PO's and Computers
As Jim Brown’s Guest I thought, unlike Jim, I would try and stir up some controversy and hopefully some intellectually driven feedback via the comments. So based upon my 10 years working in Business Support and Computer Roles (2006 – 2016) within the National Probation Service and then a CRC getting PO’s to take any interest in Business Processes and Computers Systems was a mission impossible. Yes there was the odd PO that took an interest but for most of them the moment the first PowerPoint displayed a Process Flowchart then their eyes rolled and any engagement ceased. Based upon my earlier Guest Post on here which included an outstanding Offender Management Workflow Diagram this received no feedback whatsoever.So things haven’t changed since 2016 when I was made redundant by the CRC. Significantly they weren’t interested in what I had to offer either but for another reason. They decided to dispose of me to avoid having to listen to the complexity of the Business and Computer Processes they needed to support having acquired the business. They had been sold the idea by the Government that it was a simple straightforward “client services” business just needing some basic computer systems that kept the client off the premises. For starters nobody had told them about the hundred plus variations in Court Sentences that a Court could apply and expected you to service and report back in different ways. So why do the majority of the PO elk show no interest in Business Processes and Computer Systems.
So being a bit of a Techie Nerd I decided to ask Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the form of the ChatGPT App why this was the case. Its response is below which I thought being only a machine designed to do a bit of thinking it described it in a very almost social reformist genre and how I envisaged a Humanist PO describing it to me as Determinist Techie.
The challenge that professionals in the social sciences face in taking an interest in business processes and computer systems can stem from several factors related to mindset, training, and the nature of the fields themselves. Here are some of the main reasons:
1. Different Educational Backgrounds
Social scientists typically focus on human behaviour, society, and cultural dynamics, while business processes and computer systems are more technical, structured, and data-driven. The academic training in social sciences often emphasizes qualitative analysis, critical thinking, and understanding societal structures, which may seem disconnected from the quantitative, efficiency-driven focus of business processes and computer systems.
2. Perception of Relevance
Social scientists might see business processes and computer systems as outside their primary area of interest. They may perceive these fields as more concerned with corporate or economic efficiency rather than with the broader societal issues they study, like inequality, politics, or human development. This perception can make it difficult for social scientists to appreciate the potential role of business and technology in shaping societal outcomes.
3. Cultural Divide
There is often a cultural divide between social science disciplines, which prioritize human experience, and the more technical fields of business and IT, which prioritize logic, systems, and structure. Social scientists might view business and computer systems as too rigid or focused on profit rather than the human element, making it harder to relate to or engage with.
4. Complexity of Business and IT Systems
Business processes and computer systems can be highly technical and require specialized knowledge in areas like software development, systems design, and financial metrics, which may be outside the typical training of social scientists. The complexity and jargon-heavy nature of these fields can be daunting or appear irrelevant unless there is a strong reason to engage with them.
5. Priorities and Research Focus
Social science professionals are often concerned with addressing societal issues like social justice, ethics, and human well-being, which can seem disconnected from the business world’s emphasis on efficiency, profitability, and system optimization. Their focus on social theory, human interaction, and societal improvement can make business processes and computer systems seem like secondary concerns or less impactful on the human condition.
6. Interdisciplinary Gaps
There has historically been a lack of interdisciplinary education and collaboration between the social sciences and fields like business and information technology. Without formal integration, these professionals may not have the tools or language to bridge these gaps easily. However, fields like digital sociology or organizational behaviour are emerging to address this disconnect, helping to show how technology and business processes shape human experience.
7. Concerns About Ethics and Impact
Social scientists might also be wary of the ethics and societal impact of business processes and computer systems. They may be concerned about the effects of automation, surveillance, or corporate behaviour on social inequality, privacy, or the environment. This ethical concern can create scepticism or reluctance to engage deeply with these systems, unless they see a clear societal benefit.
