Category Archives: Strategy

Humans Don’t Have to Perform Every Task

Humans Don't Have to Perform Every Task

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

There seems to be a lot of controversy and questions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) being used to support customers. The customer experience can be enhanced with AI, but it can also derail and cause customers to head to the competition.

Last week, I wrote an article titled Just Because You Can Use AI, Doesn’t Mean You Should. The gist of the article was that while AI has impressive capabilities, there are situations in which human-to-human interaction is still preferred, even necessary, especially for complex, sensitive or emotionally charged customer issues.

However, there is a flip side. Sometimes AI is the smart thing to use, and eliminating human-to-human interaction actually creates a better customer experience. The point is that just because a human could handle a task doesn’t mean they should. 

Before we go further, keep in mind that even if AI should handle an issue, my customer service and customer experience (CX) research finds almost seven out of 10 customers (68%) prefer the phone. So, there are some customers who, regardless of how good AI is, will only talk to a live human being.

Here’s a reality: When a customer simply wants to check their account balance, reset a password, track a package or any other routine, simple task or request, they don’t need to talk to someone. What they really want, even if they don’t realize it, is fast, accurate information and a convenient experience.

The key is recognizing when customers value efficiency over engagement. Even with 68% of customers preferring the phone, they also want convenience and speed. And sometimes, the most convenient experience is one that eliminates unnecessary human interaction.

Smart companies are learning to use both strategically. They are finding a balance. They’re using AI for routine, transactional interactions while making live agents available for situations requiring judgement, creativity or empathy.

The goal isn’t to replace humans with AI. It’s to use each where they excel most. That sometimes means letting technology do what it can do best, even if a human could technically do the job. The customer experience improves when you match the right resource to the customers’ specific need.

That’s why I advocate pushing the digital, AI-infused experience for the right reasons but always – and I emphasize the word always – giving the customer an easy way to connect to a human and continue the conversation.

In the end, most customers don’t care whether their problem is solved by a human or AI. They just want it solved well.

Image credits: Google Gemini, Shep Hyken

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

A New Era of Economic Warfare Arrives

Leave a reply

Is Your Company Prepared?

LAST UPDATED: January 9, 2026 at 3:55PM

A New Era of Economic Warfare Arrives

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Economic warfare rarely announces itself. It embeds quietly into systems designed for trust, openness, and speed. By the time damage becomes visible, advantage has already shifted.

This new era of conflict is not defined by tanks or tariffs alone, but by the strategic exploitation of interdependence — where innovation ecosystems, supply chains, data flows, and cultural platforms become contested terrain.

The most effective economic attacks do not destroy systems outright. They drain them slowly enough to avoid response.

Weaponizing Openness

For decades, the United States has benefited from a research and innovation model grounded in openness, collaboration, and academic freedom. Those same qualities, however, have been repeatedly exploited.

Publicly documented prosecutions, investigations, and corporate disclosures describe coordinated efforts to extract intellectual property from American universities, national laboratories, and private companies through undisclosed affiliations, parallel research pipelines, and cyber-enabled theft.

This is not opportunistic theft. It is strategic harvesting.

When innovation can be copied faster than it can be created, openness becomes a liability instead of a strength.

Cyber Persistence as Economic Strategy

Cyber operations today prioritize persistence over spectacle. Continuous access to sensitive systems allows competitors to shortcut development cycles, underprice rivals, and anticipate strategic moves.

The goal is not disruption — it is advantage.

Skydio and Supply Chain Chokepoints

The experience of American drone manufacturer Skydio illustrates how economic pressure can be applied without direct confrontation.

After achieving leadership through autonomy and software-driven innovation rather than low-cost manufacturing, Skydio encountered pressure through access constraints tied to upstream supply chains.

This was a calculated attack on a successful American business. It serves as a stark reminder: if you depend on a potential adversary for your components, your success is only permitted as long as it doesn’t challenge their dominance. We must decouple our innovation from external control, or we will remain permanently vulnerable.

When supply chains are weaponized, markets no longer reward the best ideas — only the most protected ones.

Agricultural and Biological Vulnerabilities

Incidents involving the unauthorized movement of biological materials related to agriculture and bioscience highlight a critical blind spot. Food systems are economic infrastructure.

Crop blight, livestock disease, and agricultural disruption do not need to be dramatic to be devastating. They only need to be targeted, deniable, and difficult to attribute.

Pandemics and Systemic Shock

The origins of COVID-19 remain contested, with investigations examining both natural spillover and laboratory-associated scenarios. From an economic warfare perspective, attribution matters less than exposure.

The pandemic revealed how research opacity, delayed disclosure, and global interdependence can cascade into economic devastation on a scale rivaling major wars.

Resilience must be designed for uncertainty, not certainty.

The Attention Economy as Strategic Terrain and Algorithmic Narcotic

Platforms such as TikTok represent a new form of economic influence: large-scale behavioral shaping.

Regulatory and academic concerns focus on data governance, algorithmic amplification, and the psychological impact on youth attention, agency, and civic engagement.

TikTok is not just a social media app; it is a cognitive weapon. In China, the algorithm pushes “Douyin” users toward educational content, engineering, and national achievement. In America, the algorithm pushes our youth toward mindless consumption, social fragmentation, and addictive cycles that weaken the mental resilience of the next generation. This is an intentional weakening of our human capital. By controlling the narrative and the attention of 170 million Americans, American children are part of a massive experiment in psychological warfare, designed to ensure that the next generation of Americans is too distracted to lead and too divided to innovate.

Whether intentional or emergent, influence over attention increasingly translates into long-term economic leverage.

The Human Cost of Invisible Conflict

Economic warfare succeeds because its consequences unfold slowly: hollowed industries, lost startups, diminished trust, and weakened social cohesion.

True resilience is not built by reacting to attacks, but by redesigning systems so exploitation becomes expensive and contribution becomes the easiest path forward.

Conclusion

This is not a call for isolation or paranoia. It is a call for strategic maturity.

