Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Outdated regulations halt Uber in its tracks, but innovation must prevail

This article was first published in the Conversation on 25th October 2017
Ride-sharing company Uber has led a charge by companies who are upsetting applecarts in their respective industries. The power and convenience of mobile platforms can efficiently match assets, labour, or both with those who need them. Established players in regulated markets are on notice, and the regulations, in many cases, have been left looking unfit for purpose .....
To read the full article please follow the Link  here -



Monday, 9 October 2017

Developing a Business Model for the Sharing Economy is Easy, But Executing It is More Difficult to Get Right

This blog was first published on Linkedin 


I did a TV interview on BBC’s Talking Business with Aaron Heslehurst.  His questions focused on Uber’s business model and its social responsibilities.  Most of Uber’s recent problems were related to its bad behaviours, such as overlooking issues about passenger safety, sexual harassment, gender discrimination and infringement of Google’s IP rights, and use Greyball software to deceive authorities in areas ride hailing is not allowed.  None of these problems are the results of its business model.

In fact, the business models for the sharing economy, be it Uber, Didi Chunxing, Airbnb or TaskRabbit, are very simple.  These firms use the power and convenience of the internet to efficiently match people with asset, labour or both with people who need them, when they need them, and charge a fee for the matching.  There is clear scale economy with the business model, deriving mainly from the network effect.  The more people use the platform, the cheaper and more convenient it becomes, which in turn attracts even more people. This business model has inspired a large number of other tech start-ups across different industries throughout the world to disrupt incumbents in regulated markets, with significant benefits for consumers.

Despite the simplicity of the business model, however, the execution is really hard to get right, which directly affects the experience of both providers and users.  I use Uber frequently, both in the UK and when I visit other countries.  By and large, the services I received have been good, and I enjoy the convenience and simplicity it offers – and usually but not always the lower price.  The experience from Airbnb is very similar. 

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about many other aspiring sharing economy firms. I recently bought a new flat.  The central heating somehow stopped working, and with my work schedule, who could be better than BIZZBY, the London based on demand services provider, to arrange a gas engineer to get it working again?  Some of my friends have been using BIZZBY to organise cleaners for their flats and they are quite complementary of the services even though the price is more expensive than the market going rates.  However, for the convenience, the extra is worth it.

This is when my trouble started.  I left work early and asked BIZZBY to send me a gas engineer and it promptly did so, at £99 per hour (Ouch!).  I selected the Come Now option, and it said the engineer was coming within 20 minutes. When I pressed Go Ahead, the time magically changed to 42 minutes which was still ok.  However, 42 minutes later even though the app said the engineer was arriving, only that he wasn’t.  Then, after a while, the app changed the time to delayed.  I waited for a further 20 minutes and nobody came, so I called the engineer. He casually informed me without any remorse that he could not come for another two hours, and he could not even be bothered to tell me that and neither did BIZZBY while I was patiently waiting for his arrival.

I emailed BIZZBY about this (couldn’t find a number to call), and a few minutes later, they emailed back and said they were sending someone else.  Unfortunately, the new engineer would need over one hour to get to my flat.  Worse still, the new engineer called me shortly after and explained that he would not be able to arrive at the specified time and it would be another further hour’s delay.  By then it would be even later than the first engineer.  At least he was honest about it.

Needless to say, one hour passed and the app changed the waiting time to delayed.  However, the first engineer for some reason was not informed of the rescheduling and arrived at my flat, called me angrily for cancelling his job without telling him! I said BIZZYBY rescheduled the job and shouldn’t they tell him about it?  He hung up without saying goodbye.  

The second engineer arrived after two hours and he identified the problem promptly – the wireless temperature control is broken and a new one needed is needed.  He fixed it temporarily and left within 20 minutes (the minimum charge is still one hour).  To fit a new one, he would need to come back again on another day, and charge me another £140 for the component and £80 to install it. Ouch!  
......
The business model for the sharing economy is very simple, but executing it is much harder to get right.  Digital technologies are enabling new start-ups to disrupt incumbents across different industries throughout the world. When they get it right, it benefits consumers and providers, as well as itself and its shareholders.  More often than not, this is where many firms get it wrong.  We should give credit where it is due - to Uber, Didi Chuxing, Airbnb and others - who by and large gets the execution right.  BIZZBY, however, really disappointed me on this occasion.  If I could work out what the engineers were doing to cheat the system and mislead consumers with just one job, surely the company knows what is going on.  With this kind of attitude, it might not be a busy bee for much longer.  

