Innovation - Four Corporate Operating Models

This blog has recently been enhanced and published as a Capgemini Point of View but I thought it would be fun to publish it in its original format for the regular readers of the blog.  So here it is in its unillustrated, raw state. Hope you find it useful.

If Innovation occurred as a natural reaction to the expressed wishes and exhortations of the CEO on the subject of Innovation then this would be a very short blog.

However, those of us that are practitioners and advisors on the topic know that it does not.  In fact those of us who carry any kind of Innovation related title should take a good hard look at ourselves and admit we’ve let our industries down by colluding with the idea that somehow all we need, in order to generate Innovation in our businesses, are some verbal signs of support from the senior executives.  This is nonsense.  Think it through.   

If I meet up with a CEO and ask him/her to describe to me their financial management process they will have no problem in outlining the process, the systems underpinning it, its governance rules and the roles of the people who manage it.   The same will be true if I ask about the people management process and as of relatively recently, they’ll even be able to walk me through the risk management process.

But ask about the Innovation process and they’ll almost immediately flip their responses to start telling me about the specific “innovations” that have occurred in their businesses in the last 2 years or so.  Not the process, just the outcomes.  When really pressed they might be able to point to a Head of Innovation who reports into the Head of Product development somewhere and they may be able to point out that they have a more or less sophisticated employee suggestion scheme but almost none will be able to talk me through their Innovation process. The simple reason for this is, that on a corporate scale, they are highly unlikely to have one.  No clear operating model, no end-2-end process, no underpinning systems and technology, no real investment or resources and no real chance of delivering a regular flow of innovation. Ouch!

NB – before pharmaceutical and technology clients start feeling smug about themselves as they start casually pointing to their tried and tested R&D process for creating new products – can you tell me the process for corporate innovation in any area other than new product development e.g. service innovation, cost reduction innovation, business model innovation, distribution process innovation etc?  Thought not. 

So rather than rant on about how sad a state of affairs it all is and that someone, somewhere should do something about it I thought I’d grab the bull by the horns and outline four different operating models that an executive who wants to remedy the situation can think about implementing.

First off, some basics.  For any innovation operating model to work it needs to have a clearly defined end-2-end process, good funding and resourcing, clear governance, effective technology and systems and executive support.  Without these you can design what you like it just won’t work very well.  Now to the models, all be it at a very high level.

Model 1 – The Culture of Innovation.

This works great for companies that live or die by their ability to innovate and can be seen in action in companies such as Google and 3M.  In this model Innovation is the responsibility of all the members of the company and each individual is expected to contribute.  To support this employees are recruited for their creativity/entrepreneurial tendencies and are given a proportion of their week to work on developing new cool ideas.  To support this model recruitment needs to be targeted and very effective and the reward system for developing innovative concepts needs to be clear and generous.  In addition individuals need easy access to prototype developers and concept testers to support their efforts.

The strengths of the model are that it is rarely short on ideas and as long as collaboration is encouraged and facilitated the flow of new innovation is relatively constant.   The weaknesses are that this is a hopeless model for those businesses that recruit people for their ability to comply with process and follow the rules e.g. Insurers, Accountants etc.  There can also be an over focus on the development of new product rather than other forms of innovation and a tendency for innovation to peter out after the prototype has been developed and given an initial testing.

Model 2 – The Golden Thread of Innovation

This works well for those companies that are in a growth cycle and are looking to expand.  In this model Innovation professionals are deployed across the business to develop and manage the innovation process on behalf of the business units.   They work to an agreed process and are supported by the Business Unit executives who have the overall accountability for (and are bonused on) the Innovation delivered.  The Innovation professionals working in the Business Units are supported by an Innovation CoE that sits in the corporate centre to provide coordination and support (access to prototyping and testing capability etc).  Companies that have previously used this type of model include GE and RBS (pre credit crisis).  The key to making this model work is to ensure that the business unit executives are absolutely on the hook for driving innovation and that the capability is properly funded.  It cannot be seen as a nice to have by the business units.  Careful recruitment is also required to select the right individuals.  The key roles in this model are those liaising with the business unit executives to drive Innovation.  This requires both innovation skills and great sensitivity to business realities.

