Technology and innovation, on a human scale

Scientific progress, the availability of technical facilities, cross-fertilisation between different research communities and combined innovation are giving us an unstoppable progression of human capabilities. But how much, and more importantly, which innovation is really on a human scale?

 

Giovanni Miragliotta, Professor of Advanced Planning, Co-Director of the Industry 4.0 Observatory, Politecnico di Milano

 

Everywhere we look, as citizens and as researchers, we read about the “magnifiche sorti e progressive[1]” that, by means of new technologies, are changing our society and our lives. From the more familiar ones, such as broadband communication networks, to the more advanced, such as bioengineering, to those operating behind the scenes, such as cryptography, it all comes together to the point where it is almost difficult to realise the potential for change in the research and innovation system we have built up in developed countries. This potential is realised from time to time by some unexpected  discontinuities, such as the pandemic we are currently experiencing, which, by combining the various existing innovations, show us how the way we work, teach, plan and treat can be overturned in just a few months. A very powerful reflection in this sense, also and above all because it comes from a man of letters and not from a scientist, is the one recently published by Alessandro Baricco[2].

This occasion, which has shown us the extent and speed of possible change, can be used to elaborate on what innovation is at a human scale; it more important than ever to do so right now, in view of what is being developed in universities and laboratories all over the world, since the forthcoming technological breakthroughs could materialise a change, which many believe (and I am one of them) could be disruptive to the very core of our society.

If we consider western democratic states as the main scope, our society rests on a set of pillars, a mix of worldview ideology, morals and common sense, which form the glue. Some technological innovations (first and foremost bioengineering and artificial intelligence) are, so to speak, on a collision course with these pillars, and could lead to new societies, the extent to which they will be on a human scale is difficult to predict, at least as we currently interpret that scale.

Let’s us consider the central role that the work plays in the structure of society, even just focusing on its economic value and disregard the psychological aspects or that of personal fulfilment; for the first time in history we are beginning to glimpse a possible future in which not only we can no longer predict what our children’s jobs will be in 30 years’ time, but we are beginning to doubt that there may even be any jobs left. In an increasing number of specific fields of work (=Narrow AI), in fact, machines have already achieved superhuman abilities and, as you probably know, there is a huge debate about the balance between jobs created and lost. The analyses carried out in the Artificial Intelligence Observatory, at least for the next decade, seem to indicate a positive scenario[3], but if we extend the horizon of analysis, we cannot exclude a situation in which the demand for human labour will be much lower, made unprofitable or useless by the new skills of machines[4].  In the context of fragile monetary and fiscal equilibrium of nations, a significant alteration in the labour market could represent a strong element of instability.

Changing the technology of choice, the advent of biotechnology could in the near future bring about such major changes that the very foundations of society will be shaken: how will the concept of the family evolve if it were normal for human beings to live to be 120 years old, with youth lasting over 40 years?  What will happen when the wealthier classes, in addition to being able to afford better traditional health care, can also afford to take steps to improve their genetic set-up in a way that cannot be matched by most people? Will we, for the first time in history, observe a divergence in our species, with a (small) fraction of the population having more capable, durable and long-lasting “hardware” (body + brain) than the majority of the population?

These examples make us think about the extent of possible economic and social change, but they do not yet seem to affect the ideological foundations of the society we have built in the West since the American and French revolutions, namely the profound belief in the value of freedom and the uniqueness and individuality of the person. But what if, in principle, by observing all the interactions of a person with their environment and their fellow human beings, it were possible to predict exactly what their feelings and needs would be? What would happen if Google or Facebook or others, on the strength of the immense amount of data they collect about us, knew how to advise us on the right book, the right job, the right investment, the right wife, the right preventive surgery, much better than we would know how to do on our own, confused and lost in an endless number of important decisions to be taken dozens of times in our (very long) lives? Would we then still be “free”? And if there is any freedom left, should we make use of it, or would it not be more convenient to delegate our decisions to a “life advisor” technology that would achieve to us a much higher probability of success and happiness than we could do with our own hands?

This last scenario, envisaged by many thinkers, opens up a radical rethinking of the founding principles of our society, first and foremost the liberal principle, leading to outcomes that could range from a further loosening of existing points of reference (in the wake of Bauman’s liquidity) to its total opposite, a very rigid technocracy.

The point is always the same: it is not possible to make predictions of any kind and, after all, the little that needs to be known, of pure speculation on the future, has already been written. These reflections, on the contrary, bring us to a very great responsibility, that of remaining very vigilant over the changes, even the slight ones, that technological innovation is imprinting on our society.

A future awaits us which can only be on a human scale if we will care about building it.

 

 

Reading notes

This reflection arises, and can be further developed, by drawing on the insights of the following authors:

  • Yuval Harari: I recommend the whole trilogy on man’s past, future and present;
  • Mark Tegmar, “Life 3.0”, and the debate at the Future of life Institute;
  • Zygmunt Bauman, in particular his key text “Liquid Modernity”.

 

 


[1] Citation of the Italian romantic poet Giacomo Leopardi, “magnificent destiny and progressions”

[2] Alessandro Baricco, “Five years in one”, https://www.ilpost.it/2021/05/28/baricco-2025/

[3] See report Artificial Intelligence Observatory, “On your marks”, ed. 2019.