Openness without safeguards is not virtue — it is exposure. Innovation without resilience is not leadership — it is extraction.

The era of complacency must end. We must treat economic security as national security. This means securing our universities, diversifying our supply chains, and demanding transparency in our digital and biological interactions. We have the power to stoke our own innovation bonfire, but only if we are willing to protect it from those who wish to extinguish it.

The next era of competition will reward nations and companies that design systems where trust is earned, reciprocity is enforced, and long-term value creation is protected.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is economic warfare?

Economic warfare refers to the use of non-military tools — such as intellectual property extraction, cyber operations, supply chain control, and influence platforms — to weaken a rival’s economic position and long-term competitiveness.

Is China the only country using these tactics?

No. Many nations engage in forms of economic competition that blur into coercion. The concern highlighted here is about scale, coordination, and the systematic exploitation of open systems.

How should the United States respond?

By strengthening resilience rather than retreating from openness — protecting critical research, diversifying supply chains, aligning innovation policy with national strategy, and designing systems that reward contribution over extraction.

How should your company protect itself?

Companies should identify their critical knowledge assets, limit unnecessary exposure, diversify suppliers, strengthen cybersecurity, enforce disclosure and governance standards, and design partnerships that balance collaboration with protection. Resilience should be treated as a strategic capability, not a compliance exercise.

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025

1 Reply

After a week of torrid voting and much passionate support, along with a lot of gut-wrenching consideration and jostling during the judging round, I am proud to announce your Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025:

Robyn Bolton
Robyn M. Bolton works with leaders of mid and large sized companies to use innovation to repeatably and sustainably grow their businesses.
.

Greg Satell
Greg Satell is a popular speaker and consultant. His first book, Mapping Innovation: A Playbook for Navigating a Disruptive Age, was selected as one of the best business books in 2017. Follow his blog at Digital Tonto or on Twitter @Digital Tonto.

Janet Sernack
Janet Sernack is the Founder and CEO of ImagineNation™ which provides innovation consulting services to help organizations adapt, innovate and grow through disruption by challenging businesses to be, think and act differently to co-create a world where people matter & innovation is the norm.

Mike Shipulski
Mike Shipulski brings together people, culture, and tools to change engineering behavior. He writes daily on Twitter as @MikeShipulski and weekly on his blog Shipulski On Design.

Pete Foley
A twenty-five year Procter & Gamble veteran, Pete has spent the last 8+ years applying insights from psychology and behavioral science to innovation, product design, and brand communication. He spent 17 years as a serial innovator, creating novel products, perfume delivery systems, cleaning technologies, devices and many other consumer-centric innovations, resulting in well over 100 granted or published patents. Find him at pete.mindmatters@gmail.com

Geoffrey A. Moore
Geoffrey A. Moore is an author, speaker and business advisor to many of the leading companies in the high-tech sector, including Cisco, Cognizant, Compuware, HP, Microsoft, SAP, and Yahoo! Best known for Crossing the Chasm and Zone to Win with the latest book being The Infinite Staircase. Partner at Wildcat Venture Partners. Chairman Emeritus Chasm Group & Chasm Institute

Shep Hyken
Shep Hyken is a customer service expert, keynote speaker, and New York Times, bestselling business author. For information on The Customer Focus™ customer service training programs, go to www.thecustomerfocus.com. Follow on Twitter: @Hyken

David Burkus
Dr. David Burkus is an organizational psychologist and best-selling author. Recognized as one of the world’s leading business thinkers, his forward-thinking ideas and books are helping leaders and teams do their best work ever. David is the author of five books about business and leadership and he’s been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, CNN, the BBC, NPR, and more. A former business school professor turned sought-after international speaker, he’s worked with organizations of all sizes and across all industries.

John Bessant
John Bessant has been active in research, teaching, and consulting in technology and innovation management for over 25 years. Today, he is Chair in Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and Research Director, at Exeter University. In 2003, he was awarded a Fellowship with the Advanced Institute for Management Research and was also elected a Fellow of the British Academy of Management. He has acted as advisor to various national governments and international bodies including the United Nations, The World Bank, and the OECD. John has authored many books including Managing innovation and High Involvement Innovation (Wiley). Follow @johnbessant

Braden Kelley
Braden Kelley is a Human-Centered Experience, Innovation and Transformation consultant at HCL Technologies, a popular innovation speaker, workshop leader, and creator of the FutureHacking™ methodology. He is the author of Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire from John Wiley & Sons and Charting Change from Palgrave Macmillan. Follow him on Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

Art Inteligencia
Art Inteligencia is the lead futurist at Inteligencia Ltd. He is passionate about content creation and thinks about it as more science than art. Art travels the world at the speed of light, over mountains and under oceans. His favorite numbers are one and zero.

Stefan Lindegaard
Stefan Lindegaard is an author, speaker and strategic advisor. His work focuses on corporate transformation based on disruption, digitalization and innovation in large corporations, government organizations and smaller companies. Stefan believes that business today requires an open and global perspective, and his work takes him to Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia.

Dainora Jociute
Dainora (a.k.a. Dee) creates customer-centric content at Viima. Viima is the most widely used and highest rated innovation management software in the world. Passionate about environmental issues, Dee writes about sustainable innovation hoping to save the world – one article at the time.

Teresa Spangler
Teresa Spangler is the CEO of PlazaBridge Group has been a driving force behind innovation and growth for more than 30 years. Today, she wears multiple hats as a social entrepreneur, innovation expert, growth strategist, author and speaker (not to mention mother, wife, band-leader and so much more). She is especially passionate about helping CEOs understand and value the role human capital plays in innovation, and the impact that innovation has on humanity; in our ever-increasing artificial/cyber world.

Soren Kaplan
Soren Kaplan is the bestselling and award-winning author of Leapfrogging and The Invisible Advantage, an affiliated professor at USC’s Center for Effective Organizations, a former corporate executive, and a co-founder of UpBOARD. He has been recognized by the Thinkers50 as one of the world’s top keynote speakers and thought leaders in business strategy and innovation.

