#105: Inclusion in a Digital Society

Flyer for #105: Inclusion in a Digital Society

Flyer for #105: Inclusion in a Digital Society


Guest: Christopher Johnson, Rob Price          Date: April 27, 2018

Guest Company: Atos              

       

[Intro music]

 

Debra Ruh:                  Hello everyone this is Debra ruh and we are recording on Good Friday so happy Good Friday to everyone. I have two guests joining us from the UK and I’ve had the pleasure to speak to both of these gentlemen about the work they’re doing on AXSChat and also on couple of other times and a couple of other scenarios. So, I’m really excited to have Rob Price and Christopher Joynson joining us today and they’re joining us from Atos and Price… I’m going to say it wrong Rob, Worldline.

Rob Price:                    Worldline, that’s it. Absolutely.

Debra:                         Right. And Worldline and Atos are sort of sister companies or…

Rob:                             Yes.

Debra:                         There’s a connection.

Rob:                             Yes. So, Worldline is a payment business within the broader Atos group.

Debra:                         Alright good. Good good good. And, for those of you that don’t know it; Atos is a French corporation and they’re a multinational corporation with locations all over the world and we’ve had Neil Milliken from Atos and AXSChat on before so I’m very impress with the work that Atos and Worldline is doing and I think you will be too. So, welcome today to the program and thank you for being on the program on your days off as well; we appreciate that.

Rob Price:                    Thanks Debra.

Debra:                         So, why don’t we start with… Rob, why don’t we start with you and you tell us a little bit about yourself and then we’ll pass it to Christopher. But let’s just do some introductions of who you are as individuals.

Rob:                             Okay. So, thank you for the introduction and it’s fantastic to be on. So, my role in Worldline is Chief Operating Officer for the UK and Ireland. My background with Atos, I suppose probably for the last 10 years I’ve been working in what you might broadly call digital transformation of various forms. Whether that’s working with global organizations helping them transform the language they’re working with their consumers or indeed to ourselves.

 

                                    So, previous role was head of digital so chief digital officer within Atos itself. And the work that we’ll talk about today is something that I probably kind of talk about in the context of forward look in research so it’s in addition to the data if you like but it’s something that we became increasingly passionate about thinking what more beyond digital transformation of business. How does that impact citizens or consumers and society as a whole. And we’ll of course come back to that after Christopher introduced himself as well.

Debra:                         Yes. Thank you Rob. Christopher?

Christopher Joynson:   Thank you Debra. And to give you Minnie introduction; yes, my name is Christopher Joynson. I work for Atos consulting in UK and I’ve been with the business for about two to three years now so it’s not very long but I’ve had the good fortune to work alongside Rob on this piece of work and we’re really intrigued by some of the insights we’ve received from it and we’re looking forward to sharing them even more in the future. So, I’m excited to be here today.

Debra:                         Yes. And Atos has a scientific community and both of these gentlemen are part of their scientific community. And I wrote a blog recently with Christopher so I’m participating in small ways as well. But it’s… I’ve always been very interested in obviously inclusion as a whole and digital inclusion and how do we solve the digital divide. But one thing that we… and all the conversations we’ve had is you talk about result of your survey and where we go from here is the digital divide has sort of changed and I think that might be a real good place to start. So, Christopher, I don’t know if… what I’ll do is just throw out the question and you’ll decide how you want to answer it because I know you bring different things to the table. But, let’s talk first about the digital divide.

Christopher:                Sure. I can go first. So, I think our traditional conception of digital divide in our society has always been about access to technology. It’s all about whether I have a smart phone or a none smart phone. Whether I have Wi-Fi or 4G or connectivity to the digital world. Our thinking is that although accessibility is still a problem around the world; there are still areas in the country that still don’t have access to the internet. For many of us, it’s ubiquitous and it’s a huge part of our day-to-day lives.

 

                                    So now it’s becoming more about our emotions and feelings towards technology. it’s about whether I feel comfortable with it or uncomfortable with it and that’s going to impact on whether I’m going to adopt it or reject it or not and that’s going to become more and more important as the technology becomes more and more intrusive and impactful into our lives. Before, technological changes was having a thinner phone or a lighter laptop. Whereas now, we are seeing artificial intelligence and blockchain and things that could have a much more integral impact on the way we live our lives.

 

                                    So that’s how we think it’s progressing from an accessibility agenda to a comfort agenda on a very individual level and it’s based on that new concept that we’ve done that work. Want to expand on that a bit Rob?

Rob:                             Yes. Sure. I think if anyone looks online in terms of definition of digital divide; often it’s very much as what Christopher said. It talks about those web access broadband services and those that don’t. Those that can get online and then those that don’t and I think it’s…

 

                                    One of the things that we’re looking at very much was how that differs in different geographies, in different age groups. The things that we might assume are normal within the UK or within the US are quite different in other parts of the world. And I think, if we go back in time, 18 months to when we started thinking about this; we’re also kind of seeing things. Political decisions such as Brexit, changes in the US election and more. We were looking at adoption and rates of adoption of mobile apps or on new technologies that continue to kind of emerge. And I think it was asking the question then; just how are people managing to keep up? How does the divide evolve over the next five, 10 15 years?

 

                                    I’ve read a lot that makes the assumption that those of my age perhaps who are less comfortable with such technologies will be overtaken by those of Christopher’s age who were born using those technologies; the millennials. And I think our hypothesis all along has been it’s not as simple as that. That the rate to change of technology’s some of those that Christopher talked about blockchain content. These are things that many others are not comfortable with in terms of their understanding and clarity about how those can be used to add value to  business, to people, to people’s lives and the society. And I think therefore, our hypothesis was, actually it’s the divide growing and that was the reason why we started looking at the divide and the people’s ability to understand and value the impact of those technologies on their lives and therefore on society and that’s why we did the survey.

Debra:                         Yes. And the survey is very interesting. The questions, I want to dig into the survey. Excuse me a little bit. But, one thing that I thought was interesting in some of the conversations that we’ve had about this topic is, one of my customers, a very very well-known brand in the United States would call their customers that weren’t very technologically savvy lagers. And they said, “well, most of the lagers are your age Debra or older.” And I said, “well, first of all, don’t call us a lager, that makes us mad.” And they weren’t openly calling us that but it was just this little nickname they have in the company but you know how that goes wrong.

 

                                    But it was interesting because I agree with what you just said Rob, that what we understand about the digital divide is that we can’t just assume that people our age, you know my age, your age Rob that we are lagers. You know, some of us are very active on social media and very active on technology. And we also at the same time cannot assume that people Christopher’s age always have the answers either as far as digital inclusion goes. And it’s fascinating because some of it is tied to economics and culture and other countries and how does it accept… there’s just so many factors. And just speaking from the United States for a minute, there are still big pockets in the United States where we don’t have good access to Wi-Fi.

 

                                    I live in Virginia, 2hours from Washington DC and what I have to pay for internet would shock everybody. It’s ridiculous but it’s the only way that I can get access and I work from my home so I have to have this access. So I happen to be in the position I can pay this ridiculous amount of money but I have to have access. And it’s affecting prices of homes. It’s just a really big topic.

 

                                    And so, why don’t we talk a little bit more about… you’ve already talked a little bit about… you know, tell us about the study. Tell us about the countries that were involved. You know, you’ve talked a little bit about what you’re trying to accomplish with it but, I just think the work that you’re doing is very very important to all of us all around the world. And I don’t know Rob if you want to go first this time and then Christopher to add on to your comments but let’s stick a little bit more to the study.

Rob:                             Yes. Sure. So I think, the first thing to say was we wanted to try and understand how people felt as Christopher was saying earlier. Maybe, I mean, you said this was part of scientific community; maybe it’s probably important to say that this is not a scientific study. This was about asking how people felt about a number of scenarios whether there were things that we know kind of people use day-to-day or perhaps we felt were emerging. And what we’re trying to do was try and understand where perhaps the differences were so we asked around. It’s an anonymous survey should they hasten to add birth, their geography, education, gender were the main kind of areas that we looked at. And I think… so we asked for three questions. And those questions ranged from, “how do you feel about using the internet?” which it’s probably fair to say was very highly used. It was an electronic based survey so that’s not a surprise. Three or two something kind of more extreme. As an example, one we’ve talked about many times is, “how comfortable are you with nanobots in your bloodstream?” not something I think kind of we would often use day-to-day now but we could foresee that would be the case.