[4] Consider, for example, “A 3D printed car which is designed by AI”, www.thereviewstories.com/czinger-21c-ai-3d-printed-car/

 

Human Centered Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 is often referred to as a new industrial revolution and the recent COVID pandemic has further accelerated the already impressive level of investment in new technologies. However, no real transformation can happen if people are not put at the centre of the transformation. Successful implementation of the Industry 4.0 paradigm requires a joint design of technological and organizational variables, with the aim of designing technologies for humans and not instead of humans. Augmentation strategies through participatory design is the promising avenue to a more resilient and smarter manufacturing

 

Raffaella Cagliano, Professor of People Management and Organization, Co-Director Obstervatory Industry 4.0 Transition, Politecnico di Milano

Digital technologies are nowadays one of the central factors in the transformation of any organization. In the manufacturing context, digitalization is often associated to the concept of Smart Manufacturing or Industry 4.0. Someone even talks about a fourth industrial revolution, referring to the transition towards a new paradigm of interconnected, digitalized and intelligent production systems.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has been a kind of turning point in this process. As also clearly stated in the recent sixth annual State of Manufacturing Report (Fictiv, 2021), digital transformation has become a business imperative, and no longer a “nice to have” or an optional strategic lever. In fact, those companies that have been able to thrive during the COVID-19 year and have shown higher resilience are the ones that invested more in digital technologies in the years before the pandemic. Even during the crisis, investment in digital transformation – also in manufacturing – increased hugely (see e.g. Deloitte, 2021).

Despite this, the results of the introduction of new technologies do not always fulfil promises and in many cases the investments tend to be higher than the advantages. Many change management problems are mentioned as possible cause, and many lament a lack of competencies within the organization, or a lack of right culture, mindset or other.

During our recent years of research on Smart Manufacturing at the School of Management of the Politecnico di Milano, we had the opportunity to study many successful cases of companies that were able to transform their manufacturing systems into completely new models and to improve their operations significantly; often they were even able to rethink their business model and to offer completely new lines of products or services as a consequence of the new capabilities developed and the opportunities brought by the introduction of the new technologies. At the same time, many of these companies were also able to readily react to the COVID crisis, showing a resilience that was higher than the average. They were able to move many activities to a remote or virtual space, to schedule work in a flexible way to accommodate the needs and constraints of people during the emergency, and to introduce health and safety measures more rapidly and effectively.

These companies have a common approach to digital transformation: to put people at the centre of the transformation. We can recognize this approach from two main elements. First of all, they introduced digital technologies within the context of a clear strategy for operations improvement, where technology is seen mainly as a way to facilitate or augment human physical or cognitive capabilities, rather than substitute them. Technologies, on the one hand, are used to facilitate the work of operators by providing all the relevant information, guidance and support that is needed to operate in the most effective way, and to take away those tasks that are heavy, dangerous or where humans don’t add specific value compared to machines, leaving in this way more space to people to contribute according to their most valuable characteristics. Even more, some applications of Industry 4.0 technologies are designed to augment the operators’ potential by providing them with all the data and information needed to make them able to manage complex production systems autonomously and contribute to continuously improve the processes and the systems themselves. Thus, technologies are not used instead of humans, but for humans to enhance their work and contribution.

Second, these companies adopted a systemic approach to technology design and implementation that allowed them to design a system where technology works for humans. This systemic approach requires that technological and organizational factors are designed together, according to the well-known – but not so often used – socio-technical approach. If technology has to support human work, the technical and social systems should be designed together to exploit the joint advantage of the two systems and to design work and processes where the potential of technology and humans are fully exploited. A more common approach is instead the one where technology is designed first, and the consequences of technology on people are managed afterward, trying to adapt a posteriori the knowledge, culture but even the predisposition of people to the technology, with poor results in most cases. This mistake has been perpetuated in every major technological wave or revolution.

Instead, in many successful cases we observed that the joint design of the technology and the work system is realized though participatory approaches, where people are engaged not just in the last phases of change, to inform them or to test the new systems, but instead since the early phases of the project. Operators are asked to express their needs, to provide early feedback on the new systems and sometimes even to provide ideas to further improve or innovate the production systems. When this level of involvement is achieved, the manufacturing system will benefit from the transformation even after the implementation of the technologies, since people are able to continuously improve the way they work and they use the technology, crafting their jobs according to the potentialities discovered in the technologies and in the data that have been made available. This idea of participation, involvement and diffused creativity is coherent with the principles of design thinking that we have seen used in some of the most advanced cases in our study, and that can constitute a new frontier for the application of the methodology outside the context in which it originated.

 

Innovation with a human touch

Conversation with Giovanni Valente, Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science in the Mathematics Department at Politecnico di Milano and Member of the inter-departmental Unit of Study META

 

The Politecnico di Milano, a technical University, has promoted the creation of an interdisciplinary network of scholars from its various departments of engineering, architecture and design with skills in human and social sciences to provide expertise in philosophical, epistemological, ethical and social issues related to processes of science, technology and innovation. Why was this decision made?

At international level, there is a relatively widespread tradition of promoting the presence of scholars working in the social sciences and humanities within the major polytechnical universities. In fact, some of the world’s leading academic institutions, such as the MIT in Boston, even feature entire departments dedicated to specific fields of humanities. The reason for this choice is that the humanities, if they are scientifically-informed, can complement technical knowledge by adding a critical and reflective perspective.

Research and teaching in the areas of philosophy and sociology of science and technology have been present at the Politecnico di Milano for quite some time. However, they began to acquire a systematic form of coordination only recently with the development of the Unit of Study META, which was officially created in the academic year 2017-2018 in the form of a collaboration between various departments. Throughout the years that followed, the group progressively expanded with the addition of more tenure-track faculty, post-doctoral researchers and PhD students, who have been recruited thanks to external funding as well as the direct endowment of the Rector. The current administration of the Politecnico di Milano has indeed realised the importance of developing the humanities in order to enhance interdisciplinary research and enrich the educational offer for engineers, architects and designers along the tradition of the most prestigious polytechnical universities around the world.

Specifically, META aims to produce and disseminate knowledge and offer expertise in the philosophical, ethical and social dimensions of science and technology by organising research and teaching activities as well as academic and public events, which have received a great deal of attention even outside the university itself. A distinctive feature of this network is that its members are based in different departments, so that, besides collaborating with each other, they can also interact directly with colleagues working in relevant fields of science and technology. Such an interaction thus fosters an interdisciplinary approach whereby expertise in the humanities and social sciences is well integrated in the research processes.

So, especially for an engineer, why is it important to have humanities skills and how do they fit into the training path?

