Nexttech

Nexttech
Creating Generational Legacies

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Innovation, Not Iteration – How China Overtook Apple and Silicon Valley

Apple’s new iPhone 7 was announced this week. Unlike Jobs-era keynotes, the announcement of this new flagship product was heralded by a long list of iterative changes: slightly lighter, slightly faster, slightly better battery life. 

Only two changes are notable. The first is the removal of the headphone jack, a hotly contested decision.

The second is the addition of a second camera.

It’s a brilliant move. A second camera allows the iPhone 7 to use different focal widths and, better still, the digital simulation of bokeh — the fuzzy background you see in photos taken from DSLR and mirrorless cameras.

This is innovation, driven by a visionary leader.

Unfortunately, that visionary isn’t Apple.


Half a year ago and seven thousand miles from Cupertino, Shenzhen-based phone manufacturer Huawei unveiled their newest smartphone. Crafted in collaboration with Leica, a renowned German camera manufacturer, the Huawei P9 boasted one killer feature: a second camera that could digitally simulate bokeh.

It’s been a long time since China only copied the west. Increasingly, Chinese companies are leading the way, leaving their western counterparts iterating on outdated product roadmaps.


Facebook rolled out mobile payments in 2015. How many people do you know who use it?

WeChat, China’s dominant messenger platform, has had mobile payments and digital fund transfers since 2014. As of 2016, over 200 million monthly active users (1 in 4 of its full user base) regularly WeChat payments. Its use is ubiquitous — for colleagues, restaurants, boutiques, and taxis (which you can also book directly on WeChat).

Facebook launched chatbot integration in 2016, allowing businesses to tap into conversational commerce.

WeChat, once again, forged the path. Chatbots have been available on the Chinese platform since 2013, and adoption is so highly successful today that many Chinese start-ups will create a chatbot for customer service before even hiring customer-facing personnel.

How about integrated commerce? Facebook recognizes the opportunity — but most businesses on Facebook today are forced to use third-party check-out apps. Users can’t actually buy a product without this, and Facebook doesn’t capture any of that value.

WeChat — you guessed it — has had stores and integrated checkout available since 2013.


Industry conventions and the media were once abuzz with cries about China’s “copycat culture”. Today, those complaints are still spoken — but seldom by executives who understand the scope of how far Chinese digital innovation has come.

Their world changed, but ours didn’t.

While western companies can’t benefit from all of China’s advantages (most notably, a population that skipped the desktop-era and is mobile-native), there are lessons to learn. Here are three drivers of China’s digital innovation, and some ways today’s leaders can benefit from them.

Leveraging Competitive Advantage

Michael Porter created the idea of competitive advantage in 1985. Since then, the original idea of “the unique advantage we have over our competitors” has been far too often distilled into “what do we do most often”. Kodak is a prime and often-stated example of this. Failing to recognize that they were in the image-creation business, they neglected the digital camera market and lost all relevancy beyond as a near-bankrupt litigation agent.

Chinese companies, many being established in an environment of constant chaos, haven’t forgotten this. Beijing-based electronics manufacturer Xiaomi released its first smartphone in 2011. They rapidly expanded to phone peripherals, smart home products, drones, apps, and in-app purchases. Intuitively, they understood that their competitive advantage wasn’t in phones — it was the entire digital ecosystem of any and all physical devices. By scaling quickly and establishing themselves in a wide range of products, they created a holistic platform that was able to stake a claim on a vast territory. What once looked to outside observers like a haphazard hodge-podge of imitation has revealed itself to be an incredibly ambitious product vision.

Understanding the Population

The underserved masses offer a huge opportunity — for traditional industries, but especially for digital products. There are hundreds of start-ups that target a small segment of consumers. Need hugs? Nails done? Borrow the right dress? There’s an app for that.

Enterprise-scale products are similarly complicit. From app suites from the telecom industry to mono-brand fashion apps, many companies fail to understand the opportunity that lies in understanding firstly user pain points, and secondly, the size of the untapped market opportunity.

Hangzhou Wahaha Group, the largest beverage producer in China with annual revenues of over 13 billion USD, seized upon this with their launch of Nutri-Express in 2008. Nutri-Express, a combination of milk and juice, addressed a major pain point of a vast swath of China’s under-served population: the need for nutrition and vitamins in an easily consumed, reliable package. Health and nutrition have become an increasingly pressing concern as Chinese consumers become more wealthy. The simple pivot from what was once a producer of unhealthy, sugary drinks to address the newly surfaced needs of consumers yielded vast rewards — over 2.5 billion USD in sales in its first year.

Openness to New Ideas

For years, China has approached the west with a spirit of humility and learning. Executives and managers in China have constantly travelled to the west to learn in both academia and the marketplace. Chinese companies start with proven western models and products in the design stage, but then proceed to rapidly iterate and adapt them for the needs of the Chinese domestic market.

Qihoo 360, a leading Chinese security company, started in 2005 by delivering paid anti-virus software. The characteristics of the Chinese market, however, offered far more value in a freemium model paired with online advertising and gaming. Today, they’ve grown from a start-up to an industry leader with a market cap of over 11 billion USD. 67% percent of revenues are from advertising. Software sales, their original flagship, now make up only 1% of revenues.

How did Chinese companies arrive at this approach to learning from others?

It wasn’t easy.

In the 14th century, Imperial China led the world. Chinese achievements in science, economics, and exploration were unparalleled. They shut themselves off from the world, and failed to learn. Countries that they once viewed as laggards overtook them, culminating in the humiliation of the Opium Wars and the occupation of China by foreign powers.

China never forgot that lesson: a country that believes only in its own exceptionalism becomes blind to learning from the strengths of others.

The parallels with the West of today are clear. The lessons are present. Ultimately, today’s leaders will choose whether to view China’s example as a threat or as an opportuni

Great rules from a 6th Grade Olympiad


I just went to the Parent's Meeting for the Science Olympiad my 6th grade son will be taking part in.  I wish the rules of organizations could look more like the ones we received:

1.  No experience necessary 
2.  Safety and teamwork first 
3.  Everyone must be on time and ready to learn 
4.  Strict adherence to the code of ethics is a requirement 
5. Have fun

They ended with this quote from Albert Einstein:  The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions...Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."  Sounded like the groundwork for a great organization...if only!

Best
Deepa 

Google investing in Virtual Reality Films


Hello Ivan

Google is investing hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece in virtual-reality films and programs, part of a plan to line up exclusive content for the debut of its new Daydream service in the coming weeks.

Google will help promote projects from Hulu LLC and fund the production of 360-degree videos with YouTube stars like the Dolan twins and Justine Ezarik. The division of Alphabet Inc. has also partnered with video-game producers and sports leagues to boost its biggest virtual-reality initiative.

The company is relying on apps, shorts and games to promote Daydream, a hybrid store and software service that Google hopes will be the dominant way people engage in virtual reality, much like Android is for smartphones. An update to Android software that will support Daydream began rolling recently. The idea is to encourage the growth of the technology and ensure Google maintains a central role in helping people find things to watch.

VR equipment sales will exceed $1 billion in 2016, reaching $22 billion in 2020.

Google is entering what has quickly become a crowded marketplace, with products from Facebook Inc., Sony Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. and HTC Corp. Whereas Sony’s Morpheus headset is tethered to its PlayStation video-game console, Google is focused on mobile-based VR, whereby consumers snap their phones into a visor or headset. With the headset on, Daydream presents users with an array of apps, from YouTube to HBO Now.

This will definitely help advance mobile virtual reality because mobile virtual reality is what’s going to get the most people to strap things on their head.

While competitors are targeting users willing to spend hundreds of dollars for top-notch VR equipment, mobile will reach mass audiences.

Google’s growing investment in virtual reality tantalizes filmmakers eager for more resources. While Facebook has spent millions of dollars on individual projects, most large media companies have been circumspect about investing too much money in a new storytelling medium with a small audience.

This being Google’s first major virtual-reality content initiative, the company doesn’t want to spend too much just yet and is spreading money around to see what works. Google is spending high six figures on video games, and is offering from low five figures to low six figures for projects with filmmakers and online talent.

Filmmakers working with Google must use a 16-camera rig optimized for the company’s Jump software platform for virtual-reality content. GoPro Inc. is making one, called Odyssey, priced at $15,000. Though a few elite VR filmmakers have either balked at the budgets or the requirement that they use Google’s camera, dozens of filmmakers have signed up to work with YouTube.
 
YouTube won’t demand an ownership stake in the projects filmmakers create with its funds, since the Google division is more interested in encouraging creative people to produce content around the debut of Daydream to stoke awareness and excitement.

YouTube will be one of dozens of apps available within Daydream, alongside HBO’s streaming service, Hulu and apps from sports leagues like the NBA and MLB. Google will co-market some of the programming. Though its projects won’t be exclusive to Daydream, Hulu will time the release of several pieces to the debut of Google’s platform.

Daydream will be introduced around the same time as the release of new Android phones, VR headsets and controllers. The latest version of Android has VR-enhancing features including faster graphics processing, quicker head tracking and better use of data from multiple sensors.

Google had been working on its own headset, but the company has mainly focused on reference designs for headsets, and controllers, for other companies to build their own VR devices. It would rather turn Daydream, known to some as Android VR, into the dominant interface for virtual reality.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The missing men of America

Inspired from 
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/the-missing-men/488858/

Around 7-8 million males in the USA have completely dropped out of the workforce over the past 59 years and don’t even want a job — 


Where are they? 
Prison? 
Disability? 
In school?
Stay at home dads ?

None of the above!!!

Research says they do nothing but hang around, socialise and watch TV. 

This is not a good thing!!!!

Where did the jobs go? 

Manufacturing and construction - In 1954, the highwater mark for male participation, the manufacturing and construction sectors accounted for nearly 40 percent of all jobs. Now, after the long decline of manufacturing and the end of the housing bubble, they account for just 13 percent. 

These are jobs that men without a college degree can count on, and they're much rarer than they used to be. The White House report notes that "when the share of state employment attributable to construction, mining and to a lesser extent manufacturing are higher, more prime-age men participate in the labor force.” In other words, men are more likely to work in areas where the state directly subsidizes employment in male-heavy occupations.

There are four occupations expected to add more than 100,000 jobs in the next decade: personal care aides, home health aides, medical secretaries, and marketing specialists -( but these are more female dominated)

Perhaps the United States needs some sort of massive national building project to put these men back to work in jobs that they would be proud and willing to do
Several weeks ago, Conor Sen, a portfolio manager and a columnist at Bloomberg View, wrote a widely shared essay predicting that housing would become the dominant economic story of the next five years.

The problem - construction needs to be made in metro and high growth areas ..... And unemployed men are in Appalachia, the Rust Belt, and the Deep South, where the rate of non-working men often hovers around 40 percent.

The challenge - how to get these unemployed men to move to areas which need construction?  ....... 


And even more challenging .... How can we upskill these humans? Maybe through a programme of lifelong learning . If they are watching tv, how can we pique their interest and upskill them?

Defining Blockchain


 Hello i4j friends,
As state and federal legislation of or involving blockchain technologies becomes more common, the question is arising: what is the definition of blockchain for purposes of statute and regulation? 
There are multiple views and drafts of potential definitions being circulated.  In light of our recent innovation definition discussion, I thought that maybe some of you would be interested in joining an open public forum to share your ideas, questions and specific proposals for legislative language defining Blockchain as part of an online participatory process and an in-person discussion to be held at the US House of Representatives https://law.mit.edu/Blockchain-Legislative-Definition  
Fintech is being driven by two major innovations – blockchain and distributed ledgers. I do believe that this is part of the digital future for the financial sector and understanding how the industry is changing is of critical importance. It will transform how financial transactions are recorded, reconciled and reported. Accordingly, it is going to be important to understand the skills, infrastructure and vision needed for blockchain and virtual ledgers.
I’m helping organize a Blockchain event at the MIT Media Lab on Sept. 13th link: https://law.mit.edu/blog/the-great-blockchain-bakeoff-of-2016  If any of you are interested, please just let me know. The Blockchain piece is part of the Electronic Transaction Association’s larger event that day but I think the Blockchain piece is important because it is reflective of an understanding that this is a methodology that can facilitate new processes and architecture that will make digital settlement more efficient and be a part of the new economy we all strive for, and for which the definition of Blockchain will be important.
Blockchain Definition Links: Use THIS FORM to contribute to the process and you can follow the progress, as it develops, on GitHub in this public repository: https://github.com/LegalCode/Blockchain
Cheers,
Amy
-- 

How leadership affects innovation: Training employees to think innovatively from the top down

In an era where business success is often driven by the ability of an organisation to innovate – either with the products or services they provide, or in the way that they operate to gain competitive advantage – the role of a leader is harder than ever. Many CEOs and leaders frequently ponder the question of how to get their employees to be more innovative and, actually, the answer is most likely to be that it is a direct result of their leadership!

Daniel Goleman’s Leadership That Gets Resultsa landmark 2000 Harvard Business Review study of over 3,000 middle-level managers in the US suggested that a manager’s leadership style was responsible for 30% of the company’s bottom-line profitability. It also identified six leadership styles:

  • The pacesetting leader
  • The authoritative leader
  • The affiliative leader
  • The coaching leader
  • The coercive leader
  • The democratic leader

While categorising leadership styles in this way can be useful to enable leaders to be more self-aware, the reality is that most leaders will, and should, employ most or all of these styles at a different time, situation or setting. Having said that, when looking at the impact of leadership on innovation in an organisation, it is interesting to broaden out the leadership styles to build a picture of how they can nurture, or indeed restrict innovation.

Looking at it simplistically, the three core leadership styles that garner very different results are: ‘laissez-faire’, autocratic and democratic, all of which will be defined and elaborated on further in the article. Firstly, in order to understand how these styles impact innovation, we need to define what is innovation.

Innovation could be described as creating new values, or capturing new values in a new way. It is the outcome of a creative and forward-thinking process or mind-set that subsequently affects change.

With that said, the skills, conditions and motivations needed to facilitate innovation are equally important. You could argue that if someone doesn’t have the skills needed to be innovative, then they won’t ever be. However, I would suggest that everyone has the capacity to come up with ideas, the cornerstone of innovation. As one of the oldest adages in business goes: ‘No idea is a bad idea’. Therefore, it must be the conditions and motivations that are created by an organisation that spark innovation.   

Assessing the three leadership styles in turn and their impact on employees, we can begin to uncover the kinds of behaviours and practices leaders need to employ to foster innovation in their organisation.

Laissez-faire leaders essentially leave employees to it. They empower their staff to make decisions and are reluctant to interfere. The result can be highly motivated employees who ‘own’ their work, relish the challenges and may therefore come up with the best innovative ideas. However, this style can also result in excessive stress in other employees, which could limit their ability to think outside the box and dream big. A key result of the laissez-faire style is that employees take responsibility for their work and decisions and they therefore learn from mistakes and grow as leaders themselves. But, as we all know, not everyone can take that kind of pressure and, in most organisations, some level of leadership support, direction and responsibility is needed for most employees to flourish.

Autocratic leaders make all the decisions themselves and don’t trust anyone else to do so. The result is obvious – less motivated employees who are less likely to propose new ideas and suggestions in a ‘the boss knows best’ climate. When employees accept that they should do what someone else wants them to do, with no questions asked, then the results will be as expected. As an example, a common  characteristic of some of the world’s greatest leaders is that they have the ability to nurture other leaders. With new leaders, will come new ideas and anyone who doesn’t appreciate that is unfortunately unlikely to succeed.

Democratic leaders act collaboratively and foster a culture of joint responsibility. Employees are likely to feel supported and encouraged to think big, but with the safety net of being able to learn from others and not having to shoulder excessive responsibility or burden. This style surely creates the best conditions for nurturing innovation. However, as mentioned earlier, different styles are needed for different people and situations. So, although democracy is more likely to feed innovation, in certain circumstances, autocratic or ‘laissez-faire’ leadership might just provide the conditions for your best innovations.

The true skill of a leader is in flexing his or her style to suit changing conditions and situations with the aim of getting the best out of people and the organisation. Nurturing innovation is no exception.

Written by

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Learning to Listen

I thought you might like to see my 6 minute provocation from last nights #NoDust event.

"I can’t claim to know much about politics but I know a lot about people. 

I’m going to explain why I think political systems need to be redesigned for the 21st Century - for an era where constant change is the new normal.

I have spent my career figuring out how to get people who need to talk to each other, talking, and listening, to each other. Using digital sometimes. But not always.

Its really, really hard. 

For many years I trusted my intuition and just tried things. I made stuff up - some things worked, some things didn’t - but all the learnings helped me to get better and better at building bridges. 

Then I saw Mark Earls speak.

I realised that if I understood the human brain better, I could learn to overcome barriers better

The more I learn, the more I understand the complexity of the challenge in hand.

The world is changing at an unprecedented rate. It is unlikely the rate of change is going to slow down any time soon.

I believe that the digital technologies that are driving that change could be key to a more connected, collaborative, equitable world. 

But we are battling against a smorgasbord of cognitive pre-sets that mean we automatically resist:

Changing 

and listening

and collaborating 

and respecting other people’s way of being. 

The more I learn about the way the human brain works, the more I realise the way we have done things is fundamentally broken. 

We need to change the way we change. 

Stop for a second. Imagine the last time you had change forced upon you. 

It does not feel good. Thats because we are hardwired to resist change.

Our decisions are based on subconscious drivers that mean we will do anything in our power to guarantee things remain the same. 

Coping with constant change is rubbing up against a deep-seated, powerful aversion.

Every time change is forced upon us, we go into flight or fight mode. It makes us anxious, stressed, un-collaborative, It even affects our immune system.

Then there’s the confirmation bias: We like things that confirm our own world-view, and dismiss anything that questions them. 

We don’t listen because we are hardwired to think our own ideas are the best ideas. 

We don’t connect because we are hard wired to stick with our own kind.  

Oxytocin bonds us to our “gang” of like-minded folk. It provokes defensive aggression towards people who think and act differently.

We have an inbuilt aversion to using products or knowledge developed outside of our gang.

We place a disproportionately high value on things they we have helped create.

The same goes with ideas and policies.

Having skin in the game makes people more attached to, and protective of solutions.

And yet we continue to force change on people, rather than working with them. 

The global organisations my company supports need to drive efficiency and productivity. They want to get people collaborating, and sharing, and accepting each other’s way of being.

It’s really hard but we’ve found out what works:

First: senior leadership have to fully buy in to a new way of doing thing. They have to be prepared to shift from command, control and mandate to listen, learn and buy in. 

A series of conversations and peer recommendations help us to identify what we call change- agents: influencers in different departments, brands, regions, levels.

Every change initiative provides a reason to bring these change agents together to co-create solutions. 

This collaborative design process lets them get to know each other. By working together on something they start to trust each other. 

As part of the design process, they feel an affinity to the solution. Remember the IKEA effect and we always think our own ideas are the best ideas. 

They begin to understand the complexity of the challenge in hand. They go back to their departments to share what they’ve learned. People are much more likely to buy into an idea that stems from within their own gang.

Every new change project becomes an opportunity to invite a new batch of change agents into the design process. 

We give platforms to the change agents so they can continue to communicate, to nurture growing networks of trust.

We call the process People Powered Transformation.

Enterprises are realising that top down command and control is not the best way to get the best out of people. 

If people powered transformation works for global enterprises, and it does, couldn’t we do something similar across the nation. 

Could we identify local regional national change agents and use every challenge as an opportunity to bring them together to co-create solutions? 

Could we provide platforms to allow change agents to share challenges, opportunities and learnings?

Could we develop national networks of trust at a time when trust in government is at an all time record low? 

The question is: How can we persuade leadership to shift from command, control and mandate to listen, learn and engage?"

I would as always love your thought and suggestions