Been there and done that:
Been there and done that:
Here in Great Britain in the 18th century there was a need to protect authors and artists, and publishers, from blatant copying of material by the new technology of the printing press. Our solution was to create a set of measures that form the basis of what we know today as copyright. Other nations followed and eventually we had a near global system of control.
Most of us see the copyright symbol - © – hundreds of times every day, it’s ubiquitous. Understanding of and regard for it is a different matter, people pay varying degrees of attention to it.
I’m comfortable with the concept of protecting people’s income for original work, but I don’t regard my writing on this blog as needing that level of protection. It doesn’t cost me very much to publish so I’m not seeking to protect a high level of investment either. Fortunately, there is an alternative to copyright.
If you look to the bottom of this page you will find a section that currently looks like this:
This is the license I have chosen for these meagre ramblings. If you click on the link it will take you to a page that explains the license in a human-readable summary format. This explanation shows in broad terms what I am happy for you to do with the information you find contained within and in what context.
Copyright© is basically either all rights reserved or public domain. Creative Commons, however, comes with a set of options. In my case the options roughly translate to:
To put it another way. I’m happy for you to use the material, to share it and even adapt it, but I don’t see why you should make money out of my efforts and hence ask you to share your work under the same licence. Also, it would be good if you gave me some form of credit for the work you have used.
Each of these options can be made either more, or less, restrictive.
I tend to think that it’s better to be open than closed and that is what Create Commons allows me to be, without giving everything away. If I was really being open I would allow Commercial work also, which is something I am thinking about, at Creative Commons they call this Free Cultural Works.
The concept of open is a powerful one and gaining traction all the time, but that’s probably best covered wider on another day.
Creative Commons is integrated into a number of other services. If you want to search in Google, for instance, for material released under creative commons then you can do so in Advance Search. The same is true on Flickr so I also post my pictures under Creative Commons.
This video made me chuckle this week, it’s of a squirrel trying to climb a greasy pole to get to a bird table.
Watch it with the sound up and enjoy the commentary, there’s something very infectious about other people laughing:
It reminded me of this other video:
“No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.”
One of the questions I’ve been pondering during my work on the Productive Workplace has been the question of how many job types will still exist in the future with many being wholly or partially automated through computerisation. There’s no point in creating a workplace for an activity that’s been automated after all.
It’s clear that different jobs will be affected in different ways. Some things that humans do today can already be done more effectively by a machine; other things are more of a challenge to the machines.
Carl Frey and Michael Osborne from Oxford University have undertaken a study to try to predict what they impact might be:
(We refer to computerisation as job automation be means of computer-controlled equipment)
In this study they assessed 702 different occupations (in the US) and assigned to them a probability of being computerised. From this they estimated the number of jobs that would be affected by that probability. The headline result was that:
“about 47 percent of total US employment is at risk”.
The probability of computerisation is based on a number of current bottlenecks: perception and manipulation, creative intelligence, social intelligence.
The higher the need for these skills the less likely it is to be automated. We need to be clear here that a bottleneck is simply that, it constrains entry, it doesn’t eliminate it. The other aspect of bottlenecks is that it’s not permanent and will be eroded over time. Technology is moving forward at a rapid pace and areas currently high in bottlenecks will be affected by other areas where bottlenecks are less impacting.
The results of this assessment for the US population are as follows:
This is a massive simplification of the work that they have done, but it’s enough to give clear indications of where the impact is heading.
Jerry Bowles has recently published on bruegel.org a utilisation of this study which assessed its impact in European countries (the original was US). This suggests a different impact for different European countries based on the mix of jobs and their susceptibility to computerisation.
As you can see countries in Northern Europe are less susceptible to those in the South because of the mix of jobs.
From a personal perspective, while my actual role isn’t defined in the appendix of the report similar jobs are, and they appear in the low probability section which would align with what I understand. Although, there is much of my current role that will be heavily affected by computerisation.
If you’d like more information you can, of course, read the study, alternatively you might like to watch this:
The relaunch of Morph continues; this time he tries his hand at Stand Up:
Recently a holiday cottage company in the English Lake District decided to take their work out of the office, and up a mountain:
We decided to take our business to new heights this week by moving to the top of Blencathra to encourage Brits to get outside this summer.
Our team were fed up with looking at the lovely weather from inside our Keswick building, so we packed up and re-located our office equipment up the 2,850ft-high mountain. Desks, phones, lamps and computers were set up and staff settled in for business as usual.
This got me thinking about the times when we should really get out of the office to do work. When I say office here, I’m meaning the place where you do most of your work, that place that sees most of your time, particularity if most of your time is spent sedentary looking at a screen.
There are huge benefits to being in a different place; there is even more benefit if that different place requires some physical exercise.
A colleague and I occasionally go on walking meetings. These aren’t just wandering around meetings, we go on a walk around a reservoir or up a hill. The flow of blood that the walking creates really helps the mental stimulation and being outside changes the nature of the conversation.
We all recognise the saying:
“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”
If you want something different then do something different. If you’re not being productive where you are, you should go somewhere different. Perhaps you should take you’re office up a mountain?
Having finished a set of posts on the Proactive Workplace, based on the future skills that we are likely to need, I thought I would list some of my observations that may not be directly reflected in the other posts:
Another video on the Future of Work:
“It may be that when we no longer know which way to go that we have come to our real journey. The mind that is not baffled is not employed. The impeded stream is the one that sings.”
This is a great example of the impact that technology is having on our social interactions (from The Meta Picture):