Wearables: Detailed Analysis
We used our Responsible Banking Framework to perform an analysis of this scenario.
Summary
Opinion
Employee productivity and management with wearables and hyper-personalized assistants has the potential to be a powerful tool that benefits both management and staff. However privacy and respect of the individual is paramount — the technology should not closely monitor staff to the extent David has done.
To do, doing, and done: Don’t get stuck in the middle!
A good litmus test here is “would I feel comfortable doing this task, if a real person were looking over my shoulder?” The answer to this question for many of David’s actions would generally be “no” — e.g. monitoring Oxycontin levels and facial expressions. Conversely, if we adopted a design principle for David that were to ask “would I feel comfortable with a real person seeing the beginning or outcome of this task?” — i.e. my “to-do” list or “done list”, this would more closely align David’s actions to a normal colleague in the office — and that feels more natural. This principle would help us identify the aspects of David’s working protocol that apply to interactions at the “to-do”, “doing”, and “done” phases of a task, and reduce or eliminate AI tasks associated with monitoring the “doing”.
This technology should be used to augment human decision-making on tasks, provide positive reinforcement for certain behaviors, and take over more routine responsibilities in an office — on an opt-in or opt-out basis only.
What do you think? Do you agree? Have we missed something? Consider the highlighted issues below and join the discussion.
Opportunities
Technology Trends and Data Used
Potential Risks or Harm
Capability To Mitigate Risk and Harm
End of the sample analysis.