultaneously consider more possible options, but also reduce it to a smaller set of scenarios that require more analysis.
.
So the strategy becomes Sense – Analyse – Respond. And because it is impossible figure out if a move is the best move (except check-mate obviously) there are no best practices in the complicated domain.
...
Complex.
Complex problems are completely different again. What sets them apart is that the relationship between cause & effect is only obvious in hindsight. The gaming metaphor for complexity is poker. Unlike chess, which is a game about predicting, poker is game about learning. Learning what cards your opponents have and how they compare to yours. And the high level strategy for chess doesn’t work for poker.
...
Again, taking the poker example that probe can be in the form of betting. If you make a bet you force opponents to respond to it, by folding, calling or raising. This can give you information about their hand. But other probes can be calling out opponents, sensing can be just looking at their demeanours for example.
.
So the most important thing about Complexity is that there is no way to learn (and thus solving the problem) without doing. Just thinking about it isn’t going to solve it. In Complex problems our practices are always evolving based on what we learn. In poker, even if we would play a game with the exact players with the exact same cards would turn out differently, because we learned things not just about the game, but certainly about our opponents.
...
ChaosChaos happens when there is no relationship between cause and effect or they change very quickly. In this case there is no point in probing because any learning does not help us get better.
.
The gaming analogy here is children playing. Anyone who has ever played with kids know that the rules are continuously changing. And there is no point in trying to learn the rules before starting to play. You have to get in and play with them (Act), while making sure are having fun (Sense) and change accordingly if not (Respond).
.
But most often we end up in Chaos because of some crisis. When that happens we need to very quickly stabilise the situation and get back out of Chaos. This happens all the time in business, where we are frequently relying on hero leaders and task forces to get us out of trouble.
...
But the most important learning is that a whole lot of our circumstances are complex. And thus inherently unpredictable. And no amount of thinking is going to solve that."

Pensem nos comentadores económicos de bancada prontos para dar indicações aos empresários de agora, de Mongo, com as boas-práticas do século XX.

Pensem nos comentadores económicos de bancada crentes num governo todo poderoso com um Cybersyn poderoso capaz de tudo prever.

Trechos retirados de "Understanding Complexity"

Uma coisa é uma coisa, outra coisa é outra coisa (parte II)

Parte I.

"Decide whether your current supply chain is efficient or responsive. Your chain is efficient if you satisfy predictable demand efficiently at the lowest possible cost, turn over inventory frequently, and select suppliers based on cost and quality. It’s responsive if you invest aggressively in reducing lead time for delivery; use standard components for different product versions; and choose suppliers for their speed, flexibility, and quality.
...
Correct mismatches between your supply chain and product. If you’re using an efficient supply chain to sell innovative products, or a responsive supply chain to sell functional products, you’ve got a mismatch. You can correct it through several means:
.
Change your product.
...
Change your supply chain."

Trecho retirado de "What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?"

Continua.

Curiosidade do dia

É sempre possível descer mais baixo, é sempre possível arranjar mais um imposto para alimentar o monstro insaciável: "First statewide bicycle tax in nation leaves bike-crazy Oregon riders deflated"

Uma coisa é uma coisa, outra coisa é outra coisa

Um texto de 1997 mas que continua actual. Aliás, com o advento de Mongo julgo que é ainda mais actual. Também pode servir de base a uma reflexão sobre o que automatizar, num avanço para a Indústria 4.0:

"Are you frequently saddled with excess inventory? Do you suffer product shortages that have customers leaving stores in a huff? Do these supply chain headaches persist despite your investments in technologies such as automated warehousing and rapid logistics?
.
If so, you may be using the wrong supply chain for the type of product you sell. Suppose your offering is functional—it satisfies basic, unchanging needs and has a long life cycle, low margins, and stable demand. (Think paper towels or light bulbs.) In this case, you need an efficient supply chain—which minimizes production, transportation, and storage costs.
.
But what if your product is innovative—it has great variety, a short life cycle, high profit margins, and volatile demand? (A line of laptops with a range of novel features is one example.) For this offering, you require a responsive supply chain. Fast and flexible, it helps you manage uncertainty through strategies such as cutting lead times and establishing inventory or excess-capacity buffers."

BTW, na semana passada ao olhar para os indicadores de uma empresa que engloba tudo e não distingue os dois tipos de cadeia de valor percebi o dilema que sentem ao meter no mesmo âmbito de análise:

• nível de serviço (associado a tempo de resposta);
• nível de stock (associado a stock não movimentado há mais de x meses)

Trecho retirado de "What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?"

Continua.

Adeus realidade científica

Ultimamente cheguei a esta teoria de que não conseguimos ver a realidade, apenas conseguimos ver uma versão pessoal dela ao estilo da realidade aumentada no écran de um smartphone.

"Just as scientists work with theories about dark matter or the beginning of the universe, so we too have a vague concept of the world and our relationship to it. Our theories may not be as well thought out, but they still dictate how we think of the world.
.
But sometimes, something happens that doesn’t fit our theory. A unique event throws us for a loop, and we start to scramble for explanations. How do we understand this happening in light of our current worldview?
...
In other words, people change. Our worldviews shift, sometimes radically, as we absorb new experiences.
...
These transitions can be quite painful. A radical change is never without some discomfort: we may be pushed into an unfamiliar world, with little familiar to guide or reassure us.
...
When our worldview changes, things get even more complicated. We feel the same anxiety (and excitement) of exploring unfamiliar territory, but, in addition, we also cling to our old worldview, thinking that it is still somehow must be ‘true.’
...
something in us grabs onto a theory as a way to explain the world. We believe, in other words, in our idea of the world, whether in the form of religion, a specific scientific worldview, psychological explanations or personality types, social studies, or whatever it may be. But what happens when something happens that doesn’t fit our theory? Either we have to painfully give it up for a new theory (often thinking, “Finally, this is the REAL answer!”), or we have to suppress or deny the evidence so that it doesn’t break our worldview.
...
Bohm proposes that theories do not actually describe the world, nor give us knowledge about it. Rather, theories are a way of looking. Bohm reminds us that the word ‘theory’ has the same root as ‘theater,’ meaning ‘to view.’ “Thus,” Bohm writes, “it might be said that a theory is primarily a form of insight, i.e. a way of looking at the world, and not a form of knowledge of how the world is”
.
This difference between theory as description and theory as insight is subtle, but crucial if we are to free ourselves from the imprisonment of constant theorizing.
...
 we have a hidden assumption. The hidden assumption is that theories themselves can be “true.”
.
But what does “true” mean? We are looking for something that works in all circumstances. But Bohm corrects us: he says, “all theories are insights, which are neither true nor false but, rather, clear in certain domains, and unclear when extended beyond these domains”
.
What we previously thought applied to the world as a whole, really only applies in certain situations.
...
This is not meant to be a buzzkill, of course, but rather to correct a false assumption that our ideas about the world are “absolutely true.” “Absolute truth” is more trouble than it’s worth because it traps us in what we think we already know to be true.
...
It is better, Bohm argues, to see theories as “ways of looking at the world as a whole (i.e. world views)”. Bohm acknowledges that we are in the world we are seeking to understand, instead of removed from it as an imagined observer. In other words, we play a part in what we experience. Our concepts and ideas shape our interpretation of the world.[Moi ici: Este parágrafo adapta-se perfeitamente à visão que tenho de que não existe um caminho único para uma empresa e que o contexto exterior tem, muitas vezes, menos peso que a idiossincrasia de quem tem a autoridade máxima. Idiossincrasia que depende da sua vida anterior, pessoal e profissional. Por isso, quando os comentadores económicos de bancada ditam as directivas para os empresários seguirem, mudo de canal]
...
it is crucial that we drop this idea of theories as “true knowledge of reality” in order to discover the world as it is, instead of as we “know it to be.”
...
Bohm’s view does not mean that theories are useless. The insights offered by theories are real insights. But these insights exist only in specific situations; they do not give us knowledge of “a reality independent of our thought and our way of looking.” Freed from this mistaken assumption, we may experience the world in a completely new way. We will no longer be limited by the confused insistence on absolute truth. Rather, we will experience life as a relationship between observer and observed.[Moi ici: Recuar e pensar que gente que dirigia este país acreditava em algo apelidado de "socialismo cientifico", e pensar que existiu uma mentalidade, bem intencionada acreditemos, que acreditava no Cybersyn]
.
Without clinging to theories, we may find it easier to go with the unpredictable flow of life."

