When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first space satellite, into orbit in 1957, it was a wake up call for America. Over the next year, President Eisenhower would sign the National Defense Education Act to spur science education, increase funding for research and establish NASA and DARPA to spur innovation.
A new report by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) argues that we are at a similar point today, but with China. While we have been steadily decreasing federal investment in R&D over the past few decades, our Asian rival has been ramping up and now threatens our leadership in key technologies such as AI, genomics and quantum information technology.
Clearly, we need to increase our commitment to science and innovation and that means increasing financial investment. However, what the report makes clear is that money alone won’t solve the problem. We are, in several important ways, actually undermining our ability to innovate, now and in the future. We need to renew our culture of innovation in America.
read more…
The history of digital technology has largely been one of denial followed by disruption. First came the concept of the productivity paradox, which noted the limited economic impact of digital technology. When e-commerce appeared, many doubted that it could ever compete with physical retail. Similar doubts were voiced about digital media.
Today, it’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t believe in the power of digital technology. Whole industries have been disrupted. New applications driven by cloud computing, artificial intelligence and blockchain promise even greater advancement to come. Every business needs to race to adopt them in order to compete for the future.
Ironically, amid all this transformation the digital revolution itself is ending. Over the next decade, new computing architectures will move to the fore and advancements in areas like synthetic biology and materials science will reshape entire fields, such as healthcare, energy and manufacturing. Simply waiting to adapt won’t be enough. The time to prepare is now.
read more…
In 1983, McKinsey consultant Julien Phillips published a paper in the journal Human Resource Management that described an “adoption penalty” for firms that didn’t adapt to changes in the marketplace quickly enough. His ideas became McKinsey’s first change management model that it sold to clients.
So it is notable, to say the least, that in 2015, more than 35 years later, McKinsey found that only 26% of organizational transformations succeed. It’s not hard to see why. While traditional change management models offer sensible frameworks for fairly obvious changes, truly transformational efforts almost always encounter fierce resistance.
That’s an important distinction that leads to a significant difference. As I found when researching my book, Cascades, successful transformations identify resistance from the start and effectively plan to overcome opposition. Clearly, today, when change is so often a matter of survival, traditional change management models are no longer enough.
read more…
By 2006 we knew we had a serious problem. Our company’s onetime flagship product, called Afisha, was in a steady decline and it was becoming all too clear that something had to be done. What had once been a market leader that generated huge profits, which fueled the growth of our company had slowly, but surely, lost its market position.
It was clear that the business was in crisis, but nobody was exactly sure what to do about it. Operationally, nothing had really changed. We still believed in our product and our people. Nevertheless, the marketplace had evolved and our business model, which once had seemed bulletproof, was no longer viable.
We didn’t know it at the time, but Afisha’s brightest days were still ahead. We were able to reimagine the business model, strengthen the brand and return to profitability. What we learned is that solving a crisis is not a straightforward linear process, but a journey of discovery. You never know what you’ll find so you need to be willing to experiment.
read more…
The Business Roundtable, an influential group of almost 200 CEOs of America’s largest companies, recently issued a statement that discarded the old notion that the sole purpose of a business is to provide value to shareholders. Instead, it advocated serving a diverse group of stakeholders including customers, employees, suppliers and communities.
The idea is not a new one. In fact, Jack Welch once called shareholder value the dumbest idea in the world. Nevertheless, The Wall Street Journal opinion page immediately pounced, suggesting that the move was just an attempt to “appease the socialists” and that it would undermine financial accountability.
It’s hard to see how acknowledging accountability to stakeholders other than investors would undermine accountability to investors. Shareholders, after all, have the power to fire CEOs. Even more importantly though, the notion that performance can be reduced down to a single metric is foolhardy and dangerous. Managing a business is simply tougher than that.
read more…
A recent Pew poll found that, while Americans generally view scientific expertise in high regard, there are deep pockets of mistrust. For example, less than half of Republicans believe that scientists should take an active role in policy debates and significant minorities question the transparency and integrity of scientific findings.
An earlier study done by researchers at Ohio State University found that, when confronted with scientific evidence that conflicted with their pre-existing views, such as the reality of climate change or the safety of vaccines, partisans would not only reject the evidence, but become hostile and question the objectivity of science.
This is a major problem, because if we are only willing to accept evidence that agrees with what we already think we know, we are unlikely to advance our understanding. Perhaps even worse, it opens us up to being influenced by pundits —those with strong opinions but questionable expertise. When we turn our backs on science, we turn our backs on truth.
read more…
To be honest, I didn’t have much in mind when I started Digital Tonto in my apartment in Kyiv, Ukraine ten years ago. We were in the middle of an enormous financial crisis, I was looking to change my career path and I had some things that I wanted to get off my chest. I never dreamed it would really amount to much.
Yet here we are, ten years later and still going with two books under my belt. The latest, Cascades, just came out in April and is going gangbusters! I’ve been working with my partners throughout the spring and summer to develop a workshop series based on the book, which we should be ready to launch this fall.
The best part about Digital Tonto, however, is YOU, the readers. Over the years you have become a true community and a sounding board. Your support invigorates me and your ideas and feedback enriches me. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your support. So, as in the past, I’m posting my favorite articles over the last year. Happy Birthday Digital Tonto!
read more…
In February 2004, Viacom announced that it would spin off Blockbuster Video into its own independent company, which gave its CEO, John Antioco, the opportunity to begin addressing the disruptive threat emanating from Netflix head on. He developed a viable strategy, executed it well, but in the end his efforts were for naught.
Around the same time General Stanley McChrystal was tapped to take command of Special Forces in Iraq. Much like Antioco and Blockbuster, he faced a disruptive threat in the form of Al Qaeda that, using unconventional tactics, threatened to thwart his efforts. Unlike Antioco, however, McChrystal succeeded brilliantly.
We tend to think about transformation in terms of strategy and tactics, but if that was all there was to it, Blockbuster would still be thriving today. As I explain in Cascades, the difference between Antioco and McChrystal wasn’t that one had a good plan and the other didn’t, but that McChrystal saw that he had to rewire the networks in his organization.
read more…
In 1999, the day before his eighth startup went public, Steve Blank decided to retire at the age of 45. With time to reflect, he sat in a ski lodge and began to write a memoir with a “lessons learned” section at the end of each chapter. “In hindsight, it was a catharsis of moving from one part of my life to another,” he later told me.
“I was 80 pages in when I realized there was a pattern. When I sat inside the building things didn’t go very well, but when I got outside the building things turned around and got much better,” he remembered. What he meant was that it was only when he got out and talked to customers that he could really get a handle on the business.
We like to think that innovation is about ideas, but it’s really about solving problems. In order to surface problems, you need to ask questions, which is why Steve’s businesses started doing better when he got out of the building to talk to customers. The better questions you ask, the better problems you can identify. Here are 4 questions that will help you do that.
read more…
Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas,” said the computing pioneer Howard Aiken. “If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats.” The truth is that any idea important enough to be valuable will be disruptive enough to inspire significant opposition to it ever gaining traction.
This phenomenon is often known as the Semmelweis Effect, after the Hungarian physician who pioneered hand washing in hospitals. Unfortunately, the medical establishment rejected his ideas and antiseptic procedures didn’t come into common use decades later. Millions of people died needlessly.
Yet as I’ve previously explained, much of the blame lays at Semmelweis’s door. Instead of taking into account valid criticisms of how he collected and communicated his data, he railed against the establishment, became a pariah and lost all credibility. The truth is that we need our critics, if for no other reason than that they have the power to save us from ourselves.
read more…
