GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

Business commentators and writers commonly quote Kodak as an example of a company that was destroyed by disruptive innovation. The usual message is that the big company was just too slow and complacent to react to the obvious tsunami that digital photography represented for the film industry. The facts are dramatic. The company was founded by George Eastman in 1888. It rose to a totally dominant position and was much admired as a technology and business leader.

In 1976 Kodak enjoyed 90% market share of film sales and 85% share of camera sales in the USA. It developed the world’s first digital camera in 1975 and patented the idea. At its peak in the 1990s Kodak employed 70,000 people and had revenues of 16 $B and profits of 2.5 $B. Yet in 2012 it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy – laid low by the switch from film based photography to digital photography.

It is easy for the outside observer with the benefit of hindsight to be smug and critical of the Kodak board and its strategy. But it is far harder to identify exactly what they could have done to avoid their fate. The people who ran Kodak were not stupid. They could see the digital trend from well off and they tried a number of different and initially appealing ways to tackle the problem.

Kodak entered the digital camera market late but by 2001 they were number 2 in the USA behind Sony. However, they lost money on every digital camera they sold. Digital cameras dropped in price, became commodities and were ultimately replaced by cell phones and tablets. Even if Kodak had plunged into digital products earlier it would not have saved them.

The text book answer is diversification and Kodak diversified. They went into imaging services, pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostics, copiers, printers and computer hardware. But none of these ventures was really successful in replacing the huge revenues from film which were ebbing away.

They hired CEOs from outside the company to fight complacency and ensure different thinking. They were applauded at the time for bringing in first George Fisher from Motorola and subsequently Antonio Perez of HP. But neither could work the magic that was needed.

Kodak fell into the classic trap expostulated in Clayton Christensen’s book, The Innovators Dilemma. They kept listening to their customers and trying to build on their strengths – usually great things to do but not when you are facing disruptive innovation.

Rebecca Henderson who, ironically, was the Eastman Kodak Professor at MIT Sloan School put the problem well. She describes a hypothetical conversation between a Kodak executive and an early digital evangelist:

“I see. You’re suggesting that we invest millions of dollars in a market that may or may not exist but that is certainly smaller than our existing market, to develop a product that customers may or may not want, using a business model that will almost certainly give us lower margins than our existing product lines. You’re warning us that we’ll run into serious organizational problems as we make this investment, and our current business is screaming for resources. Tell me again just why we should make this investment?”

Maybe there was no smart way out? Do we have to accept that sometimes time is up for companies as well as people? Or maybe they missed something. What would you have done?

kodak.com

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

We live in a society where people are quick to take offense so we are encouraged to be polite and correct. But sometimes the best way to gain attention for your creative idea is to be outrageously provocative.

The Reverend Jonathan Swift was an eminent Irish author and satirist. He is best known for writing Gulliver’s Travels. In 1729 he published a short book entitled A Modest Proposal in which he suggested that poor people should sell their children to be eaten by rich people. He wrote, ‘A young healthy child is a most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled.’ He went on to list the economic and social advantages of his suggestion.

Many people on hearing the idea were deeply offended though some took it seriously.

Only later in the book did it become apparent that he was being intentionally provocative. Swift then laid out his proposed reforms to improve the plight of the poor and starving in society.

Rod Judkins in The Art of Creative Thinking argues that Swift’s outrageous provocation was justified. He says, ‘Swift’s book had a profound impact. A sober and conventional proposal of reforms could have gone unnoticed. Swift wanted something to happen. He wanted to change things quickly. He took a chance. He walked along the edge of a precipice. It could have backfired badly but it did not.’

The Punk Rock movement in the 1970s deliberately rejected the conventions and approaches of contemporary pop and rock music. “No Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones”, declared The Clash in their song “1977”. The Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Clash and the Damned were groups which were purposefully offensive in their lyrics, dress and actions. This rebel movement had a major impact on popular culture and ironically became mainstream.

In a world where so many excellent but conventional musical performers go unnoticed, Madonna, Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga have all used deliberate provocation to draw attention to their acts. The TV cartoon show South Park offends many sensitive people by provocatively tackling taboo subjects but it has garnered a large following of loyal fans.