Diana Porumboiu
Diana heads marketing at Viima, the most widely used and highest rated innovation management software in the world, and has a passion for innovation, and for genuine, valuable content that creates long-lasting impact. Her combination of creativity, strategic thinking and curiosity has helped organisations grow their online presence through strategic campaigns, community management and engaging content.

Steve Blank
Steve Blank is an Adjunct Professor at Stanford and Senior Fellow for Innovation at Columbia University. He has been described as the Father of Modern Entrepreneurship, credited with launching the Lean Startup movement that changed how startups are built; how entrepreneurship is taught; how science is commercialized, and how companies and the government innovate.

Jesse Nieminen
Jesse Nieminen is the Co-founder and Chairman at Viima, the best way to collect and develop ideas. Viima’s innovation management software is already loved by thousands of organizations all the way to the Global Fortune 500. He’s passionate about helping leaders drive innovation in their organizations and frequently writes on the topic, usually in Viima’s blog.

Robert B Tucker
Robert B. Tucker is the President of The Innovation Resource Consulting Group. He is a speaker, seminar leader and an expert in the management of innovation and assisting companies in accelerating ideas to market.

Dennis Stauffer
Dennis Stauffer is an author, independent researcher, and expert on personal innovativeness. He is the founder of Innovator Mindset LLC which helps individuals, teams, and organizations enhance and accelerate innovation success. by shifting mindset. Follow @DennisStauffer

Arlen Meyers
Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA is an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, an instructor at the University of Colorado-Denver Business School and cofounding President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs at www.sopenet.org. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameyers/

Phil McKinney
Phil McKinney is the Author of “Beyond The Obvious”, Host of the Killer Innovations Podcast and Syndicated Radio Show, a Keynote Speaker, President & CEO CableLabs and an Innovation Mentor and Coach.

Ayelet Baron
Ayelet Baron is a pioneering futurist reminding us we are powerful creators through award winning books, daily blog and thinking of what is possible. Former global tech executive who sees trust, relationships and community as our building blocks to a healthy world.

Scott Anthony
Scott Anthony is a strategic advisor, writer and speaker on topics of growth and innovation. He has been based in Singapore since 2010, and currently serves at the Managing Director of Innosight’s Asia-Pacific operations.

Leo Chan
Leo is the founder of Abound Innovation Inc. He’s a people and heart-first entrepreneur who believes everyone can be an innovator. An innovator himself, with 55 US patents and over 20 years of experience, Leo has come alongside organizations like Chick-fil-A and guided them to unleash the innovative potential of their employees by transforming them into confident innovators.

Rachel Audige
Rachel Audige is an Innovation Architect who helps organisations embed inventive thinking as well as a certified Systematic Inventive Thinking Facilitator, based in Melbourne.

Paul Sloane
Paul Sloane writes, speaks and leads workshops on creativity, innovation and leadership. He is the author of The Innovative Leader and editor of A Guide to Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing, both published by Kogan-Page.

Ralph Christian Ohr
Dr. Ralph-Christian Ohr has extensive experience in product/innovation management for international technology-based companies. His particular interest is targeted at the intersection of organizational and human innovation capabilities. You can follow him on Twitter @Ralph_Ohr.

Dean and Linda Anderson
Dr. Dean Anderson and Dr. Linda Ackerman Anderson lead BeingFirst, a consultancy focused on educating the marketplace about what’s possible in personal, organizational and community transformation and how to achieve them. Each has been advising clients and training professionals for more than 40 years.

Howard Tiersky
Howard Tiersky is an inspiring and passionate speaker, the Founder and CEO of FROM, The Digital Transformation Agency, innovation consultant, serial entrepreneur, and the Wall Street Journal bestselling author of Winning Digital Customers: The Antidote to Irrelevance. IDG named him one of the “10 Digital Transformation Influencers to Follow Today”, and Enterprise Management 360 named Howard “One of the Top 10 Digital Transformation Influencers That Will Change Your World.”

Chateau G Pato
Chateau G Pato is a senior futurist at Inteligencia Ltd. She is passionate about content creation and thinks about it as more science than art. Chateau travels the world at the speed of light, over mountains and under oceans. Her favorite numbers are one and zero.

Shilpi Kumar
Shilpi Kumar an inquisitive researcher, designer, strategist and an educator with over 15 years of experience, who truly believes that we can design a better world by understanding human behavior. I work with organizations to identify strategic opportunities and offer user-centric solutions.

Anthony Mills
Anthony Mills is the Founder & CEO of Legacy Innovation Group (www.legacyinnova.com), a world-leading strategic innovation consulting firm working with organizations all over the world. Anthony is also the Executive Director of GInI – Global Innovation Institute (www.gini.org), the world’s foremost certification, accreditation, and membership organization in the field of innovation. Anthony has advised leaders from around the world on how to successfully drive long-term growth and resilience through new innovation. Learn more at www.anthonymills.com. Anthony can be reached directly at anthony@anthonymills.com.

Paul Hobcraft
Paul Hobcraft runs Agility Innovation, an advisory business that stimulates sound innovation practice, researches topics that relate to innovation for the future, as well as aligning innovation to organizations core capabilities. Follow @paul4innovating

Jorge Barba
Jorge Barba is a strategist and entrepreneur, who helps companies build new puzzles using human skills. He is a global Innovation Insurgent and author of the innovation blog www.Game-Changer.net

Douglas Ferguson
Douglas Ferguson is an entrepreneur and human-centered technologist. He is the founder and president of Voltage Control, an Austin-based change agency that helps enterprises spark, accelerate, and sustain innovation. He specializes in helping teams work better together through participatory decision making and design inspired facilitation techniques.