Model 3 – The Innovation Hub

This is a model suited to those corporate businesses that have limited investment resources and are in a cost reduction/contraction phase.  They know they need to drive innovation in order to survive but need the attention of their executive team focused on resolving the current challenges.   An Innovation hub or hubs concentrates the organisations innovation resources into units that sit outside the day to day running of the business.  The capabilities in the hubs are supplemented by external providers that enable the hubs to ramp up and ramp down in line with investment capability.   The external providers also provide access to specific skills or infrastructures that the business cannot afford to build or maintain at the current time on a permanent basis.   Innovation hubs can often be constructed as joint ventures with the corporate trading off some of the future profits from the innovation ideas in return for a reduced cost of the support from the external provider.  The strengths of this model are its flexibility and ability to leverage wider innovation ecosystems.  The challenge lies with finding the internal innovation experts who have the skills and capabilities and aptitude to work in this kind of environment.  A lot will be expected of them as they will need to manage both the Innovation process and the day to day management of the Innovation hub plus have an ability to work with stressed out, under pressure executives. 

Model 4 – Innovation as a Service

Much as you can outsource a Finance and Accounting process or an HR process you can also outsource the innovation process.  This is a model suited to those businesses who know they are not innovative in their nature and who do not employ innovative people.  In this model an external provider takes over all or the vast majority of the Innovation process delivering an agreed level of implementation ready innovation concepts back to the business on a regular basis.   The corporate does not need to worry about ideation, prototyping, testing, piloting or the building and testing of business cases.   As long as the corporate is capable of implementing the innovation concepts then the Innovation process can be outsourced.   The strengths of this model are that the Innovation process is managed by professional innovators and should therefore provide reliable outcomes at a reasonable price point.   The challenges are to overcome the cynicism and inertia that can be injected into the process by corporate executives who have an aversion to anything “not invented here”.

That’s it for the high level canter through the models – more details are available on request.  Happy Innovating.

The connected workforce - connected by design or chance

Perhaps one of the most exciting and relatively unexplored frontiers of the digital revolution is the new possibilities for workforce performance improvement through digital technology and it’s natural fit with human behaviour.

The place where bytes meet neurons.  

Digital technologies have already changed the environment we are in, creating possibilities for real-time data analysis, global connectivity, 24/7 mobile access to information, enhanced communications and on-demand digital tools and apps. Our workforces are already connected and becoming more so on a day-by-day basis.

Our new, digitally enabled, tech rich workforces are like fertile gardens. We can design the layout, plant the right digital capabilities, cultivate the right behaviours and remove the legacy of dead wood. Alternatively, we can let the wind blow in whatever direction it will, and allow our workforce to be a digital wasteland - barren in parts and populated by unwanted weeds.  Businesses should take a moment to consider whether their workforce is connected by design….or by chance?

If they’re not sure, it might be useful to think about what an effectively connected workforce looks like.   There are a number of features that are recognisable as inputs to the creation of the connected workforce. The big outcomes are:

1. The employee is able to access and use the right data, at the right time and location to make the best possible real-time decisions
2. The employer is able to generate valuable insight from analysing the data associated with the actions of their employees. This enables them to continually enhance the quality of MI, advice and support

In theory this creates a wonderful virtuous circle of learning between employee and employer, and the development of a very smart learning organisation. 

Now that is either very exciting or very scary depending on your viewpoint. 

Our work phones and tablets provide rich two-way sources of data, allowing employees to receive real time direction on their “next best action” and employers to receive real time insights into the behaviours of their employees under changing conditions.   Taken to its relatively realistic conclusion, it will be possible for organisations to make and effectively action real-time course corrections based on changing external conditions. 

