Irving Wladawsky-Berger

The Changing Nature of the Liberal Arts in the Digital Economy

What is meant by the liberal arts? Here is a succinct dictionary definition: “The academic course of instruction intended to provide general knowledge and usually comprising the arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, as opposed to professional or technical subjects.” And, here is a more thorough explanation: “A liberal arts education is by nature broad and diverse, rather than narrow and specialized…  [it] is not intended to train you for a specific job, though it does prepare you for the world of work by providing you with an invaluable set of employability skills, including the ability to think for yourself, the skills to communicate effectively, and the capacity for lifelong learning.”

Over the past few decades, business, engineering, and other professions not previously associated with the liberal arts have embraced a number of its attributes. A few years ago, for example, I came across an article about the efforts of Roger Martin to transform business education. At the time, Martin was the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. He had long been advocating “that students needed to learn how to think critically and creatively every bit as much as they needed to learn finance or accounting. More specifically, they needed to learn how to approach problems from many perspectives and to combine various approaches to find innovative solutions.” Such a transformation would require business schools to move into territory more traditionally associated with the liberal arts.

Similarly, in a 2006 report, the National Academy of Engineering called for reforming engineering education. “New graduates were technically well prepared but lacked the professional skills for success in a competitive, innovative, global marketplace. Employers complained that new hires had poor communication and teamwork skills and did not appreciate the social and nontechnical influences on engineering solutions and quality processes.”

A few years ago, USC’s Annenberg School of Communications and Journalism conducted a study to better understand the key competencies companies were looking for. Future leaders, the study found, must be strong in quantitative, technical and business skills. But to advance in their careers, they also need to be good strategic thinkers and must have strong social and communications skills. Companies were looking for so called T-shaped professionals who combine deep quantitative, technical, problem solving hard skills with broad multidisciplinary, communications, and social soft skills that enable them to collaborate with experts in other fields.

The Current State of AI Adoption

For the past few years, McKinsey has been conducting a yearly online survey to help assess the state of AI adoption. The 2019 survey garnered responses from over 2,300 companies, and found that AI was becoming more mainstream, with nearly 80% of the responding companies using AI in some capacity. Most of these companies saw measurable benefits from their AI deployment, with 63% reporting year-over-year (YOY) revenue increase, while 44% reported YOY cost savings. However, much work was still necessary to scale the use of AI across the company, manage the risks, and retrain their workforce.

The most recent survey, took place in June of 2020 and received responses from almost 2,400 participants from different regions, industries, company sizes and functions. The State of AI in 2020, published in November, found that revenue increases had become a bit more common (66%) compared to the previous year, while cost decreases were now somewhat less common (40%). The biggest year-over-year increases were found in the strategy and finance functions (73% vs 59%), risk management (68% vs 57%), manufacturing (71% vs 61%), and supply-chain management (72% vs 63%). The biggest YOY cost decreases were found in strategy and finance (32% vs 50%), risk management (38% vs 54%), manufacturing (50% vs 64%), human resources (43% vs 55%), and product and/or service development (21% vs 29%).

What accounts for these (relatively small) differences between the two most recent surveys? “What we’ve said in the past about ‘following the money’ to find where AI adds value in organizations still holds true,” explained the report. “And, overall, many companies focused on growth in 2019 …; for that reason, it’s likely that we saw more companies driving revenues with AI rather than decreasing their costs - not because AI can’t effectively reduce costs.”

New Directions for Government in the Digital Age

Over the past few decades, economies and societies around the world have been going through historical transformations as they transition from the industrial age of the past two centuries to a 21st century digital age. Companies - especially large, global corporations - have leveraged digital innovations to improve their productivity and competitiveness and adapt better to these powerful technology and market changes.

In 2010, the Technology CEO Council released a report recommending that governments embrace the information technologies (IT) and organizational best practices that the private sector was successfully applying: “By harnessing major technological shifts and adopting best business practices, we can not only make our government far more productive, but also foster greater innovation in areas ranging from healthcare to education and energy - innovation that will generate economic growth and job creation.”

But governments have continued to lag the private sector, and risk falling further behind as the pandemic accelerated the digital transformations that are helping companies cope with the crisis. “We’ve seen two years’  worth of digital transformation in two months,” as companies adapt to stay open for business “in a world of remote everything,” said Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in April 2020. A month later, McKinsey & Company added, “We have vaulted five years forward in consumer and business digital adoption in a matter of around eight weeks.”

The authors of a recently published report, “New Directions for Government in the Second Era of the Digital Age,” argue that governments should exploit this fast-moving era of technology in their own operations, for the overall benefit of their nations. The 120-page report was authored by Don Tapscott, Kirsten Sandberg, and Anthony Williams from the Blockchain Research Institute (BRI), in collaboration with the Chamber of Digital Commerce and experts from several countries. The BRI is a global think tank dedicated to the strategic implications of blockchain and related technologies to business, government and society. I am a research contributor at the BRI.

The report aims to assist government leaders around the world, but is particularly focused on the opportunities and challenges facing the new US administration.

AI Is Mostly About Business Value, Not Technology

A few months ago, Babson College professor Tom Davenport convened a virtual meeting of chief data and analytic officers (CDAO) from a variety of industries to discuss how to best achieve a return on investments (ROI) in AI. “We wanted to learn to what degree these senior leaders shared our perspective that AI faces an important economic return issue, and what, if anything, their companies were doing to address it.”  Many participants said that a decent ROI remains a critical issue for AI projects.

Davenport has long been analyzing how companies should build up their AI capabilities to achieve their business objectives.  For example, in a 2018 Harvard Business Review article he co-authored, Davenport advised companies to build their AI capabilities through the lens of business opportunities, rather than technology.  As has been generally the case with new technologies, highly ambitious, multi-year moon shot projects are less likely to be successful than low-hanging-fruit projects.  Business process automation is one of the least expensive and easiest capability to implement, since companies have long been engaged with enhancing and automating their business processes.

The following year, Davenport talked about the state of AI in the enterprise at the annual conference of MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy  His talk was based on recent surveys by Deloitte of executives in US-based companies who were involved in AI projects.  The surveys found that 20-30% of enterprises were early adopters, having implemented at least one AI prototype or production application; most of the projects were in pilots with relatively few already in production; simple projects prevailed over more ambitious and complex ones; and implementation, integration, data issues and talent topped the list of challenges faced by these early adopters.

Ten IT Predictions for the Post-Pandemic New Normal

“Spurred on by the world reaction to the disruptions caused by the global pandemic in 2020, the global economy remains on its way to its digital destiny, as most products and services are based on a digital delivery model or require digital augmentation to remain competitive,” said a recently published IDC study on the key trends that will shape the IT industry over the next five years.