Friday, 22 September 2017

Really TfL? No Uber in London?



Transport for London (TfL) has just informed Uber today (22 September 2017) that it would not be issued a private hire operator licence after its current licence expires on 30 September 2017.  Only a few days ago on 8th September 2017, Taxify, the Didi-backed car-booking app that is seeking to rival Uber, has been forced to halt operations in London for breaking rules on private hire operators, just days after it launched (For those who do not know, Didi is the biggest Taxi hailing firm that defeated Uber in China and it is expanding into many countries around the world).

For many consumers, Uber is one of the best things happened in London in recent years, which brings a little affordable comfort to many Londoners and its millions of visitors to supplement the expensive, out-dated, unreliable London underground, the slow and diesel smoke puffing double decker buses, and the ridiculously expensive Black Cabs which is akin to a mild form of extortion, not to mention the terrible congestion and congestion charges that restrict people using their private cars.  Yet TfL wants to kill off one of only a few bright spots in London transport. 

In both cases, the decisions were made on the ground of regulations.  Perhaps it is time to revisit those out-dated regulations to unleash the creativity and innovation that is more essential for London than any other time in history. 

The Digital Economy

We are in the digital age.  The UK Research Councils alone invested £154.15 million in the last few years to support research in its flagship Digital Economy Programme; and the UK government and its various departments and agencies are all committed to supporting the digital economy – from the London Tech City to numerous other initiatives across the country.  The EU invested billions of R&D funding over the years to support the digital economy too, particularly through its Frameworks Programmes, and Horizon2020. 

However, look at the global digital economy landscape, the US has Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay, the born-again Apple and a plethora of other digital economy firms, including sharing economy firms typified by Uber and Airbnb.  In China, the famous trio of BAT lead the way – Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent, with a plethora of other digital economy firms, from JD.com to Didi Chuxing and bike sharing firms such as OfO and Mobike, which are now entering the UK and Europe (and other countries).  In contrast, the UK and Europe not only failed to produce any serious Unicorns in the digital economy that would get anywhere near the scale of Facebook, Google or Alibaba and Tencent - duo no small part to rigid regulations that stifle innovations - Transport for London now wants to shut down Uber and deny people the little convenience of the digital economy brought to us by our friend from across the pond.   

Back in 1865, the LocomotiveActs (also known as the Red Flag Act) was passed in the United Kingdom, a policy requiring self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn people about the vehicle's approach.  This has – for a while – prevented motor cars travelling faster than a horse-drawn carriage.  Similarly, in the United States, the state of Vermont passed a flurry of Red Flag Laws in 1894. The most infamous of the Red Flag Laws was enacted in Pennsylvania in 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile", and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.  Fortunately the bill did not become law, as the Governor of Pennsylvania used an executive veto. 

Imagine if we had to drive a car - or bus - with a person walking in front it weaving a flag to warn pedestrians today.  We can all laugh at how ridiculous these Acts were even if they served a particular purpose back then, and perhaps even made sense to some people, TfL is now probably doing a similar thing to Uber.  Regulations could not – and should not – stop technological advances and innovations that would improve people’s lives.  Uber clearly improved many people’s lives in London and all around the world, offering employment opportunities to a large number of people, and providing affordable and convenient door to door transport services for a huge number of consumers.  If there are issues and concerns, then TfL should work constructively to address them, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

Time to Retire Out-Dated Regulations and Institutions for the Digital Age

This reflects a much deeper problem in the UK where everyone talks about supporting creativity and innovation, but many out-dated rules and regulations – and indeed, institutions – are making it difficult to implement meaningful changes.  We have all suffered the hassles and disruptions by the unreliable and expensive London Underground.  In February 2017, London underground drivers went on strike again, causing chaos and misery for millions of commuters, not to mention the huge economic and other damages to businesses and individuals.  It turned out that the reason for the strike was that eight train drivers (yes, 8) were unhappy about being moved from one depot to another.  How could a handful of train drivers hold a whole city to ransom when technologically we don’t really even need train drivers at all?  The technologies for driverless trains have been available for decades, which could serve London far better than human drivers, at huge savings to millions of people, but we are all repeatedly held to ransom by the powerful trade unions, stopping efforts to modernise the London underground system, at high costs for commuters and for the economy. 

