Material from the presentations
We are sorry for the delay regarding the presentation of Adam Morgan, but it is now available here:Adam Morgan's Power Point show
From spectacle to intellect?
The society of spectacle is drawing to a close and we are entering a society of intellect?
Is this right? Assuming it is, does this mean removing the spectacle, the images, posters and so on from the streets and the media and re-integrate them in the mind of the consumer?
Material from the presentations
A summary of the presentation by Arie de Geus is available here:
Transfer is central
We live in a society of projects. Either you go along with it and change central concepts in accordance with reality...Or you could wait for better times… (read entry)Brand-cultures of market challengers
Adam Morgan, author of "Eating the Big Fish"
gave an interesting speech on the brand-cultures of market challengers:
Challenger Brands share a common mindset. They have ambitions that
outstrip their available resources and are looking for ways to do more
with less.
His elaboration on how market challengers think about consumer brands
involved some interesting insights for the management of
change in companies. The main point was that challengers apply a
different language than otherwise
seen in contemporary languages of innovation. Innovation is often
discussed using technical terms whereas brand-challenger cultures use
what Adam Morgan calls an opportunity-centric language.
Cultural Economy
David Phillips on his blog the LeverWealth, talks about the Brave Cultural World as he refers to Arie de Geus, author of The Living Company, and speaker at DontStop:'We have rapidly moved from the information economy to the networked economy and, in my view are approaching the 'cultural economy'. It chimes with the view that 'capitalism is a finished chapter in world history' according to Arie de Geus, author of The Living Company, and former head of Shell's Group Planning Unit.'
In Gitte Larsen's review of "The Living Company" you will find more on Arie de Geus' argument that the era of capitalism is behind us, and that labor [human beings] has become the most important factor of production.
Material from the presentations
These are the Powerpoint shows used by Carsten Beck, John Grant and Klaus Æ. Mogensen:
Material from Geoff Mulgan is available here: Social Innovation Summary. Any comments, contributions and criticisms may be send to him through his website http://www.youngfoundation.org.uk
Slides from Adam Morgans presentations will be available next week.
Adam Hill Interview
Bryan Wilder interviewed Adam Hill after he made his presentation.Here's the mp3
Carsten Beck
Bryan Wilder interviewed Carsten Beck after he made his presentation.Here's the mp3
Klaus Æ. Mogensen Interview
Bryan Wilder interviewed Klaus Æ. Mogensen after he made his presentation.Here's the mp3.
To be certain is to be ridiculous
Carsten Beck, head of research at the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, noted that market leaders are more than twice as likely to lose their position than 20 years ago. Yet many companies and managers are complacent.There's no sure-fire solution, but Beck recommends using the techniques of futures studies to keep from being defenseless.
He closed with a great quote: "To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable. To be certain is to be ridiculous.
Audio interview with John Grant
Bryan Wilder interviewed John Grant after he made his presentation.
Audio interview with Arie de Geus
Bryan Wilder interviewed Arie de Geus after de Geus made his presentation.Here's the mp3.
Arie de Geus: welcome to the world of Karl Marx
"Welcome to the world of Karl Marx" is Arie de Geus' greeting to corporate leaders. "Capital is a commodity. Human talent is not."Here are my notes from the Don'tStop01 Business Innovation Conference we are holding here in Copenhagen. Arie de Geus was head of Shell Oil's Planning Unit for 38 years.
People have little loyalty to companies:
New MBAs stay in their jobs less than 5 years
CEOs stay about 2-3 years.
Shareholders hold their shares about a year
This isn't loyalty.
Why is this? What does it mean.
It's certainly very contrary to the view that I have of what constitutes a successful company. My view is very different... my view is based on some interesting things we learned at Shell.
In the 70s, we asked ourselves "who should be our example?" What companies should we look up to?
We made a study. We asked a team to go out into the world, and find companies that were older than Shell, more than 100 years old, who were leaders in their industry, and who still had their corporate identies intact.
27 companies met the definition.
Siemens, more than 150 years old
Dupont, more than 200 years old
Mitui, 300
Sumitomo, 400
Stora, 700 years old
What characterizes these old companies? What let's them survive. It's clearly not "cultural" because we have American, Swedish, German, and Japanese companies on the list.
We found they shared these traits:
1) Financially conservative. This is bad news for investment bankers. These companies want to keep their own money in their own pockets, and don't want someone else's money. Surviving for centuries means never having a banker pull the rug out from under you.
2) The leaders of these companies are sensitve to the world around them. Leaders were outward looking people, and are often highly active in the society around the company. Dupont has produced generations of US senators. If your leaders are out there in the world, active, they will note changes in society and keep asking "what will this mean for the company?"
3) Strong sense of cohesion and company idenity. Leaders and staff know what the company stands for, and are happy to identify with those values.
4) Management style of tolerance. Lots of space on the margins for new or different activities.
That led me to my definition of a corporation: a good firm is financially conservative, has staff that identifies with the company values, and has management that is tolerant and sensitive to the world in which they live.
That's not what they taught me in the economics department when I was in university in Rotterdam. There we were taught that companies are institutions that produce goods and services for which other people are prepared to pay a price. The successful company combines labor, capital and land in an optimal way: Minimize cost, maximize price, maximize profit.
This is still taught.
Three definitions. Three different implications.
1. Where there is no loyal relationship to the company, it's every man for himself. It becomes the tragedy of the commons. The measure of success is maximation of shareholder value.
2. If we accept the classic definition, the one still taught, we must accept the company as an economic machine. The measure? Efficiency and maximization of profit at short notice.
3. And my definition: human work community aimed at continuity from generation to generation. Goal is survival and self-development in a changing world. Measurement is life expectancy.
Which is the right definition? Which company would you want to work for? If you lead a company, which would you want to create?
Let's think about three things.
1) A study done at Stanford in the early 1990s showed that long-living companies produced, on average, 15 times more profits over 60 years than the stock market average. Human work community meets the goals of life expectancy, profits, and shareholder value.
2) When we look at the oldest companies, we must remember the hundreds of thousands of companies that died. The average life expectancy of a company is less than 17 years -- as low as 4 years according to a recent UK study. If you have to choose what sort of comapny you want to create, your choice is quite stark. Choose wrongly, and your company will be dead before you are.
And let's not say "oh, that's just survival of the fittest, that's the market at work." The death of a company is not gratuitous. People suffer. And if we accept that companies are like people -- they get wiser and better as they grow older -- then the death of a company is a tragic loss of knowledge and wisdom.
You may say "survival of the fittes, free markets". But I cannot believe the death of a company is gratuitous. People suffer. And don't companies get better as they get older, much as we do in life.
3) Finally, we are in an age of fundamental change. Capital is now a commodity; it is no longer a scarce production input. This is enormously significant: in the last 50 years, we have had near constant GNP growth, and we have saved 20% to 30% of this a year. Our world is simply awash with capital. Capital is no longer dominant.
In fact, capital is a commodity -- the capital market is a buyer's market, not a seller's market. So if you are choosing what business to create, why on earth would you structure it to maximize the return to the supplier of capital, the shareholders? That is very short sighted.
No, today, labor -- human talent -- is the scarce production factor. And if you would succeed you must have a management style that makes the most of that human talent.
Corporate leaders: you live in the world of Karl Marx. Your core asset, the asset that is the value of your company, goes out the door every day. I really wonder how you sleep at night, because you have no idea if they will come back. So you better create the conditions so that they do.
Technorati: business innovation, dontstop01, Arie de Geus
Don't Stop Conference opens
Johan Peder Palludan, director of the Copenhagen Institute of Futures Studies has opened the Don'tStop01 conference.JPP asks Why must we never stop thinking about the future?
1. Because that's where we live.
2. Because we are living in a time of accelerating change.
3. Because we all must realize is that our fundamental problem is that we must make decisions in the present -- decisions that must work in the future.
For these reasons, we must not stop thinking about tomorrow. We think about the future because we must change our subconcious beliefs about the future into concious ideas about the future.
330 people at CIFS first Don't Stop conference
Looking very much forward seeing you tomorrow! Or at our Don't Stop Conference 15 March 2007.
Think simple
Interview with Adam Hill, who co-founded Brand X to bring creative thinking and a coherent voice to the all-too tired world of financial marketing. Adam is going to be moderator at the Dont Stop Conference.
(read entry)The risk of loosing leadership position has trippled
Interview with Carsten Beck, Head of research at CIFS, who will present examples of how corporate foresight can help companies and organizations keep the leadership position.
(read entry)People don't need companies
Klaus Æ Mogensen, futurist at CIFS, will be speaking of Creative Man - the new social and market logic. Meet him in this short interview and get an idea of what he thinks about the future.
(read entry)Be bold enough
Interview with John Grant, brand strategy consultant, who will be speaking about the new agenda for marketing in the 21st century and how we need to rethink all sorts of cherished notions like what (if anything) a brand is and what use (if any) ‘trends’ are. John’s thinking is grounded in analysing hundreds of modern success stories (and a few failures). John Grant will draw from his new book, which comes out after the conference, and this is the first time he talks about it.
(read entry)You are not alone!
Almost 300 people/leaders from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, UK, Spain and Germany now signed up for CIFS' first Don't Stop conference. We are very excited about the day, and personally I'm looking very much forward to everything; the chance to meet new people, the whole atmosphere when so many people are gathered, the presentations of course, and the food! If you missed the opportunity to be part of the conference this year, you might want to book 15 march 2007 to be sure not to miss our second Don't Stop conference?
To think, to imagine, to wonder what if
Allan Jenkins is blogging from - and after - the conference day. Allan provides communication counselling and support to senior managers and communicators with strategic counselling, and he has his own blog at www.desirableroastedcoffee.com - and he posted this in his blog a few days ago:
(read entry)Has your company considered creating a social R&D?
Interview with Geoff Mulgan, Director of Young Foundation, who will be speaking of innovative new means of meeting social needs – and how social innovation will transform the business environment. Geof Mulgan is a pioneer in the field of social innovation, and he will provide you with unique insights regarding the corporate worlds. They need not only being technologically and economically innovative – but also to use social innovation as a competitive edge. Has your company considered creating a social R&D? If not, you might after this presentation. Geoff Mulgan will focus on new organization forms: public/private and global/local and how to use technology. He will present methods for creating new organization forms and means of meeting social/unmet needs and he will give examples from markets, public sector, and social movements.
(read entry)‘Possibilities’ rather than ‘innovation’
On 15 March you will meet Adam Morgan, director and founder of eatbigfish, but you can already meet him here in this interview. One of his points is that we should be talking about possibilities rather than innovation.
(read entry)A great hotel - special prize for participants
CIFS has got a special prize for rooms at Hotel The Square for participants at the Dont Stop Conference. See more at www.thesquare.dk/ The location is just around the corner from the venue of the conference. Price for participants: 850 DKK including breakfast buffet. If your're interested, please contact Christine Lind Ditlevsen at cld@cifs.dk
Welcome to Don't Stop!
Don’t Stop
I know our/CIFS’ first Don’t Stop thinking about tomorrow-conference will address some these challenges (read below)– which should not only concern HR Managers, but in fact everybody. I also hope some of you will use this blog. It’s CIFS’ first and personal my first go as a blogger as well. Welcome to you and everybody!
Best regards,
Gitte Larsen, editor of FO/futureorientation
Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies
(read entry)