O futuro não se subsidia — constrói-se.

Ontem no FT uma coluna trazia "AI may fatally wound online advertising model, warns Berners-Lee". O artigo começa assim:

"The multibillion-dollar advertising model that has underpinned the internet economy could "fall apart" due to the rise of generative artificial intelligence, according to the inventor of the World Wide Web.

Speaking at the FT Future of AI Summit in London yesterday, Sir Tim Berners-Lee warned that large language models (LLMs) might eventually replace humans in consuming the internet.

"If web pages are all read by LLMs, then people ask the LLM for the data and the LLM just produces the result, the whole ad-based business model of the web starts to fall apart," he said.

This system threatens the collapse of the decades-long advertising-based model that has led to the likes of Google and Meta becoming multitrillion-dollar businesses on the back of powerful ad networks."

A implicação mais profunda é que o tráfego humano — base do valor publicitário — torna-se irrelevante. É uma ameaça ao célebre; se é de graça, tu és o produto. 

Ao ler as declarações de Tim Berners-Lee e dos restantes participantes no FT Future of AI Summit, impressiona a serenidade com que enfrentam o abalo sísmico que a inteligência artificial está a provocar. Não há negação, nem nostalgia.

Há lucidez pragmática ao estilo Mr Spock: o modelo económico que sustentou a internet durante 25 anos — a publicidade baseada na atenção humana - está a esgotar-se. E há uma pergunta prática: o que vem a seguir e como o criamos?

O contraste com o que se passa em Portugal, a reacção dominante da imprensa tradicional à revolução digital tem sido quase a oposta: esperar protecção em vez de procurar reinvenção.

É o reflexo de uma cultura institucional que encara a mudança tecnológica como uma tragédia que exige indemnização, e não como uma oportunidade de reinvenção.

Enquanto uns, lá fora, se reúnem para imaginar como reconstruir o modelo económico da informação, por cá discute-se como manter vivo um modelo morto com fundos públicos.

O problema é que proteger modelos obsoletos não os torna sustentáveis — apenas atrasa o inevitável. Enquanto se discute a criação de fundos de apoio à imprensa, as grandes mudanças acontecem noutro plano: a IA está a transformar a forma como a informação é criada, distribuída e consumida.

Cada euro gasto a tentar conservar o passado é um euro não investido em experimentar novas formas de credibilidade, de financiamento e de relação com o público.

Talvez o que falta à imprensa portuguesa não seja apoio, mas estratégia: perceber que o seu valor não está em vender notícias, mas em construir confiança num mundo saturado de informação gerada por máquinas. Essa poderia ser a sua vantagem competitiva.

Japão - uma mudança estrutural profunda

Não há “crise” macro no Japão, mas há uma mudança estrutural profunda. Estes cortes parece que resultam de quatro forças que se combinaram nos últimos 2/3 anos:

• Pressão por rentabilidade e ROE - A Bolsa de Tóquio passou a expor empresas com baixo price-to-book; os investidores activistas ganharam terreno; e os conselhos de admionistração querem mostrar “disciplina de capital”.
• Demografia e rigidez do emprego para toda a vida - A força de trabalho está a encolher, mas está envelhecida e é cara. A lei permite pacotes de saída voluntária generosos dos 50 anos para cima.
• Mudança tecnológica brusca - A electrónica de consumo perdeu quota de mercado para a Coreia e a China. O sector automóvel vira-se para os veículos eléctricos, software e Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). 
• A IA/automação substitui funções administrativas.
• Economia global volátil, iene fraco, margens sob pressão de custos - Energia e matérias--primas importadas ficaram mais caras, mesmo com as exportações a subirem. As empresas estão a refazer os seus portefólios migrando para para actividades com margens mais altas.

Não é um sintoma de recessão, mas sim de reformulação estratégica num país onde o “emprego para a vida” já não é sustentável. 

Num postal futuro vou ligar estes números ao que estou a ouvir num longo podcast sobre a IA e os seus agentes.

So it begins

Primeiro, o que é a Chegg? 

A Chegg é uma empresa americana de tecnologia educacional que oferece aluguer de livros físicos e digitais, tutoria online, ajuda com trabalhos de casa e outros serviços para estudantes. Começou como uma empresa de aluguer de livros, mas evoluiu para uma plataforma de aprendizagem mais abrangente, oferecendo diversos serviços para apoiar os estudantes nas suas necessidades educativas. O modelo de subscrição da Chegg disponibiliza soluções para exercícios, respostas detalhadas de manuais, tutoria e preparação para exames.

Entretanto, encontrei este artigo no WSJ, "How ChatGPT Brought Down an Online Education Giant":

"While many companies are figuring out how artificial intelligence will change the way they do business, Chegg is trying to avoid becoming its first major victim.

The online-education company was for many years the go-to source for students who wanted help with their homework, or a potential tool for plagiarism. The shift to virtual learning during the pandemic sent subscriptions and its stock price to record highs.

Then came ChatGPT. Suddenly students had a free alternative to the answers Chegg spent years developing with thousands of contractors in India. Instead of "Chegging" the solution, they began canceling their subscriptions and plugging questions into chatbots. Since ChatGPT's launch,

Chegg has lost more than half a million subscribers who pay up to $19.95 a month for prewritten answers to textbook questions and on-demand help from experts. Its stock is down 99% from early 2021, erasing some $14.5 billion of market value. Bond traders have doubts the company will continue bringing in enough cash to pay its debts."

O ChatGPT oferece respostas instantâneas, personalizadas e de baixo custo ou gratuitas para as dúvidas académicas dos estudantes. Ao contrário do modelo de subscrição da Chegg, os estudantes podem usar o ChatGPT sem custos, eliminando as barreiras financeiras e reduzindo a atractividade de pagar por uma subscrição da Chegg.

Modelos de inteligência artificial como o ChatGPT estão disponíveis a qualquer hora e podem ajudar com uma variedade de questões académicas, desde apoio na redacção de ensaios até à resolução passo a passo de problemas de matemática e ciências. Este nível de versatilidade está, muitas vezes, além do alcance das soluções mais específicas da Chegg.

Um exemplo interessante das disrupções a caminho por causa da inteligência artificial.

O que me vem logo à cabeça é a frase da coluna ao lado:

"When something is commoditized, an adjacent market becomes valuable"

Qual o mercado adjacente? O que precisa? Que preços podem ser praticados?  

Reposicionar o negócio actual (parte II)

Parte I.

Terminei o postal da parte I com este trecho e esta imagem:

"É como se algumas empresas olhassem para a actividade comercial como:"

Não o escrevi, mas na minha mente ficou a palavra "sorte". Empresas que confiam na sorte.

Entretanto, ontem em "Dual Transformation" encontrei:

"we highly recommend reading Competing Against Luck, a 2016 book by Clayton Christensen, our colleague David Duncan, Taddy Hall, and Karen Dillon) or rely on the accumulated experience of your team to provide detailed answers to these five questions.

1. Why have people historically bought from us?

2. What do we provide that they really care about?

3. What is the disruptive shift in our market?

4. What used to matter to them but doesn't really anymore?

5. What do they wish we could do that we don't?"

Interessante o uso da palavra "Luck" no título referido acima. O livro é para ajudar a competir com aqueles que apenas confiam na sorte.

Que valor único, que valor diferente é que uma empresa é capaz de fornecer aos seus clientes? Qual o job to be done? Os clientes contratam produtos ou serviços para realizar tarefas específicas nas suas vidas, quais? 

O sucesso reside em compreender e desbloquear o progresso funcional, emocional ou social que os clientes procuram. É a velha ideia de Peter Drucker de que os clientes pagam pela satisfação, e não apenas pelos produtos ou serviços. Por isso, as empresas devem concentrar-se em entender os problemas e objectivos subjacentes dos clientes, em vez de simplesmente vender produtos ou serviços. 

Os clientes podem ter dificuldade em articular as suas necessidades, mas podem explicar os seus objectivos e preferências, orientando as empresas nos seus esforços de transformação.

É este exercício que as empresas dos sectores tradicionais precisam de fazer. Não basta esperar pela próxima mudança da maré conjuntural.

Reposicionar o negócio actual

Em "Dual Transformation" li:

"The Circle of Disruption

...

In fact, we believe that it is the greatest challenge facing leaders today. Creating a new business from scratch is hard, but executives of incumbents have the dual challenge of creating new businesses while simultaneously staving off never-ending attacks on existing operations, which provide vital cash flow and capabilities to invest in growth. The hastening pace of disruptive change means leaders have precious little time to respond. In fact, the time when leaders need to be most prepared for a change is right at the moment when they feel they're at the very top of their game."

O livro é sobre a disrupção tecnológica, mas talvez seja interessante para as vítimas de outro tipo de disrupção.

Quando o negócio actual está a definhar é preciso:

1. Reposicionar o negócio actual para aumentar a sua resiliência
2. Criar um novo motor de crescimento.
3. Criar sinergias entre os dois.

Escrevo isto e recordo um documento onde uma empresa olimpicamente ignorava o ponto 1, fundamental para financiar o ponto 2. Uma geografia nova com um preço médio de venda 35% superior à média actual, e um cliente novo numa geografia estagnada, com um preço 75% acima do preço médio praticado nesse mercado.

É como se algumas empresas olhassem para a actividade comercial como:

O que está do outro lado do buraco é um mistério.

Evoluir na paisagem económica

Ontem no JdN em "Alemanha cola-se a Espanha nas vendas de componentes - As exportações de componentes para a indústria automóvel cresceram 26,9% em abril, o 12º mês consecutivo de subida homóloga." sublinhei:

"Após um máximo mensal histórico em março, quando as exportações de componentes automóveis ascenderam a 1.112 milhões de euros, as vendas destes produtos ao exterior cifraram-se em 899 milhões em abril, uma subida homóloga de 26,9%, indicou a Associação de Fabricantes para a Indústria Automóvel (AFIA).

A associação destaca que este foi o 12º mês consceutivo de crescimento em termos homólogos.

...

Em termos de crescimento homólogo, as vendas para Espanha subiram 21% no acumulados dos primeiros quatro meses do ano.

Já o mercado alemão apresenta, para igual período, um aumento no valor das vendas na ordem dos 29,5%, o crescimento mais expressivo entre os cinco principais destinos das exportações do sector."

Recordo o que escrevi aqui há dias:

"Just why should the organization renew itself when there is no crisis? 

...

Nothing breeds complacency like success. The point for maximum strategic paranoia is when you are at the top of your game." 

Ao ler o artigo de ontem no JdN fiz logo a ligação para um artigo do passado dia 9 de Junho no Eurointelligence de Wolfgang Münchau, "How an industry declines":

"There is a lot of confusion about de-industrialisation. It does not necessarily mean less industry and fewer factories. It means less money - a falling share of industry in an economy's value-added. That has a lot of important consequences, but not necessarily the ones people expect, or discuss.

...

The most important impact of the slowly creeping de-industrialisation is a loss of profits, not necessarily a loss of activity. That translates into relatively lower wages. 

...

The diesel scandal was the last hooray of the German car industry. 

They will still make cars in Germany in the future. But the industry will be dominated by other plays, it will employ fewer people, it will feed fewer suppliers, and its role in society will diminish."

No final desta leitura recordo que procurei mentalmente fazer um paralelismo com a deslocalização do têxtil alemão para Portugal nos anos 60. 

A ser verdade o que escreve Wolfgang Münchau, a AFIA devia agora estar a promover a paranóia estratégica entre os seus membros ("The point for maximum strategic paranoia is when you are at the top of your game"). Quantos iriam ouvir esse apelo?

No livro que acabei de ler na passada segunda-feira, "Lead and disrupt: how to solve the innovator's dilemma" de Charles A O' Reilly III and Michael L. Tushman, os autores contam a estória da empresa Ball Corporation:

"Ball is recognized around the world for its high-quality metal and PET plastic food and beverage containers, and for its leading aerospace technology products and services." 

O livro começa o texto sobre a Ball da seguinte forma:

"The story began in 1880 when Frank Ball and his four brothers began making wood-jacketed tin cans to carry kerosene for lanterns. However, soon after their founding, glass jars became an economical alternative to wooden buckets, so the Ball brothers quickly converted their business to produce glass jars, including what would become their most successful offering, the screw-top Ball jar that generations of Americans have used for home canning."

Esta empresa ficou-me na memória pela sua capacidade de evoluir na paisagem económica do seu tempo.

Para reflexão

No The Wall Street Journal de ontem:

"A major home builder is teaming with a Texas startup to create a community of 100 3-D printed homes near Austin, gearing up for what would be by far the biggest development of this type of housing in the U.S. 

Lennar Corp. and construction-technology firm Icon are poised to start building next year at a site in the Austin metro area, the companies said. While Icon and others have built 3-D printed housing before, this effort will test the technology’s ability to churn out homes and generate buyer demand on a much larger scale.

...

Skilled tradesmen are a dying breed,” said Eric Feder, president of LenX, Lennar’s venture-capital and innovation unit. “So there have to be alternative building solutions to help with this labor deficit.”"

Minerar mercados

Em 2015 chamei aos disruptores de mineradores:

"o seu negócio não é low-cost? Então, agradeça aos membros low-cost o trabalho de "mineração" que fazem, eles criam os seus potenciais futuros clientes. Eles "ensinam-lhes" o bê-à-bá da actividade. Depois, alguns ficarão sempre por aí, mas outros ganharão uma paixão e sentirão uma necessidade genuína de subir para outros desafios. É aí que entra a sua empresa, dedicada a servir um grupo que quer mais do que o básico. Para isso, precisa de ter uma estratégia clara e estar alinhado com ela."

Recordo este postal de 2020, "O low-cost como um aliado". 

Agora, em “Organizing for the New Normal” de Constantinos Markides encontro:

"when we look at one specific disruption that is affecting numerous companies: the arrival of a new and disruptive business model in an established market. If there is one thing we know about disruptive business models it is that they grow by attracting two different types of customers: the customers that are currently served by the established companies, and entirely new customers that enter the market for the first time.

...

When it arrives, the new business model attracts customers that are different from the customers of the core business. 

...

These “different” customers are what sustain the new business model in the short term, but the innovators who introduced the business model keep improving it year after year until it reaches a point that it becomes “good enough” for the customers of the core business. That’s when these core customers begin to switch to the new model and that is when the cannibalization of the core business begins."

 

Parece que o futuro já anda por cá, mal distribuído...

"MIT and Google could jointly craft two-year degrees in STEM. The myth/magic of campuses and geography is no longer a constraining factor—most programs will be hybrid soon, dramatically increasing enrollments among the best brands. MIT/Google could enroll a hundred thousand students at $25,000 per year in tuition (a bargain), yielding $5 billion for a two-year program that would have margins rivaling . . . MIT and Google. Bocconi/Apple, Carnegie Mellon/Amazon, UCLA/Netflix, University of Washington/Microsoft . . . you get the idea."

Em "Post Corona" Scott Galloway escreve sobre a revolução que ele vê no futuro das universidades. Entretanto, ontem ao ler o FT do passado Sábado encontro:

"Jack Ma’s elite business academy has been forced to suspend classes following pressure from Beijing as authorities tighten their chokehold on the Chinese tech billionaire’s empire.

Hupan University, an executive training programme reputedly as hard to get into as Harvard, halted classes for new students set to begin at the end of March, according to people close to the institution. It was unclear when they would resume.

...

Ma led a group of industrial and tech figures to set up Hupan in his home town of Hangzhou in 2015 with the aim of teaching entrepreneurship, business management and corporate culture to a select group of high achievers."

Parece que o futuro já anda por cá, mal distribuído... 

Um provinciano muito à frente

No FT, edição americana, de ontem podia ler-se "Coronavirus rips a hole in newspapers’ business models":

"Our thesis is you have to invest in a product to have a chance at the digital media business. [Netflix chief executive] Reed Hastings believes that. What is striking to me is how few people [in news] have tried this. A lot of people are just trying to keep things from falling away.” The New York Times on Tuesday cut 68 jobs, largely in advertising, sparing the newsroom.

.

‘The industry was so flush’

Industry executives admit that the news business responded disastrously to the advent of the internet. Premium content was given away for free, while the publisher’s role between reader and advertiser was left wide open for others to intermediate, or replace.

.

“We were extraordinarily naive, because the industry was so flush,” says Terry Egger, a veteran of the news business who recently retired as publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer. “In the mid-1990s, there was so much profit . . . the internet was a novelty not taken seriously.

...

The question is how far the subscriber model will stretch and whether it could ever replace the income from advertising. “Subscription revenue is more sustainable, it is recurrent, it has a lot of advantages,” says Kristin Skogen Lund, chief executive of Schibsted, the biggest publisher in Scandinavia, the region with the world’s highest density of news subscriptions. “The problem . . . is that the revenue base is simply not large enough. You would need to charge so much for a subscription to sustain the entire cost of running a media site.”

Recordar "O futuro do jornalismo" (Dezembro de 2017) e "Uma novela sobre Mongo (parte XV)" (Janeiro de 2017)

"recovery from the coronavirus crisis will instead require "discontinuous transformation""

Outro interessante artigo do Financial Times do passado dia 15 de Junho, "When business survival is at stake, it pays to have a discontinuity plan":

"So for many business and industries, recovery from the coronavirus crisis will instead require "discontinuous transformation" — a change not just in the rate but also the direction of travel, and not through mere incremental moves. Such radical reassessment of capabilities, operations and even the business model itself could become a routine necessity. 

...

Finance plays a key role in this type of rethinking and reorientation. Traditional forecasting methods and return on investment (ROI) benchmarks may need re-evaluation. The types of linear progress that finance managers have historically sought will become obsolete at many companies because of the economic disruption caused by coronavirus. 

...

First, transformation can occur without large capital expenditures —indeed, new capital will not help if the approach is wrong to begin with. The trajectory of change is difficult to discern at the start, and becomes clear only as the journey unfolds. 

.

By committing large sums up front, before the steps required are apparent, management creates a risk of significant waste; if backtracking is needed, there will be heavy capital loss as well as delay to factor in. Paradoxically, slower spending speeds up change: to borrow the US Navy Seals' saying: "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast."

...

Third, executives should not underestimate what they can do with savings in times of discontinuous transformation. Big cost reductions can flow from dismantling an existing business in favour of a new model. Liquidity will surely be a big issue for financial managers as they navigate a recovery from the economic impact of coronavirus, so such savings could be a lifeline for many companies. Finally, and on the other side of the ledger, liquidity can also be protected by not prematurely dismantling existing revenue streams that can help fund the transformation. The key is to tap these sources while not allowing them to impede progress by providing a false sense of security. 

...

This is not the only cultural shift that leaders need to assimilate. Traditional hierarchies and routines loosen during discontinuous transformation, with employees becoming empowered to think and act in new ways, and new types of collaboration across functions and teams emerging.

...

While hierarchy serves a valid corporate purpose, that of ensuring accountability, it can also stifle creativity if it is too rigid. As companies emerge into the new economic landscape that coronavirus has given rise to, the capacity for creativity will be more valuable than ever. In an era of discontinuity, "business as usual" is a high-risk proposition." 

As empresas supostamente protegidas pelo lay-off terão alguma motivação para testar estas descontinuidades? Os zombies não são conhecidos por rasgos estratégicos.

As disguised blessings não são oferecidas, são conquistadas, são desenhadas.

Aprender com o futuro (parte I)

Depois de ter visto os vídeos apresentados em "Generative Listening" fui em busca da bibliografia de Otto Scharmer e fixei-me em dois títulos:

• Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges
• The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications

O primeiro título tem tudo a ver com as conversas oxigenadoras... e também com o tema do calçado e do têxtil precisarem de uma nova abordagem, para ultrapassarem um modelo que parece que ficou fora do seu prazo de validade. Daí o "leading from the future as it emerges"... o futuro agir como a causa... o retorno ao bom velho Ortega y Gasset "O meu presente não existe senão graças ao meu futuro".

Entretanto, optei pela leitura do "The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications" porque aparece como um resumo das ideias do autor. Ontem de manhã, apesar da chuva, mergulhei numa caminhada e leitura:

“We live in a moment of profound possibility and disruption. A moment that is marked by the dying of an old mindset and logic of organizing. And one that is marked by the rise of a new awareness and way of activating generative social fields. [Moi ici: Mais tarde o autor descreve o significado deste termo] What is dying and disintegrating is a world of Me First, bigger is better, and special interest group-driven decision making that has led us into a state of organized irresponsibility. [Moi ici: Até aqui o bigger is better a levar tareia. A malta que se reúne nos Encontros da Junqueira continua mergulhada no século XX]
What is being born is less clear. It has to do with shifting our consciousness from ego-system to eco-system awareness—an awareness that attends to the well-being of all.  [Moi ici: Tudo acerca dos ecossistemas do negócio e da regra de maximização do bem comum]
...
 [Moi ici: Corro o risco de usar e abusar do exemplo de Zapatero que ainda há dias referi em "O paradoxo dos peritos", mas reparem no trech que se segue] My first insight is quite elemental. There are two different sources of learning: (1) learning by reflecting on the past and (2) learning by sensing and actualizing emerging future possibilities.
.
All traditional organizational learning methods operate with the same learning model: learning by reflecting on past experiences. But then I saw time and again that in real organizations most leaders face challenges that cannot be responded to just by reflecting on the past. Sometimes past experiences are not particularly helpful. Sometimes they are the very obstacles that keep a team from looking at a situation with fresh eyes.
.
In other words, learning from the past is necessary but not sufficient. All disruptive challenges require us to go further. They require us to slow down, stop, sense the bigger driving forces of change, let go of the past and let come the future that wants to emerge.
But what does it take to learn from the emerging future? When I started to ask this question, many people looked at me with a blank stare: “Learning from the future? What are you talking about?” Many told me it was a wrongheaded question.
.
Yet it was that very question that has organized my research journey for more than two decades. What sets us apart as human beings is that we can connect to the emerging future. That is who we are.   We can break the patterns of the past and create new patterns at scale.
...
Let me say this in different words. We have the gift to engage with two very different qualities and streams of time. One of them is a quality of the present moment that is basically an extension of the past. The present moment is shaped by what has been. The second is a quality of the present moment that functions as a gateway to a field of future possibilities. The present moment is shaped by what is wanting to emerge. [Moi ici: Ah! Ortega y Gasset] That quality of time, if connected to, operates from presencing the highest future potential. The word presencing blends “sensing” with “presence.” It means to sense and actualize one’s highest future potential. Whenever we deal with disruption, it is this second stream of time that matters most. Because without that connection we tend to end up as victims rather than co-shapers of disruption.”

Lembram-se de Boyd e da rapidez? Quando não se conhece o futuro, quando se procura aprender com o futuro que está a emergir, a rapidez é fundamental, e as organizações são tanto mais rápidas quanto mais colaborativa for a aprendizagem de todos e por todos. Não chega o líder iluminado.

Continua.

Quantos projectos?

Ontem de manhã li o artigo "Learning for a Living" e logo no início sublinhei:

“Get ready for an age in which we are all in tech,” he had told them, “whether you work in the tech industry or not.”

E sorri. Sorri, porque foi o que pensei ao iniciar a leitura de “Zone to Win - Organizing to Compete in an Age of Disruption” de Geoffrey A. Moore, um velho conhecido deste blogue (o primeiro livro que comprei dele foi em 2007). Por exemplo, ontem durante a caminhada matinal ao olhar para a figura:

Pensei nas empresas de calçado que depois de uma feira desanimadora em Garda começam a pensar seriamente em mudar de vida.

• Performance zone - “This is the engine room for operating established franchises on proven business models. The focus is on material revenue performance derived from established businesses that are sustaining to the status quo. It is home to the organizations that make the offers you sell and sell the offers you make. ... The importance of maintaining the viability of the performance zone can hardly be overstated. It is the source of more than 90 percent of the enterprise’s revenues and well north of 100 percent of its profits.” [Moi ici: Fundamental continuar a vender, produzir, entregar, facturar, receber e cumprir os compromissos]
• Productivity zone - “The focus is on applying sustaining innovation to productivity-enabling initiatives targeted primarily at the performance zone with the bulk of the ROI expected to fall into Horizon 1. These initiatives are delivered via programs and systems for ensuring regulatory compliance, efficient operations, and effective competitive performance. The normal challenge for the productivity zone is to manage the tensions among its three core deliverables—compliance, efficiency, and effectiveness—without subordinating any one of them to the other two.” [Moi ici: A facturação está a baixar, o próximo ciclo de crescimento ainda não está assegurado, é preciso aumentar a produtividade. Pode passar por reduzir gama de produtos, pode passar por encolher, pode passar por deixar de recorrer a subcontratação, ou passar a recorrer a subcontratação]
• Incubation zone - “the incubation zone plays enabling host to fast-growing offers in emerging categories and markets that are not yet producing a material amount of revenue. Its charter is a simple one: Position the enterprise to catch the next wave.” [Moi ici: Qualquer empresa deve ter um "recreio" onde se fazem experiências. Por exemplo, ontem mandaram-me um pdf com este gráfico] 
  

• Transformation zone - “the place in an established enterprise where a disruptive business model goes to be scaled to material size. It is primarily a tool for offense, the goal being to scale rapidly to a stable, material, net new line of business, one that constitutes 10 percent or more of the enterprise’s current revenues, on a growth trajectory that promises both increased size and superior profitability.” [Moi ici: Aqui, o risco principal é ter o novo modelo de negócio gerido por quem tem o mindset formatado no nível anterior do jogo. Por exemplo, ter medo de afectar a eficiência, quando o novo modelo pede rapidez acioma de tudo]

Quantos projectos é que a sua empresa tem na Incubation zone? Tem algum projecto na Transformation zone? O que está a fazer para limpar na Productivity zone?

Para reflexão

Um texto para reflexão:

“Burroughs • Sperry Univac • Honeywell • Control Data • MSA • McCormack & Dodge • Cullinet • Cincom • ADR • CA • DEC • Data General • Wang • Prime • Tandem • Daisy • Calma • Valid • Apollo • Silicon Graphics • Sun • Atari • Osborne • Commodore • Casio • Palm • Sega • WordPerfect • Lotus • Ashton Tate • Borland • Informix • Ingres • Sybase • BEA • Seibel • PowerSoft • Nortel • Lucent • 3Com • Banyan • Novell • Pacific Bell • Qwest • America West • Nynex • Bell South • Netscape • MySpace • Inktomi • Ask Jeeves • AOL • Blackberry • Motorola • Nokia • Sony
.
I have spent the entirety of my business career working in the technology sector, and I can assure you, if you are looking for next waves to catch, there is no better place to hang out. Nevertheless, there are fifty-six companies on this list of companies that failed to do so. Look at the names. These were not the losers; these were the winners! These were not our worst management teams; these were our best! And yet every single one of them missed every single one of their efforts to catch the next big wave—hundreds and hundreds of misses with nary a single hit. Why is this so hard?It turns out, to disrupt someone else’s business, you have to add a net new line of business to your own portfolio. This is, in effect, a form of elective surgery, one that can be scheduled at will. Because it is voluntary, because we get to choose the time and place of engagement, we are led to believe we have things under control. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The real truth is most companies take run after run at this hurdle, but each time, at the critical juncture, that moment when you have to either go big or go home, they shy away. Normally it is not until their own legacy business comes under attack that they can summon the will to change, but by then it is usually too late.”

Trechos retirados de “Zone to Win: Organizing to Compete in an Age of Disruption” de Geoffrey A. Moore.

Sintomas de um futuro a caminho

"Any business can invest in advanced technologies, but creating a workforce that’s ready to use them is much harder. It requires workers who can understand data, serve customers across virtual and physical interaction points, and keep up with fast-changing software languages. Unfortunately, traditional education systems often don’t teach these skills. Most university professors lack real industry experience, and curriculum development cycles can be as long as seven years. This timeline is a problem. A global survey of 4,300 managers and executives shows that 90% of workers feel they need to update their skills annually just to contend.
.
To close the gap between where education leaves off and the needs of the 21st century begin, some companies and governments are starting to take matters into their own hands."

Trecho retirado de "How Companies and Governments Can Advance Employee Education"

"Whenever a system has a sufficient number of badly served constituents, an inflection point has fertile ground to take root. I believe that alternative forms of credentialing, in which some kind of respected accreditation body certifies skills based on the level of the skill, rather than the degree, are beginning to gain real traction.
There is definitely demand. The presence of so many online resources and other tools that individuals can use to learn is creating a hunger for alternative certification systems. Considerable experimentation has been conducted with students using online badges and verified certificates to complement their traditional transcripts. While these things have been around for a while, the notion that they might substitute for a conventional degree has been met with ongoing skepticism.
This is changing. Evidence from a LinkedIn insiders’ survey of knowledgeable learning and development specialists shows a softening of the traditional model. Sixty percent of those surveyed believed that employers are well on their way to skills-based-hiring—in other words, “choosing candidates based on what they can do, rather than degree or pedigree.” Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they believe employers will start to place more value on nontraditional credentials, with one respondent going so far as to say that traditional credentials are “boring."

Trecho retirado de "Seeing Around Corners" de  Rita McGrath.

Uma revolução a caminho "47 dias incipientes e depois, de repente..."

"the nature of competition has changed"

"new technology isn’t driving most disruption today. Consumers are. And that in turn means incumbents require a different kind of innovation in order to thrive—not technological innovation, but a transformation in business models. A business model describes how a company works—how it creates value and to whom; how it captures value and from whom. Innovating your business model requires a deep knowledge of customers. You must understand what your customers want, and in particular, the main steps or activities they undertake in order to satisfy their desires. You need to understand their value chain.
...
In today’s new wave of disruption, upstart firms are breaking apart these chains, offering customers the chance to fulfill just one or a few activities with them, and leaving incumbents to fulfill the rest. [Moi ici: Parei e recordei as dezenas de discussões em que dirigentes de PMEs me asseguraram que os clientes preferiam uma one-stop-shop. Pois!] I call this process of breaking apart the chain of consumption “decoupling.” Startups decouple to gain a foothold in the market, and they grow by offering to fill a specific activity for customers—what I call “coupling.” Both the initial decoupling and the subsequent coupling allow startups to quickly steal a substantial amount of market share at incumbents’ expense. In short, the startups become disruptors.
...
[Moi ici: Por fim, um trecho sobre Mongo] 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the nature of competition has changed. Most industries used to have only two or at most a few major global players. Today industries contain many competitors, mostly small ones acting globally. Game theory loses much of its value when one larger, more predictable player has to play a strategic “chess match” with not one, not two, but hundreds and in some cases thousands of small, unpredictable players.”

Trecho retirado de  “Unlocking the Customer Value Chain” de Thales S. Teixeira.

"who can best improve someone’s financial health"

Recomendo vivamente a leitura de "The Lesson From Acorns And Stash: People Don't Want Savings Accounts, They Want Help Saving Money":

"The change in the market isn't with young Millennials opening Neobank accounts (or more accurately, debit-related payment accounts), but with:
.
Older Millennials and Gen Xers, and
Savings tools like Acorns and Stash.
...
The overall adoption percentages of Neobanks by generation are small--but the percentage of Older Millennials with a Neobank account is nearly double that of Young Millennials.
...
In contrast to Neobank adoption, US consumers have opened more than 7 million accounts with fintech savings tools like Acorns and Stash. Importantly, those consumers said those tools helped them save nearly $5.6 billion in 2018.
.
Among Older Millennials and Gen Xers--and even Baby Boomers--roughly twice as many are using savings tools like Acorns and Stash than have a Neobank account. And among Young Millennials, it's about three times as many.
...
[Moi ici: O trecho que se segue é muito boa] The lesson here is that consumers want help managing--i.e., improving and optimizing--their financial lives. They don't want an "account" to replace their existing accounts simply because it comes from a digital-only provider..
The relative success of tools like Acorns and Stash provides a clue as to why so many banks haven't seen much success from their personal financial management (PFM) efforts: Tools that monitor or track one's financial life are different from tools that optimize or improve performance.
...
The lesson from Acorns and Stash's success is that banks will need to compete on who can best improve someone’s financial health (for a given cost)--and not on who has the best rates and fees. The winners will be the financial institutions who can deliver on improving financial health--and prove it."

Por cá, os bancos, a coberto da protecção aos incumbentes, andam entretidos a aumentar ou a criar taxas e taxinhas por serviços. Ou seja, a espremer o modelo de negócio do século passado, em vez de seduzir clientes... uma outra versão de "Cambão versus estratégias baseadas nos clientes-alvo".

Talvez ganhassem alguma coisa em ler "The Problem With Problems"

Provocação!

Consideremos a série de postais, "Giants invariably descend into suckiness" (parte IX)". Consideremos a quantidade de postais que aqui escrevemos ao longo dos anos sobre como Mongo é un-friendly para os gigantes. Consideremos o descalabro das empresas grandes para fazer face às excepções e às empresas jovens e especialistas, tipo Halo-Top ou Chobani.

E o que se pensa por cá?

"No documento que foi apresentado esta terça-feira, é explicado que o objectivo é "maximizar" a eficiência dos fundos comunitários, "apoiando e consolidando as Empresas-Ancora de cada cluster, tradicional ou tecnológico, onde se vão concentrar os processos de experimentação, protótipos e soluções disruptivas que possam vir a ser colocadas no mercado".

Que piada!!!

Será que as empresas-âncora são o local ideal para concentrar os processos de experimentação, protótipos e soluções disruptivas que possam vir a ser colocadas no mercado?

Um dos males deste país, acreditar que o futuro é construído top-down.

Trecho retirado de "CIP quer fundos europeus a pagar reindustrialização"

Uma testa de ponte

"Mr Galperín is now moving into the banking sector — about half of the region’s 650m population do not have bank accounts. “We have democratised commerce, now we want to democratise money,” he says, humility dissipating.
.
Nevertheless, he balks at the suggestion that he is setting out to “disrupt” the banks. “No, no, no,” he protests. “We are not competing with the banks, but targeting the 50 per cent [of people] who have no account, or whose needs are not being met.”"

Acredito que esta postura é a mais adequada para entrar num sector enfrentando menos concorrência aberta, menos resistência e menos "Antrais". Começar pelos que não são clientes de ninguém, começar por quem não está no mercado. Assim, há medida que se vai crescendo, está-se de certa forma longe do radar dos incumbentes, porque não se lhes está a comer quota de mercado.  À medida que a oferta se for adequando aos clientes-alvo, os clientes overservd dos bancos vão começar a repensar a sua lealdade como clientes, e quando os incumbentes acordarem .... vão ter um competidor muito mais forte e com uma lógica de negócio bem diferente.

Trecho retirado de "MercadoLibre’s Marcos Galperín on Latin America’s ecommerce boom"

Derrubar/baixar barreiras à entrada

Ontem li "En Bretagne, une personne sur trois est surqualifiée pour son job" e foi um festival de pensamentos que emergiram... lembrei-me da caridade, metáfora para os que acreditam que é uma questão de oferta e não de procura.

Lembrei-me da previsão que faço acerca de Mongo e da ascensão/regresso dos artesãos. Lembrei-me que quanto mais as pessoas têm formação menos predispostas estão para empreender. E os artesãos do futuro serão, muitas vezes, gente com formação superior mas capazes de serem fazedores e artistas  que interagem com tribos com as quais reforçam laços e co-criam valor.

Lembrei-me das barreiras fiscais que os Estados conluiados com os incumbentes ergueram, mantêm e até reforçam, para reduzir a probabilidade de gente com ideias fora da caixa aparecer e disrupcionar o status-quo.

É preciso derrubar/baixar as barreiras para que mentes livres de modelos mentais do passado arrisquem com mais frequência na criação de experiências de co-criação mais poderosas e que requeiram naturalmente e possam suportar gente com mais formação.