Don't stop thinking about tomorrow http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/index.php eng Copyright 2006 2006-05-29T11:32:59+02:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Material from the presentations http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=34 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=34#comm We are sorry for the delay regarding the presentation of Adam Morgan, but it is now available here: Adam Morgan's Power Point show 34@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/
Adam Morgan's Power Point show

]]> default 2006-04-11T10:45:00+02:00 From spectacle to intellect? http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=33 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=33#comm 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? 33@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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?

John Grant delivered an inspiring speech on new marketing strategy at the DontStop conference.

He believes that the age of image is drawing to a close. That the society of spectacle, as it was coined by the avantgarde group the “situationists”, is being replaced by a society of intellect. I think that is true, but more as a long-term tendency as a fact of reality. As the DontStop conference is all about what ideas may shape the future the perspective presented is valid as such.

But looking at contemporary culture and society there is no doubt that it is still permeated with the sort of spectacle described in the classical situationist works. Almost to a degree that the notion spectacle has become normalized as part and parcel of both theoretical and popular media discourse. Indeed the advent of megaspectacle involving a significant escalation of the spectacle in size, scope and intensity marks a new stage of the spectacle and not the end of a spectacle era.

These spectacles range from superhyped films like Star Wars (one of Grants favourites), to theme parks offering new technologically thrilling experiences, to media generated passion plays like reality TV or the Clinton sex impeachment scandal, to taxis and busses wrapped with giant posters and whole urban areas like Las Vegas or Los Angeles illuminated by lasers that flash commercials upon buildings and into the sky, taking the spectacle to new heights. The capitalist economy thrives on spectacles of consumption. So the society of spectacle is still a fact and maybe more so than ever.

What we are witnessing today is that part of the contemporary marketing and branding strategies are parting ways with the society of spectacle (the society they themselves partially created). They are taking the side of the artistic critique as formulated by the situationists calling for authenticity and emancipation. Against the passivity of the spectator, the situationists espouse active, creative and imaginative practice, whereby individuals create their own situations and existential events fully participating in the production of everyday life opposing consumer-capitalism and mega-spectacles. The trick is that instead of removing the spectacle, new marketing tries to annul distinctions between advertising campaigns and real life and to integrate the brand into the existing bids for experience and identification while avoiding allowing the brand to make an aggressive appearance. To make the product a self-evident part of the cultural codes by penetrating the unconscious and, if done by a real artistic marketing genius, integrate the product in a revolutionary and freedom-loving discourse in opposition to consumer-market and capitalism.

Its all about camouflage. My point is that even though the means have changed the goal is still the same: to sell. I respect that and I am fascinated by these branding artists, but I get suspicious when I read a slogan from a big shoe manufacturer saying: we don’t sell dreams, we sell shoes. Just as I get suspicious when a brand strategy consultant tells me we have left the age of spectacle and enters an age of intellect.

]]> default 2006-03-27T15:53:00+02:00 Material from the presentations http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=32 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=32#comm A summary of the presentation by Arie de Geus is available here: Human Power 32@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ A summary of the presentation by Arie de Geus is available here:

Human Power

]]> default 2006-03-23T13:25:00+02:00 Transfer is central http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=31 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=31#comm 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… 31@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/

Capital is commodity and labour or human talent is the most important asset…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. This was the closing statement of Arie de Geus at the DontStop conference, following his speech and worries on behalf of the increasing tendency to short term relationships between company and employee, CEO and shareholder. This is definitely one of the greatest challenges of the future company. To attract, and hold on to the right people who ever they may be. But how do they do that in a global network and project-oriented economy. Following the french sociologists Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello in their sociological masterpiece The new spirit of Capitalism, our present is characterized as a society of projects.

So what does this mean and what are the core elements of this societal structure:

1 connection: A project is usually created by connection. Someone meets someone else with an idea, and they do something together to something or someone.

2 mode of organization: The project is a way of building up organizational structure with small autonomous activity spaces, connected in a network. This structure is becoming a more and more dominant way of organizing in the post disciplinary societies.

3 throw: A project is a throw or a toss into the future, not a loose idea, not a fixed plan, but something someone will do with someone. A project is not a task set by the present; it is a realization of the future.

5 particular: Meeting someone to do something with him and then leaving him again, makes the project as particular as the one night stance. The disciplinary society was the repetition of the same; hence the routine was the deed of the good worker, the good mother, the good pupil and the good soldier. In the society of projects the routine has become suspicious.