As the British novelist and physical chemist Charles Percy Snow famously explained in his influential 1959 book on “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution”, the alleged contrast between scientific and humanistic knowledge (namely, the two “cultures” into which the Western world seems to be split) can have dramatic consequences for society, especially in as much as the educational system tends to favour one at the expense of the other. The call for a properly balanced and multi-disciplinary preparation for our students is even more earnest now that we live in an era of high fragmentation of knowledge and hyper-specialisation, in that there often lacks a dialogue between different scientific fields, let alone between science and humanities.  Disciplines such as philosophy and sociology of science and technology are interdisciplinary by their own nature, and therefore they are suitably apt to bridge the gap across “the two cultures”, even more so when they are taught at a polytechnical university.

Indeed, philosophy and sociology prompt students to reflect upon the foundations of their own scientific and technological disciplines, thereby refining their critical thinking. To give an example, scientific models often resort to assumptions that are, strictly speaking, false, and yet they can be applied to concrete systems: that gives rise to outstanding conceptual questions about the justification of such unrealistic idealisations. Furthermore, philosophical and sociological studies put polytechnical students in a position to develop awareness of the ethical and social consequences of the use of the technologies they will employ in their future jobs. For instance, an extremely popular course META has introduced for engineering degrees at the Politecnico di Milano is called “Ethics for Technology”, which is the first course of its kind established in the Italian educational system.  Last but not least, since the courses designed by META typically require the enrolled students to submit written essays, they offer them the opportunity to practise and improve their own writing and communication skills, an opportunity they would otherwise seldom encounter in other more technical courses. This actually contributes to filling an important gap in the engineering curricula.

With reference to innovation processes that are increasingly data-dependent or data driven, what is the role of social sciences and humanities, in particular with respect to the implications of the use of artificial intelligence in the context of social phenomena?

In the current digital era, the massive and growing use of technological innovations that can process huge amounts of data with unprecedented power poses ever more pressing epistemological and ethical issues. In this respect, the long-standing discussion in philosophy and sociology about the nature of scientific data can be highly beneficial to the research on artificial intelligence, especially when it is applied to the analysis and prediction of social phenomena. Indeed, from an epistemological point of view, it is a recognized fact that there does not exist such a thing as “brute data”. For the process of collecting and elaborating data is not at all neutral but rather it is theory-laden, in the sense that the selection of the dataset relevant for the study of a certain phenomenon as well as the subsequent interpretation of computational outcomes are always driven by contextual background knowledge.

Accordingly, if we wish to draw meaningful and reliable conclusions from the available data, we ought to understand the extent to which they depend on the theoretical assumptions underlying the construction and implementation of the algorithms we employ. Moreover, from an ethical point of view, when we deal with sensitive data that reveal personal information, as often happens in the context of social phenomena, there arise delicate and controversial ethical issues, for instance, concerning the protection of individual privacy. Data security is actually one of the major problems stemming from the use of powerful computational algorithms, together with bias problem  namely the fact that AI systems are trained on data that are only representative of a limited sample of the population, and the trust deficit problem, namely the fact that the procedures by which deep learning models predict the outcomes remain largely unknown.

In order to face these outstanding challenges of artificial intelligence, the vast philosophical and sociological literature on epistemological and ethical issues concerning scientific data can thus be fruitfully combined with scientific and technological practice so as to develop an effective integrated approach.

Designing for the digital society: unveiling the opportunities embedded in digital technologies through Design Thinking

Nowadays, digital technologies are providing incredible options; we live in a world where technological opportunities are cascading over society at an unprecedented speed. Humans are central to understanding how the technology can be better aligned with end-user needs and their willingness to adopt it. Design Thinking is an approach that looks at value and change from the perspective of people

 

Claudio Dell’Era, Associate Professor of Design Strategy at School of Management, Politecnico di Milano
Stefano Magistretti, Assistant Professor of Innovation and Design Management at School of Management, Politecnico di Milano

We live in a digital society where digital technologies are all being used for work, monitoring health and habits, staying connected, seeking information and getting the news, shopping for groceries, travelling, managing finances and more. Digital technologies are widespread throughout the world, and their presence in our daily life is booming. In the last few decades, several different digital technologies have reshaped the way people live and the way companies develop new products and services. Nowadays, digital technologies are providing incredible options; we live in a world where technological opportunities are cascading over society at an unprecedented speed.

A world awash with technologies and information. But humans do not use digital technologies or data; they need products and services. Artificial Intelligence (AI), in particular, has the potential to transform our world for the better: it can improve healthcare, reduce energy consumption, make cars safer and enable farmers to use water and natural resources more efficiently. AI can be used to predict environmental and climate change, improve financial risk management and provides the tools to manufacture  products tailored to our needs with less waste. AI can also help to detect fraud and cybersecurity threats, and enables law enforcement agencies to fight crime more efficiently. AI can benefit the whole of society and the economy. It is a strategic technology that is now being developed and used at a rapid pace across the world.

Nevertheless, AI also brings new challenges for the future of work, and raises legal and ethical questions. To address these challenges and make the most of the opportunities which AI offers, the Commission published a European strategy in April 2018. The strategy places people at the centre of the development of AI — human-centric AI. According to the report “Tech for Good – Smoothing disruption, improving well-being” developed by McKinsey, the development and adoption of AI-driven solutions has the potential not only to raise productivity and GDP growth, but also to improve wellbeing more broadly, including through healthier living and longevity and more leisure.

Technology has for centuries both excited the human imagination and prompted fears about its effects. In this changing context, the challenge is to build AI solutions to improve and not damage wellbeing. Researchers and practitioners are acknowledging that this is a problem of design, which acts as a driver of innovation and change and which is able to keep humans at the centre when building solutions. Humans are central to understanding how the technology can be better aligned with end-user needs and their willingness to adopt it.

