Time flies, and here we are at week 5, the final week of our “Future of Work” project. This Monday’s tutorial was about wrapping up and reflecting on our learning outcomes. As we were discussing and reflecting on the “Happy Company” narrative, XQ brought up the quote “Happiness is a Lie” by Derren Brown, it really hit the nail on the head. This quote captured the essence of the “Happy Company” – designed to exploit human “resources” in our speculative future.
In the next days, as we transitioned to crafting our final presentation, I felt a moment of flashback. Yet, this time, we had the experience of collaborating with each other already, so we were able to reach a consensus on structuring and delegating the slides swiftly. There were no hiccups like before. My role in this part involves presenting our survey results, which is something I am interested in doing.
The survey is limited in scope with just 36 respondents, primarily from CSM’s MAAI and MACCC courses, provided a small glimpse into anxieties concerning technological displacement. The first graph painted a bell curve of concern, suggesting that there are some noticeable worry, but not to a point of hopelessness, it shows that people are aware.
How anxious are you about the potential for technology to replace you in your current or future job? (Click to see full image)
We also inquired about the likelihood of seeking employment at the hypothetical “Happy Company” in a future dominated by automation. The mixed responses were interesting. A segment displayed firm reluctance, citing doubts about the company’s ethics and a desire to preserve their humanity, showing a clear preference for work environment with purpose and authenticity. On the other hand, other’s seemed more resigned, willing to adapt passively to the narrative that has been laid out.
If you lost your job to automation, how likely would you apply for a job at Happy Company? Please briefly explain your reason. (Click to see full image)
With the presentation ready for tomorrow, I sit back and reflect on these past weeks. It’s been quite a ride, full of challenges, growth, and insight. I’m grateful to Team Strawberry for the lessons and to David for guiding us through this experience.
Last but not least – From left to right, XQ, David, Jim, Louason, Nina, Khyathi
Looking back at yesterday’s incubator, it’s clear that our project quite a few dents that will need to be addressed. The incubator helped us validate our ideas, but also pointed out gaps that will require deeper exploration and refinement.
Strawberry group Incubator setup
Incubator Feedback
The feedback that we had gotten yesterday highlighted an important oversight: we hadn’t fully explored the socio-economic effects of automation. We were too focused, to a point of having a tunnel vision, on building out the “HAPPY ORGANIZATION” as this sinister capitalistic plot and missed having a deeper look at the ramifications this kind of dystopian future will have on the society and individuals. There was also feedback around the lack of detail in the “Happy” company’s operation, things like how it’s run, what do people do, and what the company is trying to achieve. Originally, in my mind, I thought keeping it vague would help make the company look more mysterious and sinister, but I now also realized that this lack of context could break the immersion within our content.
The feedback around the potential for despair and revolutionary responses to oppressive system were particularly striking, I was reminded by a tutor from MACCC, Elliot, of the Luddite rebellion, where humans rose against industrialization because it has displaced their way of life. I don’t think the background scenario for the Luddite rebellion is too different from ours, and we should definitely use this as a reference to refine our project. We need to do more investigation and include the social consequences of our speculative future into our narrative.
Moreover, the interaction with our audience, through both direct feedback and engagement with our project’s website was incredibly informative. Despite receiving fewer survey responses than anticipated (only 36, I hoped for at least 40), the insights we gained was invaluable.
Website Engagement
One of the most interesting outcomes for me was our website(click here to visit) heatmap, which offers a tangible measure of interest and interaction with the website. The most engaged with content throughout our page was the “About Happy Company” section, which is positioned directly after our introductory video, suggesting a genuine interest in understanding the scenario we proposed, leading them to seek more in-depth information about the concept of our speculative world. The second most engaged with section was the Research section. Initially I was concerned that people wouldn’t be interested in reading about the research behind our speculative scenario, but I guess I worried too much. Analytics has dispelled this worry for me, revealing that the audience were not only interested in the narrative but also keen on understanding the research and foundations that underpinned our scenario. This made me really happy, as it indicates a deeper level of interest among our audience, suggesting that they were not just passively consuming our content but also actively and mentally engaging with the ideas and questions it presented.
Heatmap of the “ABOUT” section showing engagement intensity, the redder, the more interaction. Note: Empty spaces represent graphics not captured by the heatmap tool, but present on the page.
Heatmap of the “RESEARCH” section showing engagement intensity, the redder, the more interaction. Note: Empty spaces represent graphics not captured by the heatmap tool, but present on the page.
