New Innovation — Future of Work Causing Old Skillsets to Undergo Transformation

To get a sense of how fragile the innovation business is, keep in mind the popular wisdom that teaches us how nine out of ten startups will fail. Now multiply that by the particularly speculative nature of the technology industry in particular and you’ll appreciate how easily things can often go spectacularly wrong.

New arrival of the Future of work in technology

New tech transition in any organization requires the work of technology to change and implementation of new skillset for employees trend along usually . there are 3 common cyclic forces all converging to reshape the future of work for the new tech

Constant disruption in existing technology is continually reshaping work production, business and industries

Multiple new Technology’s provide advancement and boost business strategy and both in conceptual model in productivity ,processes , restructuring new benchmark for quality and reliability and enhancing features and speed of delivery boosted by faster and more secured digital payment

New altered Post Covid approved workforce in line against demographic restriction categorizing -employed staffs to even reserved places for more contingent workers for multi skillsets , more diverse talent, and global talent markets are transforming the skill manpower market in general

In the face of these drastic changes , many savvy employers and other technology leaders are restructuring to forge a new mould set as the future of work in technology.

Thriving in an era of Emerging Technologies and Constant Disruption

Many employers recognize these shifts are happening but may fail to understand their fundamental implications on technology work and their manpower’s integrity and re-orientated work places /or production factory required to deliver their finished products and the approach is to totally relearn the production or scope of services requirement

These changes have rendered the traditional scope sometime to be unsustainable. Business leaders will have to rework to redefine technology work and beyond as such the future, technology work will spread throughout the enterprise independently networked through an Ai intelligence control center .Business and technology leaders alike can benefit from becoming comfortable with the idea and machine learning, deep learning and data science integration with robotics all may come into place .

Photo By This is Engineering RAEng /Unsplash.com

With all these new technology , inventors , business leaders who dreamed up all the businesses might one day be enjoying the benefits of historical hindsight but to judge their efforts, and we should be sensitive to how different things must have looked in the heat of the moment

New technology trends beats wishful thinking every time

I’m not sure it’s possible to reliably count all the individuals and companies that have assured us we’ve finally reached the age of bypassing choked highways using flying cars while happily chatting with loved ones through video calls. There have been hybrid wheeled/winged prototypes since soon after the Second World War, and telephones for showing the world how you look in pajamas have, in theory at least, been available since the early 1970’s.

Well, video calls are now easily available through any smart phone or PC. And, 75 years of failure later, the rush to deliver consumer flight hasn’t slowed down a bit. But both technologies have been most notable for being only rarely used: the cars because none has ever hit full production, and the phones because very few people seem interested.

What’s been the trouble?

There were certainly engineering, safety, and regulatory hiccups over the years. And there’s no question that flying car manufacturers would be hard pressed to find a large customer base of drivers who were also qualified pilots (although self-driving/flying versions could, in theory, avoid that issue).

But I suspect a big part of the problem was marketing: no one bothered asking Joe Q. Customer for his thoughts on the matter.

But marketing isn’t everything

In the beginning, there were comments from tech insiders about how this would be the biggest thing since ever. Then came an unauthorized book leaking intriguing information, some ambitious public claims, and a product launch. In the end, there was Segway: a personal transportation device that was too big and fast for sidewalks, too big and slow for roads, and too expensive for most customers. And using it in the rain or snow wasn’t much fun at all.

Today you’d probably have to look pretty hard to find a living, breathing Segway anywhere close to your neighborhood. They’re sometimes used for police street patrols and touring, but they haven’t eliminated the car or revolutionized urban development. Nor, as far as I can see, did they make the company’s investors fantastically wealthy. In fact, the company’s manufacturing plant in Bedford, New Hampshire ceased operations in the summer of 2020- with possibilities due effect on how the Covid pandemic has affected most industries

What went wrong?

Well, perhaps the hype was a bit over the top.

Ok, make that way over the top. It’s never a good thing to pump up expectations to the point they can’t possibly be met. There was also the failure to match the tool to an appropriate environment. Where, after all, was it supposed to be used?

But, to be really successful, a new product has to be built on more than clever engineering. It also has to solve a real and pressing problem.

When too much power isn’t a good thing

Back in 2013, Google introduced a new consumer compute product they called Glass. This was a sleek headset that could be worn as an attachment to a pair of designer prescription glasses. When powered on, Glass could accept voice and touch commands to record video of everything the wearer sees, and display data — often with full “awareness” of the wearer’s current physical location.

Glass was a single device intended to replace much of the function currently served by smart phones, laptops, and media players. For the task of integrating our physical world with the endless data that describes it, this was going to be perfect. And then it wasn’t.

As more details about Glass became known, questions were raised in the broader tech world. Was it appropriate — or even legal — to silently record videos of other people? Should face recognition software be applied to random pedestrians walking past on the sidewalk without their consent? Was it safe to drive while wearing Glass?

Potential customers had their own questions. Is the product affordable (they started at $1,500)? Is it necessary? Does it fit the vision I have for my public image?

The longer those questions floated around the internet, the more answers came back. Answers, by and large, consisting of a single word: “No.” Google Glass, as a consumer product, slowly faded away and eventually disappeared altogether. The massive media promotion campaign had come up empty.

Which is not to say that the product itself failed. As it turns out, Glass has found considerable success in medical environments where, for instance, it could be used to permit remote surgical experiences. It’s also found a home in industrial settings, where front line workers often need instant, hands-free access to relevant schematics and directions.

But it was a long while before all that goodness happened. Perhaps someone should have slowed things down at some point, saying: Even if it’s possible to engineer all of those features into a consumer product, is it necessarily a good idea?

When timing isn’t your thing

The tech industry moves fast. I’m sure that little nugget of wisdom won’t leave any of you wrapped in stunned silence. But when you think about how much work is needed before you can convert a fresh, new idea into a ready-to-ship product, it’s remarkable anything innovative ever gets off the ground.

Bad timing, then, is a risk faced by the people behind pretty much any new technology as it makes its way to market. By way of example, the existence of strong competition from companies like Nintendo and Sony’s PlayStation were probably largely to blame for the premature death of Apple’s Bandai Pippin gaming console back in the mid-nineties. Although, the fact that, at peak, there were never more than 25 game titles that would run on the device and that, like all Apple products, it was priced much higher than the competition, couldn’t have helped.

All wasn’t dark and foreboding for Apple in those years. Looking back with what we now know, the strong presence of their iPod digital music player platform was probably what doomed Microsoft’s Zune. On that one, Microsoft had the bad luck (or lack of foresight) to get stuck between an iPod device made dominant by its simplicity, and the looming age of the smartphone (which made standalone portable music players irrelevant).

Clearly, as Shakespeare would have it, “ripeness is all.”

But there’s another thing about timing: eventually, you’ll need to deliver the goods. There’s a limit to how long we’ll wait for that bright new technology that’s been on everyone’s “must-have” list for too long without making an actual, real-world appearance

You should also keep a critical eye out for good old fashioned bad business practices — the kind that never seem to go out of style. I’m thinking about unrealistic business plans; unfamiliarity with a business’ core, underlying fundamentals; and unreasonable, greedy start-up costs.

Actually, I’m thinking about the catastrophic disaster that characterized the dot-com boom and subsequent bust around the start of the 21st Century.

The take-any-business-model-and-build-it-a-website paradigm looked good, but it was applied far too broadly and often ignored the obvious context in the process.

Don’t blindly trust popular trends and buzz phrases. Trends change, You should too