IDC’s overriding conclusion is that the Covid-19 pandemic will significantly accelerate the digitalization of the global economy  “The majority, 65%, of global GDP will be digitalized by 2022, driving $6.8 trillion of IT spending from 2020 to 2023.”

The study highlights ten predictions that will drive the IT industry in the post-pandemic new normal, including the challenges faced by CIOs and IT professional as they manage the implications to their institutions over the next five years.  Let me summarize IDC’s top ten predictions.

Is Work-from-Anywhere Here to Stay?

Remote work has been around for a few decades, but took off in the mid-late 1990s with the explosive growth of the Internet.  There were predictions that the Internet would lead to the decline of cities, because technology was making location less relevant to our work and personal lives.  Why would anyone choose to live in an expensive, stressful metropolitan area and endure a long daily commute?  However, instead of declining, superstar cities continued to attract talented, ambitious knowledge workers, and to generate the greatest levels of economy activity and innovation.

But, even before the pandemic, “a movement was brewing within knowledge-work organizations,” wrote Harvard professor Prithwiray (Raj) Choudhury in a recent Harvard Business Review article, Our Work-from-Anywhere Future.  “Personal technology and digital connectivity had advanced so far and so fast that people had begun to ask, ‘Do we really need to be together, in an office, to do our work?’”

“We got our answer during the pandemic lockdowns.  We learned that a great many of us don’t in fact need to be colocated with colleagues on-site to do our jobs.  Individuals, teams, entire workforces, can perform well while being entirely distributed - and they have.  So now we face new questions: Are all-remote or majority-remote organizations the future of knowledge work?  Is work from anywhere (WFA) here to stay?”

The Surprising Power of Business Experimentation

We’ve long associated innovation breakthroughs with science and technology coming out of R&D labs, e.g., the transistor, penicillin, DNA sequencing, TCP/IP protocols, and so on.   Such major lab-based breakthroughs are at one end of the innovation spectrum.  At the other end are market-facing innovations, whose purpose is to create appealing and intuitive user experiences, new business models, and compelling market-based strategies.

Lab-based innovations were generally born when scientists, mathematicians or engineers developed new theories, technologies, algorithms or programs in an R&D lab.  Over time, often years, the innovations found their way to the marketplace.  Since technology and markets advanced at a relatively slow pace, there was little pressure to reduce the transition times from lab to market.  This was the prevailing innovation model through most of the 20th century.

It all started to change in the 1980s as the rate and pace of technology advances significantly accelerated.  The hand-offs and elapsed times to take an innovation from lab to market were no longer competitive, especially with products based on fast changing digital technologies.  Start-up companies significantly shortened the time-to-market for new products and services, putting huge pressure on companies still operating under the old rules.

These competitive pressures, were further exacerbated by the explosive growth of the Internet in the 1990s, as I personally learned when becoming general manager of the newly established IBM Internet Division in December of 1995.  A lot was starting to happen around the Internet, but it was not clear where things were heading, and in particular what the implications would be to the world of business.  With the Internet, there was no one technology or product you could work on in the labs that would make you a success in the marketplace.  This time around, the strategy itself had to come from the marketplace, not the labs.

Embracing the Internet turned out to be much more than a technology change.  It had a very big impact on the overall culture of IBM and many other companies, paving the way for a more outside-in approach to innovation based on continuous marketplace experimentation. 

In his 2020 book Experimentation Works: The Surprising Power of Business Experiments, Harvard professor Stefan Thomke explains the major changes that’ve been taking place in innovation and experimentation over the past 20 - 25 years.

The Intangible Asset Revolution

“Take all the physical assets owned by all the companies in the S&P 500, all the cars and office buildings and factories and merchandise, then sell them all at cost in one giant sale, and they would generate a net sum that doesn’t even come out to 20% of the index’s $28 trillion value,” said Epic S&P 500 Rally Is Powered by Assets You Can’t See or Touch, an article in Bloomberg published on October 21, 2020, -  a day when intangible assets made up more than 84% of the S&P value.

“The rise of intangibles helps explain why many American workers have recently had it so rough, with wages stagnating and benefits disappearing,” adds the article.  And, given our increasingly digital post-pandemic new normal, we can expect the share of intangibles to go higher, “a source of deep concern for those who worry about things like employment and inequality.”

Intangible assets are easier to define as the opposite of tangible assets.  Tangible assets are generally physical in nature, including vehicles, land, plants, equipment, and furniture, but they also include financial assets like stocks, bonds, account receivables, and cash which have a concrete contractual value.   On the other hand, intangible assets are neither physical nor have a concretely specified financial value.  Intangibles include patents, copyrights, trademarks, goodwill, brand value, human capital, R&D, software, and data.  Despite having no physical existence, intangibles have a monetary value since they represent potential revenue, but that value must be established based on accounting principles.  And, unlike tangible assets, intangibles are difficult to value and insure.

According to a 2019 research report by the Ponemon Institute, the value of intangible assets has truly exploded over the past several decades, right along with our increasingly digital economy.  In 1975, the overall value of the S&P 500 was $715 billion, of which 17% was intangible.  In 1985, out of a total value of $1.5 trillion, 32%, or around one third was intangible.  By 1995, the percentages had switched, with intangibles now being 68% of $4.6 trillion.  Intangible values continued to climb to 80% out of $11.6 trillion in 2005; and to 84% of $25 trillion in 2018.

What Is Objective Reality?

I learned about The Constitution of Knowledge, - a 2018 National Affairs essay by author and journalist Jonathan Rauch, - from a recent OpEd by NY Times columnist David Brooks.  In his “remarkable essay,” wrote Brooks, “Rauch pointed out that every society has an epistemic regime, a marketplace of ideas where people collectively hammer out what’s real.  In democratic, nontheocratic societies, this regime is a decentralized ecosystem of academics, clergy members, teachers, journalists and others who disagree about a lot but agree on a shared system of rules for weighing evidence and building knowledge.”

Rauch’s essay asks a very important and timely question: what is objective reality?  “In everyday vernacular, reality often refers to the world out there: things as they really are, independent of human perception and error,” he wrote.  “Reality also often describes those things that we feel certain about, things that we believe no amount of wishful thinking could change.  But, of course, humans have no direct access to an objective world independent of our minds and senses, and subjective certainty is in no way a guarantee of truth.”

The distinction between subjective opinion and objective facts is nicely captured in this widely used quote: People Are Entitled To Their Own Opinions But Not To Their Own Facts.  It’s the essence of any discussion about objective reality.  However, the distinction between opinion and facts has long been rather porous in totalitarian regimes, as well as in highly polarized periods, - like our own.

On top of which, we now have the impact of social media.  “Over the last decade, we’ve doused our kindling fire of human interaction with high-­octane gasoline,” wrote MIT professor Sinan Aral in his recently published book The Hype Machine.  “We’ve constructed an expansive, multifaceted machine that spans the globe and conducts the flow of information, opinions, and behaviors through society.”  We now have a global social media ecosystems that’s been designed to stimulate and manipulate the human psyche, and to persuade us that there’s no such thing as objective facts and objective reality.

Why Business Transformation Efforts Often Fail

A 2019 study found that the average digitization level across all industry sectors was only around 25% of their ultimate potential.  But, the pandemic has now made the case for accelerating the digital transformations firms and economies were forced to make to help them cope with the crisis.  But, how successful are such major transformation likely to be?

A few months ago I received an email from the Harvard Business Review recommending a classic article from its 50 Best Selling collection that could shed light on this important and timely question, - Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, originally published in 1995 by (now emeritus) Harvard professor John Kotter.

“Over the past decade, I have watched more than 100 companies try to remake themselves into significantly better competitors,” wrote Kotter.  These included large and small organizations, US and non-US based, some that were on their knees and some that were doing quite well.  “But, in almost every case, the basic goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market environment.”

The 1985-1995 decade referenced by Kotter was also marked by major technology changes, - e.g., the explosive growth of PCs, the client-server model of computing, the advent of the Internet and World Wide Web; as well as major economic changes including the rise of global supply chains, outsourcing and offshoring.

How to Emerge Stronger in the Post-Pandemic New Normal

“What now?,” asked a recent McKinsey article on the implications of Covid for business.  “Over the past six months, they have reorganized supply chains, set up remote operations, and made tough financial decisions.  But without a COVID-19 vaccine yet available, not much feels different, and the summer pause hasn’t done much to relieve fatigue.”

“One priority, then, is to reenergize the organization - to act rather than react.  Even as the COVID-19 crisis continues to create a world of uncertainty, the goal must be to rebuild for the longer term.  Companies that are strong and resilient will be better placed to survive and prosper.  Those are qualities that can’t be taken for granted; they need to be cultivated.” 

But, how can a company, - regardless of size or industry, - formulate a rebuilding strategy for the longer term in such an uncertain environment?  As former president Dwight Eisenhower famously said when he was the overall Commander of Allied Forces in WWII: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable.”  In other words, rather than doing so on-the-fly, planning during highly uncertain times requires that companies thoroughly map out their rebuilding strategy, and quickly and flexibly react to the continuing changing circumstances.

Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines

On November 18, the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future released its final report, The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines.  The Task Force was commissioned in the spring of 2018 by MIT President Rafael Reif to address what may well be the most critical question of the digital economy: as emerging technologies raise aggregate economic output and the wealth of nations, will they also enable people to attain higher living standards, better working conditions, greater economic security, and improved health and longevity?  An interim report was released in September, 2019.

“Amidst a technological ecosystem delivering rising productivity, and an economy generating plenty of jobs (at least until the COVID-19 crisis), we found a labor market in which the fruits are so unequally distributed, so skewed towards the top, that the majority of workers have tasted only a tiny morsel of a vast harvest,” is the Task Force overriding conclusion.  Yet, it argues that with better policies in place, more people could enjoy good careers even as new technologies transform the very nature of work.

The Public Face of Science - Implications of the Covid Crisis

The Public Face of Science was launched four years ago by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to better understand the complex relationship between scientists and the American public.  The initiative has now published three reports.

The first, Perceptions of Science in America, was published in 2018.  It found that a majority of Americans have expressed a great deal of confidence in the scientific community, a confidence which has remained stable over the past thirty years.  But, it also found that confidence in science varied based on demographics, including age, race, educational attainment, regional location, political affiliation and other characteristics.  The report recommended additional research to better understand why certain topics were particularly controversial, especially climate change, vaccine safety, and genetically modified foods.

It was followed by Encountering Science in America, which was published in 2019.  This second report explored the diverse and expanding range of opportunities for people to learn about science outside the classroom, including visits to science centers and museums, general news sources, online information, social media, and entertainment.  It concluded that such a complex landscape calls for a multifaceted approach to the public face of science, and recommended additional research to better understand how effective communications and engagements shape the public’s interest in their understanding and support of science.

Priorities for the Future, the third and final report, was published in August of 2020.  While the report doesn’t directly address the implications of Covid-19 to the Public Face of Science initiative, it does so in an accompanying document which highlights the critical role played by science in ensuring the well-being of individuals and society during the pandemic.  “[T]he experience with COVID-19 reinforces the need for continuing thoughtful work to address public access to reliable scientific content and to enhance the public’s capacity to identify and reject misinformation and disinformation (intentionally false information).”

AI Technologies Are Fundamentally Changing How Work Gets Done

After decades of promise and hype, artificial intelligence is finally becoming one of the most important technologies of our era.  AI technologies, like machine learning, are clearly having a major impact on the very nature of work.  But, how can we best quantify their impact on the actual evolution of jobs?

The best approach for exploring the relationship between technology and jobs is to look at the individual tasks that comprise a job.  Most jobs involve a number of tasks.  Some of these tasks are relatively routine and based on well-understood rules, while others require judgement, social skills and other human capabilities.  The more routine and rules-based the task, the more amenable it is to automation. 

However just because some of its component tasks have been automated, does not imply that the whole job has disappeared.  To the contrary, automating the more routine parts of a job will often increase the productivity and quality of workers by complementing their skills with technologies and tools, thus enabling them to focus on those aspect of the job that most need their attention.  While automation  substitutes for labor, automation also complements labor, increasing productivity and other economic outputs in ways that often raise the demand for and earnings of workers.

“The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) poses a new set of opportunities - and challenges - for work and workers,” said The Future of Work: How New Technologies Are Transforming Tasks, a research report released last Fall by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab.  “The tasks that can be done by machine learning are much broader in scope than previous generations of technology have made possible.  The expanded scope will change the value employers place on tasks, and the types of skills most in demand.”

May the Network Force Be With You

May the Force Be With You has become part of popular culture since the words were first uttered in the 1977 Star Wars film.  As we know, The Force is a source of power for those who, like the Jedi, feel its flow.  “The network force is similar,” wrote Silicon Valley network expert and entrepreneur James Currier in Your Life is Driven by Network Effects.  “You don’t always see it, but it is exerting itself on you.  It wants something from you. Your network force proactively guides you down a path.”