Next Steps & Personal Reflection
Moving forward, our task is to evaluate the received feedback, and integrate these insights to present a more comprehensive vision of the future we speculate!
I wrote in my previous entry that I didn’t fully grasp what caused our team to just “click” together into this cohesive “hive mind.” However, a moment of clarity struck while having a drink with another member of our cohort today, it was the willingness to compromise. Initially, we were all deeply attached to our own ideas, but as soon as one of us made a compromise, it was as if we started tossing out our egos. This started a chain reaction within the group, with each member gradually taking steps back, and this shaped the team dynamic that we have today.
Reflecting on week 4 of our “Future of Work” project, I find myself really immersed in this project, we were challenged and we made significant breakthroughs in our collaborative process, leading us into this “flow state.” This week’s tutorial with David served as a mirror, allowing us to look back on and examine our group dynamics and individual learning curves. The evolution of our team’s cohesion from initial friction to seamless collaboration really speaks volume.
Monday’s Reflective Tutorial:
Discussing our experiences, I realized how much I’ve learned, especially from Louason. In previous group projects, especially in a school environment, I often felt compelled to lead authoritatively, driven by a fear of losing control over time management and being able to deliver results. This tendency was mitigated in our group by clear deadlines and shared objectives negotiated by Louason.
Louason’s approach to steering our project, balancing and listening to everyone, seems like basic common sense, but it was really an eye-opener for me. I didn’t think that would work previously. His ability to manage timelines and scope without exerting additional pressure to others was both effective and respectful. This is something that I’m keen to incorporate into my own practice in the future.
The initial weeks were marked by divergent views and heated debates. Yet, this phase was crucial; it ensured that each and every one of our ideas were considered, we cultivated a group culture of mutual respect and comprehensive evaluation. The turning point came towards the end of the third week, something just “clicked” and all of a sudden our interactions transitioned from strenuous to enjoyable. I still can’t quite understand what caused that “click.” Perhaps it’s the workshop from Elizabeth, or maybe it’s something else, I can’t quite place it.
On Track with Project Deliverables
Our project is shaping up well, with a clear direction, research, and the resources to realize our vision. A recent review of our AI-generated video revealed areas for improvement, leading to my assignment to refine the script and visuals (with AI of course!), it’s a really interesting process, curating AI content.
Drawing on my marketing background, I set up the integration of analytics and interactive elements into our website. Working closely with Nina and XQ, we ensured that the technical side and the aesthetic side flowed smoothly together. We will be incorporating Google Analytics, heatmap tracking, user recording, and on-site surveys to gather actionable insights. As we approach the upcoming Thursday incubator, I’m really excited about the feedback and data that we’ll be able to collect, witnessing people’s reactions and gathering insights to further inform our research
Example of data/heatmap we’ll be able to collect
For our onsite survey, I designed it to trigger at the 50% scroll mark of the webpage, right after a video section that provides an overview of our speculative scenario. This will ensure participants have sufficient context before encountering our survey. After completing the survey, a message will be presented to provoke thought and reaction, which we hope to capture on camera.
As I’m packing the essentials for tomorrow’s incubator, things like my Insta360 camera, printed flyers and the like, I spotted this mannequin head in my closet left over from another project. I suddenly had an idea: it would be really cool if we can fit the camera into the head and convert its eyes into the camera lenses. It would look like a cyborg and we will be able to record interactions with this cyborg head! I’m planning to bring this tomorrow and figure out with the team how to jam the camera in there!
While I loved documenting every single discussing last week, I realized that my enthusiasm made for too many journal entries! This week, I’m aiming for a more focused and concise approach.
Expanding Scope & Project Deliverables
This week, our team broadened the project scope to address the widespread impact of automation of various work sectors. This decision was made as we touched on how tech-driven displacement is not only isolated in the hospitality sector.
We’ve decided a multi-pronged approached for our speculative project:
– Website: Our core platform, integrate Google Analytics to track engagement across the site. – AI-Generated Video: Using AI tools to highlight AI’s impact on work. Oh the irony! – “Future Canteen” Social Media: Posts from 2035 depicting the normalized integration of machines in the workspace (e.g., “John the Auto Fryer”). – Physical Elements: 2.5D kitchen visualization, mock job flyers for roles like “Food Engineer,” adding interactive elements to our scenario.
The interview process adhered to the Code of Practice principle of informed consent, ensuring the participant was fully aware of the project’s purpose and the use of their insights (University of the Arts London, 2020).