This is a vision of the truly connected workforce and once we get past the Matrix/ Terminator/ Cybermen “machines have taken over” worries, we really need to sit down and think through how we build the workforce infrastructure, ethics and architecture that will enable our organisations to thrive in this fast approaching world.  This is not science fiction – recent MIT/Capgemini research into digital transformation neatly illustrates that the “Digirati” (those companies that are leading the way on digital) are spending serious time and money to get this right.  They are definitely not leaving employee connectivity to chance.

Now it’s never quite as simple in practice as it is in theory, and my experience to date says it is definitely worth breaking the concept of the connected workforce  down a bit to have a look at the component parts, otherwise it may all seem a bit too sci-fi and unobtainable.

Here are a few of the key base building blocks that are in place in digitally smart organisations which are working towards creating a connected workforce:

• Employees have easy (often mobile) access to real-time decision support tools that are supported by effective data analytics
• These tools are supported by a digital infrastructure that allows employees across the business to have a shared view of the customer and the customer issues
• Employees have easy access to a wide range of communication channels that enhance their connectivity and accessibility to their colleagues – particularly those that support teaming and knowledge sharing
• Employees behaviours (particularly around learning and compliance) are influenced and modified by the use of “gamification” and other digital solutions, they are not left to chance
• Employees can access the services that support them in their roles such as Admin, Knowledge Management, Learning and Development and Performance Management tools across multiple channels (including mobile) on a 24/7 basis
• Management have the ability to monitor and assess the multi-layered People Risks that exist in the organisation using multiple data sources
• Where appropriate, non-front line employees, have the ability to choose the devices and tools that best enable them to do their jobs (Bring Your Own Device schemes etc)  

Once these are in place, the prospect of a connected workforce is a real possibility with all the associated business benefits and ethical/behavioural conundrums.   We will need to think hard about how we feel about being “controlled by the machines”. Are we ok with the fact that our decisions will be increasingly informed by an aggregation of everyone else’s decisions?  Will I no longer be able to think independently? Inevitably the answer will be yes and no.   Philosophical challenges aside, we need to recognise the digital genie is already out of the bottle and we need to respond effectively to this new digital world.

Three steps to a digital workforce

So what has to change?  What have the smart CEOs and HRDs got to get to grips with in order to connect their workforces by design?   According to what I am coming across with my clients, there are three areas that require action.  To develop a connected workforce, organisations need to build a digital infrastructure, develop a digital aptitude and determine their digital appetite.  This takes a lot of leadership and a good deal of vision.  Let me try and unpick it a little.

Infrastructure

Firstly the organisation needs to build a digital infrastructure to support the connected workforce.  This infrastructure needs to be able to do four things really well.  It needs to be able to “sense” what employees need and require (digital senses).  It needs to be able to collect and “interpret” employee related data (digital brain).  It needs to be able to connect with and instruct the workforce on the next best action (digital spine) and it needs to be able to provide the employee with the digital tools and methods required to support them in the delivery of their tasks (digital limbs).

Aptitude

Secondly the organisation needs its leaders and workforce to take on new digital attitudes and skills (digital aptitude) to take full advantage of the digital infrastructure.  As occasionally happens in sport, new enthusiasts can be accused of having “all the gear and no idea”.  Having digital infrastructure without digital aptitude is just a bit embarrassing.  It is really important that the CEO and HRD work on shifting the culture using behavioural psychology and digital gamification to shift old school behaviours and learn new skills.  The connected workforce will require new digital skills (data analysis and basic programming etc).  Recent research by O2 suggests 745,000 additional workers with digital skills will be needed before 2017.  What an opportunity and what a challenge.

Appetite

And finally the organisation needs to determine its approach to digital risk management and governance (digital appetite).  Digital appetite is a proxy for deciding on the level of risk, security requirements, transparency and external engagement the organisation is prepared to work with.  It’s really important that the organisation is able to think through the controls required and to communicate them effectively to the organisation.  Not everyone needs to see and share everything.

So to conclude, a properly connected workforce that underpins a real time learning organisation is no longer a pipe dream but a very real possibility.  

This blog is also published in Bdaily Business News https://bdaily.co.uk/technology/03-10-2013/connected-by-design-building-the-connected-workforce/

A Review of British Culture - Is Britain starting to think a bit like the French?

