What killed these companies - a culture of innovation is key

Inspired by  Stephanie denning (Twitter @stephdenning 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/03/10/cultural-tipping-points-why-companies-lose-their-innovation-edge/amp/

A Culture Of Innovation  is the invisible asset that is often credited for its success, and it has been seen that it is key for the growth and sustainability of a business. 

Kodak , NOKIA and  RIM (BlackBerry Xerox, HP and Sears Incr giants - failed - because they stopped taking chances - they stopped innovating!

Why would good teams, with excellent people and the best intentions, kill great ideas?

What changes the collective behaviour from innovation to survival 

Safi Bahcall a physicist, in a Harvard study identifies “A Cultural Tipping Point” - when the leader and employee would rather keep their “job” rather than take chances.  

Company-wide innovation is forgone for personal career advancement and safety. 

“In order for innovation to occur and for  ‘crazy’ ideas to turn into successful products, people across the organization need to be incentivitized to invest their time in moving projects―not themselves―forward,” writes Bahcall.

So how do you Overcome The Cultural Tipping Point? Bahcall has an algorithm.... The Bahcall Culture Equation

M = (E x S^2 x F) / G

Leaders can tip the balance and raise the value of M—ensuring that radical innovation continues in even the largest company—by tweaking four key control parameters. They are equity fraction ( E), fitness ratio ( F), management span ( S), and salary growth ( G). Note that none of these are elements of “culture.” They are better described as elements of structure: organization design. As the equation below illustrates, a higher M results from increasing E, S, and F (the parameters in the numerator), and decreasing G (the denominator).

Bahcall’s equation, includes the relationship between “a certain size at which human groups shift from embracing radical ideas to quashing them…the magic number M,” 

without going into great detail - the principal is 

The greater the increase in salary between levels, the more likely people are incentivized to pursue salary over innovation.  

It’s 4 p.m., should you focus on project work or on politics?  You need to decide how you’ll spend the final hour of the workday. Should you experiment a little more with your design, or should you use the time to network, currying favor with your boss of other influential managers? 

Such daily choices, says Bahcall, is what really determine the level of innovation at a company ― not cultural changes instituted from the top. 

The culture of innovation, says Bahcall,  is proportional to the perceived marginal return of an employee for an hour spent working versus politicking.

Bahcall’s culture equation, at its heart, is really a story of misaligned organizational incentives. How large organizations adopt structures that promote selfish behaviors and disincentivize innovation. 

Creating a culture of innovation - one needs to set up structures, policies and incentives that is defined and measured the longevity of a company is determined by the quality of its cultural DNA

There is a great article in HBR where Bahcall explains his formula  really well 

https://hbr.org/2019/03/the-innovation-equation

Company Secretaries need to make the move to Digital and Automation

AI, cloud computing and machine learning is available to organisations  - but it still takes an enormous amount of organisational change, motivation, authority and desire to make it happen.

Who does an organisation go to to help with this digital transformation. 

I believe this is the hottest space in consulting over the next 10-15 years - and if you can nail this..... you as a consultant will be set! 

Below is an article by Andrew Bursill of the  Automic Group on how they are helping Company Secratries “digitally transform”

Cloud computing, e-signatures, block chain, advanced artificial intelligence … there’s no denying technology has changed the way many of us work. Yet, despite the rise and rise of technology and automation solutions, company secretaries are still feeling the burden of manual tasks, many of which are being carried out the same way they were 20 years ago.

According to market research carried out by Automic Group, 72 per cent of company secretaries in Australia feel overwhelmed by the administrative tasks attached to their role. And given today’s strict guidelines and growing emphasis on governance and compliance, the role of the company secretary is now busier and more complex than ever before.

Preparation of ASX forms, manual calculations for share placement capacity, and Board approvals for circular resolutions are among the tasks that cause company secretaries most frustration, according to the research. They are not only stressed by the time it takes to complete these manual processes, but also the inaccuracies that commonly occur due to the manual data entry, and the additional work involved in correcting issues.

Despite these being long-standing pain points for company secretaries, the industry seems to have missed out on the automation technology so many other sectors have been enjoying for years. While broader business software and tools like e-signatures have helped, there has never been a solution purpose-built for company secretaries of ASX-listed entities. And it was this gap that Automic Group set out to fill. 

'We made it our mission to revolutionise the way company secretaries work,' explained Paul Williams, Managing Director of Automic Group explained. 'As a business we are committed to delivering technology-focused, customer-centric software and it just made sense to open up the benefits of technology to company secretaries.'

'We set out to alleviate the manual workload and improve efficiency and compliance. Drawing on the knowledge and expertise of experienced company secretaries and an innovative technology team, we developed the CoSecPRO platform.'

CoSecPRO has been specifically designed to address the pain points Company Secretaries face and automate the way tasks are carried out.

Key functionalities include:

• automation of Securities placement calculation (7.1 and 7.1A) utilising existing registry data
• automation of Appendix 3B (and future replacements) in a form that can be uploaded to the ASX market announcements platform
• director Management which includes onboarding, trading, resignation workflow automation and production of Appendix 3X, 3Y, 3Z and Form 484
• end to end circular resolutions management, including e-sign functionality for Directors integrates with existing Board Management software solutions
• standalone solution offering board management capabilities such as board meeting workflows, agenda management, prioritising action items and minute taking.

The introduction of the platform is an exciting step in the right direction for the governance industry. Company secretaries are currently overwhelmed with responsibilities and the pace of business is not slowing down. As it continues to evolve and grow, automation technologies such as CoSecPRO need to be embraced to ensure greater accuracy, compliance and efficiency into the future.

To find out more about CoSecPRO, visit cosecpro.com.au to register your details.

Experts say US anti-Huawei campaign likely exaggerated

By FRANK BAJAK

https://apnews.com/133c110a53b64a6da8bd449c8d0a9235

Since last year, the U.S. has waged a vigorous diplomatic offensive against the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, claiming that any nation deploying its gear in next-generation wireless networks is giving Beijing a conduit for espionage or worse.

But security experts say the U.S. government is likely exaggerating that threat. Not only is the U.S. case short on specifics, they say, it glosses over the fact that the Chinese don’t need secret access to Huawei routers to infiltrate global networks that already have notoriously poor security.

State-sponsored hackers have shown no preference for one manufacturer’s technology over another, these experts say. Kremlin-backed hackers, for instance, adroitly exploit internet routers and other networking equipment made by companies that are not Russian.

If the Chinese want to disrupt global networks, “they will do so regardless of the type of equipment you are using,” said Jan-Peter Kleinhans, a researcher at the Berlin think tank Neue Verantwortung Stiftung.

One of the most common U.S. fears — that Huawei might install software “backdoors” in its equipment that Chinese intelligence could use to tap into, eavesdrop on or interrupt data transmissions -- strikes some experts as highly unlikely.

Priscilla Moriuchi, who retired from the National Security Agency in 2017 after running its Far East operations, does not believe the Huawei threat is overblown. But she called the odds of the company installing backdoors on behalf of Chinese intelligence “almost zero because of the chance that it would be discovered,” thus exposing Huawei’s complicity.

Moriuchi, now an analyst at the U.S. cybersecurity firm Recorded Future, said she was not aware of the NSA ever finding Huawei backdoors created for Chinese intelligence but also cautioned that it can be extraordinarily difficult, when backdoors are found, to determine who is behind them.

European allies have been reluctant to embrace a blanket anti-Huawei ban even as U.S. officials continue to cast the world’s No. 1 telecom-equipment maker as little more than an untrustworthy surrogate for Beijing’s intelligence services.

The top U.S. diplomat for cybersecurity policy, Robert Strayer, says Huawei is obliged to heed Chinese Communist Party orders by a 2017 intelligence law that “compels their citizens and their companies to participate in intelligence activities.”

Strayer provided no specifics when pressed by reporters Tuesday as to how Huawei gear might pose more of a security threat than other manufacturers’ switches, routers and wireless base stations. The diplomat spoke at Mobile World Congress, the world’s largest wireless trade show, in Barcelona, Spain.

The American rhetoric has included threats.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested in a TV interview last week any use of Huawei equipment could jeopardize U.S. intelligence sharing and might even be a reason to locate military bases elsewhere. The remarks may have been targeted at NATO allies including Poland and the Czech Republic where Huawei has made significant inroads.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. National Security Council declined to comment or to provide any officials to address specifics. A State Department spokesman referred The Associated Press to a press statement on Strayer’s remarks in Barcelona.

Huawei, founded in 1987 by a former military engineer, overtook Sweden’s LM Ericsson in 2017 as the lead company in the market for wireless and internet switching gear. It says it supplies 45 of the world’s top 50 phone companies and has contracts with 30 carriers to test so-called fifth-generation, or 5G, wireless technology.

U.S. companies are not serious competitors in this market, having pulled back over the years. Huawei’s major rivals are European — Ericsson and Finland’s Nokia.

The U.S. has provided no evidence of China planting espionage backdoors in Huawei equipment despite as 2012 congressional report that led the U.S. government and top domestic wireless carriers to ban it and other Chinese manufacturers from their networks.

“The backdrop for this is essentially the rise of China as a tech power in a variety of domains” said Paul Triolo, tech lead at the Eurasia Group risk analysis consultancy. Now, he said, “there is a big campaign to paint Huawei as an irresponsible actor.”

In January, U.S. prosecutors filed criminal charges against Huawei and one of its top executives, alleging the company stole trade secrets and lied to banks about embargo-busting company dealings with Iran. Canada earlier arrested that Huawei executive — who is also the daughter of the company’s founder — at U.S. behest; she is currently awaiting extradition to the U.S.

Huawei has denied wrongdoing. On Thursday it pleaded not guilty to charges that it stole trade secrets from T-Mobile.

One irony of the situation is that the U.S. has actually done what it accuses Huawei of doing. According to top-secret documents released in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the U.S. planted surveillance beacons in network devices and shipped them around the world.

The affected equipment included devices from Cisco Systems, a Silicon Valley company whose routers were blacklisted by Chinese authorities after the Snowden revelations.

Washington’s closest ally has taken a different approach to any potential threats from Huawei. Britain’s National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) long ago placed multiple restrictions on Huawei equipment, including disallowing it in any sensitive networks, agency director Ciaran Martin noted in a speech last week.

According to Kleinhans, who has studied the agency’s practices, Huawei can’t conduct any direct maintenance on mobile base stations in the U.K., and instead must allow local wireless carriers to handle the work. Those carriers can’t use Chinese equipment to conduct any law enforcement wiretapping. The British agency also requires redundancy in critical networks and a variety of equipment suppliers to prevent overreliance on any single manufacturer.

In its annual review of Huawei’s engineering practices published in July, the NCSC found “shortcomings” that “exposed new risks in the U.K. telecommunication networks.” But none were deemed of medium or high priority.

Martin called the problems manageable and not reflective of Chinese hostility — though experts say it’s often difficult to tell if vulnerabilities are simply coding defects or intentional.

“With 5G, some equipment needs to be more trustworthy than ever. But probably not all,” NCSC technical director Ian Levy wrote in a blog.

Like the British, German officials have indicated they’ll reject a blanket Huawei 5G ban.

In December, the head of Germany’s cyber-risk agency, Arne Schoenbohm, said “for such serious decisions as a ban, you need evidence.”

Last week, the nation’s Interior Ministry told The Associated Press “the direct exclusion of a particular manufacturer from the 5G expansion is at the time not legally possible.”

___

Eds: An earlier version of the story incorrectly stated that Moriuchi was among NSA agents tasked with searching for backdoors in Huawei equipment.

___

Frank Jordans in Berlin, Joe McDonald in Beijing and Kelvin Chan in Barcelona, Spain, contributed to this report.

Can Corporates and Startups co-exist?

Great article by Andrew Campbell 

Why is it so hard to achieve innovative outcomes with Startups in a corporate environment? How do you bring a large corporate and a small Startup together to create value?

When it comes to bridging the gap between large corporates and Startups, Slingshot are at the coalface. We’ve run corporate accelerator programs for the NRMA, HCF, ING Direct & Simplot and have worked with over 50 Startups to help them engage with our corporate partners.

However, it is not easy. In this article I share some of the lessons learned along the way, discuss some specific problems we've encountered and outline some of the solutions we've found.

Benefits and value of working together

By working with Startups, a large corporate gets access to a whole ecosystem of innovation. They can crowd-source ideas, get insight into innovative trends and access to high growth investment options.  For more on these benefits see my previous post - /http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/3-reasons-corporates-want-work-startups-andrew-campbell?trk=mp-author-card

 As for Startups, they get access to the two things they need the most; customers and capital. They also get the validation that comes from working with a large corporate partner. 

The problem(s)

The problems are many and varied but stem from the fact that that Startups and corporates are extremely different organisations at opposite ends of the business life cycle. Corporates have tens of thousands of employees and Startups have three. Corporates generally have a large operation with highly specialised employees, whereas Startup founders have to be generalists and cover a variety of roles.

The graphic above shows how these differences play out across four important areas. I've chosen these areas because when trying to bring corporates and Startups together, they come up time and time again. The common theme is that they create barriers to achieving outcomes.

Solutions

Here are the solutions that we've come up with to overcome these problems and achieve commercial deals and investment outcomes for our corporate clients and Startup businesses. 

Language and Thinking - Lean Canvas

A great starting point to create a common understanding and bring people together is a framework created by Ash Maurya called the Lean Canvas. Ash is a Slingshot Mentor and is personally involved in every program we run. Creating a Lean Canvas is a simple process that involves identifying a specific customer segment, understanding their problems, defining a unique value proposition and ensuring that a business model can be wrapped around it all.

Simple but not easy, as it involves speaking to customers and generating insight. However, that's the solution we've found works best. Expose relevant corporate staff to the Lean Canvas method and teach them how to use this powerful framework. The feedback is always positive and it goes a long way to creating a common understanding.

We also invest time with Startups to help them understand corporate thinking and processes, but by far the best outcomes are achieved by having corporates think more like Startups not the other way around. After all, the world probably doesn't need more corporate thinking. 

Decision Making - Minimum Success Criteria & Key Metrics

Decision making is a crucial area if you're trying to achieve outcomes and a point of failure if you don't get it right. A method we've had success with is to apply a minimum success criteria (MSC) to decision making.

A MSC (another of Ash Maurya's concepts) forces people to think of the lowest level of achievement for a project that they would still count as a success. This is not as easy as it sounds and the process can be challenging for participants.

The reality is that a MSC is very different from business case thinking or Big Hairy Audacious Goal thinking. It's crucial however, because it gives you something hard and concrete to anchor decision making to. 

The next step is to build out the Key Metrics that will get you to your definition of success, then test them for validity. Which brings us to the next solution that helps to bridge the divide. 

Risk - Experiments

We routinely teach experiment methods to Startup founders to save them from wasting years of their lives and investor capital building something that no-one wants. In a corporate environment, experiments also work really well to reduce risk and validate assumptions.

We've recently helped a corporate client save $15m through a simple two-week experiment that proved customers didn't want the product that they were going to build.

To bring corporates and Startups together, you need to reduce risk and support decision making. Low cost, rapidly deployed experiments do this really well. 

People - Engagement, Alignment & Buy-in

The most complex piece of a complicated puzzle. In order to build successful innovative products and businesses, we have had to overcome corporate inertia caused by misalignment of culture, incentives and agendas. One of the ways we have achieved this has been to create our own corporate engagement process.

To start, we explore the mutual objectives of a Startup and the relevant stakeholders in the corporate. Then we identify areas of alignment or misalignment. Then when moving towards a trial we deliberately identify obstacles and where possible avoid, or overcome them.

If we come across intractable misalignment we advise both parties to end the engagement quickly to minimise the time investment.

Even when it doesn’t result in an outcome, this process of engaging with Startups leads to internal insight for our corporate partners. What often follows is the modification of incentive structures and KPIs, leadership development and culture change. When this activity is continued for several cycles over two to three years, the insight and outcomes ultimately result in genuine corporate transformation. 

Summary

The challenges involved in bringing Startups and corporates together for mutual benefit are complex and multi-faceted. However, they are not completely intractable and can be solved with perseverance, insight and the right methods. Solving these problems, creates significant commercial value. Corporates gain an edge on their existing operations, access revenue from new products and over time transform their businesses. Startups get immediate access to customers, funding and validation. The accelerator programs we run at Slingshot, enable both parties to achieve these outcomes faster, accelerating business development, saving years and creating competitive advantage.

To see this post and other useful resources that relate to startups and corporate innovation, visit: 

http://www.slingshotters.com/corporate-innovation/solve-startup-corporate-engagement-problems

5G will be the backbone of our future communication infrastructure

The 5G rollout is a big deal, with 3 main competitors in the race.

Nokia, Ericsson and Huawei are the main competitors, with Huawei currently having a significant lead in the 5G technology race 

Nokia’s CEO Rajeev Suri said that 5G ecosystem is expected to deliver 25 times faster speed of 1 gigabit per second compared to 4G, and with the roll out of the next generation technology by 2021, security and reliability will be a top priority for businesses.

Million of trade secrets will flow on the network . Enterprises and Governments will rely on operators for providing the network for critical functions. Essential trade secrets will flow over those networks

The 5G speed will enable the  Internet of Things which will be a key driver drive in 5G business enabling productivity growth to historical levels.

According to a Nokia Bell lab study, business opportunity for telecom from 5G technology is expected to double from USD 500 billion to USD 1 trillion by 2028, and double again in the next 5 years. 

Governments and enterprises will rely on operators for providing network for critical functions (as they have done from 4G, 3G and telcos over the past 100 years! 

We all agree that ethics and security cannot be compromised, 

Suri quite rightly says that cheaper is not always better. Better is better. When it comes to network security, better really matters - the question is..... 

Many countries are banning Huawei citing security concerns.

The questions to ask are 

• Is Huawei the best? 

• Is the Huawei ban based on the trade war - or are potential security breeches a valid concern? 

• Is it not the Telcos that one should worry about re potential security breeches and not the infrastructure suppliers?

• Should a country rely on one infrastructure supplier or more? 

All interesting questions! 

Jumping Jive and some of the best dancing in 1943

Fred Astaire said it was ‘the greatest dancing he had ever seen on film’. In a dance performance for the ages, the Nicholas Brothers, Fayard (1914–2006) and Harold (1921–2000), dazzled audiences with their acrobatic routine to Cab Calloway’s hit song, Jumpin’ Jive. Not only that, but the routine was unrehearsed and what you see was the first take! [source] 

The performance was from the 1943 musical film, Stormy Weather.

Diversity and Inclusion in the Actuarial Profession in 2019