 

                                    So, it’s a range and it was how do we feel? Do we like it? Do we dislike it? Do we hate it? Do we love it? What’s our reaction? It’s important to say that what we’re trying to kind of understand was relative feeling so the fact that everyone was probably online to fill the survey in  in the first place isn’t actually a problem because we’re not testing the divide in the context of are you online or are you not online. We’re almost asking, “Given that, what are your feelings about these subsequent areas?”

 

                                    So, what was interesting is that we guest launched that survey in English. And I think within a week or two we’ve got that in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin. So we try to make it as accessible as possible to translate to as many people around the world, “what do you think?”, “how do you feel?” and we got a great response.

 

                                    Now, some of that was we use Twitter to engage with some organizations. In Africa for example, South America just to kind of make them aware of the survey. But Christopher, how about you pick up the story from there?

Christopher:                Yes. Sure. So we published in October last year and as Rob mentioned, to many social media channels to try and get as diverse range of people as possible. And we’re really pleased with the amount of people who got involved and completed the survey. We got over 1500 responses in total and from 63 countries all over the world. So as far filled is Singapore and Thailand and Afghanistan and all sorts of places.

 

                                    Obviously, there was a lot of people from the UK because that’s our closest network but we also saw a similar amount of people from Asia so we’re able to compare to 38 different ends of the spectrum in terms of culture and perception potentially and explore how that impacted on our uptake of technology and our feelings towards it. I also have mentioned that it was… this is a sample of society. Obviously it’s not going to be entirely representative and it will be very difficult to do. What we feel is that this is indicative. And if you pull those 1500 people in a room and said to them, “how do you all feel about the same technology?” it’s going to be fascinating to see how they would respond and what the reasons would be and how they were different between each other and that’s what we’re attempting to do through the survey and some of the insights received were fascinating.

Debra:                         Yes. And I was really impressed with the amount of people that responded and from all the different countries.

Christopher:                Indeed. Yes. I think we’re setting targets at the beginning and I remember saying that I’d be really pleased with 500 and sure a bit more ambitious than me. But, people could have said a lot of time to me it’s my time, I don’t give a way but that we really got involved. When we found out that the messages we gave around, “see, this is a different type of survey. It’s trying to measure something more emotive than quantitative.” And people really bought into it and they got excited about it and that really helped us get the amount of survey responses that we did.

Debra:                         So, let’s… so let’s talk a little bit more about the responses and what can we conclude from the responses. And I know you’re still working through that but, you know…

Rob:                             So, I think if I could kick off… And in a sense, I think every time we have a conversation like this, there’s always a bit more that we’ve kind of picked up and learned. But let me start with some of the basic things. So, I think, when we started to look at the data, it’s probably fair to say that the first thing that we looked up was age difference. So, across those 43 questions, could we spot any particular patterns? And we did.

 

                                    I mean it’s as simple as if I’m with the over 60 group, I was less comfortable with the technology in question than in the under 29 group. And it was. I mean, that line was almost kind of uniformed in every single case. Perhaps with a slight tip up at the end for the over 60s. They seemed less, more or less comfortable perhaps than kind of as with the line.

 

                                    Now, what was interesting is that there are some exceptions to that. So there are three categories of exceptions which I’ve talked about before. So, the first one of those was where there is a clear and direct benefit for me personally in time. If something is so easy that it would be nonsense to not do it; then, it’s a much flatter bases between those age groups irrespective of age.

 

                                    If I can give an example, using a contact us payment card; it’s not something that everybody was so comfortable with because it’s used in different right of adoptions around the world. So geographically, it’s different but age wise, wasn’t that different. Once people realized that it was really quick, people have obviously started to get comfortable with it quickly.

 

                                    The second category was around health benefit. So, if it was something that had a potential benefit for me now; then I was more likely to be comfortable with it irrespective of age. So, if I could go back to that example I used earlier, nanobots in the bloodstream. Actually, that was pretty positively seen and interestingly probably more so by those over 60. And therefore, is there a conclusion? And we can only form a hypothesis because ultimately we don’t know. It’s a hypothesis that says, “Absolutely, those in that age group would be more comfortable with the idea of that if it helped address a disease that they would kind of exposed to in later life.” So I can understand that.

