Category Archives: Innovation

Our Innovation is All on Tape

Why Old Technologies Are Sometimes Still the Best Ones

Our Innovation is All on Tape

GUEST POST from John Bessant

Close your eyes and imagine for a moment a computer room in the early days of the industry. Chances are you’ll picture large wardrobe-sized metal cabinets whirring away with white-coated attendants tending to the machines. And it won’t be long before your gaze lands on the ubiquitous spools of tape being loaded and unloaded.

Which might give us a smug feeling as we look at the storage options for our current generation of computers — probably based on some incredibly fast access high-capacity solid state flash drive. It’s been quite a journey — the arc stretches a long way back from the recent years of USB sticks and SD cards, external HDDs and then the wonderful world of floppy discs, getting larger and more rigid as we go back in time. The clunky 1980s when our home computers rode on cassette drives, right back to the prehistoric days where the high priests of mini and mainframes tended their storage flock of tapes.

Ancient history — except that the tape drive hasn’t gone away. In fact it’s alive and well and backing up our most precious memories. Look inside the huge data farms operated by Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft Azure or anyone else and you’ll find large computers — and lots of tape. Thousands of kilometres of it, containing everything from your precious family photos to email backups to data from research projects like the Large Hadron Collider.

It turns out that tape is still an incredibly reliable medium — and it has the considerable advantage of being cheap. The alternative would be buying lots of hard drives — something which increasingly matters as the volume of data we are storing is growing. Think about the internet of things — all those intelligent devices, whether security cameras or mobile phones, manufacturing performance data loggers or hospital diagnostic equipment, are generating data which needs secure long-term storage. We’ve moved long past the era of measuring storage in kilobytes or megabytes; now we’re into zettabytes, each one the equivalent of to 250billion DVDs. In 2020 estimates suggest we produced close to 59Zb of data, projected to rise to 175zb by 2025! Fortunately IBM scientist Mark Lantz , an expert in storage, suggests that we can keep scaling tape and doubling capacity every 2.5 years for the next 20 years.

Plus tape offers a number of other advantages, not least in terms of security. Most of the time a tape cartridge is not plugged in to a computer and so is pretty immune to visiting viruses and malware.

In fact the market for magnetic tape storage is in robust health; it’s currently worth nearly $5bn and is expected to grow to double that size by 2030. Not bad for a technology coming up on its hundredth anniversary. Making all of this possible is, of course, our old friend innovation. It’s been a classic journey of incremental improvement, doing what we do but better, punctuated with the occasional breakthrough.

It started in 1877 when “Mary Had a Little Lamb” was recorded and played on Thomas Edison’s first experimental talking machine called a phonograph; the sounds were stored on wax cylinders and severely limited in capacity. The first tape recorder was developed in 1886 by Alexander Graham Bell in his labs using paper with beeswax coated on it. This patented approach never really took off because the sound reproduction was inferior to Edison’s wax cylinders.

Others soon explored alternatives; for example Franklin C. Goodale adapted movie film for analogue audio recording, receiving a patent for his invention in 1909. His film used a stylus to record and play back, essentially mimicking Edison’s approach but allowing for much more storage.

But in parallel with the wax-based approach another strand emerged in 1898, with the work of Voldemar Poulsen, a Danish scientist who built on an idea originally suggested ten years earlier by Oberlin Smith. This used the concept of a wire (which could be spooled) on which information was encoded magnetically. Poulsen’s model used cotton thread, steel sawdust and metal wire and was effectively the world’s first tape recorder; he called it a ‘telegraphone’.

Which brings us to another common innovation theme — convergence. If we fast forward (itself a term which originated in the word of tape recording!) to the 1930s we can see these two strands come together; German scientists working for the giant BASF company built on a patent registered to Fritz Pfleumer in 1928. They developed a magnetic tape using metal oxide coated on plastic tape which could be used in recording sound on a commercial basis; in 1934 they delivered the first 50,000 metres of it to the giant electronics corporation AEG.

The big advantage of magnetic recording was that it didn’t rely on a physical analogue being etched into wax or other medium; instead the patterns could be encoded and read as electrical signals. It wasn’t long before tape recording took over as the dominant design — and one of the early entrants was the 3M company in the USA. They had a long history of coating surfaces with particles, having begun life making sandpaper and moved on to create a successful business out of first adhesive masking tape and then the ubiquitous Scotch tape. Coating metal oxide on to tape was an obvious move and they quickly became a key player in the industry.

Innovation is always about the interplay between needs and means and the tape recording business received a fillip from the growing radio industry in the 1940s. Tape offered to simplify and speed up the recording process and an early fan was Bing Crosby. He’d become fed up with the heavy schedule of live broadcasting which kept him away from his beloved golf course and so was drawn to the idea of pre-recording his shows. But the early disc-based technology wasn’t really up to the task, filled with hisses and scratches and poor sound quality. Crosby’s sound engineer had come across the idea of tape recording and worked with 3M to refine the technology.

The very first radio show, anywhere in the world, to be recorded directly on magnetic tape was broadcast on 1 October 1947 featuring Crosby. It not only opened up a profitable line of new business for 3M, it also did its bit for changing the way the world consumed entertainment, be it drama, music hall or news. (It was also a shrewd investment for Crosby who became one of the emerging industry’s backers)

Which brings us to another kind of innovation interplay, this time between different approaches being taken in the worlds of consumer entertainment and industrial computing. Ever since Marconi, Tesla and others had worked on radio there had been a growing interest in consumer applications which could exploit the technology. And with the grandchildren of Edison’s gramophone and in the 1940s the work on television, the home became an increasingly interesting space for electronics entrepreneurs.

But as the domestic market for fixed appliances grew saturated so the search began for mobile solutions. Portability became an important driver for the industry and gave rise to the transistor radio; it wasn’t long before the in car entertainment market began to take off. An early entrant from the tape playback side was the 8-track cartridge in the mid-1960s which allowed you to listen to your favorite tracks without lugging a portable gramophone with you. Philips’ development of the compact cassette (and its free licensing of the idea to promote rapid and widespread adoption) led to an explosion in demand (over 100 billion cassette tapes were eventually sold worldwide) and eventually to the idea of the Walkman as the first portable personal device for recorded and recording music.

Without which we’d be a little less satisfied. Specifically we’d never been introduced to one of the Rolling Stones’ greatest hits; as guitarist Keith Richards explained in his 2010 autobiography:

“I wrote the song ‘Satisfaction’ in my sleep. I didn’t know at all that I had recorded it, the song only exists, thank God, to the little Philips cassette recorder. I looked at it in the morning — I knew I had put a new tape in the night before — but it was at the very end. Apparently, I had recorded something. I rewound and then ‘Satisfaction’ sounded … and then 40 minutes of snoring!”

Meanwhile back in the emerging computer industry of the 1950s there was a growing demand for storage media for which magnetic tape seemed well suited. Cue the images we imagined in the opening paragraph, acolytes dutifully tending the vast mainframe machines.

Early computers had used punched cards and then paper tape but these soon reached the limit of their usefulness; instead the industry began exploring magnetic audio tape.

IBM’s team under the leadership of Wayne Winger developed digital tape-based storage; of particular importance was finding ways to encode the 1s and 0s of binary patterns onto the tape. They introduced the commercial digital tape recorder in 1952, and it could store what was (for its time) an impressive 2mB of data on a reel.

Not everyone was convinced; as Winger recalled, “A white-haired IBM veteran in Poughkeepsie pulled a few of us aside and told us, ‘You young fellows remember, IBM was built on punched cards, and our foundation will always be punched cards.’ Fortunately Tom Watson Jnr, son of the company founder became a champion and the project went ahead.

But while tape dominated in the short term another parallel trajectory was soon established, replacing tapes and reels with disc drives whose big advantage was the ability to randomly access data rather than wait for the tape to arrive at the right place on the playback head. IBM once again led the way with its launch in 1956 of the hard disc drive and began a steady stream of innovation in which storage volumes and density increased while the size decreased. The landscape moved through various generations of external drives until the advent of personal computers where the drives migrated inside the box and became increasingly small (and floppy).

These developments were taken up by the consumer electronics industry with the growing use of discs as an alternative recording and playback medium, spanning various formats but also decreasing in size. Which of course opened the way for more portability with Sony and Sharp launching mini-disc players in the early 1980s.

All good news for the personal audio experience but less so for the rapidly expanding information technology industry. While new media storage technology continued to improve it came at a cost and with the exponential increase in volumes of data needing to be stored came a renewed interest in alternative (and cheaper) solutions. The road was leading back to good old-fashioned tape.

Its potential was in long-term storage and retrieval of so-called ‘cold data’. Most of what is stored in the cloud today is this kind — images, emails, all sorts of backup files. And while these need to be around they don’t have to be accessed instantly. And that’s where tape has come back into its own. Today’s tapes have moved on somewhat from IBM’s 1952 limited 2mB of capacity version. They are smaller on the outside but their capacity has grown enormously — they can now hold 20Tb or even if compressed 60pTb — that’s a 10 millionfold increase in 70 years. The tapes are not wound by hand on to capstans but instead loaded into cartridges, each of which hold around a kilometer of tape; companies use libraries containing tens of thousands of these cartridges which can be mounted via automated systems deploying robots. This process takes around 90 seconds to locate a cartridge and access and load the tape, so you could be forgiven for thinking that it’s a bit slow compared to your flash drive which has an access time measured in milliseconds.

There’s a pattern here — established and once important technologies giving way to the new kids on the block with their apparently superior performance. We’ve learned that we shouldn’t necessarily write the old technologies off — at the minimum there is often a niche for them amongst enthusiasts. Think about vinyl, about the anti-mp3 backlash from hi-fi fans or more recently photography using film and plates rather than their digital counterparts.

But it’s more than just nostalgia which drives this persistence of the old. Sometimes — like our magnetic tape — there are performance features which are worth holding on to — trading speed for security and lower storage cost, for example. Sometimes there is a particular performance niche which the new technology cannot enter competitively — for example the persistence of fax machines in healthcare where they offer a secure and reliable way of transmitting sensitive information. At the limit we might argue that neither cash nor physical books are as ‘good’ as their digital rivals but their persistence points to other attributes which people continue to find valuable.

And sometimes it is about the underlying accumulated knowledge which the old technology represents — and which might be redeployed to advantage in a different field. Think of Fujifilm’s resurgence as a cosmetics and pharmaceuticals company on the back of its deep knowledge of emulsions and coatings. Technologies which it originally mastered in the now largely disappeared world of film photography. Or Kodak’s ability to offer high speed high quality printing on the back of knowledge it originally acquired in the same old industry — that of accurately spraying and targeting millions of droplets on to a surface. And it was 3M’s deep understanding of how to coat materials on to tapes gained originally from selling masking tape to the paint shops of Detroit which helped it move so effectively into the field of magnetic tape.

Keeping these technologies alive isn’t about putting them on life support; as the IBM example demonstrates it needs a commitment to incremental innovation, driving and optimising performance. And there’s still room for breakthroughs within those trajectories; in the case of magnetic tape storage it came in 2010 in the form of the Linear Tape File System (LTFS) open standard. This allowed tape drives to emulate the random access capabilities of their hard disk competitors, using metadata about the location of data stored on the tapes.

Whichever way you look at it there’s a need for innovation, whether bringing a breakthrough to an existing field or helping sustain a particular niche for the long haul. And we shouldn’t be too quick to write off ‘old’ technologies as new ones emerge which appear superior. It’s worth remembering that the arrival of the steamship didn’t wipe out the shipyards building sailing ships around the world; it actually spurred them on to a golden era of performance imporvement which it took steampships a long time to catch up with.

So, there’s often a lot of life left in old dogs, especially when we can teach them some new innovative tricks.

You can find a podcast version of this here and a video version here

And if you’d like to learn with me take a look at my online course here

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Innovation and the Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

Leave a reply

Why It’s Bad News and Good News for Corporate Innovation

Innovation and the Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Last week, as news of Silicon Valley Bank’s losses and eventual collapse, took over the news cycle, attention understandably turned to the devastating impact on the startup ecosystem.

Prospects brightened a bit on Monday with news that the federal government would make all depositors whole. Startups, VCs, and others in the ecosystem would be able to continue operations and make payroll, and SVB’s collapse would be just another cautionary tale.

But the impact of SVB’s collapse isn’t confined to the startup ecosystem or the banking industry.

Its impact (should have) struck fear and excitement into the hearts of every executive tasked with growing their business.

Your Portfolio’s Risk Profile Just Changed

The early 2000s were the heyday of innovation teams and skunkworks, but as these internal efforts struggled to produce significant results, companies started looking beyond their walls for innovation. Thus began the era of Corporate Venture Capital (CVC).

Innovation, companies realized, didn’t need to be incubated. It could be purchased.

Often at a lower price than the cost of an in-house team.

And it felt less risky. After all, other companies were doing it and it was a hot topic in the business press. Plus, making investments felt much more familiar and comfortable than running small-scale experiments and questioning the status quo.

Between 2010 and 2020, the number of corporate investors increased more than 6x to over 4,000, investment ballooned to nearly $170B in 2021 (up 142% from 2020), and 1,317 CVC-backed deals were closed in Q1 of 2020.

But, with SVB’s collapse, the perceived risk of startup investing suddenly changed.

Now startups feel riskier. Venture Capital firms are pulling back, and traditional banks are prohibited from stepping forward to provide the venture debt many startups rely on. While some see this as an opportunity for CVC to step up, that optimism ignores the fact that companies are, by nature and necessity, risk averse and more likely to follow the herd than lead it.

Why This is Bad News

As CVC, Open Innovation, and joint ventures became the preferred path to innovation and growth, internal innovation shifted to events – hackathons, shark tanks, and Silicon Valley field trips.

Employees were given the “freedom” to innovate within a set time and maybe even some training on tools like Design Thinking and Lean Startup. But behind closed doors, executives spoke of these events as employee retention efforts, not serious efforts to grow the business or advance critical strategies.

Employees eventually saw these events for what they were – innovation theater, activities designed to appease them and create feel-good stories for investors. In response, employees either left for places where innovation (or at least the curiosity and questions required) was welcomed, or they stayed, wiser and more cynical about management’s true intentions.

Then came the pandemic and a recession. Companies retreated further into themselves, focused more on core operations, and cut anything that wouldn’t generate financial results in 12 months or less.

Innovation muscles atrophied.

Just at the moment they need to be flexed most.

Why This is Good News

As the risk of investment in external innovation increases, companies will start looking for other ways to innovate and grow. Ways that feel less risky and give them more control.

They’ll rediscover Internal Innovation.

This is the silver lining of the dark SVB cloud – renewed investment in innovation, not as an event or activity to appease employees, but as a strategic tool critical to delivering strategic priorities and accelerating growth.

And, because this is our 2^nd time around, we know it’s not about internal innovation teams OR external partners/investments. It’s about internal innovation teams AND external partners/investments.

Both are needed, and both can be successful if they:

Are critical enablers of strategic priorities
Pursue realistic goals (stretch, don’t splatter!)
Receive the people and resources required to deliver against those goals
Are empowered to choose progress over process
Are supported by senior leaders with words AND actions

What To Do Now

When it comes to corporate innovation teams, many companies are starting from nothing. Some companies have files and playbooks they can dust off. A few have 1 or 2 people already working.

Whatever your starting point is, start now.

Just do me one favor. When you start pulling the team together, remember LL Cool J, “Don’t call it a comeback, I been here for years.”

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Mean That We Should!

1 Reply

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

An article on innovation from the BBC caught my eye this week. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64814781. After extensive research and experimentation, a group in Spain has worked out how to farm octopus. It’s clever innovation, but also comes with some ethical questions. The solution involves forcing highly intelligent, sentient animals together in unnatural environments, and then killing them in a slow, likely highly stressful way. And that triggers something that I believe we need to always keep front and center in innovation: Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Mean That We Should!

Pandora’s Box

It’s a conundrum for many innovations. Change opens Pandora’s Box, and with new possibilities come unknowns, new questions, new risks and sometimes, new moral dilemmas. And because our modern world is so complex, interdependent, and evolves so quickly, we can rarely fully anticipate all of these consequences at conception.

Scenario Planning

In most fields we routinely try and anticipate technical challenges, and run all sorts of stress, stability and consumer tests in an effort to anticipate potential problems. We often still miss stuff, especially when it’s difficult to place prototypes into realistic situations. Phones still catch fire, Hyundai’s can be surprisingly easy to steal, and airbags sometimes do more harm than good. But experienced innovators, while not perfect, tend to be pretty good at catching many of the worst technical issues.

Another Innovators Dilemma

Octopus farming doesn’t, as far as I know, have technical issues, but it does raise serious ethical questions. And these can sometimes be hard to spot, especially if we are very focused on technical challenges. I doubt that the innovators involved in octopus farming are intrinsically bad people intent on imposing suffering on innocent animals. But innovation requires passion, focus and ownership. Love is Blind, and innovators who’ve invested themselves into a project are inevitably biased, and often struggle to objectively view the downsides of their invention.

And this of course has far broader implications than octopus farming. The moral dilemma of innovation and unintended consequences has of course been brought into sharp focus with recent advances in AI. In this case the stakes are much higher. Stephen Hawking and many others expressed concerns that while AI has the potential to provide incalculable benefits, it also has the potential to end the human race. While I personally don’t see CHATgpt as Armageddon, it is certainly evidence that Pandora’s Box is open, and none of us really knows how it will evolve, for better or worse.

What are our Solutions

So what can we do to try and avoid doing more harm than good? Do we need an innovator’s equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath? Should we as a community commit to do no harm, and somehow hold ourselves accountable? Not a bad idea in theory, but how could we practically do that? Innovation and risk go hand in hand, and in reality we often don’t know how an innovation will operate in the real world, and often don’t fully recognize the killer application associated with a new technology. And if we were to eliminate most risk from innovation, we’d also eliminate most progress. This said, I do believe how we balance progress and risk is something we need to discuss more, especially in light of the extraordinary rate of technological innovation we are experiencing, the potential size of its impact, and the increasing challenges associated with predicting outcomes as the pace of change accelerates.

Can We Ever Go Back?

Another issue is that often the choice is not simply ‘do we do it or not’, but instead ‘who does it first’? Frequently it’s not so much our ‘brilliance’ that creates innovation. Instead, it’s simply that all the pieces have just fallen into place and are waiting for someone to see the pattern. From calculus onwards, the history of innovation is replete with examples of parallel discovery, where independent groups draw the same conclusions from emerging data at about the same time.

So parallel to the question of ‘should we do it’ is ‘can we afford not to?’ Perhaps the most dramatic example of this was the nuclear bomb. For the team working the Manhattan Project it must have been ethically agonizing to create something that could cause so much human suffering. But context matters, and the Allies at the time were in a tight race with the Nazi’s to create the first nuclear bomb, the path to which was already sketched out by discoveries in physics earlier that century. The potential consequences of not succeeding were even more horrific than those of winning the race. An ethical dilemma of brutal proportions.

Today, as the pace of change accelerates, we face a raft of rapidly evolving technologies with potential for enormous good or catastrophic damage, and where Pandoras Box is already cracked open. Of course AI is one, but there are so many others. On the technical side we have bio-engineering, gene manipulation, ecological manipulation, blockchain and even space innovation. All of these have potential to do both great good and great harm. And to add to the conundrum, even if we were to decide to shut down risky avenues of innovation, there is zero guarantee that others would not pursue them. On the contrary, as bad players are more likely to pursue ethically dubious avenues of research.

Behavioral Science

And this conundrum is not limited to technical innovations. We are also making huge strides in understanding how people think and make decisions. This is superficially more subtle than AI or bio-manipulation, but as a field I’m close to, it’s also deeply concerning, and carries similar potential to do both great good or cause great harm. Public opinion is one of the few tools we have to help curb mis-use of technology, especially in democracies. But Behavioral Science gives us increasingly effective ways to influence and nudge human choices, often without people being aware they are being nudged. In parallel, technology has given us unprecedented capability to leverage that knowledge, via the internet and social media. There has always been a potential moral dilemma associated with manipulating human behavior, especially below the threshold of consciousness. It’s been a concern since the idea of subliminal advertising emerged in the 1950’s. But technical innovation has created a potentially far more influential infrastructure than the 1950’s movie theater. We now spend a significant portion of our lives on line, and techniques such as memes, framing, managed choice architecture and leveraging mere exposure provide the potential to manipulate opinions and emotional engagement more profoundly than ever before. And the stakes have gotten higher, with political advertising, at least in the USA, often eclipsing more traditional consumer goods marketing in sheer volume. It’s one thing to nudge someone between Coke and Pepsi, but quite another to use unconscious manipulation to drive preference in narrowly contested political races that have significant socio-political implications. There is no doubt we can use behavioral science for good, whether it’s helping people eat better, save better for retirement, drive more carefully or many other situations where the benefit/paternalism equation is pretty clear. But especially in socio-political contexts, where do we draw the line, and who decides where that line is? In our increasingly polarized society, without some oversight, it’s all too easy for well intentioned and passionate people to go too far, and in the worst case flirt with propaganda, and thus potentially enable damaging or even dangerous policy.

What Can or Should We Do?

We spend a great deal of energy and money trying to find better ways to research and anticipate both the effectiveness and potential unintended consequences of new technology. But with a few exceptions, we tend to spend less time discussing the moral implications of what we do. As the pace of innovations accelerates, does the innovation community need to adopt some form of ‘do no harm’ Hippocratic Oath? Or do we need to think more about educating, training, and putting processes in place to try and anticipate the ethical downsides of technology?

Of course, we’ll never anticipate everything. We didn’t have the background knowledge to anticipate that the invention of the internal combustion engine would seriously impact the world’s climate. Instead we were mostly just relieved that projections of cities buried under horse poop would no longer come to fruition.

But other innovations brought issues we might have seen coming with a bit more scenario-planning? Air bags initially increased deaths of children in automobile accidents, while prohibition in the US increased both crime and alcoholism. Hindsight is of course very clear, but could a little more foresight have anticipated these? Perhaps my favorite example unintended consequences is the ‘Cobra Effect’. The British in India were worried about the number of venomous cobra snakes, and so introduced a bounty for every dead cobra. Initially successful, this ultimately led to the breeding of cobras for bounty payments. On learning this, the Brits scrapped the reward. Cobra breeders then set the now-worthless snakes free. The result was more cobras than the original start-point. It’s amusing now, but it also illustrates the often significant gap between foresight and hindsight.

I certainly don’t have the answers. But as we start to stack up world changing technologies in increasingly complex, dynamic and unpredictable contexts, and as financial rewards often favor speed over caution, do we as an innovation community need to start thinking more about societal and moral risk? And if so, how could, or should we go about it?

I’d love to hear the opinions of the innovation community!

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Your Core Business – Greatest Strength, Greatest Weakness

Leave a reply

Your Core Business - Greatest Strength and Greatest Weakness

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Your core business, the long-standing business that has made you what you are, is both your greatest strength and your greatest weakness.

The Core generates the revenue, but it also starves fledgling businesses, so they never make it off the ground.

There’s a certainty with the Core because it builds on success, but its success sets the certainty threshold too high for new businesses. And due to the relatively high level of uncertainty of the new business (as compared to the Core) the company can’t find the gumption to make the critical investments needed to reach orbit.

The Core has generated profits over the decades and those profits have been used to create the critical infrastructure that makes its success easier to achieve. The internal startup can’t use the Core’s infrastructure because the Core doesn’t share. And the Core has the power to block all others from taking advantage of the infrastructure it created.

The Core has grown revenue year-on-year and has used that revenue to build out specialized support teams that keep the flywheel moving. And because the Core paid for and shaped the teams, their support fits the Core like a glove. A new offering with a new value proposition and new business model cannot use the specialized support teams effectively because the new offering needs otherly-specialized support and because the Core doesn’t share.

The Core pays the bills, and new ventures create bills that the Core doesn’t like to pay.

If the internal startup has to compete with the Core for funding, the internal startup will fail.

If the new venture has to generate profits similar to the Core, the venture will be a misadventure.

If the new offering has to compete with the Core for sales and marketing support, don’t bother.

If the fledgling business’s metrics are assessed like the Core’s metrics, it won’t fly, it will flounder.

If you try to run a new business from within the Core, the Core will eat it.

To work effectively with the Core, borrow its resources, forget how it does the work, and run away.

To protect your new ventures from the Core, physically separate them from the Core.

To protect your new businesses from the Core, create a separate budget that the Core cannot reach.

To protect your internal startup from the Core, make sure it needs nothing from the Core.

To accelerate the growth of the fledgling business, make it safe to violate the Core’s first principles.

To bolster the capability of your new business, move resources from the Core to the new business.

To de-risk the internal startup, move functional support resources from the Core to the startup.