Jeffrey Phillips
Jeffrey Phillips has over 15 years of experience leading innovation in Fortune 500 companies, federal government agencies and non-profits. He is experienced in innovation strategy, defining and implementing front end processes, tools and teams and leading innovation projects. He is the author of Relentless Innovation and OutManeuver. Jeffrey writes the popular Innovate on Purpose blog. Follow him @ovoinnovation

Alain Thys
As an experience architect, Alain helps leaders craft customer, employee and shareholder experiences for profit, reinvention and transformation. He does this through his personal consultancy Alain Thys & Co as well as the transformative venture studio Agents of A.W.E. Together with his teams, Alain has influenced the experience of over 500 million customers and 350,000 employees. Follow his blog or connect on Linkedin.

Bruce Fairley
Bruce Fairley is the CEO and Founder of The Narrative Group, a firm dedicated to helping C-Suite executives build enterprise value. Through smart, human-powered digital transformation, Bruce optimizes the business-technology relationship. His innovative profit over pitfalls approach and customized programs are part of Bruce’s mission to build sustainable ‘best-future’ outcomes for visionary leaders. Having spearheaded large scale change initiatives across four continents, he and his skilled, diverse team elevate process, culture, and the bottom line for medium to large firms worldwide.

Tom Stafford
Tom Stafford studies learning and decision making. His main focus is the movement system – the idea being that if we can understand the intelligence of simple actions we will have an excellent handle on intelligence more generally. His research looks at simple decision making, and simple skill learning, using measures of behaviour informed by the computational, robotics and neuroscience work done in the wider group.

If your favorite didn’t make the list, then next year try to rally more votes for them or convince them to increase the quality and quantity of their contributions.

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2015
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2016
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2017
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2018
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2019
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2021
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2024

Download PDF versions of the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 lists here:

. . .

. . .

. . .

Happy New Year everyone!

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

What Are We Going to Do Now with GenAI?

Leave a reply

What Are We Going to Do Now With GenAI?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

In 2023 we simply could not stop talking about Generative AI. But in 2024 the question for each enterprise became (continuing to today) — and this includes yours as well — is What are we going to do about it? Tough questions call for tough frameworks, so let’s run this one through the Hierarchy of Powers to see if it can shine some light on what might be your company’s best bet.

Category Power

Gen AI can have an impact anywhere in the Category Maturity Life Cycle, but the way it does so differs depending on where your category is, as follows:

Early Market. GenAI will almost certainly be a differentiating ingredient that is enabling a disruptive innovation, and you need to be on the bleeding edge. Think ChatGPT.
Crossing the chasm. Nailing your target use case is your sole priority, so you would use GenAI if, and only if, it helped you do so, and avoid getting distracted by its other bells and whistles. Think Khan Academy at the school district level.
Inside the tornado. Grabbing as much market share as you can is now the game to play, and GenAI-enabled features can help you do so provided they are fully integrated (no “some assembly required”). You cannot afford to slow your adoption down just at the time it needs to be at full speed. Think Microsoft CoPilot.
Growth Main Street (category still growing double digits). Market share boundaries are settling in, so the goal now is to grow your patch as fast as you can, solidifying your position and taking as much share as you can from the also-rans. Adding GenAI to the core product can provide a real boost as long as the disruption is minimal. Think Salesforce CRM.
Mature Main Street (category stabilized, single-digit growth). You are now marketing primarily to your installed base, secondarily seeking to pick up new logos as they come into play. GenAI can give you a midlife kicker provided you can use it to generate meaningful productivity gains. Think Adobe Photoshop.
Late Main Street (category declining, negative growth). The category has never been more profitable, so you are looking to extend its life in as low-cost a way as you can. GenAI can introduce innovative applications that otherwise would never occur to your end users. Think HP home printing.

Company Power

There are two dimensions of company power to consider when analyzing the ROI from a GenAI investment, as follows:

Market Share Status. Are you the market share leader, a challenger, or simply a participant? As a challenger, you can use GenAI to disrupt the market pecking order provided you differentiate in a way that is challenging for the leader to copy. On the other hand, as a leader, you can use GenAI to neutralize the innovations coming from challengers provided you can get it to market fast enough to keep the ecosystem in your camp. As a participant, you would add GenAI only if was your single point of differentiation (as a low-share participant, your R&D budget cannot fund more than one).
Default Operating Model. Is your core business better served by the complex systems operating model (typical for B2B companies with hundreds to thousands of large enterprises for customers) or the volume operations operating model (typical for B2C companies with hundreds of thousands to millions of consumers)? The complex systems model has sufficient margins to invest professional services across the entire ownership life cycle, from design consulting to installation to expansion. You are going to need deep in-house expertise to win big in this game. By contrast, GenAI deployed via the volume operations model has to work out-of-the-box. Consumers have neither the courage nor the patience to work through any disconnects.

Market Power

Whereas category share leaders benefit most from going broad, market segment leaders win big by going deep. The key tactic is to overdo it on the use cases that mean the most to your target customers, taking your offer beyond anything reasonable for a category leader to copy. GenAI can certainly be a part of this approach, as the two slides below illustrate:

Market Segmentation for Complex Systems

In the complex systems operating model, GenAI should accentuate the differentiation of your whole product, the complete solution to whatever problem you are targeting. That might mean, for example, taking your Large Language Model to a level of specificity that would normally not be warranted. This sets you apart from the incumbent vendor who has nothing like what you offer as well as from other technology vendors who have not embraced your target segment’s specific concerns. Think Crowdstrike’s Charlotte AI for cybersecurity analysis.

Market Segmentation for Volume Operations

In the volume operations operating model, GenAI should accentuate the differentiation of your brand promise by overdelivering on the relevant value discipline. Once again, it is critical not to get distracted by shiny objects—you want to differentiate in one quadrant only, although you can use GenAI in the other three for neutralization purposes. For Performance, think knowledge discovery. For Productivity, think writing letters. For Economy, think tutoring. For Convenience, think gift suggestions.

Offer Power

Everybody wants to “be innovative,” but it is worth stepping back a moment to ask, how do we get a Return on Innovation? Compared to its financial cousin, this kind of ROI is more of a leading indicator and thus of more strategic value. Basically, it comes in three forms:

Differentiation. This creates customer preference, the goal being not just to be different but to create a clear separation from the competition, one that they cannot easily emulate. Think OpenAI.
Neutralization. This closes the gap between you and a competitor who is taking market share away from you, the goal being to get to “good enough, fast enough,” thereby allowing your installed base to stay loyal. Think Google Bard.
Optimization. This reduces the cost while maintaining performance, the goal being to expand the total available market. Think Edge GenAI on PCs and Macs.

For most of us, GenAI will be an added ingredient rather than a core product, which makes the ROI question even more important. The easiest way to waste innovation dollars is to spend them on differentiation that does not go far enough, neutralization that does not go fast enough, or optimization that does not go deep enough. So, the key lesson here is, pick one and only one as your ROI goal, and then go all in to get a positive return.

Execution Power

How best to incorporate GenAI into your existing enterprise depends on which zone of operations you are looking to enhance, as illustrated by the zone management framework below:

Zone Management Framework

If you are unsure exactly what to do, assign the effort to the Incubation Zone and put them on the clock to come up with a good answer as fast as possible. If you can incorporate it directly into your core business’s offerings at relatively low risk, by all means, do so as it is the current hot ticket, and assign it to the Performance Zone. If there is not a good fit, consider using it internally instead to improve your own productivity, assigning it to the Productivity Zone. Finally, although it is awfully early days for this, if you are convinced it is an absolutely essential ingredient in a big bet you feel compelled to make, then assign it to the Transformation Zone and go all in. Again, the overall point is manage your investment in GenAI out of one zone and only one zone, as the success metrics for each zone are incompatible with those of the other three.

One final point. Embracing anything as novel as GenAI has to feel risky. I submit, however, that in 2025 not building upon meaningful GenAI action taken in 2024 is even more so.

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.

Voting Open – Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025

Leave a reply

Vote for Top 40 Innovation Authors Happy Holidays!

For more than a decade I’ve devoted myself to making innovation insights accessible for the greater good, because I truly believe that the better our organizations get at deliveriseng value to their stakeholders the less waste of natural resources and human resources there will be.

As a result, we are eternally grateful to all of you out there who take the time to create and share great innovation articles, presentations, white papers, and videos with Braden Kelley and the Human-Centered Change and Innovation team. As a small thank you to those of you who follow along, we like to make a list of the Top 40 Innovation Authors available each year!

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Do you just have someone that you like to read that writes about innovation, or some of the important adjacencies – trends, consumer psychology, change, leadership, strategy, behavioral economics, collaboration, or design thinking?

Human-Centered Change and Innovation is now looking to recognize the Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025.

It is time to vote and help us narrow things down.

The deadline for submitting votes is December 31, 2025 at midnight GMT.

The ranking will be done by me with influence from votes and nominations. The quality and quantity of contributions to this web site by an author will be a BIG contributing factor (through the end of the voting period).

You can vote in any of these three ways (and each earns points for them, so please feel free to vote all three ways):

Sending us the name of the author by @reply on twitter to @innovate
Adding the name of the author as a comment to this article’s posting on Facebook
Adding the name of the author as a comment to this article’s posting on our Linkedin Page (Be sure and follow us)

The official Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025 will then be announced here in early January 2026.

Here are the people who received nominations this year along with some carryover recommendations (in alphabetical order):

Adi Gaskell – @adigaskell
Alain Thys
Alex Goryachev
Andy Heikkila – @AndyO_TheHammer
Annette Franz
Arlen Meyers – @sopeofficial
Art Inteligencia
Ayelet Baron
Braden Kelley – @innovate
Brian Miller
Bruce Fairley
Chad McAllister – @ChadMcAllister
Chateau G Pato
Chris Beswick
Chris Rollins
Dr. Detlef Reis
Dainora Jociute
Dan Blacharski – @Dan_Blacharski
Daniel Burrus – @DanielBurrus
Daniel Lock
David Burkus
Dean and Linda Anderson
Dennis Stauffer
Diana Porumboiu
Douglas Ferguson
Drew Boyd – @DrewBoyd
Frank Mattes – @FrankMattes
Geoffrey A Moore
Gregg Fraley – @greggfraley
Greg Satell – @Digitaltonto
Helen Yu
Howard Tiersky
Janet Sernack – @JanetSernack
Jeffrey Baumgartner – @creativejeffrey
Jeff Freedman – @SmallArmyAgency
Jeffrey Phillips – @ovoinnovation
Jesse Nieminen – @nieminenjesse
John Bessant
Jorge Barba – @JorgeBarba
Julian Birkinshaw – @JBirkinshaw
Julie Anixter – @julieanixter
Kate Hammer – @Kate_Hammer
Kevin McFarthing – @InnovationFixer
Leo Chan
Lou Killeffer – @LKilleffer
Manuel Berdoy

Mari Anixter- @MariAnixter
Maria Paula Oliveira – @mpaulaoliveira
Matthew E May – @MatthewEMay
Michael Graber – @SouthernGrowth
Mike Brown – @Brainzooming
Mike Shipulski – @MikeShipulski
Mukesh Gupta
Nick Jain
Nick Partridge – @KnewNewNeu
Nicolas Bry – @NicoBry
Nicholas Longrich
Norbert Majerus and George Taninecz
Pamela Soin
Patricia Salamone
Paul Hobcraft – @Paul4innovating
Paul Sloane – @paulsloane
Pete Foley – @foley_pete
Rachel Audige
Ralph Christian Ohr – @ralph_ohr
Randy Pennington
Richard Haasnoot – @Innovate2Grow
Robert B Tucker – @RobertBTucker
Robyn Bolton – @rm_bolton
Saul Kaplan – @skap5
Shep Hyken – @hyken
Shilpi Kumar
Scott Anthony – @ScottDAnthony
Scott Bowden – @scottbowden51
Shelly Greenway – @ChiefDistiller
Soren Kaplan – @SorenKaplan
Stefan Lindegaard – @Lindegaard
Stephen Shapiro – @stephenshapiro
Steve Blank
Steven Forth – @StevenForth
Tamara Kleinberg – @LaunchStreet
Teresa Spangler – @composerspang
Tom Koulopoulos – @TKspeaks
Tullio Siragusa
Yoram Solomon – @yoram

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

We’re curious to see who you think is worth reading!

Nominations Open – Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025

Leave a reply

Human-Centered Change and Innovation loves making innovation insights accessible for the greater good, because we truly believe that the better our organizations get at delivering value to their stakeholders the less waste of natural resources and human resources there will be.

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Do you have someone that you like to read that writes about innovation, or some of the important adjacencies – trends, consumer psychology, change, leadership, strategy, behavioral economics, collaboration, or design thinking?

Human-Centered Change and Innovation is now looking for the Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025.

The deadline for submitting nominations is December 24, 2025 at midnight GMT.

You can submit a nomination either of these two ways:

Sending us the name of the author and the url of their blog by @reply on twitter to @innovate
Sending the name of the author and the url of their blog and your e-mail address using our contact form

(Note: HUGE bonus points for being a contributing author)

So, think about who you like to read and let us know by midnight GMT on December 24, 2025.

We will then compile a voting list of all the nominations, and publish it on December 25, 2025.

Voting will then be open from December 25, 2025 – January 1, 2026 via comments and twitter @replies to @innovate.

The ranking will be done by me with influence from votes and nominations. The quality and quantity of contributions by an author to this web site will be a contributing factor.

Contact me with writing samples if you’d like to publish your articles on our platform!

The official Top 40 Innovation Authors of 2025 will then be announced on here in early January 2026.

We’re curious to see who you think is worth reading!

SPECIAL BONUS: From now until December 31, 2025 you can get either the hardcover or softcover of my latest best-selling book Charting Change (free shipping worldwide) for only £/$/€ 23.99 (~36% OFF).

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

Bridging the Gap Between Strategic Ambition and Innovation Delivery

Leave a reply

Why Long-Range Planning and Product Development Rarely Align — And What Companies Can Do About It

Bridging the Gap Between Strategic Ambition and Innovation Delivery

GUEST POST from Noel Sobelman

Across industries, executive teams craft long-range plans (LRPs) with confident projections for revenue growth, market expansion, and innovation impact. But when it comes time to deliver, product development pipelines often tell a different story. This misalignment, between the top-down assumptions embedded in strategic plans and the bottom-up reality of new product development (NPD), is one of the most persistent and under-addressed risks in corporate planning.

The consequences are serious: growth targets are missed, credibility erodes, and shareholder confidence wanes. And yet, many organizations continue to treat this disconnect as inevitable, rather than solvable.

The Illusion of Alignment

On paper, LRPs typically assign a portion of future revenue to innovation — new products, new markets, new business models. This makes sense. In competitive, fast-moving sectors, sustaining growth depends on a constant stream of successful launches.

But few companies take the next step: validating whether their actual innovation pipeline supports those ambitions. The top-down LRP rarely connects meaningfully with the bottom-up details of project timelines, product margins, development risks, or resource constraints.

Leadership may assume, for instance, that new product contributions will ramp up in years three through five of the plan. Yet the NPD pipeline might only be populated with early-phase projects, with no clear line of sight to commercialization in that time frame. Or worse, it might be filled with low upside sustaining efforts that do little to drive long-term growth.

This isn’t just a data problem — it’s an accountability problem.

A Blind Spot in Strategic Execution

Unlike sales or operations, which are frequently forced to reconcile their contributions to the LRP through tangible metrics and quarterly reviews, product development is often allowed to operate in a parallel universe. Project business cases get approved on a rolling basis, disconnected from aggregate targets. Teams work diligently, but no one steps back to ask: Do the numbers add up?

In many organizations, this analysis is simply never done. When questioned about how the pipeline contributes to the LRP, the answers range from vague optimism (“We’ll figure it out”) to manual workarounds (“We added 5% to last year’s numbers to cover new product upside”).

Such informal planning approaches might have been acceptable in a slower, less competitive world. But in today’s environment, where innovation cycles are compressed, capital is scrutinized, and every function is expected to deliver ROI, they fall short.

Interestingly, other parts of the business, particularly operations, already have a model for how to approach this. Manufacturing teams routinely perform network strategy exercises to determine whether they have the physical capacity to meet future demand. They map projected sales to factory utilization, labor capacity, CapEx, and throughput. If there’s a gap, they create an actionable plan.

Yet in most organizations, this rigor stops at the walls of the plant. There is no equivalent exercise on the R&D side to ask: Do we have the innovation pipeline, product plans, and resources required to meet our revenue commitments? Working with our clients, we’ve seen how powerful it is when this same network strategy logic is applied to product development. The exercise shifts the conversation from hope to confidence, from general intent to measurable plans.

The Case for a Unified Growth Strategy

The path forward requires a more integrated, data-driven approach, a growth strategy that spans both the strategic and executional layers of the business.

At the core is a disciplined feedback loop: reconciling the LRP’s innovation-driven revenue expectations with the actual new product roadmap, resource plan, and market assumptions. This means:

Bottom-up modeling of product-level forecasts (volumes, ASPs, margins, launch dates) that aggregate to a portfolio view of expected revenue. Our benchmarks show that without this discipline, overstatements of new product contributions can widen to 20–40% or more in the outer years of the LRP. Modeling helps identify these gaps early, enabling timely course corrections.
Scenario analysis that tests different mixes of existing and in-development products to identify gaps and prioritize high-leverage opportunities.
Risk adjustment grounded in performance benchmarks and realistic probabilities of technical and commercial success, not wishful thinking. Companies that formalize these assumptions often uncover significant overstatements in expected revenue from early-stage projects.
Cross-functional transparency between R&D, finance, operations, and commercial teams to ensure the entire organization is planning from a shared reality.