According to a report by the Telegraph in early 2016, the pay and work conditions are exceedingly generous for London's tube staff.  Thanks to the unions' multi-year deal with London Underground, keeping pay above inflation, a newly-qualified tube driver starts on a salary of £49,673 a year. This can rise after five years to £50,000 - £60,000. The drivers get £24,133 at the start of their training period rising to £30,166 after completing initial assessments - with their starting salary, on completion of their 12-16 week training, rising to £49,673.  Their starting salary easily dwarfs the starting salaries for workers in other sectors.  In fact they can earn more than some hospital doctors. Meanwhile, the average salary for the British worker is £26,500.  To put this in context, a newly-qualified soldier starts on around £17,945, while a tube driver rakes in nearly three times as much. The capital's tube drivers make about twice as much as nurses, policeman, fire fighters and teachers. In order to become a tube driver, only GCSEs in Maths and English are needed, with some medical or electrical knowledge being useful too.  This is one example where a small group of people hold the whole city to ransom.  Now the black cab drivers are trying to use their influence to kill off Uber.  We need to reform out-dated regulations and institutions, not killing off innovations.

We are in the Digital Economy, and progress will be made with or without Britain.  As the UK exits from the European Union, we have a serious choice to make: to embrace change and new opportunities and thrive in the brave new digital world, or continue to hide behind past glory and out-dated institutions and be left behind.  

Tuesday, 28 February 2017

Technology and the Future of Work

A shorter, edited version of this blog was published at -

http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2017/march/technology-and-the-future-of-work  

https://www.city.ac.uk/news/2017/march/technology-and-the-future-of-work

I was invited to a Roundtable Discussion on Technology and the Future of Work at a Mayfair hotel, only to discover that it was not so much a roundtable as a rather long table laid out for lunch, with as many as 15 people on each side.  Neither was it a discussion but two short talks, by Tom Standage [@tomstandageof the Economist, and Chris O’Neil [@croneill], CEO of Evernote, chaired by the ever so charming Malcolm Gooderham [@gooderham].  Amongst the participants were Giles Wilkes [@Gilesyb], a Downing Street Special Policy Advisor; Ravi Mattu [@ravmattuof the Financial Times; and Anne Frankle [@cmi_ceo], CEO of Chartered Institute of Management.  

I was not sure what to expect given the topic has been talked to death.  A quick search of ‘future of work’ on Google returned 307 million hits, from full sized reports to short opinion pieces, covering the full spectrum of views ranging from the apocalyptically pessimistic to the extremely optimistic, and every shades of colour in between. 

Both Tom and Chris held moderately optimistic, sensible and fairly balanced views, which many of us share.  Both of them were sharp, experienced, and eloquent, illustrated their views with examples and metaphors.  However, when asked about how AI (Artificial Intelligence) would affect the future of work, Tom used the metaphor of like ‘electricity’; and Chris believed that AI would ‘make us more productive’ (or Evernote would make us more productive by using AI).  Both of them seemed to be concerned about the growing dominance of AI by the big five (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and IBM), although Chris believed that interoperability would alleviate most potential problems.  Unfortunately, after only a few short questions and comments, it was time to finish our coffee and head back to our day jobs. 

For such a group of talented people with strong opinions, everyone behaved remarkably well.  In fact, my MBA classes tended to have more heated debates and discussions.  Surprisingly, at least two thirds of the participants turned down the opportunities for a glass of wine over the three course lunch, and opted for water instead!  Perhaps time – and work - has indeed changed. 
Do I believe that AI would be like electricity?  Probably not.  There is General AI – or Artificial General Intelligence, which could become like electricity in the future; but there is also more special purpose AI aimed at specific applications or tasks – or Applied AI as it is known sometimes.  This is where creativities will flourish.  While the general AI may become an infrastructure, the genuinely creative AI may not. 

Am I concerned about the big five dominating AI in the future?  Not really - no more worrying than Google dominating Search; or Microsoft dominating PC operating systems.  Even though some of the big five might dominate general AI, applied AI will require specialist domain expertise far beyond even the talent pools of the big fives.  The dominance of some big tech firms would provide the foundation – or the fertile soil - for a million flowers of applied AI to bloom.  In fact, I do not even believe the big five would dominate the general AI.  Many of the big firms of the future may have not yet been created and I won’t be surprised if some of the big five are left behind in the next wave of technological revolution, or even go out of business. 

AI is developing rapidly and it has huge potential to make us all more productive, as Chris O’Neil argued.  However, most people talked about AI as a black box.  Once getting inside the black box, we will soon realise that most artificial intelligence is not very intelligent, not yet anyway.  They are particularly good at certain types of tasks, just like computers are much better than humans at large scale calculations.  However, AI - and robots -  are terrible at many types of tasks we humans found incredibly easy to do or particularly good at.  AI will help us do our jobs and live our lives better.  They are not going to replace or dominate us, not yet anyway. 