Trechos retirados de "David Bohm on the Value of Life After Theories"

BTW,

"Pragmatism, Rather Than Intellectualism"

"instead of focusing on developing specific techniques or actions, managers should master the principles of biological thinking:
.
Pragmatism, Rather Than Intellectualism.
...
Managers must acknowledge that things often work before we can explain why.
.
Resilience, Rather Than Efficiency. It’s hard to argue against efficiency. What few managers recognize, though, is that it often trades off against resilience. Like excessive dieting, trimming too much fat can in fact be harmful to companies. The difficulty is that the benefits of efficiency are often immediate and visible, while its risks are latent and invisible. To balance the calculus, companies must make resilience an explicit priority.
.
Experimentation, Rather Than Deduction. Paul Graham once claimed that “the best startups almost have to start as side projects.” That’s because when it comes to innovating, no one knows what will work.
...
The biological approach makes management messy, iterative, and even counterintuitive and harder to articulate. Nevertheless, it is also a boon: it allows managers to tinker, to experiment, and to find solutions amid complexity. Biological management also draws on the initiative and diversity of people and liberates them from being mere instruments in mechanical processes — it is thus ultimately a more humanistic approach to management."

Muito bom!!!

Trechos retirados de "Think Biologically: Messy Management for a Complex World"

Curiosidade do dia

Consigo relacionar esta cultura "Criança multada em Londres por vender copos de limonada" com este resultado "How the Modern World Made Cowards of Us All".

"a diminishing frontier spirit and an increasing paranoia about taking big leaps."

Froome!!!

Je suis dejá avec des "saudades".

By-pass ao Estado

Há anos que aviso e aconselho as PME a fazer o by-pass ao Estado e ao país. Portugal é um local onde a política interfere demasiado na economia.

Nem de propósito:

"A recent BCG Henderson Institute analysis applying natural language processing (NLP) to S&P 500 companies’ investor communications shows that many executives now devote more attention to reacting to and shaping political and economic issues.

 This is not a surprise. Political and regulatory intervention and economic volatility do not generally help profits."

Como não recordar o apelo por cá, das associações patronais e empresariais, a pedirem mais intervenção do Estado.

Trecho retirado de "The Business of Business Is No Longer Just Business"

Acerca dos sistemas adaptativos complexos

"Biological thinking matters for several important reasons: First, in complex adaptive systems, there is no single formula or framework that always works. In fact, the very defiance of formulaic problem solving is what makes CAS management so challenging initially. It’s not possible to articulate before the fact how best to intervene in a given situation.[Moi ici: Leram bem? Voltem a ler! Recordar os que nos media dizem que o governo de turno devia dizer o que as empresas deviam fazer para terem sucesso]
...
Second, actions that work in CASs do not make sense except in light of biological thinking. Mechanical management remains alluring precisely because it relies on a familiar and shared protocol for sense making: it focuses on measurable outcomes such as efficiency and profitability; it makes initiatives easy to explain; and it gives managers a sense of control. [Moi ici: Tão verdade!!! Era o que aqui o José Silva tolerou chamar-se de optimismo não fundamentado. É o que aqui sublinhámos com o exemplo da Viarco.] Biological management stops being counterintuitive only when business leaders adopt a new managerial worldview.

.
Third, managing businesses successfully in today’s environment involves new goals rather than just new problem-solving tools. In other words, businesses need a new what as well as a new how: for instance, surviving, in addition to winning; maximizing value for others, as well as for oneself; and prioritizing learning, as well as optimizing short-term performance. [Moi ici: A maior parte dos que pensam em automatização estão a pensar no mesmo what com um diferente how.] These new goals can be embraced only when businesses adopt biological thinking."

 Muito bom!!!