This is a bit of a left-field blog for me but I hope you all find it as stimulating and thought provoking as usual.  At a minimum It contains plenty of good material to discuss at a dinner party, preferably over a good glass of wine.

During the current horrific Syrian crisis there was a moment where a Russian official allegedly referred to Britain as a “small island that nobody takes any notice of...”   Ouch!  Of course, David Cameron rose to the defense of Britain and mounted a robust rebuttal pointing out the history and contribution of Britain to science, art and civilisation and making the point that Britain is actually a collection of Islands.  So there.  This in turn set the press off interviewing the public, ex-pats and visitors alike hoping to find a suitably slanderous or amusing quote on the state of Britain.  However, what I found particularly notable throughout all of this was the understated, but underlying feeling permeating the coverage that maybe, just maybe the Russian had a point and maybe, just maybe we Brits actually believe him.

Now clearly we are not an entirely insignificant group of Islands but on the other hand we no longer stand in governance over a globe spanning empire.  Our international clout is in decline.  Now whilst this is not a new revelation as this has been the case for decades, what is new is the way that the country seems to be responding to the obvious reality.  For years we have managed to comfort ourselves with the idea of a special relationship with the US and to wrap ourselves up in the joy of reminiscence of empire and world wars and whilst these generations have been alive and present we seem to have been happy to live in a relatively inconsequential delusion that Britain is a very important country.  Now, with the war generations departed I think we are actually, finally, tacitly beginning to properly reassess our global position and face up to what we already knew but didn’t like admitting, that we are no longer a very important country.   So what are the signs that this is happening and what will the consequence be for Britain?   The signs are subtle and the consequences are a bit unsettling, you see I think we are becoming a bit French in our thinking, let me explain.

Earlier this summer I sat down one barmy evening with my French colleagues in a beautiful chateau to drink a lovely French wine whilst consuming an excellent local cheese, to unwind and talk nonsense.  As the wine flowed our conversation turned to our thoughts on our respective national characteristics and what it means to be French or British.  What emerged was fascinating.  Now for many years the French have known that whilst being an important country they haven’t been a massively important country, as a result they have done a tremendous job of becoming very French.  As my colleagues described it to me, “It’s almost as if what it means to be French is constantly being distilled and concentrated.  Our pride in our wines, our foods, our films, our music, our language and our culture is strong and those aspects are well preserved and strongly defended by laws and regulations.  However, this protection comes at a price as our National Identity is almost at the point of becoming pickled, of becoming completely stuck in the past and very difficult to change.”   Wow.  At this point the neural connections started firing in my brain as my thoughts turned to British culture.   Is British culture in the process of becoming distilled?  Are we on the road to permanently fixing what it means to be British?  And is this a good thing or a bad thing? 

Let’s take those big questions one at a time.  Is British culture in the process of becoming distilled?  My view is yes – I think I can see the early signs.  Britain has recently rediscovered the Union Jack, has started earnestly discussing immigration in mainstream politics, has a growing level of nostalgia in relation to classic British brands, has a renewed patriotism and love of the Royal Family and has an overwhelming desire to stick the word Brit in front of any number of nouns (Brit Awards, Brit Pop, Brit Art etc).  We also have the prospect of the Scots declaring UDI on the United Kingdom which further brings the notion of Britishness to the fore.   We are still a lot further back from being as distilled as the French but the clamour to define what it means to be British is stronger than I can ever remember in my lifetime and I do think that yes we are about to start the distillation process.  The next step will be to start having guidelines that describe exactly what it is that constitutes the Classic British Breakfast and to start ingraining classic victorian teaching methods into our education system.  I’m only half joking.

Now for the second question, are we on the road to permanently fixing what it means to be British?  Well, if we are on the path of distillation the answer must be a yes.   We are probably moving closer to being able to define the essence of what it means to be British.  Once we have defined Britishness we will start building laws and cultural norms to protect it and preserve it.