Design Thinking is an approach that looks at value and change from the perspective of people. Or, even better, from the perspective of what is meaningful to people. Similar to many other approaches, Design Thinking also combines three factors: (i) technologies, how things are made and their improved performance; (ii) people, how these things are valuable for customers; (iii) business, how organisations can profit from offering them.
The perspective embedded in Design Thinking makes it unique: Design Thinking starts with people. This approach allows leaders to look at value created for individuals and assume their perspective, conceiving innovation not primarily as a source of competitive advantage and profit, but as a means to generate value for end-users.

Design Thinking is usually characterised by three traits: a human-centred perspective, where innovators build empathy with users; the leverage of creativity as a driver of innovation (sometimes even in contrast to assets as knowledge, technology and competitive positioning); and an intense use of prototyping as a rapid and effective source of communication and learning among stakeholders.

Human centeredness in Design Thinking means that what drives the entire innovation process is the identification and satisfaction of user needs. The success of any innovation depends on simultaneously achieving user desirability, technology feasibility and financial viability, yet Design Thinking almost prescriptively instructs innovators to address desirability first.
By continuously involving end users in the iterative co-creation and testing of ideas and prototypes, design thinkers ensure that the outcomes of their innovation effort add value to the human experience and are meaningful and affordable. In so doing, Design Thinking overturns the traditional business perspective that is technology driven: companies first determine what is feasible for them to develop and then push their new products and services through marketing campaigns hoping that they address people’s search for value and meaning.

The need for a human-centred approach also stems from the wicked nature of the problems addressed in Design Thinking projects. Wicked problems are defined as a class of social system problems that are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, and where many customers and decision-makers have conflicting values. These types of problems should be addressed with a human perspective to grasp their complexity, make sense of them and make them tractable.

Human centredness in Design Thinking is achieved through the innovator’s empathy with users. Empathy consists of perspective taking, namely the ability to adopt the perspective of another person or recognise their perspective as their truth, be open to various inputs, suspend judgement, recognise other people’s emotions and communicate by mirroring back.

 

Would you prefer to live longer or healthier? Easy! I want to live a longer and healthier life! The societal challenge of Healthy Ageing

The quest for living longer at any cost – the dream to live for 150+ years – has been replaced by the search of how to improve life quality for better ageing, in order not to lose self-suffiency as well as physical and cognitive capabilities. 

 

Emanuele Lettieri
Full Professor of Health Care Management at the School of Management of Politecnico di Milano
Scientific Director of the Permanent Observatory of Digital Innovation in Healthcare at Politecnico di Milano

Population ageing is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this is definitively good news. We live longer and life expectancy at birth is increasing generation after generation. This is the result of paramount discoveries in medicine and ground-breaking innovations in medical technology. On the other hand, this is very bad news. Disabilities and chronic diseases will probably characterize the last years of our lives, limiting our possibility to live a full life. Moreover, a significant portion of healthcare expenditure – that is expected to increase year after year – is currently allocated to the management of elderly fragility and chronic diseases. This obliges to reduce the financial resources that could have been allocated to the younger citizens.

But how to jump out of this vicious circle?
A straightforward solution comes from what has already happened in other industries – e.g., in the automotive industry. The healthcare system must treat citizens when they are still healthy, helping them postpone as long as possible the moment when they will need specialized treatment for either fragility or chronic diseases. This vision requires healthcare professionals to turn upside down their current approach to health care delivery. Prevention, lifestyle improvement, empowerment and co-responsibility are the “silver bullets” to help citizens live longer and be healthier.

This is the challenge of Healthy Ageing. This challenge is of paramount relevance for the sustainability over time of our society and it is fully coherent with the Societal Development Goal number 3 – ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for everyone at all ages.
In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the concept of Healthy Ageing, intended as the process through which an individual can maintain or enhance her/his well-being within the ageing process. The WHO launched the Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021-2030) that is intended as a decade of concerted global actions on Healthy Ageing. The motivation is that populations around the world are ageing at a faster pace than in the past and this demographic transition will have an impact on almost all aspects of society.
In this view, finding previously unexplored pathways for enhancing the ability of citizens aged 50+ to live a longer and healthier life is top of the agenda for policymakers, professionals, entrepreneurs and management scholars. The initiatives on the table are numerous and they are contributing to the growth of the so-called Silver Economy. This term was coined to describe the economy linked to products and services targeted at citizens aged 50+. Its extent has been estimated in Europe at €5.7 trillion in 2025.

The ageing population can be divided into active, fragile and dependant. For a sustainable society, it is important to support active and healthy ageing among the 50+ citizens so that they can be part of the active workforce for as long as possible. In this view, healthcare must keep pace with their needs. Care delivery must become personalized, participative, preventive and predictive. This is at hand nowadays! Digital solutions might offer the extraordinary opportunity to respond successfully to the challenges of the Silver Economy. Digital technologies might contribute to the development of next-generation techniques for fragility and disease prevention, as well as new treatments to ensure a healthy, active and productive life to the population aged 50+.

The School of Management of Politecnico di Milano stands up for Healthy Ageing and is contributing through different research and educational initiatives.

First, the permanent Observatory of Digital Innovation of Healthcare is collecting data from the field about the transition toward a new paradigm of health care delivery that has been defined as Connected Care. Ageing citizens are searching for an ecosystem of healthcare services and tools that are consistent and interoperable. Considering four main phases – namely, (1) information seeking & primary prevention, (2) access to care; (3) diagnosis & therapy; and (4) follow-up & engagement into new lifestyles – the present Covid-19 pandemics has accelerated the adoption of digitally-enabled behaviours for all phases.
Four citizens out of five searched for information on the internet about healthier behaviours and disease prevention. Two citizens out of five tried smartwatches or Apps to monitor their physical activity, improve their nutritional behaviour or test their cognitive capabilities. One citizen out of three is interested in interacting with their doctor through tele-visits. These and other data are published every year by the research team from this Observatory.

