It makes sense to differentiate between four levels in the analysis. Starting from the individual level and the consequences for the individual, the consequences for the social group (team, family) can be examined on the second level. Then there is the organizational level and finally the level of society as a whole.
Today, individuals, citizens and customers are faced with many digital requirements. Due to the increasingly digitized processes of large companies, parts of the ordering process and order processing have been transferred to the customer. Not only do we assemble our furniture ourselves, we also book our movie tickets and train tickets online as a matter of course. This option is tempting because it allows us to shop regardless of opening hours and locations. But we are only "faster" when we repeat this process for the umpteenth time. Achieving the so-called "time savings" through digitalization eats up our time.
This is where we come up against the first limit of digitalization. It can only progress as fast as the learning speed of the individual allows. Because every digitalized process, every new digital product has to be learned to use. And that is only possible as fast as people are.
Digitalization creates peer pressure in the family. The shared Google calendar is only useful if everyone joins in. Mom doesn't want a smartphone? But she has to if she wants to be able to see where her older daughter has put her riding appointments.
The flood of new services for music, television and games also creates uncertainty: Who should I choose? Will this service still exist in a year's time? What should I do with my old record/CD collection? The variety overwhelms people and ties up their attention and time in order to reach a decision.
And in the neighborhood? How convenient, I can borrow the drill from the sharing platform and don't have to ring the neighbor's doorbell. Then I don't have to think about what I should offer him in return and he doesn't have to be embarrassed to ask. In return, I get to know someone from whom I borrow the machine. Isn't that the same thing?
Critics say that a possible relationship (with the neighbor) has been replaced by a relationship of convenience (with the sharing partner) and thus by a service. While the former forms the basis for a community, the latter is a loose connection that can be terminated without consequences and is therefore not resilient. Are we putting our community at risk with this form of networking made possible by digitalization?
Digitalization can be felt in organizations in two ways: product and process innovations are being sought to replace physical processes (transporting, buffering, distributing, etc.) electronically or to allow them to occur as late as possible in the process. The pressure to innovate forces new agile forms of collaboration that first have to be learned and often do not fit in with organizations structured according to the logic of traditional management. These cultural adaptations cost energy. At the same time, people in organizations are increasingly working together in an electronically supported manner and are constantly having to learn new things.
In an increasingly ageing society with a correspondingly ageing workforce in the organizations, this is probably another limit of digitization: the ability of organizations to learn, i.e. their ability to discard old patterns and adopt new ones, will determine the speed at which digitized working methods are implemented.
And socially? As long as we are immersed in change, we cannot see it properly. Future generations will judge what effect digitalization will have. What we can currently see is that neither the expected increases in productivity from the spread of computers can be verified in the economic figures, nor has the democratization of access to knowledge through the Internet really taken place on a global scale. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen and none of the major global issues (climate, poverty, refugees, water, environmental pollution, etc.) is noticeably better under the control of the global community thanks to better access to knowledge.
There is a risk in every opportunity. This is also the case with digitalization. While some people are happy that they can be producers without having to own the means of production, for others this means that investing in means of production no longer protects them from being attacked by competitors.
There have always been upheavals. That was the case with Gutenberg's printing press with movable type or the invention of the mechanical loom. In this respect, digitization is not a singularity.
Is change happening faster this time? In my opinion, no. Electronic news packages are moving fast, but change in society/economy is happening just as fast as it always does in human societies. There are innovators who are leading the way and trying things out. Some succeed, many fail. Depending on your taste, you can lament the speed of change that comes from the innovators or make fun of those who fail. Both are needed because they secure the path that the early followers can take. These curious people take their cue from what has worked for the innovators and copy it, adapt it slightly, adapt it for their industry, region or task. And only then do the changes really take hold. The networking that comes with digitalization accelerates change because it can now happen in many places at the same time and in parallel. But this increases complexity enormously and slows things down.
What is really missing is a regulator for the excesses and blossoms that the emerging Internet age is producing. And this can be self-organized and does not have to be centrally imposed. Who is allowed to do what with which data? Who monitors Google? Who puts the NSA in its place? Who will protect citizens from the control mania of their own representatives?
Conclusion:
Governments and business groups are not in a position to do this themselves and political decision-making from the grassroots via democratic elections is obviously a slow process. There is a need for platforms for social discourse on privacy and civil rights. Perhaps 200 years after the French Revolution, it is now time for this again.
Write a comment