 

                                    And then the third category was what we might call consumer products. So, things that people have used because it was easy. That’s about time but maybe this is about accessibility actually. So, for example the Kindle, “what’s the most use of the Kindle?” “How do you feel about using a Kindle or similar device?” Was uniformly flat age group wise. And I think the thing for us there is… actually, I would point… well, you can see the books in my… behind me actually.

 

                                    Actually, I’ve got a device like that, but I love books. My 15 year old daughter loves books. She loves the feel of them. But there are times when that’s helpful. If you go on holiday; you don’t have to carry so many things. If your eye sight isn’t so good; then you can easily change the size of the text.

 

                                    So I think those three areas, there were patterns that was sufficient commonality across the place. If I can use a different kind of area when we looked at gender; there was actually very little difference in gender across most of the questions. Actually, the only group of questions where I would say that there was a difference was the gaming questions where there was more comfort if you like with the male respondents than the female around some of the gaming technologies. There was an exception which I still love… I would love to know why which is over 60s, female were more comfortable with VR as a gaming technology than men quite clearly, quite significantly. I don’t know why is that. We have some ideas, but we don’t know.

Debra:                         So, what are your ideas?

Rob:                             Oh, well actually, so I’ve got a VR headset of the PlayStation. My kids kind of use it on a regular bases and therefore when their grandmother visits, they see them using it. Now, it’s clear that, well I can say, my mother does not come into the house and puts on the VR headset. But through association, she has a degree of comfort because I use it and my children use it.

 

                                    Now, it might be something completely different but, “is it association of comfort of how they feel rather than direct experience?” Might be an idea. Christopher.

Christopher:                Yes. I feel it’s a good place for me to pick off because… actually you’re right, we don’t know for sure why people responded the way that they did. We didn’t ask them why they felt that way and maybe we will do that next time. But, we can start to hypothesize about the underlying factors that are causing this feeling.

 

                                    There’s elements of our context in our social lives that might mean that we end up feeling a certain way towards technology. And I found in particular the concept of technology being intrusive in our lives. And in the past, it’s been something that we can pick up and use and then put down. Now, it’s something that we can talk to, physically talk to and it could be right next to my bed and I can listen. It’s listening to me the whole time which is much more intrusive than it would have been before. So we found that people over the age of 40 were more likely to feel uncomfortable with artificial intelligence providing lifestyle guidance than people under the age of 39 significantly so.

Rob:                             I mean, there was an age kind of… there’s difference there that Christopher’s talking to about AI. But actually kind of one of the interesting areas was the geographic difference around people’s thoughts about AI. So it was interesting to know that both Asia and Africa were significantly more open to AI and voice assistance and the use of the technology than Europe and the North America. I found that quite interesting in the sense that perhaps kind of we might say Europe and North America certainly in the use of things like Alexa or Google Home were probably more prevalent in terms of direct experience.

 

                                    So again… often a survey raises more questions than the answer. But at least it gives us the data to start to kind of wonder how does that therefore have a relevance for our business, your business, anybody’s kind of business in a way in which they then begin to make such technologies more widely available. Now, I’ve got a great little story around Alexa.

 

                                    So, first thing in the data which I still am fascinated with this one. I’ve used it many times so those who have heard me before won’t be surprised that people were more comfortable with nanobots in the bloodstream than they were around use having Alexa in their bedroom or Google Home or any voice assistance which I still can’t… and I think it’s that point that Christopher was talking about in terms of the listening piece, the trust, that they’re feeling secure.

 

                                    Now, this all started out about actually a piece of work that Christopher did before I actually started looking at the use of technologies for the over 75s. So it was how can we make it more inclusive, more accessible to improve people’s lives. And there’s a great example of a friend who has a grandfather who is 90 plus. And one day, she turned up and brought this speaking device, doesn’t matter which one, into his environment.

 

                                    Now, we know that the survey will be quite negative broadly about what their age group would say about voice assistance. But I think that’s often because lack of familiarity, lack of understanding. And what he found was he could speak to this piece of technology and the technology would speak back and he found it engaging. He found it friendly and it made a big difference for the way in which he, he was living less lonely actually.

 

                                    And there’s plenty of other examples that Christopher has looked at in the past where we’ve looked at older age groups using YouTube for example or video forums. And I think, whatever the survey says about the data, we know that there are exceptions there. But at least the data in the survey gives us things to explore and more information.