Final question then, is this distillation process a good or a bad thing?  It depends.  As a progressive thinker who is proud of the fact that the favourite food in the UK is famously Chicken Tikka Massalla (an outcome that could never occur in France) I’m not sure I like the idea.  I’m pretty sure the citizens of the world’s rapidly expanding economies are not sitting around contemplating what it means to be Chinese, Indian, Brazilian or Indonesian.   I like the idea of living in an ever changing, generous, progressive melting pot.  I’m not sure I want to be part of a country that has to summon up immense reserves of energy to change itself because of the inbuilt constraints.   On the other hand I recognise that this process of distillation is almost an inevitability and many people will be delighted about the idea of defining and protecting what it means to be British and take great comfort at being able to protect and cherish the concept of Britishness.  So my plea to the nation will be to not become so “British” that we forget that at the heart of the concept of Britishness (my interpretation) is the ability to boldly step out across the globe and embrace change.  I kind of like that.

Going Digital in the Boardroom – Is UK Plc running out of time?

It really will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog if I draw attention to the key finding from Capgemini and MIT’s recent research into the impact of digital technologies on businesses across the globe* – namely that the new digital capabilities are creating the conditions to drive a third industrial revolution (a real digital transformation).  Despite this research and the welter of anecdotal stories confirming the devastatingly transformational power of emerging digital capabilities across UK industries a recent survey by Russell Reynolds Associates (reported in the Telegraph**) revealed that there are still a massive 308 of the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies in Britain who currently have no “digital” board members at all.   That means a big percentage of our UK big businesses do not have at least one Board member who claims to be “up to speed” on digital technology.  Given the scope and pace of change this seems like a significant handicap for UK PLC.  

So what I want to think about in the blog is this:  Is this finding

a) A statistical non fact*** that can be deemed irrelevant as it doesn’t affect the current and/or future health and well being of UK plc or 

b) Are we seeing a classic Canute-like, digital obfustication from the Boardrooms of a country that struggles to establish high speed broadband links, deliver comprehensive mobile coverage (even in London) and is steadily slipping behind many other countries in the depth and breadth of the available commercial and public applications of digital? 

Now I know it sounds as if I might be slightly biased but let’s pretend I’m not and analyse the issue a bit at a time.  First let’s ponder a) whether or not this is indeed a non-issue bought to life through the use of yet another non-fact.  Let’s explore whether or not this is much ado about nothing.   So what if UK Boards do not have board members who understand digital technology, as long as the Board members understand finance and business process does it really matter?  Well, what is very clear from the Capgemini/MIT research is that Digital Leadership is a key component for those businesses who wish to benefit from the 26% profit advantage available to the Digirati**** and it would seem to be pretty difficult to provide the vision and strategy necessary to become a Digirati without senior commitment in the Boardroom.   Therefore, I think we can rapidly conclude that not having capable digital leadership in the Boardroom is akin to shooting yourself in the foot when running the global “digitally competitive” race.   We desperately need digital leaders in the UK Boardroom's and we need them there now.

Having put to bed the “non-fact” argument (albeit rather rapidly) let’s review b) the idea that this is just a classic case of the Boardrooms of UK Plc being change resistant.  Now what is interesting and slightly worrying here is that, according to Russell Reynolds, whilst the rate of digital non executive board appointments is on the rise (hurrah), with around 4 per cent of 2012 newly appointed directors in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 having digital backgrounds, the UK is still lagging far behind the United States (oops), where 15 per cent of newly appointed Fortune 100 directors in 2012 had digital backgrounds.  If we also include the anecdotal “digital” stories from the Nordics and the Asian world we can be persuaded to conclude that in the UK we are moving more slowly than some of our closest competitors.  In addition UK Boardrooms have “form” when it comes to integrating new elements into their homogeneous ranks.  As has been much discussed and debated, many UK Boardrooms are still a long way away from having a representative number of female members too.   So it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that the lack of “digitally savvy” Board members is merely another example of the maintenance of the status quo in the UK’s white, male, finance orientated Boardrooms – ouch.  Maybe we could call the condition digiphobia.

