1

The unspoken truth about why projects fail1. When teams lack trust and respect

What do we mean by trust and respect?Trust Trust is communicated between people as warmth, and our trustworthiness is the extent to which we’re seen as part of the group, with intentions aligned to the rest of the team.

RespectRespect is a judgement about competence, meaning the extent to which we’re seen as someone that is able to contribute and help the team succeed.

3

The Unspoken Truth About Why Projects Fail1. When teams lack trust and respect

The project management sector is at a critical juncture. Billions of pounds are wasted annually on projects that don’t deliver their objectives and yet many of the risks that frequently derail them remain hidden to project managers. These unseen risks shape our behaviour in ways that impact the success of the organisation, but managers are prevented from dealing with them thanks to their inherent complexity and the social norms of teams at work.

I wanted to write this series to shine a spotlight on unseen risks in projects. In this whitepaper, I’m focusing on the im-pact of judgements between team members in terms of trust and respect. We’ve probably all been there, when a team neither trusts or respects one another. But I want to lean on data and research to help you understand what these problems look like and to give you some insight into resolving them.

I’ll also take a look at the modern workplace and describe the role it has in exacerbating unseen risks, making it increas-ingly likely teams will encounter them. Still, I’m optimistic that beyond automating processes and leading business deci-sions, technology will also be the key that unlocks better quality conversations between managers, team members and stakeholders.

Big thanks go to Adam Richmond of CPC Project Services who gives us his take on why projects fail and his experiences of dysfunctional team dynamics.

I’d love to hear your feedback. Because ultimately, we all need to have better conversations.

Stephen RussellCo-founder and CEOShumi Technologies Limited

4

5 - 8 The Expert View – Interview with Adam Richmond ChPP

9 - 13 The status of projects in 2019

14 - 21 What goes on under the surface of poor performing teams?

22 - 24 How technology can foster trust and respect

25 - 27 Summary - A pivotal point for the industry

27 About the author

Table of contents

5

The Expert View

“70-80% of the stress on a project is derived from

behaviour at the top.”

6

“ The building of trust and respect is difficult because projects are transient endeavours.”

Adam Richmond ChPP is a Project Director and Chair of Pro-Manchester's Transport & Infrastructure Sector. For the last 15 years, he’s worked at every stage of the project lifecycle on public sector transport projects ranging from £250k to £40bn. He says, “Invariably, I get asked to fix broken projects or projects that look like they are going to fail.”

Shumi sat down with Adam over a coffee to get his view on all things projects.

Adam, why do you think so many projects don’t meet their objectives?

Political pressure causes problems in projects in differing ways. When a project sponsor is under pressure, from the public or their organisation, to deliver results, the team can be asked to achieve things in very short timescales. Budget decisions can be rushed through based on information that isn’t detailed enough because there hasn’t been enough time to do the work up front. As a consequence, agreed budgets carry a risk with them because they are built on a best estimate sometimes. You will then see huge cost overruns because “we didn’t know that at the start”.

The cultural impact of political pressure can also lead to bias creeping into decisions. I have seen Project Managers told to go away and come back with the answer the sponsor wants to hear, which can mean risks get underestimated. It’s also true that PMs don’t have reliable data to base decisions on. Time pressures mean they’ve not captured learnings at the end of a project, so instead they bring their own interpretations and bias to their next project.

Poor governance and the issues that it causes, is another huge problem. With poor governance, comes poor process. If you can’t document how you address change, how you manage your risks and issues, how you deal with threats (and opportunities), how you manage and report on the pro-gramme etc, the project team will not be in control of the project and you will end up in freefall.

7

§

Staff members who do not feel in control of the project will be disenfranchised, find themselves struggling to keep up with the workload and client demands. This causes stress, fatigue and will spiral as the client is-sues more and more demands of you, especially when they see the project is not in control.

You’ve mentioned some typical human behaviours there. Do PMs need to be more aware of people issues, not just process? I have never seen human behavioural risks quantified on a risk assessment. Perhaps only ever stress or burnout. These issues only get identified after the event and it would take a mature and empowered manager to add that to the risk register.

I think this is happening because a lot of leaders still adopt an authoritarian attitude to projects. Everything is transactional and there is a view of ‘you’ll do as I say.’ This culture permeates, and many PMs are technical experts but don’t have soft management skills.