6 temporal limitation: The project is by definition limited in time, which saves it from everyday life with its boredom. The temporal limitation lifts it up to something special.

7 passage: The temporal limitation does not only free the individuals concerned from the anti-heroic tasks of everyday life, it also frees them from the guarantee, that tomorrow will be like today. If experience is the ability to anticipate tomorrow with what was learned yesterday, the disappearance of guarantees might explain why experience is becoming as suspicious as routine, and why everybody wants to be a youngster.

So what does this mean:

When the temporal limitation removes the guarantee of repetition, it moves the passage into the centre of the society of projects. The successful employee is the mobile, flexible and easily adaptable with a CV full of projects to testify this. This is not the long term corporate employee but the personal company who has been able to make his whole life, every distinct and authentic quality, transferable.

Having read Gitte Larsen interview with Arie de Geus in Future Orientation #1 2005 I know de Geus urges companies and their leaders to look at European football clubs and their statistics, which show that up to 90% of the top 70-100 European football clubs are fundamentally insolvent because the players – not capital – gets the bottom line. This may be right, but it doesn’t create long term employees. Lets not forget that the world of football is build around the perfect transfer. A perfectly executed project i.e. the top goal scorer or the midfield terrier, makes the player employable which means millions of EURO. So does he do it for himself or his current club. I believe the passage or the transfer is the central element.

Accordingly, the passage is at the same time the problem, the distinction and the social technology of the society of projects. Maybe the real hurdle is changing the concept of loyalty in accordance with the diagnosis presented by Boltanski and Chiapello. Or you could wait for better times…

]]> default 2006-03-23T11:00:00+02:00 Brand-cultures of market challengers http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=30 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=30#comm 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. 30@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

Opportunity-centric brands foster a different strategy in which organisational members work on seeing and seizing opportunities. This opportunity-centric approach is an organisation-wide practice whereas most contemporary lines of innovation work are centred in specific departments or specific groups of people. The interesting element in opportunity centric mentality is the point that market challengers actually changes the metric of value thereby appointing a new category of competition in a market.

As such, according to Adam Morgan 4 streams of gravity exist in relation to innovation:
- Capability-centric stream of gravity (product and competencies)
- Customer-centric stream
- Context-centric stream (Markets/competitors)
- Opportunity-centric stream

The first three typically have specific centres in the organisation, however the Opportunity centric gravity is an organisation-wide practice. As such it becomes more of a mentality than a target in itself.

Challengers believe in the point that opportunities are everywhere around us. The question of how to spot these or discover them is what is core. Through 10 different methods, challenger brands create various lenses of opportunities and alter the categories of competition:

• Context - how challengers draw a concept into an entirely new context.
• The frame - Certain words carry with them a whole underlying conceptual frame. Skillful framing and reframing of products, brands or service may alter the perception thereof widely. A different kind of frame depicts new categories and new opportunities.
• The Value
• What you measure
• The role
• The journey
• The target
• What you do with your restrictions
• Detail - the apparently minor details and components of products, social processes and services
• Absence

Some Hindrances in terms of stopping these discoveries are:

Selective Attention – when people actively decide to focus on particular issues leaving out other bits of information otherwise available.
Bounded awareness - When decision makers more or less unconsciously miss important information at their disposal. As such the Future may have several opportunities but people are bound in their awareness and thus fail to see them.

Challengers who seriously alter categories often come from radically different categories, enabling them to see opportunities and subsequently twist the categories of competition. ]]> default 2006-03-20T01:19:00+02:00 Cultural Economy http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=29 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=29#comm 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. 29@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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. ]]> default 2006-03-17T20:55:00+02:00 Material from the presentations http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=28 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=28#comm These are the Powerpoint shows used by Carsten Beck, John Grant and Klaus Æ. Mogensen: Carsten Beck - presentation John Grant - presentation Klaus Mogensen - presentation 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. 28@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ These are the Powerpoint shows used by Carsten Beck, John Grant and Klaus Æ. Mogensen:

Carsten Beck - presentation

John Grant - presentation

Klaus Mogensen - presentation

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.