Ok, so looking at the above I think it’s fair to say UK Plc has a bit of a problem.  If we want to be competitive in the global marketplace we have to get our act together, overcome our digiphobia and enhance and broaden our digital leadership capabilities at speed.   In the UK we really need to get our heads around the benefits of digital and we need our politicians, business leaders and community leaders to start championing a positive digital future for the UK.  Not as easy as it seems in a country that prides itself on its cynicism and conservatism (small c).  Ask yourself this question - when was the last time you read a positive story about digital technology in the press or saw one on the TV?  Thought so.  Then ask yourself how many digital scare stories you’ve heard or read recently (twitter trolls, wikileaks, internet child abuse sites, etc).  No comparison is there?  Do you see Digital as something vital or slightly scary?  And yet when any sane, rational person sits down to consider the benefits that have accrued to society as a result of the implementation of new digital capabilities across all aspects of our lives the argument is overwhelmingly in favour of digital.

So come on UK plc – let’s put aside our “Little Britain” tendencies, ignore the doom laden messages of the Daily Mail for 10 minutes and embrace, champion and invest in digital technology and infrastructure in the full knowledge that if we don’t we will be ensuring our economy takes a further step backwards.   Let’s overcome our digiphobia and whilst we are at it our homophobia and misogyny and bring into the boardroom a new generation of digital leaders who can help us play on the digital world stage. Rant over.

*Capgemini/MIT’s initial Digital Transformation research –

http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/digital-transformation-a-road-map-for-billion-dollar-organizations

** Telegraph article on Digital Leadership –

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10199828/Britains-boardrooms-suffering-from-digital-deficit.html

***A non-fact is a fact that sounds interesting but in reality is deeply ambiguous or pointless, e.g. 78% of men in the UK do not regularly use a microwave oven.  An interesting fact on the surface but one that is ultimately worthless and in this case totally fabricated

****Capgemini/MIT’s research into the Digital Advantage –

 http://ebooks.capgemini-consulting.com/The-Digital-Advantage/index.html

Business Improvement vs Business Transformation - what really is the difference?

New technologies are constantly spawning opportunities for businesses to change the way in which they operate.   Many consultancies and software vendors will talk happily to their clients of the transformational nature of these technologies and wax lyrical about the opportunity to fundamentally reengineer the business.  However, having been involved in leading “big change” programmes over the last 20+ years I am all too aware of the fact that the “T” word is one of the most overused there is in the change business.   So, having been asked recently to ponder the difference between straight forward business improvement and transformational business change I thought I’d drop down a few thoughts to help dowse the hyperbole and look afresh at what it means to transform a business.

So here is my reading of the subject, which to be fair, is a bit of a mash-up of the work of some pretty serious philosophers, anthropologists and sociologists who spent a lot of time thinking about the way the world changes and my own experiential observations.   In this context, perhaps one of the most useful and insightful views on the difference between business improvement and transformation was shared with me recently by the venerable Bill Cook – CEO of Capgemini Consulting UK.  Bill looked at the challenge through the lens of technology maturity.

“In the development cycle of any new wave of technology (from the dawn of computing through the development of mainframes, the proliferation of desk top technology, the development of business process specific technology and onto the digital and cloud based services) there are always two specific phases.   The first phase is where the technology is new and businesses can choose from a multitude of providers to help “improve” their business capabilities.  The key challenge in this phase is the choice of the right vendor to fit with the current business processes or structures.  The second phase is where the new technology has matured and the market has consolidated (think business process technology consolidating onto SAP or Oracle platforms).  During this phase the impact of implementing the new technology is so large that rather than fit the technology to your business you are impelled to fit your business to the technology.  The key challenge in this phase is how do I change my business to maximise the benefits from this new technology.  This is transformation.”

This is certainly a pretty good and pragmatic way of looking at the difference and works well.  Another way of looking at the challenge that I quite like is to look at the “scope” of the change.  If the “change” is fundamentally altering the structures, processes and ways of working within your business then I think its a fairly safe bet to call it transformation – if the technology is merely enhancing one of the elements (structures, processes, ways of working) then that is business improvement.   It’s a simple and relatively loose view but not a bad way of looking at the difference.