“When you start to see that dialogue between you and your network, the push-pull, you see it everywhere.  The chaos of the world diminishes a bit and becomes more understandable and predictable. And you understand more why things are the way they are and why they stay that way.  Hopefully, it will also give you insights as to where you can push to change things that should be changed, not just about you, but about your company, your city, and your world.”

Over the past few decades, network forces have been influencing many aspects of business, the economy, and our social interactions.  The Internet’s universal reach and connectivity have led to increasingly powerful network effects, such as, for example, platform economies.

The Real Business of Blockchain

“Companies in industries as diverse as finance, sports, health care, retail, oil and gas, and pharma are engaging in a wave of blockchain experiments,” write Gartner analysts David Furlonger and Christophe Uzureau in their recently published book The Real Business of Blockchain.  “Many see it as the solution for bringing trust and transparency to digital environments.” Blockchain has indeed been capturing the imagination of business.  According to a Gartner Research Forecast, the business value-add of blockchain is expected to exceed $3 trillion by 2030, over half that amount by 2025.  But, in plain English, what does this all mean?

“It means you can theoretically do business with an unknown partner located anywhere on the planet and trade any asset at any transaction size and not need a lawyer, a bank, an insurance company, or any other intermediary making sure both of you follow through on what you’ve promised to do,” write the book’s authors.  “Such a solution vastly expands the range of assets that a business could trade.  The arrangement also greatly increases who or what a business could directly trade with, without needing a third party (which would take a piece of the value).”

Reflections on the Later Stages of Our Careers

I recently read “Your Professional Decline Is Coming (Much) Sooner Than You Think,” an essay in The Atlantic by social scientist and author Arthur C. Brooks.  Brooks essay is a personal reflection on professional careers.  In particular, the essay explains why in July of 2019 at the age of 55, he concluded that it was time to resign his decades-long position as president of the prestigious American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to join the faculty of the Harvard Kennedy School.  I found Brooks’ essay particularly intriguing as a lens through which to reflect on the later stages of my own career; - when I turned 60 in 2005, I started the transition toward my 2007 retirement from my long IBM career by becoming affiliated with MIT and starting to write my weekly blogs.

The essay references the work of Dean Simonton, professor emeritus of psychology at UC Davis, who’s conducted extensive research on the trajectories of creative careers and is one of the world’s leading experts on the subject.

Over the years, Simonton developed a mathematical model that explains the long term variations in the career trajectories of different individuals, as well as the differences in career trajectories across disciplines and domains.  A few parameters account for most individual differences: the age at which the career starts, the career’s initial creative potential, the rates at which new ideas are generated, and the rate at which the ideas become finished results as publications or products.  This simple model can then predict the trajectory of each individual’s career, including the ages of their first, their best and their final contribution.  Simonton confirmed the validity of his model by analyzing the creative output of the careers of over 2,000 scientists and inventors, as well as the output of musicians, painters, authors and other artists.

“[S]uccess and productivity increase for the first 20 years after the inception of a career, on average,” wrote Brooks summarizing Simonton’s results.  “So if you start a career in earnest at 30, expect to do your best work around 50 and go into decline soon after that.  The specific timing of peak and decline vary somewhat depending on the field.”  Other research has found that the likelihood of a major discovery by scientists and investors increases steadily through their 20s and 30s, and then declines through their 40s, 50s and 60s.  While there are outliers, “the likelihood of producing a major innovation at age 70 is approximately what it was at age 20 - almost nonexistent.”

How Will the Pandemic Reshape Labor Markets?

“The COVID crisis appears poised to reshape labor markets along at least four axes: telepresence, urban de-densification, employment concentration in large firms, and general automation forcing,” wrote MIT’s David Autor and Elisabeth Reynolds in a July essay on The Nature of Work After the COVID Crisis.   “Although these changes will have long-run efficiency benefits, they will exacerbate economic pain in the short and medium terms for the least economically secure workers in our economy, particularly those in the rapidly growing but never-highly-paid personal services sector.”

Autor and Reynolds are cochairs of the ongoing MIT Work of the Future task force, whose interim report was published in the (pre-Covid) Fall of 2019.  The report’s overriding conclusion was that the likelihood that AI and automation will wipe out major workforce sectors in the near future was exaggerated.  However, there were very important reasons for concern, in particular, the rising polarization of employment and wage distribution over the past few decades which has disproportionately benefited high-skilled professionals. Our most critical challenge, said the report, isn’t necessarily a lack of jobs, but the low quality of jobs and viable careers available to many workers, particularly those without college degrees.

“Despite our concerns about the distributional consequences of advancing technologies, until the COVID crisis began, we were sanguine about the prospects for ongoing employment growth, even in the face of lackluster wage growth,” said the authors in their July essay.  “In the fall of 2019 we wrote, ‘We anticipate that in the next two decades industrialized countries will have more job openings than workers to fill them, and that robotics and automation will play an increasingly crucial role in closing these gaps’. The COVID crisis has upended our confidence in that prediction - not merely because COVID has generated mass unemployment in the short term, which it has, but also because the postcrisis trajectory now worries us.”

The AI Factory: A New Kind of Digital Operating Model

“Whether you’re leading a digital start-up or working to revamp a traditional enterprise, it’s essential to understand the revolutionary impact AI has on operations, strategy, and competition,” wrote Harvard professors Marco Iansiti and Karim Lakhani in “Competing in the Age of AI”, a recently published article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR).  Earlier this year, they also published a book of the same title, which expands on the ideas in the article and illustrates them with a number of concrete use cases.

The age of AI is being ushered by the emergence of a new kind of digital firm.  Rather than just relying on traditional business processes operated by its workers, these firms are leveraging software and data-driven algorithms to eliminate traditional constraints and transform the rules of competition.  Managers and engineers are responsible for the design of the new AI-based operational systems, but the system then runs the operations pretty much on its own.

“At the core of the new firm is a decision factory - what we call the AI factory,” note the authors.  “[T]he AI factory treats decision-making as a science.  Analytics systematically convert internal and external data into predictions, insights, and choices, which in turn guide and automate operational workflows…  As digital networks and algorithms are woven into the fabric of firms, industries begin to function differently and the lines between them blur.”

The Industrial Revolution transformed the economy by developing a scalable, repeatable approach to manufacturing.  The AI factory is now driving another fundamental transformation by industrializing the data gathering, decision making, and overall digital operations of 21st century firms.

Why 70 Percent of Digital Transformations Fail

“Companies either transform or die in industrial revolutions,” writes former P&G executive Tony Saldanha in his recently published book Why Digital Transformations Fail.  “Digital transformation is our current generation’s attempt to transform in the face of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  However, the sad truth is that 70 percent of all digital transformations still fail today… a shocking number, given the extremely high stakes,” he adds.

