Perception of Technology Evolution
Speaker A: The first question is what’s your general perception of technology evolution or the technology transformation. What are your observations?
Speaker B: I’m observing that everything is changing towards digitalization. And my observation very often is underestimated because it’s not only a technology transformation; but it’s a mindset change. And that’s something that is often ignored which has been the case because we are talking of evolution. Earlier on very often businesses were changing to (SAP) for instance and only data was seen as an I.T. change which it never was only.
So for me it’s also an evolution basically and not a revolution. It’s just also when you see all these different ways of organizations like working with Chrome or design thinking. All these things show that that it’s a broader evolution; not just to technology or digital thinking but to the interaction and cooperation collaboration model overall. That’s how I see it.
Speaker A: Would you say that this agile transformation is also not just in the development but also in the way of working?
Speaker B: Definitely.
Speaker A: Which other areas of transformation do you think are much more important, much faster, and with much more impact?
Speaker B: I think everything in terms of retail for instance. Of course because it’s all going away from actual shops to online. And there is a big thinking required because people do want to touch things, try and test them. How do we cope with that? I think retail is affordable and necessary for other when it comes just for digital transformation. Probably we will soon have real stores where we go in and say it isn’t this and that; then it all goes automatically into our basket online. I think that the most visible thing for the average person is this part of the transformation. That is the big transformation that we all feel when we work in big corporations where it just doesn’t work anymore to go through normal product development without actually taking the full chain into consideration. You know from the first need of the customer who actually gets involved till the end. I think it’s much less a finalized process than it used to be. It’s an iteration process again and again.
Yeah that’s how I see it, so I think it’s basically the way we live our lives in daily business also with everything we have. It’s a bit frightening actually; and data protection just saw a big move which is probably going way too far again because it’s not going to be feasible. And then you see new companies coming like that; maybe heard about that they actually regained ownership of your own data so you can actually say who you give your data to and make money out of it. I think that’s an industry that’s coming through with weird but also quite normal revolutions. Then of course I never understood the big outcry about Cambridge Analytica because frankly they are a scapegoat. But it’s happening everywhere. It’s a normal evolution of marketing. There’s no such thing as pure evilness. Of course it serves as bad purposes as well; but it helped Obama getting into office in the same way that it helped Trump getting office.
Speaker A: So, what would you say of the services that you are using for free? It was not for free in a way that we were using data.
Speaker B: It was not for free anyway. This is almost a philosophical question. We’re giving up or maybe we’re unconsciously giving up our beliefs in a way where our opinions; we not giving them up but we were selling them. And they’re not conscious or selling them. That’s the darker side of the evolution.
Speaker A: Do you think that the technology revolution is accelerating? And the the cycles are getting shorter and shorter. Do you have examples of that?
Speaker B: Yeah, I mean for instance fashion industry is probably the most apparent one and there’s no such thing as a winter or summer collection anymore. There are special collections, there’s even collections around Black Friday, there’s collections about whatever you know, and this is it’s changing so fast and consumer needs or tastes have to be taken into consideration ever faster. It is basically maybe one of the accelerators throughout because industries need to be able to tackle this more and more. And that has maybe not really good effects on certain parts to the population of the world because it leads to more exploitation.
So I think it will probably have to slow down. You see it also with other luxury goods with perfumes for instance. But it’s also not just the summer into perfume. There’s hundreds thousands of fragrances of that dot com you know more and more often and for a normal consumer. It’s really impossible to keep track and to even understand the values anymore. I think it’s a big dilution of values and there’s no such thing anymore as value of possession anyway.
It’s more and I’m not sure if I’m making sense. It’s getting so fast that we lose track of bandwidth. You know what I mean is really important.
Speaker A: You mean we are losing track of the cycles we were used to before like seasons or exactly what we are just getting in the news cycle of things changing too fast?
Speaker B: Too fast to actually grasp and to make sense of and make use of.
And to say OK this is we don’t really know anymore is this important to me or not it’s just like you’re in this wheel all the time. So I think people have to become a lot more mature and conscious of what’s happening in the work life and into the normal life of consumers everywhere.
Speaker A: Where do you see the challenges of accelerated technology evolution in general? You have already addressed some of them. Anything you would like to add?
Speaker B: Yes, also education I think it is very important. I don’t think if you look to Switzerland for instance, I think in countries like India or China are much more adapted to that already. But our schooling system for instance is not coping with that. I mean they don’t even use that platform and regularly to start doing it.
But they don’t make use of the technology that you have like doing online courses and stuff. I don’t think going to school looks the same in 20 years from now with what we do now. You probably won’t go to school any more physically or not to the same school house you are in now. Probably you will go to this learning group and even agility becomes a lot more important. And I think it also goes hand in hand with the new way of thinking of the very young people that a procession is not important anymore. It’s more sharing and it’s more making sense in this world than accumulating possessions and titles, status and symbols. I think that’s a big continuity happening.
Speaker A: Yes you’re absolutely right. Some of my interviews I did in California U.S., and as you mentioned there are news systems for kids in schools they have I joined school. They just can’t see something sells out. Something else comes to the place of going before or they can even interact together during the class. Are the electronic devices in regard to classes as you mentioned that are going to change the way they learn?
Speaker B: And I think the world is going to be more and more learned even more than it is now. Meaning in terms of boundaries doesn’t matter anymore. But that doesn’t mean that our conflicts and inequality become less. I think they become more visible and more dangerous.
Speaker A: There’s always a fear to try such stuff that are afraid of doubt?