For the purists, who really understand what Thomas Kuhn meant, by the now much misused concept of the paradigm shift, a Transformation is a much rarer thing that only occurs when an idea, concept or technology so changes our perception that holding onto the old ways of thinking and operating seems ridiculous – imagine the new options that emerged when we discovered the world wasn’t flat and that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  What is fascinating is that in Capgemini and MIT’s recent series of research into the concept of Digital Transformation the conclusion was that the advent of digital capabilities was of such a profound nature that it has the same transformational potential of the technologies of the industrial revolution.  http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/digital-transformation-a-road-map-for-billion-dollar-organizations  

This is heady stuff but even a casual peak at the carnage being reeked on our high streets that is being directly attributed to the rise of digital capability suggests that we are once again seeing a wave of technology enabled change that we can truly call transformational.   We are living in exciting times.

So to conclude – if you are implementing a set of business wide, linked, digital technologies that are changing your businesses structure, process and ways of working it’s fair to say you are transforming your business.  If you are automating a single process it is pretty likely you are engaged in Improvement.  Everything in between is debatable.  Have fun debating it.

Thoughts on Innovation inspired by Glastonbury

This year I made it to Glastonbury where I had a remarkably good and mud free time.   The music was mostly fabulous and because my wife works in the music industry and has access to multiple backstage areas the loos were OK too.  For those that have yet to make it to this monument to passion (Michael Eavis’s), dedication (50,000 staff) and logistics (set in over 900 acres) let me just say that the scale of the Glastonbury Festival is mind blowing.  In essence a town the size of Watford (200,000+) emerges in a valley, parties solidly for 4 days and then vanishes to be replaced by cows.   At its peak this year more than 100,000 people gathered on the fields in front of the pyramid stage to watch the Rolling Stones do their thang.

But here’s the thing – despite Glastonbury and the myriad of other summer music festivals - the music industry is in big financial trouble having been completely reshaped by the advent of the new digital capabilities.  Digital has fundamentally changed the way we make, listen to and consume music.   Now I am making the assumption that this is not news to most of the people reading this blog and that going through the whys and wherefores of the music industry’s demise is not going to be necessary.   What I would like to do though is look at how the music industry has typically responded to the crisis and look at what other industries can learn from that response – and I want to do it by looking at the basic product – the artists and musicians.

Now the music industry has always been somewhat temporal and ephemeral – actually revelling in the concept of the “one hit wonder”, but, during the 60’s, 70’s and ‘80’s there at least seemed to be a passion about the product that has somehow got lost along the way.   Don’t get me wrong, there are still a number of very good artists and musicians out there writing, making and playing great music (Mumford & Sons, Lianne le Havas, Kodaline etc) but to my mind the progressive, world-bending heart and soul of the industry seems to have gone.  The rise and fall of the great new bands or music genres seems to have been replaced by a very commercial set of products that seem to be based around the selling of “nostalgia” (Rolling Stones, ‘80s Reforms etc) or to be completely “disposable” (X-Factor, The Voice, all dance music etc).  The prophetic words of the tremendous band, Half-man, Half-biscuit who wisely proclaimed – “Pop will eat itself” seem to have really come to pass.

Now before a riot breaks out and people start accusing me of a) being old, b) being an ‘80s throwback or c) not being a big fan of the Rolling Stones – all of which are true – what I’d like to state is that there is nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia and a bit of disposability.   However, if it’s all that’s left on the shelves then it’s a pretty poor diet.

So, apologies for introducing some management speak into the blog but if I may reference the Boston Consulting Matrix* for a short while, I believe that what is driving this state of affairs is really quite simple – the only way the “traditional” distressed music industry has been able to conceive of making money this millennium has been to either milk their “cash cows” or to create sneaky disposable “cash cow mimics” (my term)– they look like cash cows but have not benefited from the level of investment needed to turn them from genuine “question marks” to real “stars”.   This leaves the product buying public with little choice between the music of the nostalgia pedlars and the would-be one hit wonder makers.  Unsurprisingly overall music sales and revenues continue to slide leaving the industry (not music) in a weaker and weaker state.