If other methods fail to get your creative message noticed then maybe you should try being annoying, irritating or even offensive. It is a risk. But innovators have to be risk takers.

Dare you walk the precipice?

bigstockphoto.com

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

Every company has to make important strategic decisions. We can see with hindsight that some decisions which looked smart at the time turned out to be dumb. Often it was because the wrong assumptions were made.

In his excellent book, Exponential Organizations, Salim Ismail coins the phrase an Iridium Moment. He explains how in the late 1980s the telecoms giant Motorola made a huge bet which turned out to be a strategic blunder. They could foresee a boom in demand for cell phones but at that time coverage was limited to urban areas which had local radio towers. Motorola launched a company called Iridium which planned to place 77 satellites around the Earth in order to provide mobile telephony coverage anywhere on the planet. It was an ambitious plan which failed spectacularly and cost its investors $5B. Why did it fail? Ismail explains that the plan was based on the wrong assumptions. The Motorola executives had based the justification for the satellite solution on the high cost and limited effectiveness of cell phone towers. This was true in the 1980s but by the time that the satellites came on stream the cost of towers had fallen dramatically and their range and power had increased. According to Dan Colussy, who organised the Iridium buyout in 2000, Motorola had refused to update its business assumptions, ‘The Iridium business plan was locked in place 12 years before it became operational.’ Ismail defines an Iridium Moment as using linear tools and trends of the past to wrongly predict an accelerating future.

In the 1980s, when mobile telephony was clunky, unreliable and expensive, the renowned consulting company McKinsey advised AT&T not to enter the mobile phone business, predicting that there would be fewer than one million cellular phones in use by 2000. They were out by a factor of 100 – there were 100 million cell phones in use in 2000 and McKinsey’s recommendation meant that AT&T missed out on a huge opportunity.

Another example given by Ismail is Nokia’s purchase of Navteq for a staggering $8B in 2007. Navteq was the dominant player in in-road traffic sensing equipment. Nokia believed that the data from Navteq’s traffic sensors would allow it to lead in mobile mapping and traffic information. This would give it a strong competitive weapon against Apple and Google. Unfortunately for Nokia an Israeli start-up company called Waze found a much better and cheaper way to gather traffic information. They crowdsourced location data from the GPS sensors on people’s mobile phones in order to capture traffic information. The Navteq hardware cost a fortune to maintain and upgrade whereas the data from users’ phones was growing fast and was easily available.

When Google acquired Waze for $1.1B in 2013 it had 50 million users – far more ‘traffic sensors’ than Nokia could match.
Nokia spent a fortune acquiring physical assets while Waze simply accessed information already available on people’s phones. Ismail characterises the Nokia approach as linear thinking – extrapolating the past. The Waze approach is described as exponential thinking by accessing and sharing information.

If you have to make a massive strategic decision then check your assumptions right up to the last minute and be on the lookout for emerging technologies which could undermine your grand plan.

defenseindustrydaily.com

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

Consider that some 90% of companies believe that they are too slow to market with new products. In the consumer goods category around 80% of new products fail. Since 2000 52% of the Fortune 500 have merged, been acquired or gone bankrupt. Innovation has never been more important nor so difficult. These are some of the reasons why senior corporate executives are increasingly turning to separate innovation labs to spearhead their new product development.

A recent study by Capgemini Consulting, entitled the Innovation Game, charts the rise of corporate innovation centers (or centres as we would say in Europe). Researchers interviewed leaders of such innovation units and conducted surveys of the 200 largest companies in the world. An innovation center is a team of people and a physical location. Its goal is to exploit the ecosystem of startups and accelerators to pioneer and test disruptive solutions and new business models. For example BMW’s innovation center in Mountain View aims to develop cutting-edge digital products such as virtual reality goggles that enable drivers to ‘see through’ the car. The Walmart Labs operation builds and test online and mobile technologies for Walmart and has acquired 14 startups in the past 3 years. It is claimed that the internal search engine developed by Walmart Labs drove a 20% increase in online sales conversions for Walmart. Staples innovation lab helped launch a digital wallet service in 9 weeks – a record for Staples.

The report identifies six key goals for innovation units:

• Accelerate the speed of innovation
• Provide a fresh source of ideas
• Enhance risk-taking ability
• Attract talent
• Drive employee engagement
• Build a culture of innovation

Capgemini categorise four types of innovation unit:

1. In-house Innovation Labs. These operations carry out all innovation functions from inception to prototyping in-house.

2. University Residence. The company sets up and establishment at a University to drive innovation through collaboration. Volkswagen has formed such a unit at Stanford School of Engineering.

3. Community Anchor. The company provides mentors and support for startups to develop and test new products. It might take an equity position in the small firms. Allianz Digital Labs is an example of a corporation working with early-stage companies to test proof of concept pilots.

4. Innovation Outpost. This consists of a small team located in a technology hub. The company can access advanced technology and a technical community without large investment. Renault-Nissan and Nestle both set up innovation outposts in Silicon Valley to work with technology companies.

The study found that 38% of the world’s top 200 companies have set up innovation centers. They are particularly strong in the manufacturing and telecom sectors. The most popular locations are Silicon Valley (53), London (10), Paris (9) and Singapore (7).

Examples of success include Zappos where Zappo labs launched the ‘Ask Zappos’ digital personal aid service in just 12 weeks. AT&T Foundry Innovation Centers have collaborated with startups to rapidly deliver solutions such as a personalized video bill service and a self-optimizing network. However, the report also warns that it is difficult to make a success of an innovation unit. Failure can be caused by poor leadership, unclear direction or an inability to scale innovation. They can easily become disconnected from the main business. They can either think too far out into the future or simply get involved in routine projects.

The advice given for any CEO wanting to form such a unit includes:

1. Set up a governing body of senior stakeholders to create a sustainable innovation culture.
2. Build diverse cross-functional teams.
3. Allocate independent budgets but keep the unit reporting to the business.
4. Establish suitable metrics. Look for a mix of quick wins and audacious goals.
5. Keep business priorities ahead of technological considerations.
6. Encourage a culture of experimentation, risk-taking and fast failure.

Above all the innovation center needs the full support of the corporate leadership team. The report concludes that large corporations can tap into thriving technology hubs and innovation ecosystems. By empowering their innovation centers they can re-energize their innovation capability.

Crispin Blackall

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

The game Angry Birds was a huge hit for the Finnish game developers, Rovio Entertainment.  It sold over 20 million copies on various mobile platforms.  The spin-off products include books and a Sony film.  Angry Birds was released in 2009.  It was the 52^nd game that Rovio had launched since the company was founded in 2003.  There were 51 earlier attempts before the big hit arrived.

WD-40 is a widely used lubricant and penetrating oil.  It was developed in 1953 by chemist, Norm Larsen, in San Diego.  The term WD-40 is derived from “Water Displacement, 40th formula”.  It was the 40th formula the chemists tried before finding success. The product is produced by the Rocket chemical company and is distributed in over 160 countries.  The formula for WD-40 is a closely guarded trade secret.

Many great products were the result of a long series of iterations.  The first release is rarely an immediate winner.  Innovation is a process of continuous improvement and sometimes of trial and error with multiple failures eventually leading to success.

We see a similar process in the Arts and in Business.  The novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, by J K Rowling was rejected by 12 publishers before it was accepted.  Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell was rejected 38 times. The founders of Skype made 40 investor pitches before they were accepted.  Cisco made 76 and Google around 350.  Rejection is part of the process – but only if it is used to trigger learning and improvement.  Authors whose pet project is rejected have to rework and improve their pitch.  So did Larry Page and Sergey Brin.  They treated each rejection as a step along the road and a chance to refine their presentation for the next investor.

Everybody wants their first big idea to be a success.  But is much more likely to be a flop; albeit an educational flop.  The Jacuzzi brothers launched a bath with inbuilt water jets.  It was designed to ease the pain for sufferers from arthritis.  The target market liked the product but could not afford it so it was a commercial failure.  Sometime later the brothers relaunched the product but this time aimed at rich people with the benefit not of relieving pain but of improving social life.  This time it was a big success.

How can you avoid the pain of launching a product only to see it flop?  One approach is to pre-test the idea extensively by getting the crowd to vote on it before you make it.  This is what Threadless do with their T-shirt designs. Gustin go one step further.  They get members of their user community to pledge to buy their clothing designs before making them.

If you cannot pre-test then be prepared to iterate time and again, taking rejection as a source of feedback and improvement.  It is painful but you might just end up with Angry Birds, Harry Potter or Google.

http: Juhan Sonin

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

What can save Africa from its grinding poverty, corrupt bureaucrats, incompetent governments and dire infrastructure?  The best hope might lie with the innovations of its home grown entrepreneurs.  Many solutions that work in the developed world do not translate well to Africa so indigenous innovations are often a better answer.  In some cases they leap-frog current Western offerings.

Mobile phones are commonplace throughout Africa even in remote settlements.  Because investment in fixed line telephony was poor and ineffective mobiles have become ubiquitous.  It is estimated that by 2019 almost every African will own one and with it internet access.  Mobile technology has led to many low-cost ingenious services.

M-Pesa (M for mobile, pesa is Swahili for money) is a mobile-phone based money transfer and micro financing service, launched by Vodafone (through Safaricom) in Kenya and Tanzania. It became a popular service for people who did not trust or use banks.  It enabled people to make payments and small money transfers.  It has since been adopted in many other countries including Afghanistan and India.  The use of M-Pesa as mobile money has unleashed a host of apps and services that work through small mobile payments.  Africans in remote villages which never had a school or newspaper now use mobile applications that deliver education services and local news.

The Cardiopad is a touch screen medical tablet invented by Arthur Zang, a 26 year-old in Cameroon.  It facilitates heart examinations such as electrocardiograms (ECGs) to be performed at remote places.  The results of the tests can be transferred wirelessly to specialists for diagnosis. It can save lives especially for Africans who cannot take a long and difficult journey to reach a distant city hospital.

Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and Cisco are some of the big players who are investing in African innovations to help local communities but also with an eye on the potential for bringing some of the new models back to the West.  For example IBM is experimenting with small cargo drones, known as ‘flying donkeys’ which can deliver loads of up to 10 kg (22 lbs) up to 120 km (75 miles).  In places where roads are unreliable or dangerous this service can provide vital foods or medicines.

Africans are developing sophisticated high-tech innovations but they are also delivering pragmatic low-cost solutions to local issues.  SavvyLoo is a pedal-operated, self-contained, waterless toilet invented and developed in South Africa.  It is designed to be easy to assemble in rural communities.  The device drains liquids into a soak-away sump while solid waste is dried using solar heat.  The design enables the toilet to quickly eradicate odors and bacteria.

Africa has African problems.  Fortunately it has plenty of African initiative and innovation to solve them – sometimes with a little help from big corporations who recognize entrepreneurial talent when they see it.

http: Jamie McCaffrey

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

Sometimes the by-product, the surplus or the unwanted extra can become the unexpected success.  All it takes is a little imagination.

Brandy was originally a by-product used to help transport wine.  In the middle ages in France duties were levied on the volume of wine being transported.  Merchants boiled off water to concentrate the wine so as to reduce the taxes they paid.  Water was then added later.  However, someone discovered that the concentrate, brandy, tasted pretty good on its own.

In the 19^th century diamonds were a rarity.  They were primarily used as drill bits because they were so hard.  The South African mining giant De Beers wanted to find a high-value market for all the surplus small diamonds that they found in their mines.  They created the concept of the diamond engagement ring.  They employed the ad agency N W Ayer to successfully promote the concept of the engagement ring as the ultimate sign of love and devotion.  Their strap line ‘A diamond is forever’ is considered by marketing experts to be the greatest advertising slogan of the 20^th century.

Amazon developed tremendous IT skills and capacity as it grew rapidly selling books and other products on-line.  It was a giant in B to C (Business to Consumer) products.  After the dot.com crash in 2000 Amazon found itself with excess IT capacity in its data centers.  It offered web services to businesses and became a leader in B to B (Business to Business) services – a completely different field from its original strength.  Amazon Web Services is now a leader in Cloud computing.

In his excellent book, The Four Lenses of Innovation, Rowan Gibson gives the example of Imperial Billiards, a small New Jersey company which for 40 years specialised in making pool tables and other carpentry-based items.  But sales of billiard tables were in steady decline.  Then a customer suggested that they use their unwanted surplus sawdust and wood chippings to make wood pellets to burn in stoves and fireplaces.  This turned out to be a better and more profitable business. A customer will only buy one pool table but will return time and time again for wood pellets for his stove.

Can you innovate with the under-utilized assets in your business?  What by-product or surplus capacity could be put to better use?

http: OakleyOriginals

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

Many companies pump money into innovation projects without a clear strategy for their overall portfolio. Here is a method which gives a framework for sorting and reviewing your innovation initiatives.

We can categorize our new product development initiatives into one of four quadrants using the two by two window shown below. On the vertical axis there are markets – the ones we currently occupy and new markets. On the horizontal axis we plot products or technologies – ones we currently have and new products or technologies.

Now we populate the diagram with our projects. In the bottom left quadrant go all our incremental innovation plans – line extensions and new releases of existing products into our current customer set. In the bottom right quadrant go new product or service offerings for existing markets. Similarly existing product offerings adapted for new markets go top left and entirely new products for new markets go top right. Think of Apple starting with Macintosh computers in the bottom left quadrant. They initially sold mainly into small business markets for applications such as graphic design and desk top publishing. When they took their personal computers into mainstream and corporate markets they were moving top left – which they did with limited success. When Apple launched the iPad the innovation was a new product and technology selling mainly into their installed base so it goes bottom right. The Apple Newton and the iPhone were both radical products aimed at new markets so top right. One was a flop and the other a spectacular success.

It is clear that the safest place to innovate is the bottom left quadrant. Top left and bottom right are very risky and top right is extremely risky but potentially transformative for the business.

Where should we put most of our efforts? Research by Nagji and Tuff published in Harvard Business Review shows that the more successful large companies have around 70% of their projects and spend in the bottom left quadrant, around 20% in top left or bottom right and 10% in the top right. This is a useful indicator but each organization must choose the risk profile which suits it best. If you are a low technology company with ample scope for growth then you might focus on the left two quadrants with occasional forays to the right. An aggressive high-tech company might risk more ventures into the top right. If you face an existential threat to your current market position – e.g. Kodak, Nokia or Blackberry – then maybe you have to roll the dice and invest considerable resources in the top right quadrant.

Your innovation profile should balance risk and reward and it should play to your strengths and resources. New product initiatives involving new technologies and new markets involve much greater risk but offer potentially much greater opportunity. They also require different skills and management approaches. Placing your new product experiments into the four boxes will help clarify the risk profile that you currently employ and prompt you to consider whether you are playing too safe.

Erich Stüssi

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

When you have a successful innovation be sure to broadcast the fact. Track the source of the original idea that led to the innovation.  It may have come from a brainstorm, a suggestion scheme item, an idea event or some other source and the originator may have been an individual or a team. In any event, if the contributor is agreeable, make a big fuss.

Draw up a story about the innovation and place it in internal and external media. Put it on your intranet and if appropriate on your main website. Place it in the trade press – they are usually hungry for stories and a good press release should ensure coverage. If at all possible feature the originators of the idea in the story with a photo of the person or people who came up with it.

Many managers prefer to keep their innovations secret for fear of giving away competitive advantage if the innovation works and for fear of humiliation if it flops. But generally the upsides outweigh the downsides. It sends a positive signal to the outside world about the company. Clients and prospective employees see it as well as competitors. But the biggest payback is internally. People feel good about seeing their name in print. Recognition is a powerful motivator and incentive. More ideas will flow and people will believe in the innovation process.