What accounts for such a high failure rate?  An inadequate strategy; competitive pressures; technology; talent; culture? While all these factors are important, “The surprising answer to why digital transformations fail is a lack of discipline in defining and executing the right steps for digital transformations to take off and stay ahead,” notes Saldanha, adding that “It is possible to apply the proven checklist methodology from the airline and medical fields to improve the 70 percent failure rate.”

In a 2015 article, Klaus Schwab, - founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, - positioned the Fourth Industrial Revolution within the historical context of three previous industrial revolutions.  The First, - starting in the late 18th century, - was driven by new innovations like the steam engine and marked the evolution from an agrarian to an industrial economy.  The Second, - a century later, - was driven by steel, electricity, the internal combustion engine and mass production techniques.  The Third, - starting in the 1960s, - saw the advent of digital computers, IT, the Internet, and the automation of process in just about all industries.  The Fourth, - driven by increasingly pervasive and inexpensive digital technologies, - is now blurring the lines between the digital, physical, and biological worlds, leading to widespread economic and social disruption.

Saldanha defines digital transformation as “The migration of enterprises and societies from the Third to the Fourth Industrial Revolution era.  For companies, this means having digital technology become the backbone of new products and services, new ways of operation, and new business models.”

“Companies either transform or die in industrial revolutions,” writes former P&G executive Tony Saldanha in his recently published book Why Digital Transformations Fail.  “Digital transformation is our current generation’s attempt to transform in the face of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  However, the sad truth is that 70 percent of all digital transformations still fail today… a shocking number, given the extremely high stakes,” he adds.

What accounts for such a high failure rate?  An inadequate strategy; competitive pressures; technology; talent; culture? While all these factors are important, “The surprising answer to why digital transformations fail is a lack of discipline in defining and executing the right steps for digital transformations to take off and stay ahead,” notes Saldanha, adding that “It is possible to apply the proven checklist methodology from the airline and medical fields to improve the 70 percent failure rate.”

In a 2015 article, Klaus Schwab, - founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, - positioned the Fourth Industrial Revolution within the historical context of three previous industrial revolutions.  The First, - starting in the late 18th century, - was driven by new innovations like the steam engine and marked the evolution from an agrarian to an industrial economy.  The Second, - a century later, - was driven by steel, electricity, the internal combustion engine and mass production techniques.  The Third, - starting in the 1960s, - saw the advent of digital computers, IT, the Internet, and the automation of process in just about all industries.  The Fourth, - driven by increasingly pervasive and inexpensive digital technologies, - is now blurring the lines between the digital, physical, and biological worlds, leading to widespread economic and social disruption.

Saldanha defines digital transformation as “The migration of enterprises and societies from the Third to the Fourth Industrial Revolution era.  For companies, this means having digital technology become the backbone of new products and services, new ways of operation, and new business models.”

Are We Becoming a Decadent, Stagnating Society?

Earlier this year I read a very interesting essay, “The Age of Decadence”, by NY Times columnist Ross Douthat.  The essay is adapted from his recently published book The Decadent Society - How We Became the Victims of Our Own Success.  This long essay covers a lot of ground, from technology and innovation to politics and religion.  The essay was published in early February, before Covid-19 spread across the US.  I’ll discuss the original essay, but I do wonder how it would have been modified to reflect the impact of the pandemic.

“The real story of the West in the 21st century is one of stalemate and stagnation,” wrote Douthat.  “Everyone knows that we live in a time of constant acceleration, of vertiginous change, of transformation or looming disaster everywhere you look.  Partisans are girding for civil war, robots are coming for our jobs, and the news feels like a multicar pileup every time you fire up Twitter.  Our pessimists see crises everywhere; our optimists insist that we’re just anxious because the world is changing faster than our primitive ape-brains can process.” 

“But what if the feeling of acceleration is an illusion, conjured by our expectations of perpetual progress and exaggerated by the distorting filter of the internet?,” he asked.  What if we really inhabit an era in which repetition is more the norm than invention; in which new developments in science and technology consistently undercover; in which we’re comfortably aging, “no longer optimistic about the future… [while] growing old unhappily together.”  What if  “Our civilization has entered into decadence.”

The Transformational Impact of Blockchain-based Supply Chains: Nine Real-World Use Cases

In May 2016, Don Tapscott published Blockchain Revolution, his 16th book, this one co-written with son Alex.  Don, whom I’ve known for over 25 years, has an uncanny knack for identifying The Next Big Thing and explaining it to everybody else through his books, articles, and speeches.  Don and Alex have each developed a follow-on blockchain book.  Earlier this year, Alex published Financial Services Revolution, while a few weeks ago Don published Supply Chain Revolution, which I will now discuss.

Supply Chain Revolution consists of nine chapters, edited with a foreword by Don.  He opens his foreword by noting, “When we first started working on this book, the coronavirus (COVID-19) hadn’t yet made headlines…  As I’ve become fond of saying, ‘If you’ve got it, a supply chain brought it to you.’  I suppose that, during these times, I could add, ‘If you can’t get it, a supply chain let you down.’”

Each chapter details how blockchain is revolutionizing a different supply chain, from general use cases like global trade to more specific ones like food traceability and manufacturing.  Each was written by some of the world’s top experts on these blockchain applications.

For a few years now, I have argued that supply chain applications will likely emerge as the earliest blockchain killer apps.  Given that blockchain first came to light in 2008 as the architecture underpinning bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, many thought that its killer-apps would be in the financial services industry.  That might well be the case in the future, but given its underlying complexity, transforming the global financial ecosystem will take considerable time and investment.  Supply chain infrastructures and processes are significantly less complex than those in financial services, healthcare, and other industries, which is why several supply chain use cases have already been brought to market over the past few years.

The Long-Term Impact of Early-Career Setbacks

Fail fast, fail often is one of Silicon Valley’s best known mantras.  Is there something to this belief that if you’re not failing fast and often you may be stuck in a stagnating endeavor?  After all, social scientists have their own Matthew Effect, - i.e., the rich get richer and the famous get more famous, - as evidenced in our age of rising economic inequality and superstar dynamics.

In early March, - just before Covid-19 brought normal life to a screeching halt, - I attended a very interesting seminar by Northwestern professor Dashun Wang.  Over the past several years, professor Wang, along with various collaborators, has been investigating the impact of early-career setbacks on the future careers of scientists.