So what might other industries learn from this.  How should other industries respond when the new digital capabilities (mobile, data, cloud, social) start to transform their worlds?  What should they do when their cash flow is squeezed and the urge to milk or mimic the cash cow is strong?   Well, unsurprisingly I’m with Steve Jobs who managed to galvanise apple to invest in Innovation through a downturn and reap the rewards.  Of course our hard pressed industries should tighten their belts and reduce waste, but, please business leaders do not fail to invest in new product innovation and development.  Otherwise, the outcome for all of us is far too predictable.  Businesses will see the slow demise of their revenues and profits and we as customers will be subjected to a wearying array of nostalgic, repackaged products and an alternate set of instantly forgettable products of dubious quality.  Neither of these seems like a fabulous way to rediscover the much needed and illusory economic growth.

Failing to invest in product innovation and development is what the music industry has spectacularly failed to do over the last 20 years and we are all the poorer for it.  We mustn’t be afraid to invest in new trends, innovation and products, it really doesn’t have to be expensive (remember punk) just fresh and inspirational with a desire to change the world.   Now that would be rock’n’roll baby.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCG_growth-share_matrix

Work shadowing - A personal lens on Michael Gove's UK Education Reforms

Today, to equal fanfare and wailing, saw Michael Gove (UK Education Secretary) launch a series of educational reforms designed to better prepare the children of the UK for the workforce of the next decade.  This is of course a deeply contentious subject but one that is of real interest to me as both an employer and a parent of a teenager.   Interestingly, the challenges that Michael Gove is trying to wrestle with come into a wonderful and sharp focus in the arena of "workshadowing".  The very moment that many of the modern day pupils are given their first glimpse of the world of work.  

Below is a very personal view of what happens when the world of work and the world of school collide. 

Recently I proudly hosted my 14 year old son in the office.  He was “work shadowing” me.   For the uninitiated that means he accompanied me to work for a single day to watch and observe me as I make my way through a typical day at the office.  The theoretical idea is that he sees what the world of work is actually like and starts to form some views as to what he would like to do with his life.

What I was thinking beforehand was...

This’ll be a good day – it’ll give my boy a chance to meet some of the people I mention over the dinner table at home and give him a really good insight into what it’s like to actually go out to work.  I secretly hope that’ll he be a bit proud of me.

What he was thinking beforehand was...

This has a lot of potential for being a really dull day - I can’t believe I have to get up so early, I wonder what Dad eats for lunch and I can’t wait to go to Thorpe Park with the rest of the class tomorrow.

What actually happened was...

That I successfully illustrated to him that his Father’s working life does in fact consist of getting up early, commuting and then hopping from one meeting to the next until it’s home time.  He dutifully trailed me around, did his school “workshadow” report in the quiet moments between meetings, got suitably bored and fell asleep on the train home.

What he learnt was...

Commuting is tiring and Dad’s job is actually duller than I thought – now for Thorpe Park

What I learnt was...

That my son looks better in a suit than I do.  That the experience our children have at school is a million miles away from the way we work in the modern office environment.   That it’s really difficult to impress a 13 year old by typing at a PC whilst sitting at a desk,  that I need to do a bit more planning and preparation before he comes back to try and do “work experience” for a week at the grand old age of 15.

What all this tells us about education reform...

Clearly more can be done to better prepare our children for the world of work.  However, given that many of my adult friends spend really quite some time reminiscing about their school days and in particular their own "Thorpe Park" moments I would urge caution before we run headlong into creating a school experience that perfectly mirrors the workplace.  In hindsight, if we are looking for convergence, perhaps we should be looking to make the workplace experience more like the one many of us enjoyed at school - to be fair there are quite a few workplaces that I have visited that would undoubtedly benefit from having a day out at Thorpe Park too.