To fund your new ventures, tax the Core. It’s the only way.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Take Charge of Your Mind to Reclaim Your Potential

2 Replies

Take Charge of Your Mind to Reclaim Your Potential

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

In our recent blog, we explored how our focus and attention have been stolen, and how our ability to pay attention is collapsing and described why we need to be intentional in reclaiming it. Yet, many of us are constantly challenged by very short attention spans, where we can often be found sitting at our desks, dealing with a range of very urgent deadlines with a distracted, and unfocussed mind. Despite being intrinsically motivated to meet our deadlines, and being self-aware of needing to focus on completing the tasks in front of us, many of us often still struggle to disrupt and stop our thoughts from wandering randomly and haphazardly. Because, we are no longer being in charge of our minds, our time, or of our cognitive capacities and abilities that help us self-regulate, concentrate and focus our attention, kickstart change, innovate and become resilient.

A recent article in Psychology Today “The War For Your Attention” reinforces this problem by stating:

“We live in a time when attention has become our most valuable asset, one for which multiple stakeholders are competing. Political parties, media outlets, companies, and individuals want a share of it, and if they can have it, they want it all. As a result, remaining in charge of our minds has become a daily challenge. Our attention defines our experience, which sets the mindset of our minds”.

Become Resilient

Because we don’t know if companies will ever return to their pre-pandemic-like worlds, and what new technologies will emerge, we need to become resilient to be future-fit, in this new world of unknowns.

This requires people to unlearn some of their less resourceful “bad pre and post-pandemic habits” and be:

Open towards relearning and reskilling in how to focus, concentrate and observe, and how to manage, direct and expand our attention spans.
Intentional, outcome-focused, and therefore, effective, agile, adaptive, and resilient in an uncertain world full of disruption and crises.

This is reinforced by a recent article “Seizing the momentum to build resilience for a future of sustainable inclusive growth” by McKinsey & Co:

“In the past year, leaders have been confronted with a lifetime’s worth of disruption and crises: global conflict, energy uncertainty, food shortages, accelerating inflation, and severe climate events. Natural and human-made disruptions will only persist. To enable long-term, sustainable, and inclusive growth, today’s business leaders and policymakers must strengthen resilience beyond a survival capacity.”

From surviving to thriving

The nature and speed of change are not going to slow down, at the same time, our uncertain world full of disruption and crises is having a harsh psychological toll on everyone, impacting negatively on people’s states of emotional and physical health.

If we want people to thrive, we have to start helping people to live better than we ever have.

Taking the first baby steps requires people to confidently and courageously be, think and act differently.

Starting with empowering and enabling people to take charge of their hearts and minds, and commit to focusing their attention on building their resilience.

The Switch-Cost Effect

In his best-selling book Johann Hari – Stolen Focus, describes how Professor Earl Miller, a specialist in neuroscience, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states that “our brains can only produce one or two thoughts” in our conscious minds at once.

Because “we are very, very single-minded” and have “very limited cognitive capacity.”

Multi-tasking is an illusion

The delusion that we can multitask, or juggle a number of thoughts and activities at the same time, is revealed, through robust research, as actually “switching, back and forth.”

He states that we don’t notice the switching because:

“Our brain sort of papers it over to give a seamless experience of consciousness, but what they’re actually doing is switching and reconfiguring their brain moment-to-moment, task-to-task – which comes with a cost.”

Losing time to refocus

This is described as the “switch-cost effect” and means that every time we switch tasks while trying to work, we are actually losing a huge amount of time required to concentrate and manage our attention spans to refocus afterward.

“For example, one study at Carnegie Mellon University’s human-computer interaction lab took 136 students and got them to sit a test. Some of them had to have their phones switched off, and others had their phones on and received intermittent text messages. The students who received messages performed, on average, 20% worse. It seems to me that almost all of us are currently losing that 20% of our brainpower, almost all the time. Miller told me that as a result we now live in “a perfect storm of cognitive degradation”.

Reducing Cognitive Degradation

There are a number of simple and obvious ways to reduce our cognitive degradation and heal our unconscious “attention deficit syndromes”, and cognitively reappraise to be in charge of our minds, concentrate and effectively manage our attention spans.

It is also the first step we need to take to empower and enable ourselves and others, in taking charge of our hearts and minds and demonstrating our commitment to focusing our attention and becoming initially resilient.

These simple actions require us to be self-disciplined, methodical, and rigorous and open to re-learning how to concentrate and self-regulated our attention spans by habitually:

Stripping out distractions,
Ceasing to multi-task,
Getting more quality sleep,
Taking regular short breaks,
Doing brain exercises,
Doing physical exercises,
Listening to music,
Setting priorities,
Using a timer.

How to be in charge of our own minds

Intention transforms

If we want to cultivate a calmer, coherent, and resourceful psychological state, to achieve the outcomes we want to have in our lives, then focus and place our attention on both what we want to manifest (our intention), and on what we want your attention to move away from, to cease.

Attention activates

When choosing to consciously slow down, hit our pause buttons, and retreat into stillness and silence, opens the sacred space, that allows us to reflect, focus and pay deeper attention to the impact of our emotions and beliefs on our thoughts.

We can then also attend to, and break down any unresourceful beliefs, emotions, and cognitive distortions about what we can really and truly influence and control to:

Create a more normalised state of equilibrium and calm, get grounded and fully present and manage our attention spans to concentrate on what really matters to us, in ways that are self-compassionate and optimistic about the future.
Support ourselves by believing that we can succeed in handling our situations, responsibly, creatively, and effectively.
Become resilient by knowing how to respond to events in real-time, anticipate events and problems that may occur in the future, and bounce from adversity whilst processing the insights and learnings gained by conquering key challenges.

Developing Resilience

We can then be in charge of our minds, become resilient, and create a safe space and generosity for others to fully show up and connect with us. We can open our eyes, minds, and hearts to all options, unleash possibilities and opportunities, make smart change choices, and innovate, rather than panicking and retreating from the risks emerging in an uncertain world full of disruption and crises.

Find out about our collective, learning products and tools, including The Coach for Innovators, Leaders, and Teams Certified Program, presented by Janet Sernack, is a collaborative, intimate, and deeply personalized innovation coaching and learning program, supported by a global group of peers over 9-weeks, starting Friday, May 12, 2023.

Image Credit: Pixabay, Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

What Disruptive Innovation Really Is

Leave a reply

What Disruptive Innovation Really Is

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

I recently read an article in ZDnet by Sherin Shibu discussing disruptive innovation, primarily through the lens of Clay Christensen’s work at the Harvard Business School. The article itself is very sound, and yet I found myself disagreeing with it on a number of points. In this blog, I want to interleave what Shibu says (presented in standard font) with my own commentary (inserted in italics) so that readers can develop their own point of view from the interaction.

What is disruptive innovation?

Disruptive innovation theory is a cautionary concept for large, established companies: There’s danger in becoming too good at what you do best. Delivering to the mainstream market is good and all, but a disruptor could target a market underserved by your current product with a new business model.

For me, disruptive innovation has a much bigger footprint because it also underlies virtually all venture capital investment. Its fundamental promise is to release an enormous amount of trapped value by reengineering an established system or process. The reason it is a cautionary concept for large established companies is that they are the custodians of the legacy systems and processes that are trapping the value. Yes, they can reduce the overhead by optimizing what they have, but no, they cannot compete with a categorically better way of doing things.

Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen developed the concept of disruptive innovation in the 1990s with his groundbreaking book The Innovator’s Dilemma, and the theory became wildly popular in the decades to follow. But in some respects it has become a victim of its own success: “Despite broad dissemination, the theory’s core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied,” notes The Harvard Business Review.

Disruptive innovation is a process by which entrepreneurs break into a low-end or new market and create business models that are different from existing ones in those markets. Disruption has occurred when their business model becomes mainstream.

So, a new company targets an overlooked customer base — and manages to deliver a better product at a lower price point. At first, the incumbents don’t take the threat seriously, which allows the potential disruptors to gain a foothold. Then the disruptors target the incumbents’ mainstream customers. If the potential disruptors create something that the mainstream adopts in volume, they have successfully disrupted the market.

I think this reading of the model overemphasizes the need to attack the low end of the market. Yes, that is a proven path, but it is not the only one. The iPhone disrupted from the high end, for example, as has Tesla.

What is disruptive innovation not?

Defining disruptive innovation isn’t easy and not everyone is going to agree on every example. Classic disruptive innovation should not simply describe just any situation of upheaval. If a new company shakes things up a bit for incumbent competitors, that scene is not necessarily one of disruptive innovation — that could simply be a breakthrough. In order for this theory to have power and be used as an analytical and predictive model, it needs to be precisely defined.

My definition of disruptive innovation is one that overthrows and is incompatible with the existing business model or operating model of an industry. In the case of the iPhone, it was Apple’s ability to go over the top of the carrier to provide products and services directly to the consumer. In the case of Tesla, it is its ability to bypass the dealership model not only in sales but in services as well.

Christensen, for example, argued that Uber is not a disruptive innovator according to his definition. It fails to meet two requirements, in that it did not start in a low-end or new market. Instead, it built a name for itself in a mainstream market and then started drawing unserved customers with less expensive solutions. And being less expensive or creating an app to hail rides sustains the existing model rather than disrupts.

This is just wrong and shows the limitations of the “start at the low end” concept. Uber reengineered both the operating model and the business model of on-demand car transportation, allowing consumers to call a taxi to themselves, and allowing Uber to build a fleet of cars and drivers at no capital expense.

Not everyone thinks that’s the case and other perspectives can be found that argue Uber actually is a disruptive innovator. From this perspective, Uber started with a low-market foothold by offering on-demand black car services. It was only when the startup introduced UberX, a low-end market offering, that it was able to move into the mainstream.

What counts as disruption is up for debate, especially as Christensen’s theory is applied to shifting contexts.

In the case of Uber, focusing on the low end simply misses the point.

Why is it important to define disruptive innovation?

Disruption isn’t a fixed point; it’s the evolution of a product or service from the fringes of customers to the mainstream. It’s important to define it this way because then it becomes more about the experimental nature of the process than about the output. See, disruptive innovations don’t always succeed and not every successful company is a disruptor. The process is about building new business models previously unseen in the target industry and appealing to a more niche customer base at first.

In my view, disruptive innovation is a function of a breakthrough technology intersecting with a pool of trapped value, enabling the reengineering of a system or process that eliminates one or more whole categories of spend in its value chain. It is a categorical innovation as opposed to a product or marketing innovation.

Is disruptive innovation the primary way innovation operates?

No, it is not the primary factor of innovation. According to HBR, “disruption theory does not, and never will, explain everything about innovation specifically or business success generally.” It does, however, help predict which businesses will succeed and it provides a solid foundation for further research – it’s captured academic attention for 27 years.

I agree with the point that disruptive innovation is not the primary type. Most innovation is sustaining, meaning that it improves an existing system rather than overthrowing it—evolution, not revolution. What I disagree with wholeheartedly, on the other hand, is the notion that the theory helps predict which businesses will succeed. Historically, the advantage has gone to start-ups because they are unconflicted in their commitment to the new way. Established enterprises, however, have learned that they can neutralize start-ups if they are willing to be fast followers. Microsoft’s Azure is a superb example of a company that has done this. Disney’s response to Netflix is another good example, and it appears as if General Motors is on a comparable path toward neutralizing Tesla.

What is an example of disruptive innovation?

Netflix was around since 1997, and at first, it didn’t appeal to Blockbuster’s core clientele. Renting movies usually happened in person, and Netflix was all online. Plus, Netflix took a few days to deliver movies because selections came through the mail. Blockbuster could easily ignore Netflix because it didn’t have the brick-and-mortar infrastructure needed to dominate the market at that time.

This glosses over what was the initial disruptive innovation that Netflix provided with its home delivery model based on DVDs. The key differentiator at the beginning was designing out late fees.

Over time though, as streaming technology developed, Blockbuster’s target clients were drawn toward Netflix. The same impulsiveness that made renting a movie right away more desirable than getting a movie a few days later translated into wanting to watch movies with a click of a mouse instead of going to a physical location to rent a DVD. Disruptive innovation technology, in this case, streaming, goes hand in hand with implementing innovation.

There is another story playing out in Netflix’s transition from DVD shipping to streaming. It required the company to disrupt itself. This is an extraordinary ask, as most successful disruptive innovations attack someone else’s profit pool, not one’s own. Reed Hastings deserves enormous credit for leading the company through this change, and I would encourage the academy to focus its research lens on how in the world he was able to do so when so many CEOs have fallen short.

Are there any disruptive innovation technologies to keep an eye on?

Online learning is a technology to watch because it’s reaching a population that in-person learning can’t reach at a lower price point.

The main technologies to keep an eye on are the ones that tackle an underserved market and have the potential to expand their offerings to appeal to the mainstream.

Something like autonomous vehicles, for example, can seem innovative, but they aren’t disruptive according to the theory because they’ll be quickly absorbed into existing industries. The incumbent advantage is strong.

The important thing to remember is that innovation does not always lead to disruption.

I strongly support the idea that online education delivery has the power to disrupt the education market—again, a breakthrough technology intersecting with a boatload of trapped value. I think the point about autonomous vehicles is interesting as well because I agree they will be absorbed into the existing industries. But while they may not disrupt the automotive industry, I do think they can reengineer transportation and logistics.

Overall, I support Shibu’s main thesis which is that we have come to take disruptive innovation for granted and have become careless with how we apply the term. And while we part ways on how best to apply it, I still endorse Clay’s breakthrough insights in The Innovator’s Dilemma, which had a huge impact on a whole generation of companies in Silicon Valley.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Life of a Corporate Innovator

Leave a reply

As Told in Three Sonnets

The Life of a Corporate Innovator

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Day 1

Oh innovation, a journey just begun

A bold quest filled with challenges, risks, and dreams,

A path of creativity, knowledge and fun,

That will bring change, growth and a brighter scene.

Do not be afraid, though unknowns abound,

For greatness starts with small unsteady steps

Take courage and embrace each change that’s found,

And trust that success will be the final event.

Remember, every challenge is a chance,

To learn, grow, and shape thy future bright,

And every obstacle a valuable dance,

That helps thee forge a path that’s just and right.

So go forth, my friend, and boldly strive,

To make innovation flourish and thrive.

The Abyss (Death and Rebirth)

Fight on corporate innovator, who art so bold

And brave despite the trials that thou hast,

Thou hast persevered through promises cold,

And fought through budget cuts that came so fast.

Thou hast not faltered, nor did thou despair,

Despite the lack of resources at thy door,

Thou hast with passion, worked beyond repair,

And shown a steel spine that’s hard to ignore.

Thou art a shining example to us all,

A beacon of hope in times that are so bleak,

Thou art a hero, standing tall and strong,

And leading us to victories that we seek.

So let us celebrate thy unwavering faith,

And honor thee, innovator of great grace.

The Triumph

My dear intrapreneur, well done,

The launch of thy innovation is a feat,

A result of years of hard work, and fun,

That sets a shining example for all to meet.

Thou hast persevered through many a trial,

With unwavering determination and drive,

And now, thy hard work doth make thee smile,

As thy business doth grow and thrive.

This triumph is a testament to thee,

Of thy creativity, passion, and might,

And serves as a reminder of what can be,

When we pour our hearts into what is right.

So let us raise a glass and celebrate,

Thy success, and the joy innovation hath created!

These sonnets were created with the help of ChatGPT

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

5 Things to Consider When Hiring Corporate Innovators

Leave a reply

5 Things to Consider When Hiring Corporate Innovators

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

As businesses continue to face unprecedented change and uncertainty, innovation is no longer optional – it’s a must-have for companies looking to survive and thrive. However, finding and developing the right people to drive corporate innovation can be challenging.

In this newsletter, we’ll explore five key ideas for hiring and developing individuals capable of leading corporate transformation and innovation forward, in a world where staying ahead of the curve is essential.

Future Potential vs. Past Competencies:

In the past, companies often hired innovators based on past competencies and results. However, the future of hiring will shift towards potential as a key criterion. Past success in other organizations is no guarantee of success in your own, and companies must adapt their hiring practices to focus on individuals who have shown a proven potential for constant learning, growth, and adaptability. Look for people who are capable of dealing well with ambiguity, adapting quickly to changing circumstances, and who possess the potential to succeed in your organization.

Knowing the Direction of Adaptation:

Organizations and talent alike must know the direction in which they need to adapt. However, it can be challenging to maintain an overview of the internal and external factors and trends impacting innovation efforts and capabilities. To tackle this issue, companies must experiment and develop ways to gauge and maintain an overview and/or direction.

For companies with a strong tradition of relying solely on the knowledge of internal R&D experts, it may require broader tracking of emerging trends, as well as reaching beyond R&D to other parts of the company for ideas on other ways to innovate. Consider all the areas where innovation can occur, including in business models, channels, and customer engagement, to name a few.

The Importance of Community Building:

Innovation is increasingly happening in ecosystems and communities, both internally and externally. Future innovation leaders must be able to create shared purpose, values, and rules of engagement to foster innovation within these communities. To build a successful community, strong networking and communication skills, as well as the ability to inspire people, are essential.

Companies should foster a culture of collaboration, encourage participation from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and recognize and reward innovation efforts.

Creating the Right Conditions and Frameworks:

To make innovation work in big companies, it’s essential to create the right conditions and frameworks. This means allowing talent to experiment and explore new ideas freely, but also providing the resources, time, and support needed to make innovation efforts successful. Companies must be prepared to take risks and try new approaches, and foster a culture that encourages diversity of thought and collaboration. In addition, creating an inclusive culture that values diversity and recognizes the importance of different types of intelligence can also be beneficial for driving innovation forward.

The Importance of Multiple Intelligences:

Innovation requires a diverse range of skills, not just technical or product expertise. Future innovators must have a broad range of skills and experiences, including creativity, customer-centric thinking, and collaboration skills. Companies should consider different types of intelligence when hiring and developing innovation talent, such as emotional intelligence, social intelligence, and cultural intelligence. By valuing multiple intelligences and creating a culture that encourages diverse perspectives, companies can ensure they have the talent they need to drive innovation forward.

As the business landscape continues to evolve at a breakneck pace, innovation will be the key to survival for many companies. However, innovation is only possible with the right people in place. By shifting the focus from past competencies to future potential, tracking emerging trends and adapting accordingly, building strong communities, creating the right frameworks, and considering multiple types of intelligence, companies can hire and develop the right people for the job. Hiring full teams can also help foster innovation and bring about change faster.

By keeping these ideas in mind, companies can ensure that they have the talent they need to thrive in today’s fast-paced business environment.

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

Understanding Novelty is the Key to Innovation

Leave a reply

Understanding Novelty is the Key to Innovation

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you want to get innovation right, focus on novelty.

Novelty is the difference between how things are today and how they might be tomorrow. And that comparison calibrates tomorrow’s idea within the context of how things are today. And that makes all the difference. When you can define how something is novel, you have an objective measure of things.