]]> default 2006-03-17T11:07:00+02:00 Adam Hill Interview http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=27 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=27#comm Bryan Wilder interviewed Adam Hill after he made his presentation.Here's the mp3 27@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/
Here's the mp3

]]> default 2006-03-15T15:53:00+02:00 Carsten Beck http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=26 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=26#comm Bryan Wilder interviewed Carsten Beck after he made his presentation.Here's the mp3 26@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/
Here's the mp3

]]> default 2006-03-15T15:45:00+02:00 Klaus Æ. Mogensen Interview http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=25 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=25#comm Bryan Wilder interviewed Klaus Æ. Mogensen after he made his presentation.Here's the mp3. 25@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/
Here's the mp3.

]]> default 2006-03-15T15:37:00+02:00 To be certain is to be ridiculous http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=24 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=24#comm 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. 24@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

]]> default 2006-03-15T15:04:00+02:00 Audio interview with John Grant http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=23 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=23#comm Bryan Wilder interviewed John Grant after he made his presentation.Here's the mp3 23@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ Bryan Wilder interviewed John Grant after he made his presentation.

Here's the mp3

]]> default 2006-03-15T14:39:00+02:00 Audio interview with Arie de Geus http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=22 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=22#comm Bryan Wilder interviewed Arie de Geus after de Geus made his presentation. Here's the mp3. 22@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/
Here's the mp3.


]]> default 2006-03-15T12:15:00+02:00 Arie de Geus: welcome to the world of Karl Marx http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=21 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=21#comm "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 21@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/
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: , ,

]]> default 2006-03-15T11:32:00+02:00 Don't Stop Conference opens http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=20 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=20#comm 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. 20@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/
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.

]]> default 2006-03-15T09:27:00+02:00 330 people at CIFS first Don't Stop conference http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=19 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=19#comm Looking very much forward seeing you tomorrow! Or at our Don't Stop Conference 15 March 2007. 19@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ Looking very much forward seeing you tomorrow! Or at our Don't Stop Conference 15 March 2007.

]]> default 2006-03-14T17:39:00+02:00 Think simple http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=18 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=18#comm 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. 18@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

Why is it important to keep thinking about tomorrow? To remind ourselves of the dangers of complacency. The complacency found in unquestioned ideals, in undoubted prejudices, in the unexamined life, which is, as we know, not worth living. Thomas Edison once wrote that “We shall have no better conditions in the future if we are satisfied with all those which we have at present.” The companies and individuals that refuse to be lured by the tempting tones of the sirens of complacency are always the ones that lay the foundations of tomorrow. And it is the architects of the future that reap the greatest rewards. These rewards are found in the constantly evolving environments in which we as businesses operate; and it is our role as marketers dealing with ever more complex social and individual drivers and value systems, to imagine and create incentives for these drivers and values, while we take from the past the lessons it can offer.

At Brand X, future solutions all start with left-brain work. How do our clients want their company to be regarded by their customers, by their industry and their staff? How do they want to be doing business in the future? What types of clients are they keen to attract? And specifically, where do they want to be in 12 months, three years or five years? We start by painting a picture of their future before we begin to create it with them.

Mention 1-2 cases/examples of business innovation that your organisation has performed/participated in?
One of our clients in online forex trading asked us to figure out a way to reduce the number of sales people they employed, increase their sales conversion and automate pre-sales communication – and then they asked us to do this for multiple target audiences! The gauntlet was firmly laid down. What we created for them, and subsequently for a number of other clients is a technology solution, which encourages clients to believe they are receiving personalised communications, which almost eliminates manual pre-sales work and also manages to build brand awareness and prospect loyalty. Creating a solution to a client’s problem like this demands all our in-house dexterity, it draws upon the imaginative skills of designers, coders, system architects, writers, everyone in fact. These kinds of projects animate the atmosphere here as fluid constellations of team individuals work towards creating a future that didn’t exist before – that’s the joy of work.

If you should give one piece of advice about business innovation for tomorrow, what would that be? Successful companies will distinguish themselves in many ways in the future, but they will have one characteristic in common: They will provide rich soil for growth - growth for the minds and ambitions of their clients, staff and their reputation. They will, I believe, achieve this if they stop segregating knowledge, skills and responsibilities, and start synthesising competences to generate truly distinctive client solutions and companies and the inspired, creative people who build them. Think simple. You have jobs you are paid to do, but every job relates to something else - to a bigger picture. Remembering that helps us to focus on making sure that each contribution we make serves and improves the big picture. And this is where many companies fail. In their eagerness to get a project going, they neglect to involve, inform and invite input from all key staff. We help our clients overcome this obstacle by ensuring the understanding, the opportunities to contribute and lastly the buy-in of all key players, before work begins.

About Brand X Each year, we welcome financial services clients from around the world. Their decision to work with us is based on our unique combination of: 1. Financial services product and trading knowledge. 2. Proven marketing experience in delivering bottom-line results. 3. The technological expertise to maximise the potential for growth through IT.

]]> default 2006-03-14T17:35:00+02:00 The risk of loosing leadership position has trippled http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=17 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=17#comm 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. 17@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

Why is it important to keep thinking about tomorrow? Increased competition, more demanding consumers and new ways of creating value for consumers makes it necessarry to focus on the future. To often companies are so busy with incremental change in their day to day business that they miss the big market changes. This is also why we see the risk of loosing your leadership position in the market has trippled since the 1970s. If you don’t think about your future market position the competition will do it for you.

If you should give one piece of advice about business innovation for tomorrow, what would that be? Don’t take anything for granted. Revisit your position in the market from the perspective of the consumer and ask yourself: Is this truly good enough? Do we provide excellent quality? Are our prices really low enough? Are the products and services we produce exciting? And if you get stuck: Interview your own kids - they are usually spot on regarding the future.

What interest you the most in your job/organization/position? At CIFS we work together with clients from many different companies, sectors and countries. This is a great inspiration in our work.

Your biggest issue on the conference is the importence of looking at companies and marketspace through the eyes of the future. Can one make important decisions in the light of a time that doesn´t exist? A lot of people tend to think of the future as predictable. But by thinking in terms of scenarios companies can open up for new ways of thinking, new ways of working etc. Often one creates scenarios within a 10 year timeframe - that is "The market in 2016". This might make people think: Why bother - who cares about 2016? But when you make the scenarios you tend to realise that the discussion about major changes inside as well as outside the organisation becomes easier in the future tense. And yet 2016 is not pure science fiction/"out-there". The future creates new energy and inspiration in people and companies.

]]> default 2006-03-14T17:30:00+02:00 People don't need companies http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=16 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=16#comm 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. 16@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

Why is it important to keep thinking about tomorrow? This is best answered by quoting an ancient Chine proverb: "The person who does not worry about the future will shortly have worries about the present." If we aren't prepared for what tomorrow can bring, we can't take action today to avoid future trouble or make use of future opportunities.

Briefly: What is "Creative Man" - the central item of your speach - all about? Creative Man is about a change we are seeing in the Western world today, where more and more people work with innovation and creativity - both in response to the challenges from automation and globalization and because more people want to be creative.

What is the most important message in "Creative Man"? That the response to the challenges from globalization and technological progress should not be protectionism and rejection - instead, we need to embrace the changes in order to experience continued economic and personal growth.

If you should give one piece of advise about business innovation for tomorrow, what would that be? You should understand that in the future, you are going to need creative employees more than they are going to need you.

What interests you the most in your job/organization/position? I like that I am pretty much free to organize my work as I want and follow the ideas that I think are worth following.

]]> default 2006-03-08T11:33:00+02:00 Be bold enough http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=15 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=15#comm 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. 15@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

Why is it important continually to think about tomorrow? Firstly because it is the space of creativity and innovation. The past and present are tyrants - beating us down with 'the way things have always been done' and '100 urgent e-mails to answer today'. In a 'future' meeting we can start to see other possibilities. It is like travel, it gives you a fresh perspective. Secondly because it doesn't seem to matter too much if you get it wrong. Thirdly because it is where we get our energy; the hope for change invested in new ideas being the basis of motivation and human spirit. Great companies have a sense of quest. Like IKEA, where as Ingvar Kamprad says "Glory is in the Future". Fourthly because fortune favours the prepared mind. The way to think about it is not 'the future' but some futures: scenarios, ideas and options which MAY be important. And fifthly (if that all sounds a bit 'soft') because most senior business people I meet are living with a desperate situation. Shareholders (or partners, or similar) want +15. The economy will give +3. They have to find results that are impossible based upon past or present performance and conditions. Tomorrow is the only place to look for better results.

Can you give practical examples of what 'thinking about tomorrow' means in a business context? I work as a consultant and often help companies think about the future. For instance with IKEA in North America a few years ago, we started with a blank sheet of paper - and a session called "Revolution" in Paris on Bastille Day. One thing I learned from that process is that it is very hard to see your own future, much easier to glance at others (it's a bit like being able to advise friends, but not see your own issues!). Working for a strong culture like IKEA it is just so hard to imagine any big changes or new approaches. We got good ideas from questions like; what new decor magazines could we invent for tomorrow's market, or what would Virgin do if they took over this operation? Things that got us to look at change on the outside, and then bring it inside.

I also work as a non-exec director with Ministry of Sound and 90% of what I get involved in is inventing new product lines, new markets - it is tomorrow all the way through and I regularly produce documents called things like 'a snapshot of the business in 2008'. It was very helpful to start by agreeing a mission statement - which we wrote in one session, in a room, very much in our own language: “WE ARE BUILDING A GLOBAL LIFESTYLE EMPIRE THROUGH PASSION, HARD WORK AND BRILLIANT IDEAS, WHICH MAKE OUR CUSTOMERS FEEL LIKE FUCKING SUPERSTARS”. Besides all the passion, arrogance and youthful 'spunk' in that statement, when we apply it to entering new markets it is all about imagining a radically new and better customer experience; in a gym, hotel, bar, fashion range and so on. It is vital to find or invent great products and experiences. The constant danger is thinking we can get away with something that isn't innovative, just because it has our brand on it.

If you should give one advise about business innovation for tomorrow, what would that be? Be bold enough. Most conversations in business get more comfortable when ideas are toned down. But 'out there' most launches and initiatives fail because they fail to catch attention, excite the imagination, offer something instantly new and clearly better. It should only look 'normal' when everyone in the world has discovered and adopted it - and not before.

How do you vision your company/organization 10 years from now – in 2016? For MePLC: if I stick to my plan I should be a practising Jungian Analyst by 2016. But I am also open to the possibility that the universe may have other plans for me. For some of the clients I have worked with recently, by 2016:
- IKEA will have spawned a spin-off competitor called ANTIK, just to keep the global home furnishings market (which they now dominate) interesting.
- The Co-operative bank will be a Europe-wide internet-enabled citizens finance union, with local cells ('branches') of 200 people or fewer; the eBay of money.
- IBM will have developed and sold the 'everlasting IT backbone' some years ago & now most income comes from building maintenance-style service contracts.
- Ministry of Sound will have just bought Starbucks and turned the ailing coffee chain into a funky global village hangout serving mint tea and juices.
- Sony Ericsson will have evolved (via being a retailer then an operator) into 'the new dollar'/ a bank, with global salaries paid and goods bought with SEMs (Sony Ericsson Minutes).
- Diageo will have embraced the dark side, figuring if you are going to sell alcohol in tomorrow's world you might as well do tobacco, pornography, gambling and other profitable vices.

That's the (far-fetched) vision, but we also have to face the realistic possibility that only two of these five (well-established and highly regarded) companies will be trading by then.

]]> default 2006-03-06T11:30:00+02:00 You are not alone! http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=14 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=14#comm 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? 14@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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?

]]> default 2006-03-03T11:13:00+02:00 To think, to imagine, to wonder what if http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=13 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=13#comm 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: 13@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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:

“Don’t Stop” Business Innovation Conference asks Desirable Roasted Coffee to blog (and I said “yes”). I love all my clients, of course, but I have particular affection for the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies. My other clients are typical businesses: the halls are buzzing with folks rushing around to the next meeting, wrapping up from the last meeting, whacking out emails about that meeting, slapping their foreheads as they read the minutes from that other meeting they were too busy to attend.

Now, I don't want for a moment to imply that people at my other clients aren't "gettin' it done" -- they most certainly are -- but over at CIFS, you tend to see people just sitting quietly reading books. Staring dreamily out of the window. Writing books.

Because what they do is peer into the mists of the future and report back what they think they see. And not just for some ivory tower purpose; no, no -- their job is guiding businesses (including some of my other clients) into the future. Pretty cool job, when you think about it -- being paid to think. As Seth Godin et al note in the Big Moo, most of us run around all day frantically putting out fires and responding to other people. Just having an hour or two a day to think, to imagine, to wonder what if, would be immeasurably valuable for both ourselves and our companies. So imagine having that for a job! So when CIFS asked me to blog and podcast from their upcoming Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow conference, I didn't need a second invitation.

I'll contributing to the Don't Stop blog leading up to the conference, too. Indeed, I believe that restlessness and hunger, Adam Morgan is talking about, are two of the very few motivators for innovation -- whether you are a corporation or a home gardener.

]]> default 2006-03-03T10:34:00+02:00 Has your company considered creating a social R&D? http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=12 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=12#comm 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. 12@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

Why is it important continually to think about tomorrow?
All organisations and society risks become trapped in an eternal present - perhaps even more today because of 24/7 media and instantly responsive global markets. But those organisations which can analyse or intuit the big changes underway are bound to adapt better, as will those that can spot future risks and discontinuities. Many past societies - and in more recent times companies - simply blocked out the big threats that didn’t fit their mental models. That’s why organisations need to work hard to avoid being trapped in rigid mindsets, or assumptions about how the future will work.

How do you vision your company/organization 10 years from now – in 2016?
Our vision is to become a successful incubator of new organisations - and to form a global network of similar organisations interested in the practice of social innovation, with partners from China and India to Europe and the Americas.

How can businesses use social innovation as a competitive edge?
Smart businesses understand that social innovation can be decisive to business innovation too: for example in fields like fitness and diet the most successful new models for cutting obesity are likely to bring together companies providing IT infrastructure, self help groups and local public agencies rather than expecting markets to achieve change on their own. Likewise many of the most exciting developments on the web combine new kinds of social software with new business models.

Geoff Mulgan is Director of The Young Foundation, former Head of Policy in the Prime Minister’s Office, and Tony Blairs personal adviser, plus founder of the think tank DEMOS. Geoff Mulgan has published a range of books, among others Life after politics (1997), Politics in an antipolitical age (1994), Connexity (1998).

The Young Foundation is an organization that undertakes research to identify and understand social needs and then develops practical initiatives and institutions to address them. It was formed in 2005 from the merger of the Institute of Community Studies and the Mutual Aid Centre, the vehicles through which Michael Young helped create some 60 organizations (ranging from the Consumers’ Association to the Open University). Their work is above all about social innovation - developing more effective ways to meet unmet needs. www.youngfoundation.org.uk

]]> default 2006-03-03T10:28:00+02:00 ‘Possibilities’ rather than ‘innovation’ http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=11 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=11#comm 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. 11@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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.

The possibilities that you can create, when you think about tomorrow have been basic to everything Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (CIFS) has worked with during our 36 years of history. Both the past and the present shows us that it continually gets more and more important to think about the future. The future is coming faster than ever, and the shaping of a new society and new forms of businesses are happening right now. Every strategy is based on assumptions about the future, but for too many companies these are more or less unconsciously based on the past. We at CIFS believe that you can shape your preferred future but you will never be able to do it, if you don’t start thinking about tomorrow – and do it before it’s too late. We are looking very much forward to present you for new opportunities and new ideas, that you can use to improve the success of your business or organization.

Why is it important continually to think about tomorrow?
Adam Morgan: There are probably obvious answers to that, but my interest is in challengers, and I think one of the things that characterizes continuously successful challengers rather than those who fade away after a while, is that they are very restless people, naturally, and they are continually looking and searching for new opportunities to reframe the way they engage consumers on the respective markets. I think that restlessness and hunger are some of the things that certainly characterize continued success and characterize the challengers who have had great success followed by a difficult period and then regain the momentum. Often people at the top have decided to take their foot off the pedal for a while, and they have stopped being that hungry and restless in the way that they used to. So, it’s that basic relationship between momentum and the restless thinking about opportunities for the future that’s important. I know this famous quote by the CEO of Harley Davidson: “The day we’ve got it made, that’s the day we start going out of business”. There’s not enough companies who recognize what that really means.

What is your most important message to businesses and organisations today?
Adam Morgan: We get so used to seeing categories in our world, that we get stuck in seeing and understanding the patterns of how our category works, and we have to look for new kinds of lenses constantly. It’s very dangerous not to do that. We become blind to new opportunities, which new people with fresh eyes can see. So this acknowledgement is a very important step.