While these are common reasons for the disconnect, there is increasing recognition of the value of integrating social science perspectives into business and technology. Understanding the human factors in systems design, organisational behaviour, and user experience can lead to more ethical and user-friendly solutions. Cross-disciplinary approaches are gaining momentum to bridge these gaps.
So being a bit of a Techie Nerd I decided to ask Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the form of the ChatGPT App why this was the case. Its response is below which I thought being only a machine designed to do a bit of thinking it described it in a very almost social reformist genre and how I envisaged a Humanist PO describing it to me as Determinist Techie.
The challenge that professionals in the social sciences face in taking an interest in business processes and computer systems can stem from several factors related to mindset, training, and the nature of the fields themselves. Here are some of the main reasons:
1. Different Educational Backgrounds
Social scientists typically focus on human behaviour, society, and cultural dynamics, while business processes and computer systems are more technical, structured, and data-driven. The academic training in social sciences often emphasizes qualitative analysis, critical thinking, and understanding societal structures, which may seem disconnected from the quantitative, efficiency-driven focus of business processes and computer systems.
2. Perception of Relevance
Social scientists might see business processes and computer systems as outside their primary area of interest. They may perceive these fields as more concerned with corporate or economic efficiency rather than with the broader societal issues they study, like inequality, politics, or human development. This perception can make it difficult for social scientists to appreciate the potential role of business and technology in shaping societal outcomes.
3. Cultural Divide
There is often a cultural divide between social science disciplines, which prioritize human experience, and the more technical fields of business and IT, which prioritize logic, systems, and structure. Social scientists might view business and computer systems as too rigid or focused on profit rather than the human element, making it harder to relate to or engage with.
4. Complexity of Business and IT Systems
Business processes and computer systems can be highly technical and require specialized knowledge in areas like software development, systems design, and financial metrics, which may be outside the typical training of social scientists. The complexity and jargon-heavy nature of these fields can be daunting or appear irrelevant unless there is a strong reason to engage with them.
5. Priorities and Research Focus
Social science professionals are often concerned with addressing societal issues like social justice, ethics, and human well-being, which can seem disconnected from the business world’s emphasis on efficiency, profitability, and system optimization. Their focus on social theory, human interaction, and societal improvement can make business processes and computer systems seem like secondary concerns or less impactful on the human condition.
6. Interdisciplinary Gaps
There has historically been a lack of interdisciplinary education and collaboration between the social sciences and fields like business and information technology. Without formal integration, these professionals may not have the tools or language to bridge these gaps easily. However, fields like digital sociology or organizational behaviour are emerging to address this disconnect, helping to show how technology and business processes shape human experience.
7. Concerns About Ethics and Impact
Social scientists might also be wary of the ethics and societal impact of business processes and computer systems. They may be concerned about the effects of automation, surveillance, or corporate behaviour on social inequality, privacy, or the environment. This ethical concern can create scepticism or reluctance to engage deeply with these systems, unless they see a clear societal benefit.
While these are common reasons for the disconnect, there is increasing recognition of the value of integrating social science perspectives into business and technology. Understanding the human factors in systems design, organisational behaviour, and user experience can lead to more ethical and user-friendly solutions. Cross-disciplinary approaches are gaining momentum to bridge these gaps.
Banno
Well this is what AI says about responding to an employer that’s treats employees badly.
ReplyDeleteSubject: Concerns Regarding Workplace Treatment and Employee Well-Being
Dear [Employer],
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address a concern that has been weighing heavily on my mind regarding the way employees are treated within our workplace. I believe that as employees, we deserve to be respected, valued, and treated fairly. Unfortunately, recent experiences have made it difficult for me to feel that this is the case.
While I understand that every job comes with challenges, there have been repeated instances of unfair treatment, lack of communication, and disregard for the well-being of staff. This not only affects morale but also our ability to perform at our best, which ultimately impacts the company as a whole.
