Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Innovation Features
Andrew Maynard
Who gets to imagine the future and be a part of building it?
Lauren Dunford
Four steps for any factory to unlock big wins with digital tools
Taran March @ Quality Digest
Designing good habits into laboratory work tools
Joe Chew
New system holds the key to unprecedented accuracy in beam control
Sana Kazilbash
Using tools like Autodesk Fusion 360, the CNC Enhanced course is facilitating inclusion in manufacturing

More Features

Innovation News
The tabletop diagnostic yields results in an hour and can be programmed to detect variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
First Responder UAS Triple Challenge focuses on using optical sensors and data analysis to improve image detection and location
More than half of respondents expect to meet Industry 4.0 goals within two years
Both quality professionals and their business leaders agree that openness and communication is essential to moving forward
Voxel8 patented technology will provide printed lattice structures to be used as inserts in midsoles
Purpose-built for cannabis analysis
True 3D holographic displays are practical with only moderate computational requirements
Inspect nozzle welds using phased array ultrasound testing techniques including ray-tracing, scanner simulation, coverage maps
Produce large parts up to 300 × 300 × 450 mm without residual stress, gas cross flow, or having to pre-sinter powder bed

More News

Phanish Puranam


How Should Humans Collaborate With AI?

Take the Bionic Readiness Survey and help answer that question

Published: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - 12:01

As businesses increasingly adopt AI-driven decision making, experts agree that the most interesting questions are not about whether humans can beat machines or vice versa, but how the two forms of intelligence can most fruitfully collaborate—and how organizations can best facilitate those collaborations.

In a recent essay published in the Journal of Organization Design, I pointed out that there are at least four distinct forms of division of labor between humans and AI when it comes to decision-making tasks. Humans and AI can either specialize to perform different tasks or not, either in sequence or in parallel. Specialization seems the way to go when there is a clear advantage for one type of intelligence at some portions of a task. For example, activities such as leading a meeting or conducting sales calls are best left in human hands, while a number-based assessment of the relative financial performance of companies in a portfolio clearly plays to algorithmic strengths.

However, even when there is no clear advantage, one might still gain from the diversity in how humans and algorithms solve the same problem. For instance, we might pool estimates of profitability generated in parallel to improve investment decisions, or use one intelligence to act as a check—a “second opinion”—in medical diagnosis. This approach was meant to stimulate exploration for the configuration that might produce the best results for any given decision task.

But shouldn’t it matter in what configurations humans are most comfortable working alongside AI? For instance, given their relative skills, even if specialization in sequence may technically be the better configuration, if humans inherently distrust such a configuration, parallel work without specialization may be easier to implement between humans and algorithms. We know that humans have trust issues (often well-justified) with new technologies in general, and AI algorithms have not proved to be an exception. It may be not only consistent with humanistic values but also good for business to respect rather than ignore such concerns. 

So are there configurations of collaboration with AI algorithms that humans are more or less likely to trust? Do such preferences vary across countries and sectors? To explore this idea, research associate Ruchika Mehra and I recently launched “The Bionic Readiness Survey,” the first step on what we hope will be a comprehensive and fascinating journey to help organizations learn more about how humans and AI can work together effectively. Should you wish to participate, it should take you between six and 12 minutes to answer the questions, depending on which of our randomly selected surveys you receive. (All participants who finish the survey get a one-page downloadable “cheat sheet” of cutting-edge curated content—links to articles/videos about how AI is affecting organizations.)

With the data from this survey—that has already gathered hundreds of responses from around the world—we hope to offer reliable insight on which configurations people may systematically prefer or dislike. The survey also gives an overall picture of how ready respondents are for the bionic future—one in which humans and algorithms work together. We can also slice the data to compare your organization’s responses to the overall sample. Just drop us a line in advance to arrange it.

There is little doubt that human-AI collaboration will play a significant role going forward. Organization designers have the responsibility of making sure humans like the terms on which this occurs. 

First published July 5, 20201 on INSEAD's Knowledge blog.


About The Author

Phanish Puranam’s picture

Phanish Puranam

Phanish Puranam is the Roland Berger Chair Professor of strategy and organization design at INSEAD. He is also the academic director of INSEAD’s Ph.D. program.