This is hard because PMs and Risk Managers tend not to be qualified professionals – there’s a low barrier to entry, compounded by a skills shortage which makes it hard to recruit managers with years of experience. Chartership is a step in the right direction but 80% of a project’s success is down to communication; you need to build consensus, recover from failures, know how to deliver bad news and so on. If you don’t have those skills, you can only rely on goodwill for so long before people start working to rule.

“It would take a mature and

empowered manager to add

human behavioural risks to the risk

register.”

8

What happens when team members don’t trust each other? I see this far too often. A successful project team has to act as a team. I mean this in the micro and macro sense. In your immediate project team, on high pressured projects you need to act as a small family. Your larger engaged team (including designers, contractors etc) also needs to do this. You can deliver a project without trust but it might not be a happy place to work.

And what symptoms do you see when there’s a lack of respect in the team? The best managers and leaders offer support and guid-ance where needed and don’t micro-manage. If you don’t have confidence in the team’s skills the PM ends up strug-gling to control the project and muttering, “if you want a job done properly, do it yourself”. The same happens within the team – you have too many people getting involved in things they don’t need to, distracting them from perform-ing in their role.

It seems obvious but there are too many people who don’t see it as a team effort. When team members don’t respect each other, people pass blame too easily and are quick to point at the person whose ultimate responsibility it is…the PM. A team with no respect makes life very hard work and you often find deadlines missed, no responsibility and no accountability.

Case study Unseen risks out in the openOn a recent project, a junior Project Manager quantified the risk of poor ground conditions at a low likelihood. The estimated impact had a maximum value of just a tenth of the eventual cost of the problem when it did indeed occur (in both time and cash). Apart from more money and time added onto the programme, it had a huge knock-on effect including delays to national programmes, the cascade of rolling stock and caused a political storm. A large part of this came from someone not appreciating the complexities of a project at the start.

Why did it happen?PMs rarely assume the worst and then plan for it, instead falling prey to over-optimism or the pressure to give sponsors the answer they want. Another problem is that your risk assessment often only takes into account the risks for you in your world right now. It’s rare for someone to be skilled and informed enough to take into account the wider industry impacts. And why didn’t the governance structure pick up the mistake? Often managers are too stretched and unfocused to check their teams’ work. Some PMs have a lack of confidence to explain risks whilst management are not available to listen. Sometimes the right governance structures are missing. In this case, the team was meant to follow GRIP (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) but training and enforcement were lacking. Most of these risks were unseen; they didn’t be-come apparent until after the event.

The fact that governance processes weren’t enforced is perhaps the single biggest point of failure on this project. Busy people see process as getting in the way, but process is control.

9

The status of projects

in 2019

10

4 out of 5 projects failto wholly deliver their objectives

60% of projects are overspent

or overdueSource: 1. Association for Project Management2. Gartner

11

Despite a $5bn Program and Project Management (PPM) market, in 2018 US $1m of capital was wasted every 20 seconds as a result of poor project performance. That’s over a trillion dollars worldwide.

The price of a failed project is felt in lower profit margins, delayed time to revenue, rectifying quality issues and increased difficulty in retaining top talent. And that’s before you calculate the long term cost of loss of trust in teams and organisations.

So why does it happen? Almost always, someone at the coalface can see if something is going wrong but still struggles to turn this into action.

Adam Richmond’s experiences highlight that there are times when people may be unwilling to speak up, fearful of the consequences or simply unable to, because appropriate communication channels don’t exist or team members don’t have the soft skills needed. It’s also the case that project leaders may not make themselves available to hear team concerns or that they don’t like hearing news that doesn’t fit their agenda. These are classic causes of unseen risks.

A survey by the Association for Project Management noted that the most important success factors in projects are competent project teams and effective governance. But how likely are a team to flag themselves as incompetent, and what leader would be comfortable admitting to weak oversight? The barriers to this kind of honesty are personal, social and psychological. The good news is they’re not entirely out of reach for, as Adam says, ”mature and empowered” managers.

Project Management is behind the curve

12

Unseen risks can harm a project before they are spotted

§

We are seeing more and more attempts to measure and track ‘intangibles’ such as culture and engagement. However, typically, trends in these surveys are viewed over long timescales that lag behind the pace of projects, making them fairly irrelevant. They’re also extremely reductionist; a distilled measure of something like staff satisfaction or retention fails to recognise the underlying complexity that drives each individual’s high performance.