Speaker B: Access to information is important of course. And that might even maybe make inequality more equal again because access to information is widespread.
Speaker A: A leader or as a leader, how do you consider the technology acceleration of technology transformation. How is it considered in your decision making acceleration?
Speaker B: I think many people still don’t really see it. But I think it’s changing hierarchies. It just makes it more easy to have access to know how across the world. I think it is to know it makes people more engaged or it puts people more into competition with each other. And as a leader, I think it is very dangerous. It’s easy to forget that human being.
And I think it’s exactly what we should do because there will be machines taking over certain or a big part of our work. And there will be no exchange of human part in the interaction and the empathy for others. And I think as a leader, one shouldn’t forget that even though there’s so much going on there’s so much access to know how for sharing.
But it’s still important as a leader to give people the feeling that they feel are important in this process because for all of us, it’s very difficult to lose our little island of know how. You know where we are not exchangeable. This is gone. There’s no such thing as security anymore if you do your education was exchangeable, my MBA exchangeable, and millions billions of people have the same. So how can we create these leaders this feeling that still matters and that ithey are still important in the process?
Speaker A: I come back to the higher change you mentioned. Do you think more and bigger organizations that the leaders are too far away from the experts? Too many levels?
Speaker B: Yeah, In some. I think it’s getting better but then I think it’s not the same leaders because these people who are holding on to their hierarchies will not survive for long. I mean if you look at for instance nice companies like Volkswagen; there it’s definitely with all the diesel gate and whatever they it’s really I think part of the culture that the top is too far removed from the engineers.
And I also think it’s a cultural thing that engineers have not be listened to because there’s maybe a culture of these guys up there are gods and if you counter or you speak against something too often you’re gone.
So there’s this culture of fear and I think this remoteness leads to situations like they have partly.
Even if they know that they probably didn’t want to know the full problems that these engineers face in order to be capable to cope on the market you know. So I think that’s still there but it’s changing.
Speaker A: You mean the leaders may request that I don’t care how you do it just make it work?
Speaker B: Exactly! When you do remove; when you’re closer and you’re part of this child forms of a developed product it will be relevant as a leader. You cannot remove yourself anymore.
I’m not saying that actualities at every cost are the best thing. I don’t think it works. And where is that need. I think it works for certainly for product development it definitely works I think. IT have been there for ages and software development but it’s not a new thing. Basically it’s this approach being taken over for Baker. So the biggest test
Speaker A: How do you think a shift to a new technology should be tackled, so that you are not too early and you’re not too late?
Speaker B: Depending on the industry again I think you know but there’s no way around it. If I was leading a big corporation, I’d probably go and talk a lot and see how others do it. I wouldn’t probably champion full with everything in the beginning but I would start to transform certain areas of my business first especially the one like product development or I.T. Or other areas where you can be where you need to be fast. Marketing for instance, I think marketing should never be removed. I mean that’s a challenge for marketing, meeting and marketing to be a way more involved in actual business than it used to be in big corporations. So I would like this step by step and always in taking the mindset change into consideration.
Speaker A: I mean there are theories that when you are first you can relate and you can be disruptive to bring something new or they call it a blue ocean of possibilities. So you think one should be cautious?
Speaker B: Yes. Or you have the approach I think for a big corporation just jumping into the blue ocean is probably a bit of a water carrier. So you should be doing it step by step. But what they what some companies like BP for instance they built their start up hubs where they can test things with smaller parts of their business or start up parts or joint ventures and then see what works and reap the benefits in that area and then translate to the bigger fish what works. I think it’s actually quite an intelligent approach.
Speaker A: Do you think it’s also a matter of culture. If Europe and the U.S., I mean a lot of U.S. companies they say they tried 10 solutions to be paid for development and out of nine they get one successful.
Speaker B: I was working for a Japanese corporation for Panasonic and on the other hand for a while in America.
And I think for me this was like if you think of stone age maybe when the fire was just invented and that you have Americans here and you have the Japanese there. And Europeanized telling Europeans to determine the agenda that the Americans take to get together and then say, OK we want to build a house and then they will just go out and bring back whatever they find stones and sticks. And that you know the Japanese they would first get together, OK. Yes they want to build a house. What kind of house? What should we be able to do? What do we need? And then each of them will have the appointed think they need to bring. And then they will do that. And the Germans will be something in between; they will have a master plan that they will not be fixed with. Ok you would just bring this, you just think that it will be more open. So the development time with the Americans is very short; but then it might go wrong and that what I read and saw; whatever they have to reiterate a decision making again and again. With the Japanese, the decision making process is endless. But what it’s decided. They get it done and they run with it and then they’re really fast and the timing which is probably put in the short term that there’s too much discussion to ensure success and that they point to the technology and think the same way. But if you look at Panasonic, the way they reinvented themselves they landed a big mistake with their plasma TVs. There were plans whose plants were just designed for creating Plasma. When everyone is going to city, everyone else and the Code Red comes to the ground. So there are a few TV critic you want even after they’ve led 3-D basically but they rebuilt themselves within it without end because they built a sound out there now into all the electricity in the box and you know all these factories and stuff and the return it was just 50-50 or 8 percent higher than last year. Amazing. So the question is what’s more recently?.
You know for me this was really interesting to see and I think technology to sing. But of course Silicon Valley is the hope of everything digital. Right.
Speaker A: Maybe you find also more people over there that are ready to you know project lower risk more risk less risk averse and no one more able to get on.
Speaker B: And to also the trial everything is way more ingrained in American entrepreneurs.