How is it different than what you did last time? If you don’t know, either you don’t know what you did last time or you don’t know the grounding principle of your new idea. Usually, it’s a little of the former and a whole lot of the latter. And if you don’t know how it’s different, you can’t learn how potential customers will react to the novelty. In fact, if you don’t know how it’s different, you can’t even decide who are the right potential customers.

A new idea can be novel in unique ways to different customer segments and it can be novel in opposite ways to intermediaries or other partners in the business model. A customer can see the novelty as something that will make them more profitable and an intermediary can see that same novelty as something that will reduce their influence with the customer and lead to their irrelevance. And, they’ll both be right.

Novelty is in the eye of the beholder, so you better look at it from their perspective.

Like with hot sauce, novelty comes in a range of flavors and heat levels. Some novelty adds a gentle smokey flavor to your favorite meal and makes you smile while the ghost pepper variety singes your palate and causes you to lose interest in the very meal you grew up on. With novelty, there is no singular level of Scoville Heat Unit (SHU) that is best. You’ve got to match the heat with the situation. Is it time to improve things a bit with a smokey, yet subtle, chipotle? Or, is it time to submerge things in pure capsaicin and blow the roof off? The good news is the bad news – it’s your choice.

With novelty, you can choose subtle or spicy. Choose wisely.

And like with hot sauce, novelty doesn’t always mix well with everything else on the plate. At the picnic, when you load your plate with chicken wings, pork ribs, and apple pie, it’s best to keep the hot sauce away from the apple pie. Said more strongly, with novelty, it’s best to use separate plates. Separate the teams – one team to do heavy novelty work, the disruptive work, to obsolete the status quo, and a separate team to the lighter novelty work, the continuous improvement work, to enhance the existing offering.

Like with hot sauce, different people have different tolerance levels for novelty. For a given novelty level, one person can be excited while another can be scared. And both are right. There’s no sense in trying to change a person’s tolerance for novelty, they either like it or they don’t. Instead of trying to teach them to how to enjoy the hottest hot sauce, it’s far more effective to choose people for the project whose tolerance for novelty is in line with the level of novelty required by the project.

Some people like habanero hot sauce, and some don’t. And it’s the same with novelty.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The AI Apocalypse is Here

Leave a reply

3 Reasons You Should Celebrate!

The AI Apocalypse is Here

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Whelp, the apocalypse is upon us. Again.

This time the end of the world is brought to you by AI.

How else do you explain the unending stream of headlines declaring that AI will eliminate jobs, destroy the education system, and rip the heart and soul out of culture and the arts? What more proof do you need of our imminent demise than that AI is as intelligent as a Wharton MBA?

We are doomed!

(Deep breath)

Did you get the panic out of your system? Feel better?

Good.

Because AI is also creating incredible opportunities for you, as a leader and innovator, to break through the inertia of the status quo, drive meaningful change, and create enormous value.

Here are just three of the ways AI will help you achieve your innovation goals:

1. Surface and question assumptions

Every company has assumptions that have been held and believed for so long that they hardened into fact. Questioning these assumptions is akin to heresy and done only by people without regard for job security or their professional reputation.

My favorite example of an assumption comes from the NYC public school district whose spokesperson explained the decision to ban ChatGPT by saying, “While the tool may be able to provide quick and easy answers to questions, it does not build critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, which are essential for academic and lifelong success,”

Buried just under the surface of this statement is the assumption that current teaching methods, specifically essays, do build critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

But is that true?

Or have we gotten so used to believing that essays demonstrate critical thinking and problem-solving that we’ve become blind to the fact that most students (yes, even, and maybe especially, the best students) follow the recipe that produces an essay that mirrors teachers’ expectations?

Before ChatGPT, only the bravest teachers questioned the value of essays as a barometer of critical thinking and problem-solving. After ChatGPT, scores of teachers took to Tik Tok and other social media platforms to share how they’re embracing the tool, using it alongside traditional tools like essays, to help their students build skills “essential for academic and lifelong success.”

2. EQ, not IQ, drives success

When all you need to do is type a question into a chatbot, and the world’s knowledge is synthesized and fed back to you in a conversational tone (or any tone you prefer), it’s easier to be the smartest person in the room.

Yes, there will always be a need for deep subject-matter experts, academics, and researchers who can push our knowledge beyond its current frontiers. But most people in most companies don’t need that depth of expertise.

Instead, you need to know enough to evaluate the options in front of you, make intelligent decisions, and communicate those decisions to others in a way that (ideally) inspires them to follow.

It’s that last step that creates an incredible opportunity for you. If facts and knowledge were all people needed to act, we would all be fit, healthy, and have absolutely no bad habits.

For example, the first question I asked ChatGPT was, “Why is it hard for big companies to innovate?” When it finished typing its 7-point answer, I nodded and thought, “Yep, that’s exactly right.”

The same thing happened when I asked the next question, “What should big companies do to be more innovative?” I burst out laughing when the answer started with “It depends” and then nodded at the rest of its extremely accurate response.

It would be easy (and not entirely untrue) to say that this is the beginning of the end of consultants, but ChatGPT didn’t write anything that wasn’t already written in thousands of articles, books, and research papers.

Change doesn’t happen just because you know the answer. Change happens when you believe the answer and trust the people leading and walking alongside you on the journey.

3. Eliminate the Suck

Years ago, I spoke with Michael. B Jordan, Pixar’s Head of R&D, and he said something I’ll never forget – “Pain is temporary. Suck is forever.”

He meant this, of course, in the context of making a movie. There are periods of pain in movie-making – long days and nights, times when vast swaths of work get thrown out, moments of brutal and public feedback – but that pain is temporary. The movie you make is forever. And if it sucks, it sucks forever,

Sometimes the work we do is painful but temporary. Sometimes doing the work sucks, and we will need to keep doing it forever. Expense reports. Weekly update emails. Timesheets. These things suck. But they must be done.

Let AI do them and free yourself up to do things that don’t suck. Imagine the conversations you could have, ideas you could try, experiments you could run, and people you could meet if you no longer have to do things that suck.

Change is coming. And that’s good news.

Change can be scary, and it can be difficult. There will be people who lose more than they gain. But, overall, we will gain far more than we lose because of this new technology.

If you have any more doubts, I double-checked with an expert.

“ChatGPT is not a sign of the apocalypse. It is a tool created by humans to assist with language-based tasks. While artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies can bring about significant changes in the way we live and work, they do not necessarily signal the end of the world.”

ChatGPT in response to “Is ChatGPT a sign of the apocalypse?”

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.