Debra:                         When you… when you’re looking at this data, did you specifically look at it from the eyes of different groups of people like people with disabilities? I know you were looking at it age and gender and you were looking at others but, were you looking at some other diversity types so you could try to hypothesize you know what it means to different groups?

Rob:                             So I think… something I’ve not particularly talked about before, but if I can just kind of have a slight of slide. So, when I was 13, 14, 15, so the early 1980s, I was playing with technologies Tandy TRS-80 was the thing that I was playing with at that time for those that remember that far back.

Debra:                         I remember it.

Rob:                             Yes. And actually, what I was spending most of my time apart from learning kind of how these things worked was working with my dad on a volunteer bases using these technologies to create accessible services for those with very severe disabilities.

Debra:                         Wow.

Rob:                             So, I still clearly remember the beginning… so this is nearly 35 years ago using kind of single kind of head pointers capacitors that detected kind of electrical movements in the eye. My university project was a single switch operated word processor and language learning system. One of the frustrating things was I almost kind of did text messaging without knowing what I was doing at the time.

 

                                    So, why have I done that diversion back? I started off in technology by trying to improve the way in which people could interact with the content, could learn, create content in a way that they couldn’t otherwise. So I think when we’re talking about many of these technologies now; voice, AI, machine intelligence, many of the accessibility or different ways of assisting, then absolutely, our goal with understanding the data was to work out how we as businesses can make the services and solutions that we deliver more accessible to everybody. No matter whether somebody was old or young, in a far far along parts of the world, couldn’t see, couldn’t hear, whatever it was, how do we have a more inclusive way of engaging with these digital technologies in a way in which people feel is safer, secure, trusted, valued, making a difference to their life and making a difference to society as a whole?

 

                                    So, a long winded way of trying to answer the question. We didn’t asked people kind of what their particular situation was. Whether they have a disability or not. We kept it simple and anonymous. But in essence, kind of the information gives us more insight as to perhaps how to do valuable things with some of these technologies on a broader bases.

Debra:                         I think that’s very interesting that you did it that way because I think as society, and I know we all agree here, that I don’t really want you just speaking from my lens. I don’t want people just to focus on that I’m a woman, I’m a woman over a certain age, I’m a woman that has a disability. I really want you to focus on me as a human being and everything that I bring to the table.

 

                                    So, the way that you did your study choosing not to necessarily dig into those details, “who are you Debra? Are you you know, Are you Sara Ruh with Down…” and then making all kind of speculations based on how I identify, how I present I might say.

 

                                    I think that the direction that you went in is where we all may develop a little bit more because the reality is, it shouldn’t really matter to you whether or not I have a disability, whether I have blond hair or brown hair or grey, it doesn’t matter. What should matter is, do I have access? Am I included? Can I be included? Can I participate? Can I provide content? And so, if we’re really looking at the society in technology is we all should be included. Why would we not include anyone?

 

                                    I know as a technologist of many years, I used to be a programmer. I programmed for many years and we would spend a lot of money on the programs that we created, the technology that we’ve bought and created and we really did not want 10, 15, 20 percent of the population not to use it. We wanted everybody to use it because at the time I was in the banking industry; we were trying to push our customers to use the technology and not the human beings because it’s more expensive to us when we use a human being. And so, that continues to be the case but I like the direction that you went with the study because I think that is the way that we need to be looked at. We need to be looked at at what are our preferences, what can I not do because and things like that.

 

                                    And Rob, I know we want to turn the mic over to Christopher since he got technology got involved. But, one thing that you said before we started the show was this was something that you did for governments and I was just wondering if you would… do you remember when we were talking about that earlier Rob? And then we’ll pass it to Christopher.

Rob:                             Yes. I think we were talking about what’s the core message and kind of how do we all interpret the same thing. What does digital society mean. What does digital inclusion mean. And I think the point that I was trying to get across was, it can mean lots of different things. That the point is that we have an underlying understanding now of how people feel about a range of digital technologies and services that maybe we kind of gives us a bit more insight than we have before.

 

                                    How organizations look at that and determine what they should do and what’s appropriate to do is their choice. How government might kind of look at that or look at the data themselves is their choice. How we choose to is our choice.

 

                                    I think, and I didn’t say this before but it’s the question that I’ve been asking a long time around digital transformation as a whole is trying to get digital transformation driven that gives an equal benefit to each of business consumers employees and shareholders that they’re all for. In a sense, why I said that? Because that’s a slight evolution in a way that organizations think at the moment.