I truly believe that when employees feel respected and supported, they are more productive and loyal to the company. It is my hope that this letter serves as an opportunity to reflect on these issues and implement changes that prioritize employee well-being, fairness, and mutual respect.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further and explore ways to improve the work environment for everyone.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Position]
[Company Name]
There are a lot of good points made about the disconnect between business and social sciences. From my perspective I do view “ business “ processes as being somewhat alien to the values we apply in social sciences .
ReplyDeleteProbation work is often portrayed as the unseen backbone of the criminal justice system—quietly ensuring that individuals are guided through the most challenging periods of their lives. But what is rarely discussed is the profound toll this work can take on those responsible for upholding these duties.
ReplyDeleteThe weight of this role is immense, and often invisible. Day in and day out, probation officers are tasked with managing the intricacies of human behaviour, balancing public safety with rehabilitation, and offering hope in an environment that sometimes feels hopeless. We sit in meetings discussing caseloads and outcomes, while internally grappling with feelings of burnout, isolation, and, in some cases, despair.
While we are trained to manage risk, how often are we encouraged to manage our own well-being? The expectations placed on us are high, and in some instances, they have become unattainable. The truth is, the structure we work in does not always prioritise the mental health of its staff, despite the intense emotional and psychological pressures of the job. The system is not just under-resourced for those we are assisting—it’s under-resourced for us, too.
There is a disconnect between those at the very top and those on the front line. The policies, targets, and bureaucracy imposed from above seem increasingly out of touch with the daily realities of this work. Barriers are constantly placed in our way, not in service of better outcomes for those we are assisting, but for the gratification of those who wish to tick boxes and claim success from afar.
Those making decisions often forget what it is we’re trying to achieve. Their distance from the front line allows them to overlook the fact that their directives, rather than supporting us, often hinder the progress of the very work we are tasked with doing. The layers of obstruction can be demoralising, and it’s no wonder so many of us feel disconnected from the system we serve.
The reality is that many probation officers are struggling in silence, worn down by years of unrelenting pressures. We’re often the last ones to admit that we’re not coping, that we feel broken inside, even when the signs are screaming at us. It’s not just about workload, it’s about the emotional toll—carrying the burdens of others until we have no capacity left for ourselves.
October 10th is World Mental Health Day, a day that reminds us to take stock of our well-being. But for many in probation, taking stock means facing uncomfortable truths: that the very nature of our work—relentless, emotionally charged, and often thankless—puts us at risk of mental health crises.
All of us, regardless of rank, have a duty to look after one another. We cannot continue to judge those who are desperately trying to cope and survive in a service that becomes more toxic by the day. The culture of judgement and stigma needs to be addressed, so we stop shaming those who are struggling and start supporting them. Our collective well-being depends on it.
The service has become a place where simply asking for help or admitting you’re overwhelmed can feel like a personal failure. But this is not the failure of the individual; it’s the failure of a system that has created impossible conditions for those on the ground. It’s time for us to stand together, to recognise that mental health matters as much as the work we do, and to demand better for ourselves and each other.
Our work is about giving people second chances. Isn’t it time we gave one to ourselves?
Our work is about giving people second chances.
DeleteNo no no it is not. Work is what tasks management determine. Competence to do such task as directed. Monitoring supervision control assesment oasys don't state anything about second chances . What does this mean to multiple offending histories anyway. The disconnect here is some have no idea what the role is today and continue to have these distortions of function.
Very well said. Sums it up eloquently. Don't think anything will change, sadly.
ReplyDeleteReally well put @11:32. There is such a disconnect from the top, NPS values and what we are trying to achieve that the efforts we put in to try and engage offenders with all the bureaucracy that surrounds us in every little thing we do these days, the core role gets overlooked / underestimated.
ReplyDelete@11:32, fully agree, shame you couldn't email this to all staff at NPS to remind everyone they're not alone, but I guess you'd be to worried about disciplinary action for telling the truth...
ReplyDeleteWhy it will just mislead staff and is contrary to every job description in the nps these days . Nps know these views will finish as staff Retire away.
Delete