Second, the School of Management (SOM) of Politecnico di Milano is contributing to an H2020 pan-European research project – named NESTORE – aimed at developing an artificial intelligence-enabled virtual coach to help European citizens aged 65+ in their healthy ageing. The virtual coach can provide users with personalized pathways to healthy ageing that cover physical activity, nutrition, cognitive capabilities and social interaction. At present, the coach is under validation (phase 2) in three pilot countries – Italy, Spain and the Netherlands – with promising results in terms of engagement and acceptability. The SOM is chairing the development of the exploitation strategy of the solutions developed within the research project – such as a virtual coach, an App, a smartwatch to collect data, a tangible interface, a chatbot, and a series of games. At the beginning, NESTORE will adopt a direct-to-consumer business model, but with the ambition of becoming a digital therapy within two years – after a phase 3 validation study – and being approved and reimbursed by the national healthcare systems. Our data show that one citizen aged 65+ out of three is interested in virtual coaches because they are searching for 24/7 support for their healthy ageing.

Finally, the MIP Politecnico Graduate School of Business has launched in September 2020 the first edition of the Executive Master in Innovation Management in Healthcare. Multi-disciplinary professionals from hospitals and vendors from the MedTech industry are learning how to disrupt the current paradigms of health care delivery and accelerate the transition toward innovative socio-technical configurations of Connect Care.

There is an ancient Chinese curse which says “May we live in interesting times.” In this light, the School of Management of Politecnico di Milano is fully committed to making available its distinctive competencies to sustain the healthy ageing of citizens 65+, to allow them to live longer and healthier lives in interesting times.

Remote inclusion: the challenge of wellbeing in the post-Covid society

The Sars-Cov2 pandemic affirmed the position of the home as the central place of work and private life, disrupting all traditional social models. Technology made it possible to run the economic system effectively from a distance, but what are the consequences of “remotisation” on the well-being of individuals? The School of Management offers a multidisciplinary platform for studying the social benefits and costs of the remote economy.

 

Lucio Lamberti, Full Professor of Multichannel Customer Strategy, Coordinator of the Physiology, Emotion and Experience Lab
Alessandro Perego, Academic Director School of Management Politecnico di Milano

Inclusion and inclusiveness are key issues for sustainable development: a broad, multidimensional issue that requires not only a transversal effort, but clear vertical projects through which to contribute to real collective progress. Among the various initiatives undertaken by our School, one represents for us a theme that matches our sensibilities, our skills and the type of contribution our institution can offer: the analysis of the effects of technological mediation on study and work relationships.

The Sars-Cov2 pandemic has in fact reaffirmed the position of the home as the central place for work, private life, shopping, information gathering, study and entertainment, through the enormous acceleration of phenomena such as Working From Home (WFH) and distance learning.
In recent months, the social patterns of individuals and families have been transformed with unimaginable vigour and speed. Millions of people have begun to work and study diligently from home, and, although a return to more traditional social dynamics can be assumed once – hopefully soon – the pandemic phase is over, alienation phenomena are beginning to be observed (or at least a reduction in the value of experience) linked to the loss of the physical dimension of sociability, if not manifestations of the so-called Cabin (or Prisoner) Syndrome, i.e. the fear of returning to normal interaction outside the home with the rest of the world for those who are forced to remain confined in a space for a longer or shorter time.

Furthermore, after a phase of focusing on the technological and organisational enablement of WFH and distance learning, it is now time to evaluate their effectiveness compared to traditional models. We are faced with phenomena of historic significance: on the one hand, there is the issue of social inclusion and resilience, since the remote economy exacerbates the consequences of social detachment of the less digitised sections of the population, which are often also the most vulnerable sections of the population (e.g. low-income families, the elderly, the disabled).
On the other hand, in the very complex social equation estimating the social benefits and costs of a progressive “remotisation” of work and training, the terms relating to effectiveness (quality of learning, productivity, innovativeness, etc.) and to the well-being of the individuals involved (satisfaction, quality of life, sociality) are still largely unknown.

These are drivers of social cohesion, individual wellbeing, efficiency and effectiveness at work and at school, and interpersonal and emotional development which, in extreme terms, could be momentous achievements capable of generating sustainable development (less traffic, less pollution, greater inclusiveness, revitalisation of non-urban areas), or dangerous threats of the deterioration of economic well-being, quality of life and quality of human capital, if not of engendering individual, family and social tensions.

The School of Management has embarked on a multidisciplinary and multi-platform research project on the wellbeing of the individual in the remote economy aimed specifically at qualifying and quantifying the dynamics of relationships, engagement and productivity linked to WFH, the dimensions of the effectiveness of distance learning, the cost factors and social benefits of the “remotisation” of study/work relationships.

In order to do this, we want to (and must) draw on the wide range of skills that the School can express: the MIP, a business school at the forefront of the world in distance learning; the Digital Innovation Observatories, which have been analysing for more than ten years phenomena such as Smart Working, the digitalisation of homes and relationship models mediated by technology; the IOT Laboratory, which develops and studies models of interfaces between individuals and their connected devices; the Pheel Laboratory, which studies and measures, in a multimodal way and based on biometrics, the effectiveness and reaction of interfaces and experiences on individuals.

But even such a wide range of expertise risks failing to encompass the complexity of the issue. This is why, in accordance with our strategic plan and that of our University, we are creating a system of relations with the other branches of our Politecnico (e.g. the departments of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Physics, Civil Engineering, Mechanics, Design) with research centres in disciplinary domains other than the Politecnico (Psychologists and Sociologists, above all), and with companies and institutions jointly interested in the topic.

Our platform aims to create experimental environments that mimic the home experience to enable experiments on WFH and smart learning experiences in terms of ergonomics, sound insulation, contextualisation, material impact, user experience and productivity dynamics. In line with the strategic reflection on smart working in our University, we intend to explore the issue of balancing face-to-face and remote working in order to identify solutions that balance the advantages of both while limiting possible areas of weakness. At the methodological level, we intend to work with minimally invasive wearable devices to conduct research on well-being and stress with long-term designs on targeted population panels. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions and teaching practices, we intend to develop 3D simulation, augmented reality and virtual reality spaces and prototype distance learning interfaces.