My interview with Ian Yang, Senior Design Manager at ASUS, provided valuable perspectives on AI’s influence in the design sector. Key takeaways include:
– Efficiency vs. Control: AI significantly speeds up execution but designers remain crucial. As Ian stated, “At best it (AI) gets the job done at 60%, the rest of the 40% I will require another designer to fine tune it.” – Priority on Upskilling: According to Ian, parts of the industry are starting to expect designers to be proficient in AI tools, potentially creating a divide between those who adapt and those who don’t. – The Human Edge: Ian pointed out that industry knowledge and creative thinking are irreplaceable: “The most important factor to cause me to think this is probably work experience, industry experience, you need to know the ins and outs…”
Ian’s insights confirm that the concerns we’re exploring extends beyond hospitality. His emphasis on proactive upskilling raises ethical questions: How can we ensure this technological transition is inclusive, and that no worker is left behind? (This could be a great topic for our Unit 4 project!). Currently, I think our team is well-positioned with a division of tasks based on our different expertise. Now, we focus on our primary website and AI-generated video deliverables.
In our current evolving landscape of modern work, the blurred lines of technology and human interaction has become a great theme for speculative fiction and comedic reflection. Over the weekend, our group has come together for a viewing of episodes from “The Office,” “The IT Crowd,” and “Severance.” As David mentioned during an earlier tutorial session, these sort of fictional works provides a great opportunity to look through a different lens to view the implications of technological encroachment on workplace dynamics.
I liked “Severance” the most out of the three, the fact that I love dystopian science fiction shows probably played a lot into this. It talks about the loss of personal freedom to corporate control. This speculative fiction, kind of mirrors real-world anxieties about the reach of employers into employees’ lives, which I have personally felt before, which makes it even more chilling. We see the potential of extreme violation of privacy by the workspace here.
Meanwhile, “The Office” and “The IT Crowd” approaches this theme with humor, and we were able to observe insights into the impact of technology on social interactions within the workspace. In “The Office,” the episode “Email Surveillance” humorously critiques the invasion of privacy through workplace monitoring. “The IT Crowd’s” “The Red Door” showed the social dynamics of workplace inclusion, and showing how easily individuals can become excluded or marginalized in a work environment.
These shows do more than to entertain, they use fiction as a medium to critique and reflect upon the complex problems faced in the modern workspace. As a group, there is much we can learn from these narratives, they challenge us to think more critically about the direction of our own project, especially in the field of how technology is redefining work.
In my explorations of secondary sources today, I stumbled upon a discussion about the hospitality industry’s ongoing struggle with labor shortages(I hear the media talk about this all the time, I’m a bit skeptical). Matt Casella, President at Richtech Robotics, writing on Nasdaq shed some light on a solution: “Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) offer a promising solution. By integrating these technologies, the hospitality industry can not only address its current staffing woes but also lay the foundation for a more efficient and customer-centric future” (Casella, Nasdaq). This perspective, while optimistic, only echoes the investor’s viewpoint. The projected growth in the global hospitality robots market, with a CAGR of 25.5% from 2021 to 2030, as forecasted by Allied Market Research, shows the momentum of this change (Casella, Nasdaq).
Allied Market Research on Global Hospitality Robots
There was also an article that referenced a report by McKinsey, highlighting that “an estimated 50% of all current work activities might be automated by 2055” (Granger, Technology4Hotels). They also mentioned “Certain roles including housekeeping and maintenance seem destined for some form of automation. In these areas, robots and AI could be used to help increase operational efficiency, decrease staff costs and improve the guest experience” (Granger, Technology4Hotels). This view points towards efficiency and staffing cost prioritization, potentially at the expense of the average hospitality worker.
Room service robot, they don’t complain and don’t ask for tips
A Forbes article presents a slightly less grim perspective, suggesting that robots are not replacing human labor but rather enhancing it (Al-Massalkhi, Forbes). “Some restaurants are currently deploying robotic blenders, “arms” that fry and other technologies” (Al-Massalkhi, Forbes). This article suggested that automation serves as a way to alleviate menial tasks rather than eliminate jobs outright, it’s an optimistic take, but I’ll hold on to my reservations.
Flippy, the frying robot, doesn’t need a wage, just need maintenance once in a while
The narrative takes a darker turn when we look at the largely automated pilot McDonald’s that opened it’s doors late 2022, located in Texas, USA. At this restaurant, customers can expect to go through the whole process of ordering and getting food without any human interaction, ordering through a touchscreen and getting served with a conveyer belt, outright eliminating the human element in this process. “The test restaurant plays into fears that jobs will one day be taken over by robots and automation, replacing the need for human employees” (Salam, Guardian). During this period of time, there was also a popular tweet about the restaurant as seen below:
A tweet commenting on the new automated McDonald’s in Texas, USA
What’s even more sinister about this tweet is the fact that the video has been issued a copyright takedown.