-------- *----------*--------

In terms of Technology and the Future of Work, a plethora of new technological development, combined with social, political and economic changes, are leading to significant changes in the future of work. Some of these changes will happen in the next 5-10 years, but many will take significantly longer, perhaps decades longer.

Key technologies include AI, particularly based on big data and machine learning; automation and robotics; autonomous vehicles, connected homes, smart cities, wearable technologies, IoTs, mobile communications and the cloud, are singly and collectively enabling new ways of working and living.  Other significant developments include the sharing economy, new business models, VR and AR, and 3D printing.  The list can go on. 

However, the future is highly uncertain.  Some developments are predictable but many are not.  Just because something is technologically feasible does not mean it will be widely taken up, or taken up in ways projected today.  For every successful technological innovation (such as the iPhone), there are plenty more tech flops - just look at Google Glasses; Apple Watch; and 3D TV.  The same could even happen to AR and VR, although many big tech firms are currently betting on them.  I would like to believe their imminent taking off in the next couple of years (even wrote a report on it - The Future of Video). 

Back in the 70s during the first oil crisis, combined with the advent of the information economy where most work had become more information intensive and over half of the workforce in developed countries were information workers.  So instead of commuting to work in city centre in person, we could electronically take work to where people were by telecommunications and computing – the so-called Telecommuting or Teleworking.  This has never really taken off as projected.  Even after 50 years, many of us are working more flexibly and can do many tasks effectively from home or anywhere we want, but we still come to the office and get together with colleagues regularly.  Some of our fundamental assumptions about work were wrong.  Work is not just what we do, but also where we go and who we go with.  We should be cautious when predicting the future of work with AI and other new technologies, which may take much longer to materalise, and may eventually happen in very different ways from how we imagined today. 

The day before the Roundtable, some London underground drivers were on strike again, causing chaos and misery for millions of commuters, not to mention the huge economic and other damages to businesses and individuals.  It turned out that the reason for the strike was that eight train drivers (yes, 8) were unhappy about being moved from one depot to another.  How could a handful of train drivers hold a whole city to ransom when technologically we don’t really even need train drivers at all?  Anyone who has been to Singapore will know that the technologies have been available for decades for driverless trains, which could serve London far better than using human drivers, at huge savings to millions of people, but we are all repeatedly held to ransom by the powerful trade unions, stopping efforts to modernise the London underground system, at high costs for commuters and for the economy.  It remains to be seen how driverless cars will proliferate.  Today, people are still drive cars with manual gearboxes, so it will be a far bigger leap for driverless cars to be widely taken up.  Would airline pilots, train, bus, lorry, taxi drivers still be around in 10 years time?  I suspect they will be.

Another issue about the future of work is related to low skilled work and social mobility.  As technologies develop and the talent and capital classes capture a disproportionate share of wealth, people at the bottom of society are increasingly accumulating around the minimum wage.  Just visit any department stores or shops, you will see armies of low paid shop assistants.  The ageing society will require a lot of care assistants and domestic helpers.  Would robots replace those people?  Probably not – just as ATM did not replay bank tellers.  In fact, demand might grow for low skilled workers.  Political, economic and social forces will slow down or prevent the onslaught of robotics and automation.  Taxing robots, recently suggested by Bill Gate, is just silly and unpractical, and it is wrong in so many levels.  It is a tax on capital investment.   

Robots and AI and other technologies are very good at certain tasks but it does not mean they can replace humans.  My guess is, some jobs will be replaced, but for many others, AI and robots etc will help humans do their jobs better – and live our lives more comfortably.  We do what humans do best and robots help us with a growing range of tasks.  In the meantime, lots of new jobs will be created too.  We will not all be lazing about all day long with robots doing everything for us.  If anything, we might get even busier. 

When making projections about the future of work, we should remember that the world is not standing still.  What were the predictions when Photocopiers and IBM computers first came out?  The chances are, job increases will outstrip supply. 

The biggest problem with debates about technology and future of work is that people often mix up different perspectives, issues at different levels; and the phenomenon, their consequences, and the business and policy measures to address them.  The future of work will change, by and large for the better, for the majority of people.  Nevertheless, there will be painful transitions for many people, which call for interventions at the policy, business and individual levels.  The future is bright, but some of us might have to experience some pains to get there.