As a result, unseen risks turn into big problems, delays or mistakes because they aren’t identified early enough, meaning those with responsibility aren’t left with enough time to make a positive change. The number of unseen risks that a team faces at any moment can be in the many hundreds - far more than any leader could reasonably monitor or manage.

Despite the millions of pounds spent on SaaS tools for project teams, we seem to be creating work environments that make it more likely we will be derailed by unseen risks, not less. And modern work often compounds their effects because there’s an underlying complexity to unseen risks that we are only just starting to understand.

Process A procedural document is being ignored Errors or compromised safety

Expertise Team skills may be overlooked or over-estimated

The talents of a team are wasted, or else, a team is subject to undue stress

Project success factor Examples of common occurances Example of concealed risks

Agility Teams aren’t empowered to implement change as it’s needed

Wasted effort and conflict

Alignment People don’t understand why they’re being asked to do something, only what’s Poor decision makeing at the frontline

Energy People get distracted and focus their attention on lower priority work Delays and blockers

13

$1M was wasted every 20 seconds in 2018 as a result of poor project performance

That’s over a trillion dollars worldwide

Source: Project Management Institute

(I know, right? We had to check too. It’s a mind boggling stat)

14

What goes on under the

surface of poor performing

teams

15

Why trust and respect are such commonly unseen risksIn an influential paper published in 1999, Harvard professor Amy Edmondson observed that high performing teams had high levels of what she termed psychological safety.

20 years ago, ‘Psychological Safety’ was defined as a shared belief that the team is safe for inter-personal risk taking. It isn’t about being nice, but rather giving candid feedback, openly admitting mistakes and learning from each other.

It sounds self evident, but why does this state create high performance? Psychologically safe teams are characterised by high levels of trust and respect; they will go toe to toe for their ideas and explore far further from ‘the box’, secure in the knowledge that there won’t be negative consequences for their self-image, status or career. In turn, this makes them more innovative and agile. Indeed, in further research, Amy Cuddy of Harvard Business School noted that measuring trust and respect allowed her team to predict emotional responses, behaviours and outcomes in-side organisations”

Why do trust and respect matter so much to us? Can’t we just get on with the job? Cuddy’s research explains that when we’re sizing up other members of our team to work out if the environment is safe, we turn to two fundamental judgements – can I trust this person and do I respect them? In order to answer yes, we want to observe warmth (signifying trustworthiness) and competence (signifying respectability.)

If we don’t observe both warmth and competence, we won’t feel we can trust and respect our team. That’s the point when we stop speaking up and get defensive. The lack of trust and respect turn into those unseen risks that will harm the outcome of our project.

16

It turns out we’re governed by ancient instincts more than we realise. Our cognitive systems haven’t changed much since prehistoric times. 40,000 years ago, we were on high alert to identify threats to our social standing because we learned we’re more likely to survive if we are part of a herd.

In much the same way that our reflexes take over when we’re in physical danger, a threat to our social world can elicit a physical response which is just as strong - it’s the cortisol wrench in your gut as you walk in for a difficult appraisal or the dopamine hit you get as your social media post gains more likes. Dr David Rock’s SCARF model describes five distinct factors our social self is constantly monitoring for threats:

The science bit: Why we seek psychological safety

Statuswhere are you in the pecking order

of the group?

Certaintyhow confident are you that you can

predict the future?

Autonomyhow easily can you

implement your own choices?

Relatednesshow strong are your bonds with

others in the group?

Fairnesshow justified is the behaviour of oth-ers in the group?

So we can see why any suggestion that we’re not trusted is going to threaten our desire for Certainty, Relatedness and Autonomy. And when our abilities are drawn into question (using language such as feeling disrespected), our sense of Status and Fairness will take the hit.

Because our brains find it very difficult to stay on alert for all these areas all the time, we tend to use shortcuts to reach Cuddy’s two most fundamental judgements around trust and respect, which result in sub-conscious bias and some very poor outcomes - especially if you’re on the receiving end.

17

Is psychological safety getting harder to achieve?

We’re still working out what the Digital Revolution means for us at work. Tech-nology is automating previously expensive manual processes and allowing us to collaborate from wherever we are in the world. However, the wired world of work may be giving rise to some unintended consequences that exacerbate the threats we feel to our psychological safety.

1. The disappearance of linear career pathsRoutine repetitive tasks are increasingly being taken over by technology, driven by advancements in machine learning and AI (accountants, recruiters and HR, you often come near the top of these lists). This phenomenon, known as hol-lowing out, is seeing a polarisation in the labour market. In the future, a few highly skilled people will compete for a few highly paid leadership roles and larger numbers of workers will be needed for non-specialist, low pay jobs such as the caring occupations.