Reflecting on these sources reveals the double-edged nature of integrating technology and AI in hospitality. It offers efficiency and cost savings but risks socio-economic disputes. The enthusiasm from investors and management contrasts sharply with the concerns of the working class. Additionally, the impact isn’t limited to manual labor. Generative AI’s breakthroughs are also unsettling white-collar sectors. Coincidentally, this was also one of my uncertainties when I was doing the box of uncertainties project.
In our latest team discussion on Wednesday, our agenda was to solidify our project direction with an action plan. Earlier in the day before this meeting, we had a workshop with Elizabeth where she was talking about being aware of the time schedule, and shared a quote “Don’t make the Right Decision; Make the Decision Right.” This really resonated with me regarding our group dynamics.
We are struggling a bit with very diverse ideas and the challenge of reaching a collective consensus. I don’t know if it’s placebo or something else, but I felt like the group meeting session later in the day flowed much more constructively with members including myself, XQ, and Khyathi, showing greater openness to compromise. This shift didn’t mean we stopped voicing our concerns, but it meant we were challenging and probing ideas more effectively while keeping the conversation on track within the scope of our project. We did have the occasional diversions into topics like Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and even some backtracking into Western vs Eastern working dynamics, but each time we managed to quickly reign the conversation back into focus on our primary objective.
Our project’s aim became clear, we wanted to explore the impact of technological advancements on labor within the hospitality sector, particularly within tech company canteens. This choice was made with the desire to provoke thought on the broader social implications of tech replacing human roles, touching on the themes of, as Nina puts it, design activism and social change. While I remain a bit skeptical about the assumption of “most” tech companies are actively developing technologies to replace human labor in the hospitality sector, this is mostly a practical concerns as I’m not sure how many of these type of tech companies exists in London, or even the UK. With that said, I still recognized the value in examining the hospitality sector within these settings as it could unveil some insights into privilege, social divides, and the interplay between technological progress and human livelihood.
Having finally reached an actual consensus, for the last time I hope haha. We are going to move forward with our research, both primary and secondary, looking for research, references and evidence to support our project, and allowing us to advance with a clear direction and purpose.
Today’s discussions is a pivotal moment in our project’s development, marked by a passionate(heated actually, haha) debate over our new direction. Initially, I was really drawn(probably because I have experienced this and is really biased) to the theme of employee burnout as I have personally experienced it myself, struggling within a seemingly fun and stress free(company canteens, bars, swimming pool, pool tables etc.) yet ultimately draining corporate environments. I was advocating for a focus on the mental well-being of employees under the stress of burnout. Despite my inclination towards this topic, we as a group, led by insights from Louason and Nina, collectively decided to pursue another equally compelling topic – the ethical implications of technology replacing human labor, particularly in the hospitality sector within tech companies.
This new angle speculates into the future of work, where technological advancements may lead to further job displacement and increase the social class gap. Khyathi also added another angle to our discussion, pointing out that this evolution of technology, pushing out human workers, could erode interpersonal relationships within the society as it would cause people to spend less time interacting with other people. This is a perspective that I found debatable given the breadth of human connections and interactions beyond work and hospitality, for example, family and friends. Khyathi also highlighted to me that the progression of technology and the stress/anxiety caused by the fear of getting replaced will contribute to employee burnout, so we will still be able to cover some aspects of the burnout issue.
After we had finally set a theme, we started brainstorming ways we can present this. It quickly transformed into something like a creative workshop, which was really fun! We started fleshing out a fictional future workspace scenario set in a tech company’s canteen. We envisioned personas including the CEO, a Food Engineer Supervisor overseeing kitchen automation, a human Chef anxious about being replaced, and a Waiter who has already been substituted by serving machines. We also looked at roles of corporate workers at the tech company(sales, marketing, product designers, engineers etc) who contributes to the success of these automation technologies, which might eventually lead to their own job displacement. It’s cyclical and ironic, and we hope to be able to illustrate that in this narrative.
Personas
Today’s meeting session, while intense, showed a depth of engagement and diverse perspectives within our group, and also reminded me of the importance of compromise and collaboration in moving our project forward.
Next steps: deepen our research to substantiate our claims (or maybe prove ourselves wrong), also we’ve set the place we want to visit, Google Canteen, not sure if we can get access to it but I’m optimistic.
