Will chatbots and artificial intelligence kill trainers ?

Do we still need trainers? With the emergence of e-learning, Mooc, Cooc and other Spooc, and with the arrival of artificial intelligence that will open new possibilities even more effective? Contraction of “chat” and “robot”, a “chatbot” is a computer program able to dialogue with its user… So to speak that the trainer will be able to dialogue with his trainer everywhere, at any time and In an increasingly personalized exchange.

What becomes of the trainer? Already questioned by learners about the knowledge part, what may be its added value now? What is its future in the face of the GAFAM assault on artificial intelligence?

The trainer’s profession: a total challenge

Would the trade of trainer be part of the trades destined to disappear with the arrival of digital? The profession of teacher, in the broad sense, teacher, teacher … is already largely questioned by learners. Those considered “knowledgeable” see their “knowledge” challenged by the mass of knowledge available on the internet.

In one click all the knowledge of the world is accessible to everyone, without filter, in an exhaustive and easily accessible way although pedagogical content has the advantage of being targeted, the constraints of the face-to-face, with the consequent cost of diary adjustment, absence at the workplace and transport are not always a criterion Compensates for this extra cost neither from the point of view of the company nor

Artificial intelligence: indisputable advantages for training

This question, launched at the emergence of e-learning, is refreshed today by the massive use of this type of training and the arrival of artificial intelligence with its chatbots in HR (*). With a “13% increase in the e-learning market” planned for 2017 and a real use, if one refers to the “77% of American companies that offers it to their employees” (**) Distance education is today a reality that is no longer discussed.

Artificial intelligence promises to bring even more performance to more than one title: financially, pedagogically for its playfulness and the possibilities of personalization. Let’s focus on personalization which is one of the major assets rendered by the AI ​​to the trained; He will have the opportunity to “personalize his trainer” (choice of genre, voice, physical appearance, pedagogical style …) thanks to “humanoid robots”.

It will benefit from a “personalization of the contents” by the follow-up of the cookies and the analysis of the “big data” that offers “automatically” the course of the trained internet; At the end of the course he will benefit from a “personalization of the next trainings” according to his results because the machine knows how to evaluate in “live” and he will find all his trainings on “a personalized platform” that will follow him throughout his life …

AI, a trainer partner for a new “learning experience”

But where is the human in all this? The question of the added value of the human relationship is undoubtedly the question posed today. The arrival of the AI ​​can in fact be an opportunity for the professions, all of them, to question themselves: seek to identify what the machine will be able to alleviate the current loads, imagine what it must devote its added value.

Creating (***) a new learning experience, richer, more entertaining, more learning, is the challenge for trainers today and tomorrow. And there is no time to lose… Because we are already announcing the next wave that will revolutionize training and human development in general, that of “artificial empathy”.

What to expect in 2017?

What is new in technology 2017? What emerges from the analysis of the Grand Las Vegas Show and the builder information that flourished at the beginning of the year is: a generalization of voice recognition, the arrival of flexible screens and faster communication technologies like Bluetooth 5.0, twice as fast and a range four times greater than the current process.

A quoi s’attendre en 2017-1

Side Smartphone, the Iphone goes (already!) celebrating its 10 years this year and Apple will mark the event by the release of an IPhone 8 in the spring. According to some noises it would be equipped with Oled screen more contrasted than previous generations and undoubtedly curved on the sides like the Galaxy Edge. To save space all borders would be eliminated and the home button, front camera and fingerprint sensor would be directly on the screen. Apple could take the opportunity to add facial or retinal recognition to its Smartphone. Like the Apple Watch, the Iphone8 would recharge by induction.

Samsung who is recovering hard from the Galaxy Note 7 that he finally had to withdraw from the sale is preparing his return with a new version of his smartphone starring the Galaxy S. There would be a 5-inch model and another 6-inch; The large model would benefit from a Quad HD screen that would improve especially the image quality with a virtual reality headset and probably stereo speakers signed Harman, recently bought by Samsung. Another important novelty, the Galaxy S 8 would be able like Windows mobile to transform itself into desktop PC by linking a keyboard and a screen.

A quoi s’attendre en 2017-2

The voice assistant would be the star of 2017. Popularized by Siri on the Iphone and Google Now on the Android smartphone, the voice assistant invites itself in an increasing quantity of everyday objects: earpiece at Sony, televisions at Samsung, Computers and Apple TV box at Apple, etc … In 2017 one can install in the living room a multipurpose terminal serving as both a Bluetooth speaker and a connected butler. The products that emerge from this category are Echo from Amazon and Home Google … in 2017 the dream of ordering music, lighting without moving its sofa will become accessible to everyone!

Disruptive Innovation, a theory of confusion ?

Disruptive Innovation, a theory of confusion? What is “disruptive” is not necessarily “disruptive innovation”.

Twenty years after the introduction of the theory of disruptive innovation (or breakthrough innovation), Clayton Christensen, who originated it, revisits this theory through analyzes of its applications in the “Harvard Business Review Of January 2017.

Now somewhat mainstream, the disruption has sometimes become a fashion effect, a grail for any innovator, find the” killer app” is a sort of paradoxical injunction in big companies, who dream of it while limiting disruptive ideas that disturb Organization and established processes.

Christensen therefore returns to the abuses of interpretation of disruptive innovation. The example of Uber is masterfully described “Uber a Disruptive Business? “.

Recalling how this company, which has grown tremendously by operating in more than 60 countries and having carried out a fund raising that valorizes the company to 50 billion, is a success that has revolutionized the business of taxis.

“But has it caused a breakdown in this sector? According to the theory, the answer is no”. Uber’s financial and strategic success is not enough to qualify his innovation approach as a break even though the term is almost systematically applied to it.

L’Innovation disruptive HBR

Christensen justifies in two arguments the reason why Uber is wrongly classified among the examples, yet successful, of disruptive innovation.

The first reason is that “innovation breaks down in low-end markets or in new markets.” Neither of them corresponds to Uber’s case.

Uber has certainly helped to increase the volume of demand but the company has built its position first on the traditional market to then attract the segments historically neglected.

The second reason is that “innovation breaks have no hold on the traditional clientele as long as the quality is not up to the standards of this category”.

But most of the components of Uber’s strategy seem to be supporting innovations. Uber’s quality of service is rarely described as inferior to that of existing taxis, many even agree that it is superior. Moreover, the services are reliable and punctual, prices equal or lower than those of the traditional companies.

In the end one can ask the interest to know if Uber is disruptive or not? The fact that the appearance of Uber has sown trouble in the taxis market has a disruptive effect but that doesn’t constitute in itself a disruptive innovation nevertheless.

The unavoidable rules of disruption theory according to Christensen are 4:

1) the disruption is a process

2) the business models of the “disrupters” are often very different from those of established societies

3) certain innovations of rupture Are successful and others not and finally

4) “the mantra” create the break or suffer the may be bad advice “.

Obviously the importance of determining whether one is in disruption or not intervenes on the strategic mode of piloting and on the type of strategic choice between “driving support” and “driving disruptive”.

A bon entendeur salut!