The key to the project is its multi-faceted nature: the problems of sustainable development are too complex and multi-layered to be tackled really effectively within one subject area such as economics, management or engineering.
It is fusion, cultural inclusion that is the real key to innovation, and it is in this direction that research institutions, in every field, should move.

Work inclusion: knowing we are all different increases competitive potential

Can we still accept that in-clusion is often replaced by re-clusion? It is not just a matter of ethics: acknowledging that each worker has a potential value for the company becomes a lever for configuring increasingly competitive production systems.

 

Guido J.L. Micheli, Associate Professor of Industrial Plants Engineering and Management
School of Management Politecnico di Milano

In everything, there are minimum time periods necessary for an evolution to start having an effect. In our Country, the constitution states that Italy is a “Republic […] founded on labour”; however, it is only in the last few decades that the problem of job inclusion of disabled workers, who – except in very rare cases – do not have the “standard” characteristics that companies look for in their employees, has begun to be addressed in some way.

To put it simply, the process is currently moving on two fronts. On the one hand, a large number of companies are obliged by law to employ disabled workers; on the other hand, there are companies (type B social cooperatives) whose ultimate aim is to prepare disabled people (also called “disadvantaged” in this case) for work. In the large number of companies that are obliged to employ disabled staff, the very frequent outcome is either the hiring of a person who is then “isolated” in tasks of little value to the company itself (in other words, hired but not included) or the deliberate choice to pay the penalties attached to not hiring, which are considered paradoxically “sustainable” when compared with the burden of managing a person considered of little value.
Why is this? The motivation is, after all, quite simple: companies are used to and want to continue working in situations where every activity, machine, equipment, place, process is designed for “standard” people. Every difference is experienced as a source of inefficiency.

It is undoubtedly true that the initial and continuous training of disabled workers is in some cases significantly higher, but why? One of the answers is easily identifiable: the effort in training/preparing disabled workers for any job task is linked to the very purpose of such training, i.e., to provide them with the same skills as non-disabled workers. In other words, even the training that companies design and implement is not inclusive, but rather aimed at bringing disabled workers into line with others.

What should be done to change the status quo?

A profound cultural change is needed. Companies need to critically study their processes, in order to identify those aspects of them that can be carried out with “different” characteristics; by doing so, these “different characteristics” no longer require an effort to be adapted and included, but become naturally functional, and therefore naturally included.

This type of analysis is what social co-operatives (manufacturing or agricultural companies in the true sense of the word, which primarily employ disabled workers) must undertake on a daily basis in order to understand, for example, how an assembly process can be “subdivided and supported” in order to be efficiently and effectively carried out by a wide range of disabled workers.

This focus on processes has the secondary effect of simplifying them, and therefore reducing errors, which translates into a reduction in waste and an overall increase in efficiency.
So, being aware that everyone in the company is “different” can become an important lever for change: every activity, machine, equipment, place, process, which used to be designed for “standard” people, can finally be designed in an worker-centric and non-standard-centric way.

What is the point of the flexibility of the components of production systems (machines, lines, roles, …), which has been much sought after in recent decades, if it is not then used on an ongoing basis to review processes and tasks in the search for an ever better overall system configuration? If this were the approach, inclusion would no longer be sought as such.
We are realising that inclusion cannot be forced: if it is imposed, as is the legislative approach, it turns into reclusion in many cases. Instead, acknowledging that each worker has her/his own potential value for the company becomes a lever to configure production systems and make them increasingly competitive.

After all, who among us has never thought “I have the right person in mind for this”? It is simply a matter of starting to acknowledge the individual strengths of all people – including those with disabilities.
Let’s start here. And let’s not close our eyes: some companies already do!

Inclusion: shaping a better society for all

Conversation with Donatella Sciuto, Vice-Rector of Politecnico di Milano

 

Decreasing the gender gap is part of the 2030 agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including in relation to the prevalence of women in STEM subjects. Disciplines that provide very high employment rates but are still predominantly the preserve of men. What are the factors that are causing this gap?

The factors are diverse and can in my view be traced to three dimensions: individual, context and culture. By individual I mean personal attitudes; by context I mean the environment in which girls grow up – the family, the school, the community closest to them; by culture I mean that of a country or geographical area, which with its own rules can influence individual choices.

Even today, there is still a distinction in children’s play between male and female roles: from pre-school onwards, girls are used to being confronted with certain models, and even those who have grown up with different models when they are with their peers tend to conform to the “expected” behaviour so that they are not marginalised. And growing up things do not change, because in adolescence group identity is even stronger.

At the level of family context, gender socialisation is usually favoured and the same applies to exposure to science, mathematics or technology: girls tend to be less exposed and therefore less interested in these topics, probably also by virtue of group identity. There is a lack of role models, which at this stage of growth are of a different kind.
Girls often have a lower level of risk-taking than boys, which is why families tend to protect them more. In some contexts, scientific careers are considered more “risky” than others, or less appropriate for girls because they are male-dominated, thus fuelling the fear of a hostile working environment.

At the cultural level, there are countries where the study of scientific disciplines is more widespread, such as some Asian countries, and girls are consequently more inclined to study them, even if this does not necessarily lead to scientific careers. In Europe and the Anglo-Saxon countries, the study of science is less widespread, with the exception of the Scandinavian countries where gender equality is more deeply rooted at all levels.

Against this background, what role should universities play in reducing the gender gap in these studies?

We can do a lot, and from the earliest stages of schooling: by working with schools we can show that science and technology have no “gender” and are fun and interesting for everyone.
With this purpose in mind, in recent years the Politecnico di Milano has organised science lessons and workshops for primary school children in collaboration with Focus Junior magazine.