Trechos retirados de "Think Biologically: Messy Management for a Complex World"

Sindicatos. “É um absurdo” proibir o corte de árvores durante 15 anos

Com base numa ideia do @joaomiranda no Twitter:

A propósito de "Sindicatos. “É um absurdo” proibir a pesca da sardinha durante 15 anos"

Curiosidade do dia

"Entre 35 países da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Económico (OCDE), Portugal ficou em 33º lugar na competitividade fiscal. Pior do que Portugal, só Itália e França."

Deprimentemente impressionante.

Trecho retirado de "OCDE: Portugal é o 33º país menos competitivo em políticas fiscais"

The world is more complex

"Adapt approaches in response to changing circumstances. One of the traps of mechanical management is the tendency to seek universal and permanent solutions to complex problems. Processes and procedures are alluring, especially in large organizations, because they seem to be ways to tame complexity by dividing problems into simple tasks that can then be managed separately and predictably repeated. The problem is that the world is more complex than these static universal processes acknowledge — and even if they work for a while, they inevitably become stale and outdated as the environment changes.
.
In a complex world, there is no universal formula for problem solving. So what should managers do? Their best bet is to iteratively conduct small, low-cost experiments that can then be scaled up or down on the basis of their relative success.
...
This mode of problem solving through constant experimentation needs the right organizational enablers. Individual teams require the autonomy to run experiments with minimal hierarchical direction, because worthwhile ideas and initiatives often spring from individuals closest to the front line. Moreover, they need to be empowered to take full advantage of the experimental learnings. At Intuit, teams running experiments often have embedded data scientists to help them draw rigorous conclusions from their trials. Finally, teams require a culture that prioritizes learning over immediate profitability or efficiency. Experiments are not valuable unless there is a legitimate chance of failure, so businesses must help teams and individuals become bold enough to attempt such risky experiments."

Trechos retirados de "Think Biologically: Messy Management for a Complex World"

Não acredito nestas relações simplistas

Há tempos neste postal, "Reconfiguração", sublinhei:

"Poised to take off in the late 1800s, electricity flopped as a source of mechanical power with almost no impact at all on 19th-century manufacturing. By 1900, electric motors were providing less than 5 per cent of mechanical drive power in American factories.
...
Productivity finally surged in US manufacturing only in the 1920s. The reason for the 30-year delay? The new electric motors only worked well when everything else changed too. Steam-powered factories had delivered power through awe-inspiring driveshafts, secondary shafts, belts, belt towers, and thousands of drip-oilers. The early efforts to introduce electricity merely replaced the single huge engine with a similarly large electric motor. Results were disappointing."

Quando se fala sobre robotização julgo que falta também fazer algum tipo de reconfiguração mental. A maior parte das vezes que leio ou oiço sobre robotização recordo a técnica de manter x variáveis constantes e variar apenas uma:

"Bah... eu aprendi a fazer isto desde a escola primária… 7 variáveis: manter 6 constantes e mudar uma delas. E depois repetir para outra variável e assim sucessivamente.
Vantagens deste método:
.
Poucas experiências
Método simples e intuitivo (usado desde a escola primária)
À medida que avançamos na realização das experiências vamos descobrindo coisas acerca do sistema
.
Desvantagens deste método:
.
Muito sensível a erros experimentais, para remediar usam-se mais amostras, ou seja, repetem-se os testes, o que aumenta o número de testes
Ignora a interacção entre variáveis
Leva a experiências pouco estruturadas"

Quando li "Robótica. A tecnologia que vai revolucionar o mercado de trabalho" a minha mente transformou-se num turbilhão de ideias acerca das interacções.

O texto relaciona robótica e menos emprego. Eu relaciono robótica e menos flexibilidade. Basta recordar:

"In principle, the production of virtually any component or assembly operation could be robotized and moved to high-wage countries—but only so long as demand is great enough, and design specifications stable enough, to justify huge scale and hundreds of millions, if not billions, in upfront investments."

Basta recordar porque é que a VW declinou o pedido inicial da Deutsche Post, ou porque é que a Toyota e a Mercedes estão a reduzir a automatização.

O que digo aqui sobre Mongo? Mais variedade, mais tribos, mais flexibilidade, mais rapidez, ... menos friendly para gigantes e mais pro-independentes.

Assim, não acredito nestas relações simplistas entre robotização e emprego porque descuram o impacte de Mongo no perfil das empresas e da procura.