In today’s tutorial with David, we looked deep into the complexities of our initial project discussions, which centered around our own personal experiences and observations of the working environment. In my previous two journal entries, I realize, may have presented a somewhat unilateral perspective, shaped predominantly by personal observations and inherent biases that they carry. These reflections stemmed from my own experiences or working across different time zones from Taiwan, and always having to adhere and adapt to my US or EU coworkers time schedule, instead of having a balanced schedule. And another experience is my observation of a trend in Taiwan, where senior positions often went to white, English-speaking individuals, who more often then not doesn’t have any relevant industry experience, this is a sentiment Nina, coming from Shanghai, could relate to.
These observations and personal biases that I had, led to a narrative that seemed to create an adversarial divide between Asian and Western work cultures. However, I understand that these problems are multifaceted and complex, deeply rooted in cultural, educational, and system biases rather than simple geographical distinctions. A remind from David today really struck a chord with me: “Privilege has no color.” This statement underscores the reality that the benefits and disadvantages within societal structures often transcend racial lines, pointing instead to a broader class divide. This is a scenario that our group initially presumed to be a future event, where the cultural lines of the West and the East are blurred, and all that remained is the class divide, but this is in fact a present-day reality.
Reflecting on this, I was reminded of Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” which we read in our workshops last Wednesday. The utopian city of Omelas – a city whose prosperity relies on the suffering of a single child – is a really powerful metaphor for our current society. It highlights an uncomfortable truth: the comfort and prosperity enjoyed by some are often predicated on the suffering of others, like how the comfort of tech workers in their fancy offices is predicated by the laborious work of the hospitality workers operating within their company.
“The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”
Given these insights, our group is considering a pivot from the initial East vs West discourse. We are exploring themes like burnout and the challenges faced by hospitality workers in tech companies, among others. This shift reflects a broader understanding of workplace issues that transcend cultural boundaries, focusing instead on the systemic inequalities.
As we move forward, a collective decision on our project’s direction will be made after further discussion and reflection after classes tomorrow as we digest that we have learned today. This process, while time consuming, is important as it helps us make more informed decisions through putting our minds together.
Just another thing to add, as the tutorial with David ended, an interesting observation highlighted the subtle cultural influence within our group, being predominantly Asians (Chinese & Indian). As David and Nina were engaged in a post-class discussion, I noticed that most of our group members remained seated, fiddling with their phones, except for Khyathi, who was the exception to this pattern. This moment was a reflective moment of the broader cultural practice prevalent in the Asian workplace culture, of not leaving before the leader/authority figure. Although David is technically not our leader in this setting, but a peer, a tutor, the deeply ingrained cultural and educational norms still influenced our behavior. This really goes to show how cultural nuances influence even the most routine of our actions.
We had a second meeting scheduled in this first week, on Friday we met on teams to discuss further about the specifics of this project. We particularly focused on selecting an appropriate location and workplace for this project. We’ve decided to concentrate on offices near King’s Cross, targeting companies with a global presence and an established office environment. Some examples included tech companies like Google and Samsung. Although there’s an understanding that gaining access for a tour and interviews might be challenging, we are optimistic and plan to approach with a proposal.
Our discussion also revolved around the evolution of work, spanning from the past and present to our speculations for the future, in our context of Asian work culture vs the Western work culture. We feel like colonialism has left a lasting impact in the Asian countries which has been colonized before (which is most of it). This past is still mirrored in the present scenario, where exploitation of workers, manufacturing demands, and environmental concerns are burdens for these Asian countries to carry, while the Western countries reap the benefits. This dynamic really shows how colonialism is still kind of alive and kicking in our present society.
As we speculated into the future, I had a slightly different idea. I thought that with the ongoing globalization and modernization, the primary divide of Asian versus the Western could shift to a more pronounced disparity between the upper and lower classes. This perspective sparked a thoughtful discussion within our group, even comparing it to the caste system in the Indian culture. We were really interested in how these evolving dynamics could shape future work environments and societal structures, but we were far too ahead so we dropped this discussion and plan to come back to it in future weeks.
By the end of this discussion, each of us were allocated a subject that is within our interest to look into. I will be looking into the context of Western vs Eastern working culture, XQ on how the result-based culture impacts the Asian working culture, Khyathi on the caste system and it’s impact on the Asian workplace, and Nina on international working in the context of globalization and colonialization. Our next steps involve reaching out to potential companies for tours and interviews, alongside further refining our speculative scenarios based on our research findings and discussions.
