In this episode, I sat down with tech humanist Kate O’Neill to explore how organizations can balance human-centered design in a time when everyone is racing to find ways to leverage AI in their businesses. Kate introduced her “Now–Next Continuum,” a framework that distinguishes digital transformation (catching up) from true innovation (looking ahead). We dug into real-world challenges and tensions of moving fast vs. creating impact with AI, how ethics fits into decision making, and the role of data in making informed decisions. 

Kate stressed the importance of organizations having clear purpose statements and values from the outset, proxy metrics she uses to gauge human-friendliness, and applying a “harms of action vs. harms of inaction” lens for ethical decisions. Her key point: human-centered approaches to AI and technology creation aren’t slow; they create intentional structures that speed up smart choices while avoiding costly missteps.

"I think the ethics and the governance and all those kinds of discussions [about the implications of digital transformation] are all very big word - kind of jargon-y kinds of discussions - that are easy to think aren't important, but what they all tend to come down to is that alignment between what the business is trying to do and what the person on the other side of the business is trying to do."

" I've often heard the term digital transformation used almost interchangeably with the term innovation. And I think that that's a grave disservice that we do to those two concepts because they're very different. Digital transformation, to me, seems as if it sits much more comfortably on the earlier side of the Now-Next Continuum. So, it's about moving the past to the present… Innovation is about standing in the present and looking to the future and thinking about the art of the possible, like you said. What could we do? What could we extract from this unstructured data (this mess of stuff that’s something new and different) that could actually move us into green space, into territory that no one’s doing yet? And those are two very different sets of questions. And in most organizations, they need to be happening simultaneously."

"The reason I chose human-friendly [as a term] over human-centered partly because I wanted to be very honest about the goal and not fall back into, you know, jargony kinds of language that, you know, you and I and the folks listening probably all understand in a certain way, but the CEOs and the folks that I'm necessarily trying to get reading this book and make their decisions in a different way based on it."

“We love coming up with new names for different things. Like whether something is “cloud,” or whether it’s like, you know, “SaaS,” or all these different terms that we’ve come up with over the years… After spending so long working in tech, it is kind of fun to laugh at it. But it’s nice that there’s a real earnestness [to it]. That’s sort of evergreen [laugh]. People are always trying to genuinely solve human problems, which is what I try to tap into these days, with the work that I do, is really trying to help businesses—business leaders, mostly, but a lot of those are non-tech leaders, and I think that’s where this really sticks is that you get a lot of people who have ascended into CEO or other C-suite roles who don’t come from a technology background.” 

–Kate O’Neill

"My feeling is that if you're not regularly doing ethnographic research and having a lot of exposure time directly to customers, you’re doomed. The people—the makers—have to be exposed to the users and stakeholders.  There has to be ongoing work in this space; it can't just be about defining project requirements and then disappearing. However, I don't see a lot of data teams and AI teams that have non-technical research going on where they're regularly spending time with end users or customers such that they could even imagine what the art of the possible could be.”