On Monday, March 25, the workshop “Human and Artificial Intelligence – New Models of Integration in Organizations, a Quantitative Approach” was held, during which, in collaboration with the HR Innovation Practice Observatory, we deepened the themes of the Observatory’s March 19 workshop entitled “HR and AI: The Evolution that passes through Human Resource Management.”
We wanted to talk about today’s much in vogue topic of Artificial Intelligence but trying to put forward thoughts for a quantitative approach:to what extent can activities in various roles and professions be supported by AI?
We believe it is possible, through a Use Cases approach, to create an “integration matrix” that highlights the space of artificial intelligence to support human intelligence. This allows us to estimate how much energy we can release and will have available to create more value.
Classical AI and Generative AI: the differences
First of all, AI is not just one technology, but a range of technologies that can be divided into two broad classes: Classical AI and Generative AI. It is precisely the latter that is receiving the most attention from the general public right now.
Classical AI is used for a variety of applications such as:
- search and optimization
- expert systems
- natural language processing (NLP)
- computer vision
- speech recognition
- robotics and fraud detection.
The salient features of these technologies are: predictable and repetitive results, there is reliance on Machine Learning (ML), they serve for process automation and predictive analytics, and the required human supervision is limited.
On the other hand, generative AI instead finds use in areas such as:
- text generation and chatbots
- image creation
- speech synthesis
- music and sound creation
- deepfake
- product design and prototyping.
The characteristics are very different from classical AI: the results are creative, that is, new with respect to the body of text and documents used as a database, we rely on Large Language Models (LLM), it is used mainly for the generation of text, images, presentations, and human supervision is absolutely essential.
Going to the crux of the matter, while of course making simplifications, in the case of classical AI the benefits focus on efficiency because it reduces and speeds up human activities for the same result (Automation) while in the case of generative AI the benefits are represented by increased effectiveness which, while it might even increase human activities, can nevertheless improve their results and/or create opportunities otherwise impossible to seize (Augmentation).
Measuring the impact of AI on HR activities
Estimating the impact of human-AI integration can be evaluated at the level of a use case (e.g., alignment between invoices and payments). Recall that a use case is a detailed description of how a user or system interacts with a software system or product to achieve a specific result.
Although each organization has its own specifics and its own way of dealing with individual activities a use case approach is a good compromise between generalization and estimation accuracy.
We therefore propose a two-dimensional matrix where we go to insert each use case. The two dimensions are the impact of human supervision and the repetitiveness of activities.
Consequently, we have four areas to which it corresponds:
Full automation – when there is strong repetitiveness and human supervision is irrelevant. Human-AI integration (mostly of the “classical” type) leads to significant savings in people work that can be directed to other activities.
Human lead – when the activity is not repetitive but human supervision is irrelevant. Human-AI integration leads to neither increased nor decreased activity for people.
Human only – when the activity is not repetitive and the supervision and human element are the most valuable part in the activity. Person – AI integration does not change the activity contribution of people and is also not of great value.
Human Interface – supervision and human element are of great value but at the same time the activities are repetitive. Person – AI integration (mostly of the “generative” or hybrid “classical” + “generative” type) leads both to labor savings for people and to more valuable results due to the back-end activity of AI.
Although many people talk about AI, referring almost solely to Generative AI, still few are using it “seriously” and perhaps there is not enough debate about the impact that person-AI integration will have in companies.
We at HRI believe that we must arrive at a responsible use of new technologies in stages: starting with literacy that must concern everyone – HR included – and then moving on to experimentation and adoption within a framework of values that put people and not technology at the center because, finally, the adoption of AI will radically change our operating models and transition to new professional skills.
This path, if guided responsibly, we believe can be positive and growth enhancing for all. We are about to embark on it, are you?
Add a Comment