Category: Innovation

  • Having a culture of yes

    Having a culture of yes

    One of the biggest impressions from the AWS Re:Invent conference is the company’s rapid innovation with the firm’s executives boasting how they have offered over a thousand features on their services this year.

    That sort of rapid change requires a fairly tolerant attitude towards new ideas and risk, which was something AWS CEO Andy Jassy explained at the media briefing.

    “In a lot of companies as they get bigger, the senior people walk into a room looking for ways to say ‘no’. Most large organisations are centrally organised as opposed to decentralised so it’s harder to do many things at once,” he observed.

    “The senior people at Amazon are looking at ways to say ‘yes’. We don’t say ‘yes’ to every idea, we rigorously assess each on its merits, but we are problem solving and collaborating with the people proposing the idea so we say ‘yes’ a lot more often than others.”

    “If you want to invent at a rapid rate and you want to push the envelope of innovation, you have to be unafraid to fail,” he continued. “We talk a lot inside the company that we’re working on several of our next big failures. Most of the things we do aren’t going to be failures but if you’re innovating enough there will be things that don’t work but that’s okay.”

    While Amazon’s management should be lauded for that attitude, they are in a position of having tolerant investors who for the last twenty years haven’t been too fussed about the company’s profits. Leaders of companies with less indulgent shareholders probably can’t afford the same attitude towards risk.

    There’s also the nature of the industry that AWS operates which is still in its early days, sectors that are far more mature or in declines – such as banking or media respectively – don’t have the luxury of saying ‘yes’ to as many ideas as possible.

    Jassy’s view about encouraging ideas in the business is worth considering for all organisations though. With the world changing rapidly, having a workforce empowered to think about new ideas is critical for a business’ survival.

    Similar posts:

  • When the robots came for the financial planners

    When the robots came for the financial planners

    Then the robots came for the wealth managers…

    While much of the focus on the effects of automation in the workforce falls upon manual, skilled and lower level clerical jobs, much of the impact of the next wave of automation will fall on higher level roles.

    The rise of the robot financial advisor is a good example of this, as Finextra reports, Well Fargo bank has teamed up with fintech startup SigFig to automate wealth management.

    Wealth management has been a lucrative field for banks in recent years however it has come with a reputational risk as poorly trained, incompetent or unethical advisors have pushed customers into investments more aligned with the staffs’ commission structures than the clients’ interests.

    Given the costs and risks of employing well paid financial advisors, it’s understandable banks would be attracted to automating the function.

    The problem for the banks is automated tools will commoditise the marketplace and almost certainly drive down margins.

    So, along with the well paid jobs, the river of gold that was wealth management dries up for the banking sector.

    Similar posts:

  • What’s next for small business – trends in the modern workplace

    What’s next for small business – trends in the modern workplace

    This week’s The Future is now – Trends in the Modern Workplace webinar was an opportunity to look at the trends affecting small and micro businesses.

    What’s notable is almost all the topics affecting small business are being felt by their corporate cousins. It shouldn’t be surprising the technology and social trends affecting society are equally being felt

    Now the webinar is over, I’ve posted the presentation to Slideshare with the commentary below, we cover established trends like the shift to mobile then ponder the future of business with artificial intelligence and virtual reality.

    The presentation ties up with the post I published a few days ago that provides the commentary to the slides.

    Similar posts:

  • Lessons from the CIA investment fund

    Lessons from the CIA investment fund

    One of the little discussed reasons for the US tech industry’s success is the role of military and intelligence spending by the government. Not only are various agencies funding research and enthusiastically buy technology, they are also being strategic investors in many companies.

    In Sydney last week Dawn Meyerriecks, the CIA’s Deputy Director for Science and Technology, gave an interesting insight into the agency’s investment philosophies at the SINET61 conference.

    The conference was aimed at drumming up interest in the technology security industry along with showcasing the connections between Australia’s Data61 venture and the US based Security Innovation Network (SINET).

    SINET itself is closely linked to the United States’ security agencies with chairman and founder Robert Rodriguez being a former US Secret Service agent prior to his move into security consulting, venture capitalism and network-building.

    Compounding the organisation’s spook credentials are its support from the US Department of Homeland Security along with the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), so it was barely surprising the Australian conference was able to attract a senior Central Intelligence Agency officer.

    Investing in flat times

    “Flat is the new up,” says  Meyerriecks in describing the current investment climate of thin returns. In that environment, fund managers are looking for good investments and the imprimatur of the CIA’s investment arm, In-Q-Tel, is proving to be a good indicator that a business is likely to realise good returns.

    “If you can predict a market – and we are good predictors of markets – then the return on investment is huge,” she says.

    “In-Q-Tel really leverages capital funding for good ideas. We get a twelve for one return, for every dollar we put in it’s matched by twelve dollars in venture capital in emerging technologies.”

    Attracting investors

    For the companies In-Q-Tel invests in along with those that supply technology to the organization, the CIA encourages them to seek private sector investors.

    “What we’re telling our supply chains is you go ahead and tap into the capital markets,” Meyerriecks says. “If you can turn that into a commercially viable product then will will ride the way with the rest of the industry because it’s good for us, it’s good for the country and it’s good for the planet.”

    Adding to the CIA’s attractions as a startup investor are the opportunities for lucrative acquisition exits for the founders, she believes. “Not only are we using that venture capital approach for emerging technologies but our big suppliers are sitting on a ton of cash.”

    Diversity as an asset

    Another lesson that Meyerriecks believes will help the planet, and the tech industry, is diversity. “Globalisation has show isolationism doesn’t work,” she says.

    “Back in the day when I was a young engineer the best way to make sure your system was resilient was to harden its perimeters. the best ways to be ‘cyber resilient in the old days was by drawing the barriers to keep the bad guys out.”

    “The best way to be cyber-resilient in the old days was to draw big boundaries around yourself to keep the bad guys out. The latest studies look at other things because you want to be resilient, you want high availability.”

    Now, system diversity is seen as an asset.“Biologically the three factors that contribute to resilience are the ability to adapt, the ability to recovery and diversity,”  Meyerriecks says. “We look to deliver high availability among components that may not themselves have high reliability.”

    The future of investment

    “I think we’ll see commercialisation still driving investment for applied R&D in particular,”Meyerriecks said in a later panel on where the agency is looking at putting its money.

    “The big game changers will be around the edge, taking SDN (Software Defined Networking) to its logical extreme giving everyone their own personal networks, not just in data centres but at the edge of the network.”

    “I think there’s lots of things that the commercial industrialisation of the technology and physical system are going to force us to grapple with on many levels.”

    Risks in managing identity

    An interesting aspect of Meyerriecks’ talks at SINET61 was her take on some of the technology issues facing consumers and citizens, particularly in the idea for individuals having their own personalised network.

    “This opens up a whole range of things, ” she suggests. “Do I eventually not just be an IMSI or EIMI (the mobile telephone identifiers) but do I become an advertising node, does that become my unique ID? Do I a become a gaming avatar?”

    “Then we get into the whole Big Data area. Computational anonymity is a phrase we use. At some point people start saying ‘this is crossing the line’ – it crosses the ‘ooooh’ factor.”

    Changing Cybersecurity

    “I think the definition of cybersecurity will be expanded to much more beyond wheat we’ve classically thought about in the past.”

    Meyerriecks’ presentation and later panel appearance was a fascinating glimpse into the commercial imperatives of the United States’ intelligence community along with flagging some of the areas which concern its members as citizens and technology users.

    The US security community’s role in the development of the nation’s tech sector shouldn’t be understated and Meyerriecks’ observation that private sector investors tend to follow the CIA’s investment path underscores their continued critical role.

    Similar posts:

  • Innovation lessons from the Concorde

    Innovation lessons from the Concorde

    Why did the Concorde fail? Website Vox has a nice mini-documentary on the iconic supersonic airliner of the 1970s which looks at why the aircraft never became popular.

    Fuel costs, opposition to supersonic flights and the aircraft’s limited passenger capacity are all factors cited in the story.

    Passenger capacity turned out to be the main reasons why the project wasn’t a commercial success as the economics of the airline industry changed over the decade it took to develop the aircraft.

    Wide bodied jets such as the DC-10, the L-1011 and, most importantly the Boeing 747, offered much better profits and reliability for airlines while the 1978 US airline industry deregulation act democratised air travel in the world’s biggest market. The 1973 oil shock which saw fuel prices was .

    As a high priced luxury, the Concorde couldn’t compete in that market. It was only the British and French governments absorbing development costs that allowed Air France and BA to fly it for as long as they did.

    Interestingly, we’re seeing a similar shift affecting the Airbus A380 which has been affected by the airline industry shifting from four engine long distance jets to cheaper two engine planes and consumers show their preference for ‘point to point’ networks rather than ‘hub and spoke’ operations – the biggest customer for the A380 is Emirates Airlines which routes almost all of its global operations through Dubai.

    The Concorde was one of several brave experiments of the 1960s but its demise shows that despite how impressive the technology was, it was no match for economic reality. That is something we need to keep in mind as we marvel at today’s advances.

    Concorde image from Airliners.net

    Similar posts: