In 2012, Shaun Wilson and Michael Brett were designing aerospace simulation software. On one particular project, Lockheed Martin’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Ned Allen, mentioned that it had just acquired an early quantum computer from D-Wave Systems, which he thought would help with computational work.
They were impressed. “We found that it was an incredibly promising technology, Brett told me. “We could see the potential to one day do things that just weren’t possible with digital computers, even the high performance systems we were working with.” It was something unlike anything they had ever seen.
“With big data taking off, we saw the need for high performance predictive analytics and thought quantum computing could be a real differentiator. That was the opportunity that led us to think about starting a company,” Brett remembers. Today, the company they founded, QxBranch, is becoming a key player in the race to develop practical quantum applications.
Peter Thiel likes to point out that we wanted flying cars, but got 140 characters instead. He’s only partly right. For decades futuristic visions showed everyday families zipping around in flying cars and it’s true that even today we’re still stuck on the ground. Yet that’s not because we’re unable to build one. In fact the first was invented in 1934.
The problem is not so much with engineering, but economics, safety and convenience. We could build a flying car if we wanted to, but to make one that can compete with regular cars is another matter entirely. Besides, in many ways, 140 characters are better than a flying car. Cars only let us travel around town, the Internet helps us span the globe.
That has created far more value than a flying car ever could. We often fail to predict the future accurately because we don’t account for our capacity to surprise ourselves, to see new possibilities and take new directions. We interact with each other, collaborate and change our priorities. The future that we predict is never as exciting as the one we eventually create.
In Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance, the bestselling memoir of the his historic turnaround at IBM, Lou Gerstner wrote, “I came to see, in my time at IBM, culture isn’t just one aspect of the game—It is the game. In the end, an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value.”
There has been endless discussion about whether change should be driven from the top-down or the bottom-up, but that is, for the most part, a red herring. True transformation tends to move side-to-side, driven through horizontal connections among peers. The best way to create change in an organization is to empower it.
That’s why the data giant Experian invested years networking its organization and found that it paid off when it mattered most. While traditional hierarchies waste valuable time and effort pushing orders down the chain of command, networked organizations can adapt to changing market conditions with far more agility. Transformation begins with a networked culture.
Boeing and Airbus are arch-rivals, competing vigorously over decades for supremacy in the global aviation market, much like DowDupont and BASF do in chemicals. Yet all of these companies, along with many others, collaborate at places like the Composites Institute (IACMI). They do this not out of any altruism, of course, but self-interest.
It is at places like the Composites Institute that profit-driven companies can explore the future with top notch scientists from places like Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Michigan State University and Purdue as well as dozens of smaller companies active in the space. To not participate would be to risk being cut out of important developments.
This type of activity is not entirely new. In the 80s, semiconductor firms, along with the Department of Defense,created SEMATECH to regain competitiveness against foreign competition, while still fighting it out in the marketplace. The truth is that sometimes you need to collaborate and sometimes you have to compete. Here’s how to know the difference.
Every once in a while, a technology comes along with so much potential that people can’t seem to stop talking about it. That’s fun and exciting, but it can also be confusing. Not all of the people who opine really know what they’re talking about and, as the cacophony of voices increases to a loud roar, it’s hard to know what to believe.
We’re beginning to hit that point with quantum computing. Listen to some and you imagine that you’ll be strolling down to your local Apple store to pick one up any day now. Others will tell you that these diabolical machines will kill encryption and bring global commerce to a screeching halt. None of this is true.
What is true though is that quantum computing is not only almost unimaginably powerful, it is also completely different than anything we’ve ever seen before. You won’t use a quantum computer to write emails or to play videos, but the technology will significantly impact our lives over the next decade or two. Here’s a basic guide to what you really need to know.
Throughout America’s history, technological innovation has been key to security and prosperity. Whether it was through entrepreneurs like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Thomas Watson, or government programs like the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program and the Human Genome Project, The United States has been on the cutting edge.
Still, scientific advancement is not enough. We need entrepreneurs to start companies and mid-level technicians and engineers to implement technologies. The truth is that America’s human capital is being hollowed out and that’s becoming a serious problem that we need to address. Once we lose our competitive edge, we might never get it back.
Today, technology has become central to how every business competes. Futuristic advancements like artificial intelligence, big data and cloud computing are no longer pie-in-the-sky propositions, but mission critical initiatives that leaders are racing to implement within their organizations.
Unfortunately, most of these initiatives fail. In fact, McKinsey found that fewer than a third of organizational transformations succeed. That’s incredibly sobering. Imagine any other initiative with that type of expected return not only getting consistently funded, but enthusiastically viewed as a smart bet on the future.
Yet digital transformation doesn’t have to be a sucker’s bet. The truth is that digital transformation is human transformation and that’s where you need to start. Initiatives fail because organizations habitually get blinded by the “gee-whiz” aspects of technology, don’t focus on clear business objectives, scale too fast and then declare victory way too early.
In 1980, a young Harvard Business School professor named Michael Porter published Competitive Strategy, which drove thinking on the subject for the next 30 years. In essence, he argued that you build sustainable competitive advantage by maximizing bargaining power throughout a value chain.
Yet more recently, that kind of single firm level analysis has been called into question and leaders have learned to look more broadly at ecosystems. In fact, a recent report by Accenture Strategy found that because business models are being constantly disrupted, ecosystems have become a “cornerstone” of future growth.”
While value chains are strictly defined by “primary activities” such as “inbound logistics” and “support activities” like technology, ecosystems have mostly been a nebulous term. Clearly that’s not good enough. If we are going to compete in an ecosystem-driven world, we need to understand how they function and how we can leverage them to drive a business forward.
When Amazon announced it would pull out of its HQ2 project in Long Island City due to local opposition, many were shocked. How could local residents oppose a deal that would generate 25,000 jobs and $27 billion in tax revenues for a relatively meager $3 billion in tax breaks? It just seemed illogical and bizarre.
Yet look closer and the concerns do not appear to be completely unfounded. You only have to look at the recent situation with Foxconn in Wisconsin, where massive tax breaks led not to prosperity, but to a string of broken promises, to see the perils. While the Amazon deal was vastly different, the pitfalls of these kind of transactions are very real.
At the same time, New York doesn’t seem to have trouble attracting businesses without sweetheart deals, despite high taxes. In much the same way, technology and entertainment companies continue to flock to California. So the real question is not the merits or demerits of any particular deal, but how does a region become an industrial center in the first place?
So it’s probably not surprising that we’ve come to glorify failure. We are urged to “fail fast” and are cheered on when we do. Failure, after all, is hard evidence that you’ve tried something difficult and paid the price. Yet failure, as anyone who actually experienced it knows well, is a horrible, painful thing.
As I explain in Cascades, great transformations are achieved not by glorifying failure, but when we learn from mistakes and begin to do things differently. That’s how great enterprises are transformed, industries are disrupted and then remade a new and seemingly all powerful tyrants are overthrown. Failure is something we should never accept, but rather overcome.
Or install manually
Copy and paste the following Google tag code onto every page of your website, immediately after the element. Don’t add more than one Google tag to each page.
