Introduction:
Everyday we see a new innovation. A new way of doing things. A new trend amongst business and companies. This makes the world seem like it's moving at an increasingly fast pace with people losing their jobs and the job market getting harder to get into. Is it on the businesses to prevent this? Should the government get involved in restricting these innovations? Or should we just continue to learn to adapt to these changes and face the consequences?
Body of article:
A customer receives their meal through a waiter robot. (Carlos Osorio, 2023)
I first noticed this in a restaurant I went to with a friend. We got seated by the host and she told us to place our order through the iPad. A few minutes later a small robot rolled up to our table carrying our food. It was interesting and honestly kind of impressive. But as I looked around the restaurant something felt off. There were far fewer human servers than you would expect in a busy restaurant.
That moment stuck with me because it raised a bigger question. When businesses adopt new technology, are they using innovation to improve work or to quietly replace it?
From a business perspective the move toward automation is easy to understand. Rising costs, labor shortages, and constant competition push companies to look for more efficient ways to operate. Tools like self order kiosks, automated systems, and service robots offer stability and long term savings which makes them attractive to businesses trying to keep up. After the pandemic especially, many companies turned to automation out of necessity rather than ambition. When survival depends on efficiency, ethical concerns can easily take a back seat.
Automation affects more than just efficiency. Many restaurant, retail, and service jobs are entry level roles that students often rely on. These jobs are flexible and easy to access, and for some people they are their main source of income. As more tasks become automated, fewer of these jobs are available. Additionally, as economist Casey Warman from Dalhousie University has noted “Once a job is automated, it’s pretty hard to turn back,” which reflects how these decisions tend to be permanent rather than temporary. This permanence raises questions about whether market forces alone should decide the future of work.
Selfcheckout lanes in a UK supermarket (Forbes, 2023)
What is happening in restaurants is only one example. The same pattern shows up everywhere. Self checkout machines replace cashiers, chatbots replace customer service agents, AI tools handle scheduling, writing, and data analysis. Each change on its own may seem small but together they reshape the job market in ways that are easy to ignore until you are the one affected. When these shifts happen gradually they often avoid public debate which makes regulation even harder to implement.
To be fair, not all innovation is harmful. Some digital tools genuinely make life easier. Self service systems can reduce stress for people who feel uncomfortable in social situations. Automation can take care of repetitive tasks so humans can focus on work that requires creativity or judgment. Additionally, during the pandemic, technology helped keep people safe and businesses running. These benefits matter and should not be dismissed. This is why broad bans or strict limits on innovation can feel unrealistic or even counterproductive.
The problem is not innovation itself. It is how casually it is sometimes used. Too often the main question businesses ask is whether something is faster or cheaper instead of what it replaces or who it affects. Digital enterprise decisions are never purely technical. They shape how people work and how systems function over time. Without clear standards or oversight responsibility often falls through the cracks.
There is also something else that gets lost, human interaction. Restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores are not just places to get things done, they are social spaces. A friendly server, a short conversation, or even simple acknowledgment can shape how an experience feels. When automation replaces too much of that, efficiency may increase but the experience can feel cold and transactional.
The choice does not have to be between innovation and people. Businesses can adopt new technology while still supporting workers rather than replacing them. Hybrid approaches that give customers the option to use self service tools or interact with a human allow companies to improve efficiency without removing jobs entirely. Government policies and industry guidelines can also help encourage this balance rather than leaving decisions to cost alone.
Conclusion of article:
Progress does not need to come at the cost of jobs or human connection. The real challenge for modern businesses is not how quickly they innovate but how responsibly they do so. That responsibility is shared between companies, policymakers, and society as a whole. This is where digital enterprise decisions matter most.
References
Casselman, B. (2021, July 23). Pandemic wave of automation may be bad news for workers (published 2021). TheNewYorkTimes. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/03/business/economy/automation-workers-robots-pandemic.html
Gibson, K. (2024, September 19). How ai can drive innovation in your industry | HBS online. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/ai-innovation
Harvey, J. T. (2023, November 6). Self-checkout lane not a job-killer if we have a job program. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2023/11/06/self-checkout-lane-not-a-job-killer-if-we-have-a-job-program/
Press, T. A. (2023a, April 6). Are robot waiters the future? Some restaurants think so. CTVNews. https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/are-robot-waiters-the-future-some-restaurants-think-so/
Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). "The Process of Creative Destruction", Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge. (pp. 81-86)
Valdez, A. (2025, July 1). Council post: Labor and cost pressures: How uncertainty is affecting businesses. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2025/07/01/labor-and-cost-pressures-how-uncertainty-is-affecting-businesses/