Working with our clients, we’ve helped build models that mirror this approach, combining innovation pipeline data, financial assumptions, and market insights into a unified view of expected contribution to growth. The result? Greater visibility into how future revenue will be earned and higher confidence in investment decisions. For some organizations, this alignment has helped redirect 10–15% of R&D spend toward higher-value opportunities without increasing total investment.

In nearly every case, the analysis reveals significant gaps between what leadership believes the innovation engine will deliver and what’s realistically in flight. But once exposed, those gaps become manageable. They become actionable.

This isn’t about punishing innovation teams for uncertainty. It’s about giving them, and the organization, an honest view of what’s likely to be delivered and where targeted adjustments are needed.

Building the Capability (Not Just the Model)

Organizations that do this well don’t just build a single model — they build the capability. They embed portfolio management processes that continually evaluate whether innovation plans are aligned with strategic goals. They invest in tools and talent that can translate project business cases into forward-looking financial impact. And critically, they elevate the conversation from “project selection” to “portfolio impact.”

This approach can also shift the internal conversation away from politics and gut feel, and toward clarity and confidence. CFOs, for example, are increasingly demanding to know what they’re getting for the annual increases in R&D spend. A connected, data-rich view of how new product drives future cash flows goes a long way in strengthening that case. We’ve seen how quickly these conversations mature when companies adopt a planning discipline that brings product development onto the same strategic playing field as operations and sales.

The Strategic Imperative

Ultimately, reconciling innovation with the LRP isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s a fiduciary responsibility. Companies make commitments to their boards and investors based on the assumption that R&D investment will deliver a meaningful share of future growth. When that assumption is built on loosely connected plans and unvalidated forecasts, the entire strategy is at risk.

Bridging that gap can unlock substantial value. In our experience, we see organizations with tightly aligned portfolio and strategy processes outperform their peers by as much as 40% in terms of new product ROI and time-to-market.

The good news? The gap is measurable. The tools, models, and methods to close it exist. What’s often missing is the mandate.

Organizations that seize this opportunity will be better equipped to make confident trade-offs, accelerate high-potential initiatives, and pivot early when plans drift off course. They’ll be able to tell a coherent story, not just about where they want to go, but how they plan to get there.

And that story, told with numbers and backed by action, is what distinguishes companies that plan for growth from those that actually deliver it.

If you’re interested in exploring how to better align your product development plans with long-range strategic goals or want to assess the credibility of your innovation pipeline, we’d be happy to share what we’ve learned from working with companies in similar situations.

HALLOWEEN BONUS: Save 30% on the eBook, hardcover or softcover of Braden Kelley’s latest book Charting Change (now in its second edition) — FREE SHIPPING WORLDWIDE — using code HAL30 until midnight October 31, 2025

Image credits: Pexels

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

Growth is Not the Answer

Leave a reply

Growth is Not the Answer

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Most companies have growth objectives – make more, sell more and generate more profits. Increase profit margin, sell into new markets and twist our products into new revenue. Good news for the stock price, good news for annual raises and plenty of money to buy the things that will help us grow next year. But it’s not good for the people that do the work.

To increase sales the same sales folks will have to drive more, call more and do more demos. Ten percent more work for three percent more compensation. Who really benefits here? The worker who delivers ten percent more or the company that pays them only three percent more? Pretty clear to me it’s all about the company and not about the people.

To increase the number of units made implies that there can be no increase in the number of people required to make them. To increase throughput without increasing headcount, the production floor will have less time for lunch, less time for improving their skills and less time to go to the bathroom. Sure, they can do Lean projects to eliminate waste, as long as they don’t miss their daily quota. And sure, they can help with Six Sigma projects to reduce variation, as long as they don’t miss TAKT time. Who benefits more – the people or the company?

Increased profit margin (or profit percentage) is the worst offender. There are only two ways to improve the metric – sell it for more or make it for less. And even better than that is to sell it for more AND make it for less. No one can escape this metric. The sales team must meet with more customers; the marketing team must work doubly hard to define and communicate the value proposition; the engineering staff must reduce the time to launch the product and make it perform better than their best work; and everyone else must do more with less or face the chopping block.

In truth, corporate growth is the fundamental behind global warming, reduced life expectancy in the US and the ridiculous increase in the cost of healthcare. Growth requires more products and more products require more material mined, pumped or clear-cut from the planet. Growth puts immense pressure on the people doing the work and increases their stress level. And when they can’t deliver, their deep sense of helplessness and inadequacy causes them to kill themselves. And healthcare costs increase because the companies within (and insuring) the system need to make more profit. Who benefits here? The people in our community? The people doing the work? The planet? Or the companies?

What if we decided that companies could not grow? What if instead companies paid dividends to the people do the work based on the profit the company makes? With constant output wouldn’t everyone benefit year-on-year?

What if we decided output couldn’t grow? What if instead, as productivity increased, companies required people to work fewer hours? What if everyone could make the same number of products in seven hours and went home an hour early, working seven and getting paid for eight? Would everyone be better off? Wouldn’t the planet be better off?

What if we decided the objective of companies was to employ more people and give them a sense of purpose and give meaning to their lives? What if we used the profit created by productivity improvements to employ more people? Wouldn’t our communities benefit when more people have good jobs? Wouldn’t people be happier because they can make a contribution to their community? Wouldn’t there be less stress and fewer suicides when parents have enough money to feed their kids and buy them clothes? Wouldn’t everyone benefit? Wouldn’t the planet benefit?

Year-on-year growth is a fallacy. Year-on-year growth stresses the planet and the people doing the work. Year-on-year growth is good for no one except the companies demanding year-on-year growth.

The planet’s resources are finite; people’s ability to do work is finite; and the stress level people can tolerate is finite. Why not recognize these realities?