You have published two books regarding the Challenger Project (EatBigFish and The Pirate Inside); what will the next one be about?
Adam Morgan: It will be about seeing opportunities. It was going to be a book about innovation, about challenger strategy, challenger culture, challenger innovation, but the frames of opportunities are completely different than the frames of innovation. Innovation has to do with specialized, departments, often quite technical and bound to particular people, gatekeepers and that kind of stuff. The frame of opportunities is very different, it’s for everybody, and it’s about bringing the whole company forward rather than pushing it towards a particular area. Innovation tends automatically to be associated with products, whereas opportunity has much more to do with engagements or finding your way to the consumers.

]]> default 2006-02-27T15:14:00+02:00 A great hotel - special prize for participants http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=10 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=10#comm 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 10@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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

]]> default 2006-01-24T15:02:00+02:00 Welcome to Don't Stop! http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=7 http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=7#comm 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  7@http://www.dontstop01.com/blog/ 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

It's a well-known fact: Companies and organisations need to cultivate human resources and human talent if they want to grow and prosper. And yet, despite the fact that many businesses already include HR as a factor in their bottom line calculations, only in a few cases are top HR Managers also members of the boards of directors in their business.

The point is that people are becoming more and more important, and more and more companies are beginning to realize it. The concept of human knowledge and creativity being crucial competitive factors in the future is also showing up in political debate about such subjects as globalisation. Consulting firms are also aware of 'HR and the bottom line', and many are busy trying to fit people into Excel. The good news, in other words, is that everybody is aware of the changes, but the bad news is that the challenges are being met in quite the wrong way.

The basic problem is that the full industrial and economic mindset from the time when capital was the most important factor is being transferred intact to a society, an economy, and workplaces where the most important factor has become people. When you focus on the bottom line that relates to the industrial society, you completely lose sight of the bottom lines of the future, where organisations, workplaces, and work content dominate.

Former chief of Shell's scenario unit, Arie de Geus, points out that in the future the aim is not to measure anything in terms of past bottom lines, but to create new bottom lines. Or to put it another way: The call is not for cataloguing the world, but for remaking it. (I met Arie de Geus for the first time at a conference in Berlin October 2004 – and he is really a great great storyteller, and touched the hearts and minds of everybody I think – so I’m looking very much forward to hear and meet him again in march at the Don’t Stop-conference here in Cph. You may want to read the interview, I did with him 2005 – and you can find it elsewhere on this site).

The problem with the bottom line today is that it measures the present and not the future. If there existed a word that meant the opposite of 'strategic', that word would describe perfectly the way most people think about the bottom line today.

In the future, HR Managers will have a crucial position in businesses and organisations. In a situation where people create wealth and growth, HR becomes the most important strategic function in businesses and organisations. Unfortunately, the strategic objective is not included in the activities of present-day HR leaders. They're so busy solving day-to-day problems and challenges that the long-term perspectives get lost.

HR managers need to take responsibility for thinking strategically on behalf of their co-workers, the HR field, and the whole socioeconomic structure. They must make the future of co-workers and of HR part of their work today - even though most HR managers do not (yet) have a place on the board of directors.

The first element in a new HR strategy is to position yourself in relation to the future rather than the past and the present. Securing the bottom line for the long run is more important than here-and-now profitability. For that you need new tools, such as scenarios and backcasting procedures. When you put people into budgets and spreadsheets, they become just another entry on a par with printer paper and software, but when you come right down to it, can you really use the results to estimate the relative value of people and e.g. office equipment? Rather than figuring out if it's worthwhile to keep the employees they have, companies should be figuring out what employees they want to have and how to get hold of them.

Hence, the second element in strategic HR is to focus on work environment and work content. Is the workplace, for instance, suitable for the people you want to hire? Many organisations are still characterized by hierarchical structures. How does that harmonise with a demand for creative, independent, and innovative employees if you're just going to give them a fixed place in the hierarchy and restrict their scope with rigid limitations? If you do that, you risk destroying the achiever mentality the company was looking for before you can benefit from it. HR managers have to ask themselves and their companies whether they're actually in a position to integrate such people in their organisation.

The third element in a new HR strategy is to question whether your business produces the right product at all. Is the business doing what it should be doing as it advances towards a future where people are the crucial competitive factor?

The HR field needs, in my opinion, to be developed right now. People will only become more important as we advance as a knowledge society. And the very first question an HR manager should ask himself is: What will HR become in the future?

]]> default 2005-12-14T22:15:00+02:00