What does this mean for today’s professionals and middle management? Worry that they may end up overqualified for available roles for one. Fewer opportunities to gain transferable skills too.

One consequence that has already become apparent is an increase in sideways movement across teams and projects rather than the traditional upward career path of promotions we’re used to. This will result in a fundamental shift in how we use status to judge competence. How will younger managers lead a team without years of experience to confer authority on them, and how will they cope with managing people 20 years their senior (especially when noses are out of joint)?

18

When this impacts behaviourThe video conference between over-stretched team members with varying degrees of experience is a recipe for disaster. With fewer opportunities to observe warmth and judge competence, the chance that we will misjudge whether we can trust and respect each other increases.

All teams can expect to encounter scenarios where trust and respect are under the spotlight, either rightly or wrongly. However, one repercussion of the high pressure, virtual world of work is that these incidents will take much longer to recover from and will be far more damaging to projects. Especially when it comes to trust since we are in-clined to hold on to negative views for much longer, where-as respect is more easily recoverable.

When trust and respect are missing, predictable patterns of behaviour emerge in the team. These can be used to understand the most effective way to repair the culture to feel psychologically safe and get back on track.

2. Fewer chances to bond in virtual teamsAnother consequence of the changing workplace and the enabling of remote working has been the difficulty in physically getting all the members of a team together in one place at the same time.

We are seeing an explosion in remote working. The ONS claims that 25% of us now work flexibly and 4 million people work from home. Even the nature of employment is changing thanks to the gig economy; between 2008 and 2016, IPSE calculated that the number of freelancers and contractors increased by 43%.

All these flexible working practices reduce opportunities for the normal sig-nalling we do in social groups to form bonds and to communicate our trust or respect for each other. Emojis may be helpful but they’re never going to be the same as sitting down over a brew to share childcare horror stories.

3. Ever increasing urgencyTechnology drives efficiency and allows project outcomes to be realised more quickly, but are we claiming that time saving back for a better work-life bal-ance? No. What we are seeing is tightening deadlines mixed with increased complexity and a culture that values speed - even at the expense of quality and costs in capital-rich ‘blitzscaling’ companies.

Often technology is progressing so quickly, that new and better systems be-come available in the period between requirement gathering and delivery. The frantic pace of this type of change requires people to demonstrate an ever broader range of skills and experience to be judged competent, and the con-stant disruption can leave us uncertain and insecure.

19

Diagnosing issues around trust and respect

Trust and respect are what help groups co-operate and have evolved as the most basic judgements we make about each other.

It is rare for one to be impacted without it affecting the other, making it hard to diagnose exactly where problems lie. But there are some important signals that you can look out for.

Also, it’s important to understand that consistency matters because we are always checking to make sure our judgements remain correct. We build trust and respect when we see consistency of behaviour over time. They can be quickly damaged by inconsistent behaviour and it takes far longer to recover if you’ve lost trust than if you’ve lost respect.

What I need to observe in others? Warmth Competence

What social need does it satisfy? Relatedness and certainty Status, autonomy, fairness

TRUST RESPECT

Project success factors impacted Alignment, Agility, Energy Process and Expertise

What does it mean to us?

Trust allows us to judge if someone intends to help or

harm us

Respect allows us to judge whether they are capable of

helping or harming us

20

When trust and respect are absent we respond with predictable patterns of behaviour based on inate social and emotional instincts.

The dynamic between trust and respect, and the resulting patterns of behav-iour are teachable. Being able to recognise patterns of behaviour can help managers diagnose issues and find the most suitable actions more quickly.

In the figure opposite, Team A represents a group of individually skilled experts who behave defensively because they fear sabotage from colleagues with con-flicted motives. The lack of trust is the basis for dysfunction, and despite being a competent team, underlying feelings of envy get in the way of good commu-nication which is inconsistent at its best, and wholly political at its worst.

Team B is a pretty miserable place to be. Individuals feel set up to fail because projects are conflicted and the skills required aren’t on hand which causes an outward looking blame culture and poor decision making. Teams in this state tend to spiral since attracting new talent to a toxic environment is hard.

Team C get on famously but aren’t confident that they are collectively up to the job. Individuals sypathise with colleagues that are struggling, making excuses and helping each other to cover failures rather than facing up to them and learning. The result is wasted time and poor quality outcomes which make teams like this vulnerable to lower and lower expectations of one another.

Team D contains a mixture of experts and less well qualified people, and is a breeding ground for cliques. People’s experience in this team is inconsistent and they’re likely to suffer a lack of motivation and morale, making them vul-nerable to unexpected dips in performance.

Team E is the holy grail. The optimum team with high levels of both trust and respect which underpins consistency. There is little divergence in the team’s goals and they can each be relied on to do their job.

A

D

E

B C

Envy H

igh

Res

pect

High Trust

Low

Res

pect

Low Trust

Pride

Pity

Contempt

21

How team perceptions of trust and respect shape behaviour and impact outcomes

The holy grail for a high functioning team is that everyone trusts and respects everyone else. Sadly, this state proves to be elusive because we’re hardwired to look for threats and therefore never stay still for long. So what happens when an absence of trust or respect influences people’s perceptions?

How I view my teamLet’s start with how a project lead views the rest of their team. If you don’t have much faith in your team’s ability to do the job, you may start to feel sorry for them and spend too much time on training, micromanaging or doing too much yourself. If you find yourself incubating some negative beliefs, for instance that they’re just not a nice group of people or are only out for themselves, it could be that you don’t trust them.

Needless to say, that type of resentment doesn’t foster a positive culture and can lead to biased decision making or keeping ‘difficult’ people out of conversations. And the manager who over-compensates for a team they believe to be un-skilled, invariably burns out and fails to harness what that team could achieve.

How my team views meIt’s fairly common for teams to be sceptical about their manager’s skills, and to wait, arms folded, for their respect to be earned. This is es-pecially true if you are recently promoted or new to the organisation. But how does that leave you, as a manager feeling? If you’re sharing their lack of confidence, this could manifest in feel-ings of hopelessness or regret. If your response is ‘how very dare they!’, you might burn with a sense of injustice.

Either way, your status feels threatened, result-ing in a fight or flight response. You may work longer and harder or just abdicate yourself of responsibility for the team.

22

How technology can foster trust and respect

23

Using technology to our advantage

We understand how technology is disrupting the future of work, but surely it’s not all doom and gloom?

AI and machine learning are obviously powerful because they go beyond what human cognition is capable of, and isn’t (as) prone to the biases that result from our human social evolution. So, how can we harness the best of technology to help create psychologically safe teams?

1. Find and identify risks sooner when the threat is not as harshRisks that threaten to derail a project are often unseen. Your perfectly valid risk assessment may list the likelihood of a subcontractor going into administration, but not the risk of delays due to poor morale or time wasting. If a Project Manager can’t be physically present, or is subject to his or her own narrow viewpoint, technology can step in to:

• Asynchronously communicate objectives and intentions; a consistent message can be delivered at the most appropriate time and via the most appropriate channel

• Spot different perspectives that can broaden understanding for everyone or that can be checked to correct alignment behind a singular vision

• Quickly and accurately take the pulse of a team without needing long meetings and avoid being unduly influenced by larger personalities in the team

• Structure meetings to set meaningful agendas and avoid digression or misunderstanding

• Defend against the flaws of the human memory, properly examining trends without the hueristics that follow incomplete data and subjective remembering.

24

2. Learn how to resolve risks together and build stronger bonds of trust and respectData analysis can help us find risks, but it’s even better for that to get tied to a solution. Sophisti-cated AI can improve our ability to learn and show us how to mitigate risks, becoming increasingly accurate over time.

3. Avoid risks in the future by using trust and respect to encourage humility and transparencyToo many projects begin without the lessons having been learnt from the last project. But despite its poor reputation, online anonymity can calmly capture those lessons and ensure they are careful-ly catalogued and automatically fed in to any new risk assessment, taking advantage of the benefit of reflection, hindsight and objectivity. This isn’t possible with face-to-face communication where the threat of mistakes is much more immediate and more likely to result in unhelpful behaviours.

• Technology allows us to get feedback more quickly to keep iterating until we have the answer

• It can deliver targeted learning suggestions avoiding the need for expensive training

• It can deliver feedback privately and without judgement, allowing recipients to lower their defences and reflect

• Automation frees up time to work together on higher order activities that move the team forward more quickly

• The team can be guided through structured workflows that help them think and act appropriately, especially in times of stress

25

A pivotal point for the industry

26

The project management industry sits at a pivotal point.

Embracing failure and viewing it as an opportunity to learn has been a positive move forward in recent years. Yet, the modern acceptance that(at least some) failure is somehow inevitable, can distract us from the opportunities we have to predict unseen risks and intervene sooner.

The digital revolution has been great leap forward for those involved in delivering projects. We have more data than ever at our fingertips, and the march of automation has created efficiencies we could previously only have dreamt of. The talent pool that PMs can draw on is no longer within a 20 mile radius of the office – remote workers can dial in, at any time and from any place.

Advances have come at a human costAnd yet, we have discovered that these advances have come at a human cost. The sheer pace of change has created uncertainty about how long our skills will remain relevant, leading to short-termism and reduced commitment. And we are only just starting to understand the ways in which effective communication has been hindered by technology, rather than helped. Is Generation X destined to be the last generation to rely more on the art of conversation than on email or instant messenger?

As we have discussed, the success or failure of a project is frequently reliant on the people involved, rather than the quality of the idea or processes being used. It’s about the ability to challenge tactfully, to be resilient in the face of diffi-culties, to open up and share without a hidden agenda, or the tenacity needed to enforce governance structures.

It is the human need to be a valued member of a successful team that drives individuals. And all too often, project lead-ers overlook the importance of social factors including trust and respect.

Why? Could it be that technology development has been too focused on delivering better systems and processes, whilst the role of people management has stayed within the walls of the HR department? Yes, software allows HR Managers to measure levels of employee engagement and satisfaction, but the answers don’t directly support the frontline work-

Summary

27

force. It’s time for a new breed of platform that harnesses all the positive aspects of technology and uses them to address the human needs of project teams.

Psychological safety is the big-gest predictor of high perfor-mance at GoogleAmy Edmondson, Professor at Harvard Business School notes that “Psychological safety is the biggest predictor of high performance at Google.” That’s Google, whose parent company Alphabet is the fourth best performing company in the world by market value. Two of the components that create an emotionally safe working environment are the presence of trust and re-spect, which are the outcomes of people feeling competent and valued.

Technology has the potential to become hugely powerful in helping people feel more competent. Firstly, it can remove bias so that people’s skills are objectively measured and not subject to human prejudices. It can take data from a larger number of datapoints, to show skills developing in real-time and give prompt feedback. And, it can deliver personalised learning material in a wider variety of for-mats and styles to improve the efficacy of training inter-ventions.

But can technology replace the warm glow of a figurative pat on the back from a manager? How can it contribute to a team member feeling valued? The main benefit of a dispassionate algorithm is that if it tells you you’re doing

a good job, you are more likely to feel it’s authentic than a shout-out from a manager who just so happens to like you. If you can see that your contribution is accurately measured, you are that much more inclined to hear praise when it’s given.

Technology also has a role to play in supporting people through periods of high stress, guiding them through what to prioritise, giving them data to make deci-sions with and pulling them back from distractions.

When people feel that their work environment has been designed to value their wellbeing, their levels of trust increase, leading to better performance.

Successful teams will embed psychological safety into their cultureWe predict that the successful managers of the future will place human risks and human motivations front and centre, rather than letting the tricky part of HR sit in a separate silo. Old authoritarian management styles will wither away and a new generation of leaders will embed psychological safety into their culture, empowered by a new generation of technology.

The future looks exciting.

About the authorStephen Russell is Co-Founder of new software platform Shumi. Shumi uses the latest organisational science to predict project risks so that managers can intervene sooner to safeguard people and profits against the price of failure.

28

References and Further Readinghttps://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2018.pdf

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/here-are-seven-ways-your-job-will-change-in-the-future/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-giants-google-facebook-and-amazon-intensify-anti-trust-debate-11559966461

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-upwardly-mobile-are-being-squeezed-out-sspwswvb8

https://www.cio.com/article/3068502/more-than-half-of-it-projects-still-failing.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/the-guardian-view-on-digital-in-justice-when-computers-make-things-worse

http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Performance/Edmond-son%20Psychological%20safety.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019130851100013X

https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/31881/managingwbraininmind.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/250206/bis-13-1213-hollowing-out-and-future-of-the-labour-market.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/jobs-risk-automation-according-oxford-univer-sity-one/

29

Shumi Technologies Limited

www.shumi.io | Innospace | Manchester | M1 5DG | 0203 728 6069 | info@shumi.io