Reward Success

The approach that was used in the past was to wait until as much as a year after an innovation was implemented, calculate the savings (on a very conservative basis) and then give the originator a fixed percentage (e.g. 10%) of the savings. This led to occasional large payouts in manufacturing plants where someone spotted a way to significantly cut cost. But for most process improvements the cost savings were hard to measure and the wait for the reward was so long that people lost interest. Large payouts can also be divisive – especially when several people contributed to an idea but one person walks off with the bonus.

The more modern approach is to give many small incentives quickly. As soon as an idea is approved and enters the pipeline its originator gets a small reward. The idea may or may not emerge at the end of the funnel as a fully formed innovation but the contributor is rewarded anyway. Instant gratification is the order of the day – all good ideas that gain initial acceptance are recognized.

Approaches for rewarding and recognizing innovative ideas and successful innovations include:

• Gift vouchers
• Innovative gifts – the latest mobile technical gadget.
• Dinner for two.
• An ‘Innovation Oscars’ – A gala awards ceremony where nominated finalists are feted and a winner is declared.
• Opportunities to attend foreign conferences
• Featuring the winners in videos which are shown at innovation events.

Ideas are the lifeblood of innovation. Respond quickly to suggestions. Financially reward contributors. Implement the best ideas. Celebrate successful results.

Taken from The Innovative Leader by Paul Sloane published by Kogan Page

Donald Lee Pardue

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Paul Sloane

How can we enthuse and empower a whole new generation of entrepreneurs? How can we double or treble the rate at which start-up businesses are formed? Can we build a ladder to take entrepreneurs all the way up?  We can start very young with junior entrepreneurs and provide them with the training and experience to inspire them to start their own businesses.

Citrus Saturday is a program which encourages school children to run home-made lemonade stalls at weekends. Developed and organized by University College London, Citrus Saturday seeks to teach entrepreneurship and enterprise skills to young people around the world. Events now run in UK, Ireland, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Swaziland and Mozambique. It is based on an idea which originated in the USA in 2007, Lemonade Day, which now has over 200,000 young people involved every year in North America. Children are instructed by adults but set their own plans and then work in order to make their lemonade stands a success. They can keep the money they earn though many donate it to charity.

A similar approach is offered by Bizworld which was founded by Tim Draper in 1997. It aims to challenge and engage school children with fun, hands-on entrepreneurship programs that promote financial responsibility, leadership, and teamwork. Over 500,000 students in over 100 countries have been involved and there is strong feedback from teachers that the program helps children to develop skills in collaborative problem solving, critical thinking, business and finance.

A different approach for older students is provided by MyKindaCrowd where companies set business challenges for students. Good ideas get rewarded – for example students are offered work placements. It enables corporates to access a student viewpoint and gain some bright ideas while helping young people understand and get close to business issues.

Higher up the entrepreneurship ladder is UP Global, a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering start-up businesses all around the world. Among its offerings is the Start-up Weekend where teams work together to prepare and deliver pitches for their new business ideas. These events have attracted over 100,000 aspiring entrepreneurs. Greg Gottesman pitched an idea for a network of dog sitters at a Start-up Weekend in Seattle in June 2011. His idea received top prize and six months later he launched Rover.com. The start-up has since grown rapidly, with an 800 percent increase in revenue in 2013 and over 25,000 pet sitters spread across all 50 states, up from 10,000 across 40 states in 2012.

New Entrepreneurs Foundation is a UK based charity which assists budding entrepreneurs by providing work placements, coaching, mentoring and networking.

At the top of the tree Y Combinator is a remarkably successful start-up fund and seed accelerator. Since it was founded in 2005 Y Combinator has funded over 550 start-ups with a total estimated current value of over $11 billion. Some of the better-known companies it has funded include Scribd, Stripe, reddit, Airbnb, Dropbox and Disqus.

It used to be thought that only seasoned executives should start new businesses, drawing on their experiences and know-how to build a new venture. We now see teenagers starting businesses developing computer games, mobile apps or internet services. We have some great examples of start-up accelerators.  We need to keep developing the infrastructure and support facilities which will help the next generation of entrepreneurs succeed.

Heisenberg Media

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.