To create awareness and encourage orientation on 11 February, the UN’s day dedicated to celebrating women in science, we published a video to help girls consider engineering as a university path.  The video is now being distributed in the secondary schools we are in contact with. In fact we work a lot with secondary schools, and in particular with physics and mathematics teachers to discuss engineering-oriented teaching. We also organise Summer School Tech Camps for third and fourth year students. Tech Camps take place in English, last one week and involve the development of a technology project (theory and practice) which are presented to the families.

At our university we have also decided to support girls with specific scholarships. The Girls@Polimi programme aims to encourage their enrolment in engineering degree courses where they are less represented, by offering additional financial support funded by companies: in the first year we had 2, in the second 12 and now 20. Then there are scholarships for female master’s degree students, and mentoring courses, again in collaboration with companies.

Finally, and this is a prerequisite, in addition to guidance and support, universities must ensure equality and ban all forms of discrimination.

In Europe, our country has a higher percentage of female PhD graduates, in total and also in STEM areas, more than Spain, the UK, France and Germany (*Ministry of Education report on women’s careers in academia, March 2020). Does this mean that we are moving in the right direction as far as women’s representation is concerned or is this just a first step?

We are only at the beginning. Looking at the data more closely, one realises that it is good because STEM subjects often include biology and medicine, which have never had the problem of a gender gap. Let’s use biomedical engineering as an example: at our university, female students in this course account for 50%. However, in other areas there are very few women, such as electronics and IT, where the female rate is less than 10%, despite the fact that IT professions are in great demand. At doctoral level, the figures improve because we have a lot of female foreign students who decide to study here, so the international presence reduces the gap.

It is true that we are in a moment in history when there is awareness of the problem and a renewed interest on the part of companies to reduce the gender gap, in line with the SDGs, but reality shows that it is the pay gap that is still important, and it occurs from the first job and with equal grades in studies.

In order to help women professionally, it is essential to eliminate the pay gap, and for their development consider them from the perspective of diversity.
An increase in female representation is therefore relative if it relates only to certain functions and areas of the company, which are usually more humanistic.
There is still a lot to be done in this respect and the right place in the job market still has to be won.

Apart from gender issues, what are the challenges of inclusion that you think are most pressing for the research and university sector?

First of all, support the careers of women. As one moves up the academic hierarchy, there are fewer and fewer women, as was found in the report by the Italian CRUI (Conference of Italian University Rectors). Women’s careers should not be damaged by caring duties and motherhood, for example. We have created an economic bonus to support the return of female researchers after maternity leave and support them in resuming their scientific research activities.

Apart from this, I believe the issue of inclusion must be addressed in universities in the full extent: the priority is to create the conditions for welcoming diversity in all its forms.

We are doing this with the “POP” (Polytechnic Equal Opportunities) programme, which aims to ensure a study and work environment that respects gender identities, different abilities, cultures and backgrounds. As an international university, it is also important to learn to live with people from different cultures, and this is a path to which we must all commit ourselves, lecturers, students and administrative staff.  In order to achieve these objectives, in last year’s reorganisation of the services at the Politecnico we wanted to create an organisational unit to follow all aspects, called Equal Opportunities, within the Campus Life area.

People should not be judged by appearances, but by merits.  Only by eliminating any kind of stereotype or prejudice can we build an inclusive world for all.

 

New perspectives between bioscience and management

What the conscious mind expresses neither completely represents nor necessarily reflects the feelings and evaluations of consumers correctly. Biomarketing, a new discipline based on the application of neuro- and bioscience in a managerial context, helps us to identify the unconscious and emotional reactions of consumers evoked by a product or brand, and thus to predict their behavior.

 

Debora Bettiga, Assistant Professor of Marketing Strategy, Consumer Behavior and Marketing Research Methodologies, School of Management, Politecnico di Milano

 

Why biosciences and management?

The evolution of the market, increasingly dynamic and competitive, and of the consumer, more proactive, knowledgeable and demanding, generates a great challenge for companies. Interpreting the needs and expectations of consumers to develop an appealing offer is indeed increasingly difficult.

Research has shown that what the conscious mind expresses – through interviews, surveys, focus groups – neither completely represents nor necessarily reflects the future behavior of individuals correctly.

Neuromarketing, a discipline born as an application of neurosciences to the study of communication and persuasion, measures the cerebral response to stimuli to appraise how an individual reacts, evaluates and filters information.

As evolution of the discipline, biomarketing arises from the assumption that tracking cerebral activity is less accurate than tracking a full set of biological manifestations. Thus, biomarketing collects and integrates data about individual physiological responses such as skin conductance, breath and hearth rate or facial micro-expressions.

This new discipline, based on the application of neuro- and bioscience in a managerial context, seeks to identify, through quantitative methods, the cognitive and affective reactions of consumers evoked by a product, brand, advertising message or service encounter, and thus to predict their behavior. Biomarketing explores the unconscious and emotional sides of the purchasing process on which the individual decision-making process is grounded and enables a deep and unbiased understanding of human responses.

Thanks to their reliability, such methods have been applied in several fields and in different environments. Methodological rigor and depth of tracking allow drawing relevant implications even from small experimental samples, obtaining directions that, from a scientific and managerial point of view, are crucial for a full understanding of individual behavior. Hence, they represent valid instruments for companies in their marketing activities at the strategic and operational levels.

 

How do we measure consumer emotions?

Biometric tools enable the analysis of emotions and affective responses. For instance, with electroencephalography we can assess the attention, engagement and pleasantness generated from a stimulus. Wearable electrocardiogram and breathing pattern can detect relaxation, anxiety, stress or involvement. Tracking sensors for electrodermal activity may provide us indication of consumer arousal and engagement. Eye-tracking is a useful tool for assessing the visual paths and areas of focus while sensors for facial expressions can detect surprise, happiness, disgust, anger or sadness.

