The prospect of technology led disruption has the world excited.
I have no arguments with futuristic scenarios of massive changes technology is about to unleash on humankind.
I worry about the WHO and HOW of these changes.
Let me explain. No doubt, new enterprises will set the ball of transformation rolling. For the mobility paradigm to change we need a Tesla and an UBER. But once in motion, a whole lot of the traditional players will join the party and shape the change in their own ways to the extent that the original innovators may even be relegated to insignificance eventually.
Some legacy businesses will catch up and lead the transformation while some may be too late and are likely to face an existential crisis.
So, what differentiates one from the other? What is surviving and thriving in a volatile tech-business world about? Is innovation a mandatory condition for survival?
My take on these issues:
1. Not everyone needs to be an innovator. Being able to spot the trend and taking timely transformative action is more critical.
2. Execution is the key.
3. IT is only a facilitator. Tech led change is primarily the responsibility of business and functional heads. You can't afford to remain ignorant about technology, specially if you are not in IT :-)
4. Transformation requires placing bets on the future. A few well thought big bets with committed execution bandwidth are better than many half-hearted initiatives
5. Co-opting external experts is a must have for many reasons but most importantly because big change is a full time project which is better not done than half done.
Would love to know your views and experience about transformation journeys.
Comments