 

                                    And one of the things that possibly going to get test search on later is just really going to say… fundamentally, I think what we’re asking is, what is the responsibility of businesses or governments or individuals in interpreting this information or the wider thoughts and conversations around digital society and inclusion and accessibility to bring about a more positive society. And that’s our goal. That’s why we did the work; was to try and help that thinking, help that conversation continue on a global level. And what’s been fascinating is to see that if we’d have said that 18 months ago, we would have had very few people that were understanding what we were trying to talk about. It would have been less filled and there’s plenty of people that I’m talking about over the last 18 months.

Debra:                         Which is exciting. Christopher, we know that you had to leave us for a minute and come back. But, I would really like you to talk a little bit about the study from your perspective as a young man, as a millennial, as a working man that has… your generation has a lot of stuff to do. You know, you have a lot to fix, a lot to evolve, a lot to… but, I would be curious for you to just talk about a little bit from your generation’s perspective and what can we learn from this. What can… I think I’m older than Rob but, what can other generations learn from this data that you’re putting together and where we’re going from here?

Christopher:                Yes. It’s an interesting one for my generation and we included area to the concept that perhaps millennials are more comfortable with technology and we’ve got a bit of a hypothesis at that might not always be that way.  That when I’m older in 40 years’ time; I’m likely to feel uncomfortable with whatever future versions of millennials are. I don’t know what that be called then.

 

                                    For example. I’ll use this sample when I do online gaming, I’m into Call of Duty at the moment admittedly and I play quite often. But when I play; I mute the people online. So, I’m playing against them and I’m shooting them but I’m not hearing what they have to say because I don’t want to. They could say horrible things, they could say nice things but I’m happy just being in my little online bubble. And just like with people out there who are using VR chatrooms to engage with each other. So they’re putting on their VR headset and they’re going into this new world and going out to people and hugging them and interacting with them and talking about all sorts of stuff which it couldn’t be much further away from my positive muting people online.

 

                                    So, what’s that mean? Well, today, VR chatrooms are quite in this thing. Well in the future, the future Facebook for example might be that instead of us talking online and people seeing us in their newsfeed right now; we might all be in the VR chatroom on Facebook and we might go up to someone and  say, “hey, how are you?” it might be a totally different way of interacting.

 

                                    Now, what happens to me when that concept comes about? Do I transition with the society and also embrace this new technology? Or do I say, “Actually that’s not for me.” and resist it and be outside of it? And I’d say that those new concepts I’m talking about is going to be more and more important that we’re able to feel included and that these companies who are driving this technology are taking our emotions into account.

 

                                    I think that’s the other side I liked from this survey. And the corporate side, it’s … what we’re trying to do is give organizations an indication that they have a social responsibility when they rollout technology. We use a… we use a team called for social responsibility but what we actually normally mean is corporate environmental responsibility. And that’s normally gender that’s associated with that term.

 

                                    What I’d like to see is it broadens that a bit so we see something like corporate digital responsibility. So that I… now that me as an organization, I’m using people’s data, I’m engaging with them through new channels that might be mandated and these might be valuable services to them. I have a responsibility to the society in how that is rolled out. And the decisions I make in rolling that out are vital to the individual and to all of us. So, that’s something that I really hope is a message we can put across from doing this work.

Debra:                         And that’s a powerful message. I have a new book coming out next week. It was going to come out today but we tweaked something called the inclusion branding and I’m talking about scratching the surface on some of this. And I really agree with you; we have an obligation as businesses and product developers, we have an obligation to consider all of these things. And I think a lot of businesses are very confused about what to do or where to go which is why I think the work you’re doing is so important.

 

                                    I know that we went overtime because I just think this is such an important topic. But, one thing I would like to do before we go is; I would like you to talk about how people could learn about this study, what can they expect for the next steps, is there any way if they want to get engaged to contribute to the studies. How can people help make sure that this information is getting out there and share it and what are the next steps? Christopher you want to go since technology was misbehaving earlier?

Christopher:                Sure. I think that’s the value of having two guests in. That you can always [indiscernible 0:37:27.7]

Debra:                         That’s right.

Christopher:                So yes, we’re really excited about the next steps actually. We want to tell the world about this concept and hope that the message really gets to people. So, our… you can reach out to us  on social media and we’d be more than willing to have a conversation on the kind of results that we’ve had and give you a bit more information if you’re interested. And that’s both from our personal and our corporate perspective.

 

                                    And in terms of next steps, we’ve also got another event coming up that we’ll be speaking at. And what’s the name of that Rob? It’s CAMSS…

Rob:                             CAMSS.

Christopher:                Yes. CAMSS 18 which we’re really excited about. You’re going to see all the conversations we can have there as well. And then, perhaps the most exciting part is that Rob and I are talking about doing a new inclusion survey for 2018.

Debra:                         Yay.

Christopher:                Doing it a point in time survey is great. We’ll know further how people felt in 2017 but being able to see how those emotions and feelings are evolving over time and maybe starting to see millennials over time feel more uncomfortable or vice versa. That’s going to be really rich and really interesting. So, we’re quite excited about what our new survey could look like.

Debra:                         And before you stop talking and we turn it over to Rob, tell people how they can contact you Christopher on social media.

Christopher:                Sure. So, I’m on LinkedIn, apparently you can find me under my name Christopher Joynson. I’m also on Twitter quite a lot as well these days under the name “Joynsonc” or “Joynsonc” I don’t know how to pronounce it yet but yes, you can reach me there.

Debra:                         Okay. Great. Thanks Christopher. Okay, Rob, how about you? What are you doing next…

Rob:                             So…

Debra:                         And how do people get hold of you.

Rob:                             So, everyone can always talk to me on Twitter “@The_Digital_COO” with a couple of underscores in the middle and you can probably find me on Facebook. I’m into many other places as well.

 

                                    So, the other thing to say that Christopher didn’t mention is we are continuing to write. So there’s a number of blog articles that we’ve both published. If you search for either of us on Google with Atos; then you’re going to see them, they’re being publish there and on LinkedIn. So I think there’s at least four or five that relate to specifically the results of the survey.

 

                                    And I think, as Christopher said, it would be fantastic to have this as a regular survey. A regular test of how people are evolving their thoughts, how the digital divide is actually evolving and maybe with some insights as to kind of what they… what the reasons are for that. I suspect if we ask those same questions today; there would be less comfort with some of the answers around some of the questions simply because some of the events that have happened over the kind of previous few weeks.

 

                                    So that’s the goal. If we can make it real, if we can… if we can… if we can evolved the way in which business is off thinking about these technologies. And certainly, that’s something that both Christopher and I are doing within kind of Worldline and Atos is to kind of understand how do we feed that into the evolution of these or process which is evolving fast any way. I think there’s a…

Debra:                         Right.

Rob:                             There’s a maturing of that thinking. A maturing of that process around some of the things like the UN sustainability charter 17 points there. So, yes, we’re passionate about it. Hopefully that comes through. And we’d be fascinated in engaging with anyone who’s got a similar passion for this kind of subject.

Debra:                         And what we want you to do is come back on the program as you go out with more data certainly as you do the 2018 survey. I know I really helped like other people socialize and raise the voice and so I think we all can do it. but, I think it’s very important work that you’re doing and we want to make sure that we’re contributing to it, we’re understanding it, we’re all growing from it.

 

                                    So, Rob and Christopher, thank you so much for being in the show today and I look forward to continuing conversations. So, thank you.

Christopher:                Thank you.

Debra:                         Bye everyone.

Rob:                             That’s great. Thank you.

Christopher:                Bye everyone.

Rob:                             Bye.

 

[outro music]

 

You’ve been listening to Human Potential at Work with Debra Ruh. To learn more about Debra and how she can help your organization visit RuhGlobal.com. If you’ve enjoyed today’s episode and you want to make sure that you don’t miss any future epsiodes, go to itunes and subscribe to Human Potential at Work. Thanks so much for listening and we’ll be back next week with a new episode. 

Sharing is caring!

INCLUSION BRANDING: REVEALING SECRETS TO MAXIMIZE ROI

Learn how  Brands can learn to engage with the Community of Persons with Disabilities and other minorities to Create Solid ROI and Positive Social Impact. This book is essential for every CEO and entrepreneur.
Get your copy now!
Written by Debra Ruh, CEO and Founder 
Ruh Global Communications.
Close