And why not figure out how to structure companies in a way that benefits the owners of the company, the people doing the work, the community where the work is done and the planet?

Image credit: Dall-E

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

Strategy Lacking Purpose Will Always Fail

Leave a reply

Strategy Lacking Purpose Will Always Fail

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1989, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama published an essay in the journal The National Interest titled The End of History, which led to a bestselling book. Many took his argument to mean that, with the defeat of communism, US-style liberal democracy had emerged as the only viable way of organizing a society.

He was misunderstood. His actual argument was far more nuanced and insightful. After explaining the arguments of philosophers like Hegel and Kojeve, Fukuyama pointed out that even if we had reached an endpoint in the debate about ideologies, there would still be conflict because of people’s need to express their identity.

We usually think of strategy as a rational, analytic activity, with teams of MBA’s poring over spreadsheets or generals standing before maps. Yet if we fail to take into account human agency and dignity, we’re missing the boat. Strategy without purpose is doomed to fail, however clever the calculations. Leaders need to take note of that basic reality.

Taking Stock Of The Halo Effect

Business case studies are written by experienced professionals who are trained to analyze past situations from multiple perspectives. However, their ability to do that successfully is greatly limited by the fact that they already know the outcome of the situation they are studying. That can’t help but to color their analysis.

In The Halo Effect, Phil Rosenzweig explains how those perceptions can color conclusions. He points to the networking company Cisco during the dotcom boom. When it was flying high, it was said to have an unparalleled culture with people that worked long hours but loved every minute of it. When the market tanked, however, all of the sudden its culture came to be seen as “cocksure” and “naive.”

It is hard to see how a company’s culture could change so drastically in such a short amount of time, with no significant change in leadership. More likely, seeing Cisco’s success, analysts looked at particular qualities in a positive light. However, when things began to go the other way, those same qualities were perceived as negative.

When an organization is doing well, we may find its people to be “idealistic” and “values driven,” but when things go sour, those same traits come to be seen as “impractical” and “arrogant.” Given the same set of facts, we can—and often do—come to very different conclusions when our perception of the outcomes changes.

In most cases, analysts don’t have a stake in the outcome. From their point of view, they probably see themselves as objectively analyzing facts and following them to their most logical outcomes. Yet when the purpose for writing an analysis changes from telling a success story to lamenting a cautionary tale, their perception of events tends to change markedly.

Reassessing The Value Chain

For decades, the dominant view of business strategy was based on Michael Porter’s ideas about competitive advantage. In essence, he argued that the key to long-term success was to dominate the value chain by maximizing bargaining power among suppliers, customers, new market entrants and substitute goods.

Yet as AnnaLee Saxenian explained in Regional Advantage, around the same time that Porter’s ideas were ascending among CEOs in the establishment industries on the east coast, a very different way of doing business was gaining steam in Silicon Valley. The firms there saw themselves not as isolated fiefdoms, but as part of a larger ecosystem.

The two models are built on very different assumptions. The Porter model sees the world as made up of transactions. Optimize your strategy to create efficiencies, derive the maximum value out of every transaction and you will build a sustainable competitive advantage. The Silicon Valley model, however, saw the world as made up of connections and optimized their strategies to widen and deepen linkages.

Microsoft is one great example of this shift. When Linux first rose to prominence, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer called it a cancer. Yet more recently, its current CEO announced that the company loves Linux. That didn’t happen out of any sort of newfound benevolence, but because it recognized that it couldn’t continue to shut itself out and still be able to compete.

When you see the world as the “sum of all efficiencies,” the optimal strategy is to dominate. However, if you see the world as made up of the “sum of all connections,” the optimal strategy is to attract. You need to be careful to be seen as purposeful rather than predatory.

The Naïveté Of The “Realists”

Since at least the times of Richelieu, foreign policy theorists have been enthralled by the concept of Realpolitik, the notion that world affairs are governed by interests, not ideological, moral or ethical considerations. Much like with Porter’s “competitive advantage,” strategy is treated as a series of transactions rather than relationships.

Rational calculation of interests is one of those ideas that seems pragmatic on the surface, but is actually hopelessly academic and unworkable in the real world. How do you identify the “interests” you are supposed to be basing your decisions on if not by considering what you value? And how do you assess your values without taking into account your beliefs, morals and ethics?

To understand how such “realism” goes awry, consider the prominent political scientist John Mearsheimer. In March, he gave an interview to The New Yorker in which he argued that, by failing to recognize Russia’s role and interests as a great power, the US had erred greatly in its support of Ukraine.

Yet it is clear now that the Russians were the ones who erred. First, they failed to recognize that the world would see their purpose as immoral. Second, they failed to recognize how their aggression would empower Ukraine’s sense of nationhood. Third, they did not see how Europe would come to regard economic ties with Russia to be against their interests.

Nothing you can derive from military or economic statistics will give you insight into human agency. Excel sheets may not be motivated by purpose, but people are.

Strategy Is Not A Game Of Chess

Antonio Damasio, a neuroscientist who researches decision making, became intrigued when one of his patients, a highly intelligent and professionally successful man named “Elliot,” suffered from a brain lesion that impaired his ability to experience emotion. It soon became clear that Elliot was unable to make decisions..

Elliot’s prefrontal cortex, which governs the executive function, was fully intact. His memory and ability to understand events were normal as well. He was, essentially, a completely rational being with normal cognitive function, but no emotions. The problem was that although Elliot could understand all the factors that would go into making a decision, he could not weigh them. Without emotions, all options were all essentially the same.

In the real world, strategy is not a game of chess, in which we move inert pieces around a board. While we can make rational assessments about various courses of action, ultimately people have to care about the outcome. For a strategy to be meaningful, it needs to speak to people’s values, hopes, dreams and ambitions.

A leader’s role cannot be merely to plan and direct action, but must be to inspire and empower belief in a common endeavor. That’s what widens and deepens the meaningful connections that can enable genuine transformation.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

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