Analyzing consumer emotions is fundamental for understanding the customer experience and interaction with the brand. Individuals indeed react to marketing stimuli in a deeply emotional way, regardless of the product. Even for extremely functional products, emotions play a great role in driving purchasing behavior. All levers of the marketing mix can benefit from biometric inputs: reaction to product, brand, label, packaging, price, promotion, point of sale and merchandise management are for instance fields for which biometric tracking allows us to achieve a valuable and innovative evaluation of the impact on targets.

 

But which knowledge and competences should we put in place?

Well, a lot. The discipline born from the integration of marketing, bioscience, neuroscience and design, to name the key ones.
The presence of such competences inside the Politecnico di Milano has enabled the development and further growth of the discipline from a scientific and managerial point of view. PHEEL (Physiology, Emotion, Experience Lab) is the result of such integration, being an Interdepartmental Laboratory which sees the convergence of the Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, the Department of Design and the School of Management of the Politecnico di Milano.

The Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering of the Politecnico di Milano is the national point of reference, as well as one of the world excellences in the field of biometrics applied to medicine. The research protocols allow precise and responsible tracking of every population segment, including people in conditions of weakness.

The Department of Design is one of the leading schools in the world in the study of user experience in interacting with product, interfaces and new technologies. The Department provides creative and rigorous keys of interpretation, which aim at translating results in tangible design inputs.

The expertise of the School of Management in the study of consumer evolution in response to the multichannel revolution in enterprise-market relationships allows us to convey tangible results that can be easily turned into managerial insights.

Enhancing cultural assets through digital innovation: the multidisciplinary approach as a development asset

The multidisciplinary approach to enhancing cultural assets, combining knowledge of cultural and architectural assets with managerial skills applied to the specific context, may represent a strategic key to the country’s economic recovery.

 

Deborah Agostino, Associate Professor in Accounting Finance and Control and Director of the Digital Innovation in Heritage & Culture Observatory, School of Management, Politecnico di Milano.

Stefano della Torre, Full Professor of Restoration at the Politecnico di Milano and Head of the Master in Management of Cultural Heritage and Institutions – MIP Graduate School of Business, Politecnico di Milano

 

The current pandemic has brought to the fore the importance of adopting a multidisciplinary approach to enhancing cultural assets, based on a combination of humanistic, technical and scientific skills.
Cultural assets are in themselves multidisciplinary, in terms of the diverse ways in which they can produce benefits for local development and their resilience in the face of major crises. Over the last few years, the spotlight has often been placed on the importance of understanding the complexity of cultural assets with regard to their enhancement, involving areas as diverse as archaeology, architecture, chemistry, mathematics, materials science, design and management.

With the physical closure of Italian cultural sites, following the legislative decrees issued with a view to containing the Covid-19 pandemic, further attention has been drawn to the importance of creating synergy between different professional figures to enhance cultural assets, also – and, indeed, above all – in times of crisis. At this historical time, digital innovation, and the ability to exploit the digital channel, is the guiding thread connecting various disciplines. The cultural experience has temporarily shifted from the physical to the digital: on-site visits have turned into virtual tours, school visits into online activities, shows and events into live streams. In most cases, these services are not delivered in a structured manner by a team of professionals. On the contrary, a last-minute, emergency-driven approach has often been adopted, paid for with delays on several fronts. The School of Management has monitored the types of digital content proposed and the resources dedicated to it. While results, in terms of online participation in events, have on average been high (online participation doubled during lockdown, compared to the same period last year), the same cannot be said for the skills and resources involved. The findings of the School of Management’s Digital Innovation in Heritage & Culture Observatory show that, in Italy, one out of two museums employs professionals with specific digital skills. Of these, only 6% have a dedicated team comprising a digital manager and a set of specialised professionals.

While the approach used in the first lockdown involved producing digital cultural content using the resources available, it is now time to reflect in a more structured manner on the medium- to long-term sustainability of this business model, as further proven by closures and revenue loss. This means considering at least three aspects:

  • The type of digital cultural content, which cannot be a mere transformation into the digital realm of the activities designed for on-site use. Instead, we need to develop “native digital” offerings;
  • The revenue mechanisms associated with the new digital cultural offering. The digital content emerging from the first lockdown was free, but this does not contribute to the financial sustainability of museums;
  • The professional skills required to develop the project, which must inevitably combine cultural and heritage skills with managerial, technological and experience design competences.

In this regard, the School of Management takes an active role in boosting the digital innovation of cultural institutions through both research and training.
From a research perspective, its projects analyse new sustainable business models, the digital transformation approaches implemented, and the impact generated by innovation. For example, in terms of new business models, we are mapping fully digital offerings and their cost and revenue mechanisms. Early results show some difficulty in identifying a value proposition capable of highlighting the value of enjoying culture in digital form; in other words, while visitors may be willing to pay a ticket to visit a site, they are not prepared to do so for a digital activity. The research is in its early phase, but it will continue by mapping the models adopted nationally and internationally also in related sectors, in order to contribute to the definition of a possible “phygital approach” capable of combining the “physical” nature of cultural assets with the value added by a digital experience.

From a training perspective, it is now more necessary than ever before to train multidisciplinary professionals having two key cross-cutting competencies: soft skills, and the ability to understand different languages within the cultural heritage world; and digital innovation, in terms of designing experiences and of conservation techniques and new digital languages. In this context, with the Master in Management of Cultural Heritage and Institutions – unique in its kind, in Italy, for combining the technical skills of architecture, management and design in a single programme – the School of Management has set itself the ambitious goal of training executive figures capable of exploiting and steering the great changes underway in the cultural heritage world, combining an in-depth knowledge of cultural and architectural assets with managerial skills applied to the specific context.
This was done by means of an application approach that makes it possible to “experiment”, in the actual context, with the complexity of managing and enhancing an asset, favouring the dialogue between “theory” and “practice”, between universities and cultural institutions, and between different professionals.
This is an ambitious challenge we have set ourselves, but one that we believe, today more than ever, will represent an added value for the cultural heritage world and form part of our country’s economic recovery programme.