Future of Work
TECHNOLOGY IN THE WORKPLACE
I magine walking into a supermarket with no staff. You order products using QR codes, pay using your Apple wallet, watch a robotic arm deliver your items to you, then simply ‘grab and go’. It may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but this revolutionary approach to retail was actually pioneered by the Chinese tech giant Alibaba back in 2017. The company hoped that by reducing the cost of human labour, the plan would save both time and money. Commentators also predicted that it could make millions of Chinese workers redundant. As a fieldworker in Hangzhou, ‘the Silicon Valley of China’, I watched with interest. Would these unmanned supermarkets change the retail landscape in China and beyond? And, if so, what would become of the millions of shopworkers whose jobs were replaced by robots? When I returned three years later, things had not progressed the way that many predicted. Alibaba’s supermarkets had been a significant success, with the firm establishing itself as one of the key players in Hangzhou’s grocery sector. However, these supermarkets were no longer devoid of human helpers. On the contrary, they were now heavily staffed. Store assistants were on hand to welcome shoppers, give out samples, stack and tidy shelves, and help customers pay. While all of these tasks could be performed by intelligent machines, Alibaba had found that human workers were more suitable for this type of business. One reason was that most people
by Hong Yu Liu Will robots take your job?
may prefer to be served by fellow human beings. Older customers, in particular, were struggling with the new technology and choosing to shop elsewhere. Others were deterred by concerns about what would happen to their shopping – and their money – if they needed help, or if a machine broke down and there was nobody around to assist them. It seems that customers wanted the experience of being served and cared for. Public-facing jobs, and those that required a greater degree of flexibility, needed to be done by humans. However, another factor was the cost. Contrary to expectations, replacing human workers with robots did not produce significant savings in time or money. The cost of setting up these “Only action will provide workers with the security they need”
machines was a huge investment. So was maintaining them. When robotic arms broke down, it took two hours to send someone to investigate the issue. Then another few hours to send the parts for replacement. The problem had to be fixed overnight, when there were no customers around, to maintain the flawless, futuristic image of the stores and the technology they used. Otherwise the benefits of the new technology would be less clear and attractive from a customer perspective. This increased labour costs and caused supply chain issues if further parts were required when the rest of the business was closed. By comparison, replacing a human worker was simple. When one rang in sick, managers simply called in another to cover their shift. Problem solved. Two firms that attempted a similar approach collapsed before the pandemic. It is likely that Alibaba lost money and investment at a similar rate to its competitors, but it had the capital to survive and adapt to a more sustainable model. Does Alibaba’s retreat from the idea of ‘unmanned
Warwick Business School | wbs.ac.uk
wbs.ac.uk | Warwick Business School
36
37
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog