In 2016 Leicester City, underdog of English football, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat to become Premier League champions. What can business learn from their transformation?It was a championship victory that owed as much to team cohesion as it did to talent. Leicester’s story seems almost impossible in a cash-rich era in sport, where ranking is often determined by the size of the wage bill. This was a team which flirted with relegation the previous year, who had a playing squad which cost £57 million – seven times less than some rivals.
A few weeks ago the new U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took some public flak for suggesting, in response to an interviewer’s question, that he was “not worried at all” that artificial intelligence would threaten the jobs of human workers, because in his view it is “50 or 100 years away.”
It’s not clear why Mnuchin would say that, but with respect, I have to correct him. Here’s a more accurate timetable for the likely economic impact by AI: Two years at most.
There’s growing evidence that as companies embrace AI to stay competitive, which they will, in the end these changes will create more jobs than they destroy.
The original question to Mnuchin was rooted in popular worries that AI will eliminate jobs in the near future. However there’s growing evidence that as companies embrace AI to stay competitive, which they will, in the end these changes will create more jobs than they destroy.
Earlier this year, ServiceNow commissioned a survey of senior executives at 1,874 companies of varying sizes across numerous industries in seven global markets. We asked their views on what automation might mean for their business in the next few years.
My point of view: on a micro basis the assumption is that the deprecation of the investment and the additional staff costs (and all related expenditures) will be surpassed by additional revenue from the existing customers or new customers using current services or new services. How often will that be the case?
Sometimes I wonder how I’m still allowed to write a regular column on social media, never mind that it seems to be reasonably popular. I’m unlikely to ever write about Snapchat , for example, partly because I still can’t get my head around the platform, but mainly because focusing on the technical minutiae of specific tools seems irrelevant.
Read all: Is it Time to Abolish Social Media?
My point of view: as a professional and as a person always reflect on your business, professional or personal goals. It it contributes substantially and there are no better alternatives, time has not yet come to abolish social media.
The vast majority of senior professionals don’t want to “retire.”
They have interesting, fulfilling work that they’d like to continue — just not at the frenetic pace of top corporate jobs. That’s why so many, lured by the promise of flexible hours, higher rates, and location independence, are intrigued by the idea of becoming a consultant or coach when they retire from their “official” career.
My point of view: do not limit yourself to these – often – “red seas” options. Find your blue ocean as a writer, an artist, as an entrepreneur or an educator. Keep in mind and be aware that you protect your assets: your financial capital, your intellectual capital, your working pleasure and sound relationships in a changing environment.
Hypothesis: A product or service innovator can determine the best market opportunity, the optimal growth path, and/or an exit strategy before they build their product
To begin, this is one of those touchy subjects because everyone involved in this world is pretty smart, and has an opinion.
Some are personally very successful — e.g. venture capitalists — and some believe they are going to be successful — e.g. founders.
There is no arguing with them and I don’t intend to argue with them.
Instead, I will just lay my thoughts down, and begin by reminding everyone of some basic facts that very few have demonstrated an ability to overcome.
Fact #1: 95% of new product or service launches fail in some form or fashion— elaborated by the following facts; especially the growth one
Fact # 2: Only 5% of companies are able to sustain a real, inflation-adjusted growth rate of more than 6%
Fact #3: 95% of companies reach a point where growth simply stalls to rates at or below the rate of growth of GNP
Fact #4: Only 4% of the companies whose rate of growth stalls are able to successfully reignite growth to even 1% above the GNP rate of growth
These facts should tell us not to trust our intuition. Yet, we build investment strategies based on getting that one big home run; when there is no guarantee that it’ll come (using traditional methods). If there were, we’d only be funding the home runs, wouldn’t we?Now I’ll move on to some broadly unaccepted assumptions:
My point: a very sharp reflection. Taken from my own professional and personal experiences: you have when you win (and what your win is) and when to stop (and accept the associated losses.