“Setbacks are an integral part of a scientific career, yet little is known about their long-term effects,” notes a recent article he co-authored in Nature Communications.  “Despite the ubiquitous nature of failures, it remains unclear if a setback in an early career may augment or hamper an individual’s future career impact.”  The Matthew Effect would suggest that early-career success is an important determinant of a successful scientific career.  On the other hand, early setbacks could well be a marker for future achievement, teaching young scientists, entrepreneurs, artists, etc, valuable lessons that they wouldn’t have otherwise learned, i.e., what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.  Which is the most likely scenario?

Could AI Reshape the Global Balance of Power?

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) was established by the US Congress in Fiscal Year 2019 to “advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies by the United States to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.”  A few months ago, the 15 member Commission, - led by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt  and former deputy secretary of defense Robert Work, - released its interim report. The final report is due to be released in March, 2021.  It remains to be seen how the Covid-19 pandemic will impact the final report’s recommendations and release date.

“The convergence of the artificial intelligence revolution and the reemergence of great power competition… threaten the United States’ role as the world’s engine of innovation and American military superiority,” said the interim report in its opening statements.  “How the United States adopts AI will have profound ramifications for our immediate security, economic well-being, and position in the world…  We are concerned that America’s role as the world’s leading innovator is threatened… We know strategic competitors are investing in research and application.  It is only reasonable to conclude that AI-enabled capabilities could be used to threaten our critical infrastructure, amplify disinformation campaigns, and wage war.”

Like the Internet, - let’s remember that ARPANET was started in the late 1960s by the US Department of Defense, - AI is usable for military and civilian purposes.  But, - also like the Internet, - AI is a general purpose technology that can be used for a wide variety of applications, many of them beneficial, but others potentially threatening.

Scenario Planning - Formulating Strategy in the Face of High Uncertainty

“How can we formulate strategy in the face of uncertainty?,” asks Learning from the Future, a recent Harvard Business Review article by Peter Scoblic, in its opening sentence.  Answering this question has never felt more urgent as leaders prepare for the future.  “Even before the Covid-19 crisis, rapid technological change, growing economic interdependence, and mounting political instability had conspired to make the future increasingly murky.”  Uncertainty was already all-encompassing.

“And then the pandemic hit.”

When the present resembles the past, we can calculate the probability of future outcomes by analyzing past historical data.  That’s how insurance companies accurately predict the life expectancy of different people based on age, gender, general health, behavioral traits like smoking and drinking, etc.  But the situation is very different when the present doesn’t resemble the past.  “Uncertainty stems from our inability to compare the present to anything we’ve previously experienced.  When situations lack analogies to the past, we have trouble envisioning how they will play out in the future.”

Military strategists first developed scenario planning in the 1950s to help them envision the impact of a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union, - something that was clearly way beyond anyone’s experience.  The object of scenario planning is to assemble all known facts, trends, and other information and use them to create a number of alternative stories rich in detail, typically three or four, about plausible future outcomes along with the development paths and key events that led to such outcomes.  Altogether, the scenarios should span the scope of possible futures, although the actual future will likely include events from each scenario.

Remote Work is Surprisingly Productive, But For Many… Something Is Missing

What If Working From Home Goes on … Forever?, asks science and technology journalist Clive Thompson in the title of his June 9 NY Times Magazine article.  “The coronavirus crisis is forcing white-collar America to reconsider nearly every aspect of office life.  Some practices now seem to be wastes of time, happily discarded; others seem to be unexpectedly crucial, and impossible to replicate online.  For workers wondering right now if they’re ever going back to the office, the most honest answer is this: Even if they do, the office might never be the same.”

A recent survey found that of the 56% of respondents employed pre-Covid-19, half were working from home, - 35% having recently switched to working from home, while another 15% were already doing so pre-Covid; 37% continued to commute to work, and 10% had been recently laid-off or furloughed.  The survey was  based on two separate national samples of US data, - one which gathered 25,000 responses in early April, and the second another 25,000 responses in early May.

Thompson’s article cites the experience of Accenture, which has around 500,000 employees in more than 200 cities in 120 countries.  Before the pandemic, no more than 10% worked remotely on any given day.  But, by the middle of March, nearly all were asked to work from home.  Employees adapted quickly, said Accenture’s CTO.  The volume of video calls went up by a factor of six while those of audio calls tripled.  Despite having to switch from face-to-face to audio and video interactions, overall productivity actually went up as measured by several metrics.

It’s difficult to judge whether the surge in remote work will last.  “Home life in a lockdown is much harder than usual,” notes Thompson.  “Many workers who live alone are experiencing enforced isolation as an emotional grind… Nearly every parent I spoke to had their fingers crossed that schools and day care would reopen in the fall - at which point remote work might become an option they could choose, as opposed to one they were forced to endure.  Assuming that such a day does arrive, it’s possible that quite a few may elect to continue working outside the office.”

Post-Pandemic, Is the World Likely to Become Significantly Less Flat?

“The golden age of globalisation, in 1990-2010, was something to behold,” wrote The Economist in a January, 2019 article.  “Commerce soared as the cost of shifting goods in ships and planes fell, phone calls got cheaper, tariffs were cut and the financial system liberalised.”

Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat became an international best-seller in 2005 by nicely explaining what this new golden age of globalization was all about, including the key forces that contributed to flattening the world, - from the explosive growth of the Internet, open source software and related technologies; to the rise of outsourcing, offshoring and global supply chains.

In 2011 I attended a conference where Friedman was one of the speakers.  He said that we’ve transitioned from a connected to an increasingly hyperconnected global economy since he wrote The World is Flat in 2004.  Many of the companies and technologies that were part of every day conversations in 2011, - Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, smartphones, cloud computing, big data, broadband wireless Internet, - weren’t mentioned in his book because they had not yet been born or were still in their infancy.

The very nature of the global firm was transformed during these same decades.  In The Globally Integrated Enterprise, a 2006 Foreign Affairs article, then IBM CEO Sam Palmisano argued that the modern industrial corporation was now in its third stage of evolution in the way it conducted business around the world.

What History Tells Us About the Accelerating AI Revolution

A few weeks before our lives were turned upside down by Covid-19, I read Technology at Work v4.0, the fourth report in the Technology at Work Series developed by Citigroup in collaboration with Oxford University.  The report includes an excellent chapter on What History Tells Us About the Coming AI Revolution by Oxford professor Carl Benedikt Frey based on his 2019 book The Technology Trap.

Recent AI advances have “sparked much excitement…  yet despite this, most ordinary people don’t feel particularly optimistic about the future,” wrote Frey.  For example, a 2017 Pew Research survey found that three quarters of Americans expressed serious concerns about AI and automation, and just over a third believe that their children will be better off financially than they were.

But, in fact, serious concerns about the impact of technology are part of a historical pattern.  “Many of the trends we see today, such as the disappearance of middle-income jobs, stagnant wages and growing inequality were also features of the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain around 1750.  This was a period of unprecedented technological change but also one of turbulent social and political change.”

An Increasingly Digital “New Normal”

About a dozen years ago, I attended a conference where I was interviewed on stage by then WSJ technology columnist Walter Mossberg.  He started out by asking me about IBM’s near-death experience in the early 1990s, and the subsequent technical and cultural transformation that made it possible for IBM to reinvent itself and survive, while many other IT companies didn’t make it.  In particular, we discussed whether a successful company transformation must be preceded by the kind of major crisis IBM went through.  When it comes to humans, the ancient Greeks certainly thought so, as reflected in their tragedies.

Transformative change is very difficult for established companies.  Over the years, they’ve amassed valuable assets and extensive organizations.  Already consumed with managing their existing operations, they may look at transformative change as more of a threat or distraction than an opportunity, - unless they’re in dire straits and have no other choice, as was the case with IBM.

A serious crisis is an opportunity for companies to focus on the actions needed to survive in a fast changing environment.  As Rahm Emanuel famously said in a 2008 interview with the WSJ: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  In that spirit, how should companies take advantage of the Covid-19 crisis, - arguably the biggest shock the world has experienced since WWII, - to accelerate their journey toward what most everyone agrees will be an increasingly digital future?

The Urgent Need to Strengthen the Nation’s Resilience

Following World War II and the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the US undertook a series of measures to strengthen the resilience of the country.  These included a significant expansion of government support for scientific research in universities and R&D labs, leading to product innovations from the private sector and better weapons from the defense industry, which contributed to making the US the most prosperous and secure nation in the world.

Another important measure was the expansion of educational opportunities, like the GI Bill which offered the nation’s 16 million WWII veterans payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical schools.  By 1956, over 2.2 million had used the GI Bill to attend college or university, and 5.8 million had used it for some kind of job training program.

In the 1950s the government enacted the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, which led to the construction of over 48,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System at a total price estimated at over $500 billion, - the largest public work in America .  The Act had a dual purpose: facilitating the economic growth of the country as well as supporting the country’s defense during a conventional or nuclear war should it be necessary.

And, last but far from least, in the late 1960s the government launched ARPANET, the digital infrastructure that eventually became the Internet.  ARPANET was supported by the Department of Defense to significantly enhance the resilience of the country following a nuclear attack by enabling computers to communicate with each other using a flexible packet-switching digital network.

But, this post-war focus on resilience has significantly waned over the past few decades.  Let me explain.

Getting Through Highly Uncertain Times - Some Lessons Learned

What does it take to get through highly uncertain times, like the ones we’re in the middle of as we confront the Covid-19 pandemic?  Like most of us, I’ve lived through times of high uncertainty in both my personal and professional lives.  On the personal front, my main observation is that most of us are much more resilient than we realize.  I leave it to psychologists and other experts to offer advice on what it takes to get through such times.

But, when it comes to getting through tough times in our professional life, I’d like to share some lessons learned based on my experiences when IBM, - the company I joined in 1970 after completing my university studies, - almost went out of business in the early 1990s.  Let me describe a few of those lessons.

The 2019 Artificial Intelligence Index

AI has emerged as the defining technology of our era, as transformative over time as the steam engine, electricity, and the Internet.  While still in its early stages, AI is already reshaping the economy, society, our personal lives and the very nature of work, with much more to come as the technology and applications mature, including the scientific research necessary to anticipate and fight future pandemics.  But, what’s the current state of AI and where is it heading?

To help address these important questions, the annual Artificial Intelligence Index was created under the auspices of the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, - guided by a Steering Committee of experts from academia and industry, and in collaboration with a number of sponsoring partners and data contributors.  The AI Index aims to “provide unbiased, rigorous, and comprehensive data for policymakers, researchers, journalists, executives, and the general public to develop a deeper understanding of the complex field of AI.”

Now in its third year, the 2019 AI Index Report was released this past December.  So was the associated 2019 AI Index Data, which includes three times as many data sets as the 2018 edition.  The report  comprises nine chapters.  Let me summarize a few of its highlights.

The Coming Era of Decision Machines

“Artificial intelligence (AI) is the pursuit of machines that are able to act purposefully to make decisions towards the pursuit of goals,” wrote Harvard professor David Parkes in A Responsibility to Judge Carefully in the Era of Prediction Decision Machines, an essay recently published as part of Harvard’s Digital Initiative.  “Machines need to be able to predict to decide, but decision making requires much more.  Decision making requires bringing together and reconciling multiple points of view.  Decision making requires leadership in advocating and explaining a path forward.  Decision making requires dialogue.”

In April, 2017 I attended a seminar by University of Toronto professor Avi Goldfarb on the economic value of AI.  Goldfarb explained that the best way to assess the impact of a new radical technology is to look at how the technology reduces the cost of a widely used function.  For example, computers are essentially powerful calculators whose cost of digital operations have dramatically decreased over the past several decades.  Over the years, we’ve learned to define all kinds of tasks in terms of digital operations, e.g., financial transactions, word processing, photography.  Similarly, the Internet has drastically reduced the cost of communications and of access to all kinds of information, - including text, pictures, music and videos.

Viewed through this lens, the AI revolution can be viewed as reducing the cost of predictions.  Prediction means anticipating what is likely to happen in the future.  Over the past decade, increasingly powerful and inexpensive computers, advanced machine learning algorithms, and the explosive growth of big data have enabled us to extract insights from all that data and turn them into valuable predictions.

Given the widespread role of predictions in business, government and everyday life, AI is already having a major impact on many human activities.  As was previously the case with arithmetic, communications and access to information, - we will be able to use predictions in all kinds of new applications.  Over time, we’ll discover that lots of tasks can be reframed as prediction problems.

The Long-Term Future of Work and Education: Three Potential Scenarios

“Experts differ widely in their predictions about how technological innovation will change the labor market, but they all see a need for changes in education,” write British professors Ewart Keep and Phillip Brown in  a recently published article, Rethinking the Race Between Education and Technology.  While experts don’t generally agree on much, they’re pretty much of one mind when it comes to the growing importance of skills and education in our 21st century digital economy.

Every past technological transformation ultimately led to more jobs, higher living standards and economic growth.  But, as a number of recent studies concluded, to ensure that this will indeed be the case, our emerging knowledge economy should be accompanied by the expansion of educational opportunities for everyone.

While noting that this is the most likely scenario for the next 10 - 15 years, Keep and Brown also consider two potential longer-term scenarios.  Perhaps AI will lead to even more pervasive and fundamental transformations in the nature of work, making it difficult for even those with a college or higher education to find a good job.  Beyond that, some have suggested that in the more distant future we might see an even more radical, science-fiction-like transformation: the end of work as we’ve long known it.

The authors argue that considering such a spectrum of possibilities will help us better prepare for what’s essentially an unpredictable future.  In that spirit, their paper discusses three different labor market scenarios: labor scarcity, job scarcity, and the end of work.

Honest Conversations - The Key to a Winning Transformational Strategy

“Nearly every organization - whether private, social, or governmental - is grappling with huge strategic challenges, often with a need to reimagine its very purpose, identity, strategy, business model, and structure,” writes Harvard emeritus professor Michael Beer in his recently published book Fit to Compete.  “Most of these efforts to transform will fail.  And in most cases, they miss the mark not because the new strategy is flawed, but because the organization can’t carry it out.”

For over three decades, professor Beer and his various collaborators have been analyzing the reasons why so many organizational transformations fail.  In general, the common root cause has been the failure to align the organization’s culture and management processes with the strategic directions they’re after.  The book argues that two interrelated reasons explain these failures.

First, “the whole system of organizing, managing, and leading has to be transformed if organizational behaviors and underlying mindsets are to be changed.”  A transformational strategy that aims to take advantage of new technology and market innovations must involve the whole organization.  But, we often forget that such transformations are truly disruptive, not only to the marketplace but also to your own organization.  You cannot transform a large complex organization through business-as-usual objectives, - e.g., growing revenue and profit, cutting expenses, improving quality, developing better products and services.

Any major company-wide initiative must have the strong and visible support of the CEO and other top executives in the company.  The initiative must be carefully nurtured and protected in its early phases until it’s strong enough to stand on its own.  In any organization, there’s a natural competition for resources between new ventures and the existing lines of business.  Human nature being what it is, managers in the existing units will often feel that any new investments are best given to them to grow their businesses, rather than invested in a new, unproven area. This is one of the many challenges that leaders of the new initiative must skillfully navigate, otherwise the inevitable cultural and political – that is, human – issues will slow them down and potentially kill the new venture.

The State of AI Adoption - High Performers Show the Way

For the past few years, the McKinsey Global Institute has been conducting a yearly survey to assess the state of AI adoption.  Its 2017 survey of over 3,000 AI-aware executive found that outside the technology sector, AI adoption was at an early, often experimental stage.  Only 20% of respondents used any AI-related technology in a core part to their business.  A common theme throughout the report was that the same players who were leaders in the earlier waves of digitization and analytics were the early leaders in the AI wave.

The McKinsey 2018 survey garnered responses from over 2,000 participants from a wide range of company sizes across 10 industry sectors.  Overall, the 2018 survey found that while the business world had begun to adopt AI, few companies had in place the foundational building blocks that would help them to generate value from AI at scale.  30% were conducting AI pilots.  Nearly half, 47%, had embedded at least one AI capability in their standard business processes, but only 21% reported using AI across multiple business functions.  AI investments were still quite small, with almost 60% of respondents saying that less that one-tenth of their digital budgets went toward AI.

The most recent Global AI Survey was published in November of 2019.  McKinsey garnered responses from over 2,300 participants, nearly 80% of whose companies were using AI in some capacity.  Overall,  the survey showed that “Most companies report measurable benefits from AI where it has been deployed; however, much work remains to scale impact, manage risks, and retrain the workforce.”  AI is becoming more mainstream, with 58% of respondents using AI in at least one function, - a nearly 25% increase over the previous year; and 30% reported using AI across multiple business units, - a nearly 50% increase.

One of the survey’s major findings is that a small share of high performers, around 3% of companies using AI, are already achieving outsize business results.   High performing companies are much further along in scaling the use of AI in their organizations, with an average of 11 different use cases compared an average of 3 among the other companies.

Why Some AI Efforts Succeed While Many Fail

Winning with AI, - a 2019 report based on a survey jointly conducted by the MIT Sloan Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group, - found that 90% of respondents agree that AI represents a business opportunity for their company.  The global survey attracted over 2,500 respondents from 29 industries and 97 countries, and conducted interviews with 17 executives leaders of AI initiatives in large organizations.

The report classified the total survey population into four subgroups based on their understanding of AI tools and concepts and their levels of adoption of AI applications: Pioneers (20%) are leading-edge organizations that both understand and have widely adopted AI; Investigators (30%) understand AI but have not deployed applications beyond the pilot stage; Experimenters (18%) are learning by doing, conducting pilots without a deep understanding of AI; and Passives (32%) have not adopted AI and have little understanding of the technology.

“Many AI initiatives fail,” was the report’s overriding finding.  “Seven out of 10 companies surveyed report minimal or no impact from AI so far.  Among the 90% of companies that have made at least some investment in AI, fewer than 2 out of 5 report obtaining any business gains from AI in the past three years. This number improves to 3 out of 5 when we include companies that have made significant investments in AI.  Even so, this means 40% of organizations making significant investments do not report business gains from AI.”

Innovation and National Security in the 21st Century

“Countries that can harness the current wave of innovation, mitigate its potential disruptions, and capitalize on its transformative power will gain economic and military advantages over potential rivals,” was the top finding of the Innovation and National Security Task Force which was commissioned by the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) to assess the current state of US technological innovation.  The Task Force noted that leadership in innovation, research and technology since World War II has made the US the most secure and economically prosperous nation on earth.

“Today, this leadership position is at risk,” the Task Force warned.  Federal support and funding for R&D has stagnated over the past two decades.  “Washington has failed to maintain adequate levels of public support and funding for basic science.  Federal investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP peaked at 1.86 percent in 1964 but has declined from a little over 1 percent in 1990 to 0.66 percent in 2016.”

The US has successfully responded to technological competition in the past.  Sputnik was a tipping point in the space race with the Soviet Union during the cold war, leading to, among other things, a significant increase in the number of graduate student fellowships in STEM disciplines, of which I was personally a beneficiary.  Another prominent example is the strong economic competition from Japan in the 1980s, which the US fended off a decade later with our leadership in the Internet and other major digital innovations.

How to Survive and Thrive in a World of Disruption

Looking back upon my long career, it’s frankly sobering how many once powerful IT companies are no longer around or are shadows of their former selves, e,g, Digital, Wang, Sun Microsystems, BlackBerry.  The forces of disruption might have been more powerful in the fast-changing IT industry, but no industry has been immune.  In less than two decades, the global recorded music industry has lost over half its revenues, while the drop in newspaper advertising revenue in the US has been even steeper.  Retail has undergone major changes with the rise of e-commerce, as has telecommunications with the transition to mobile phones.

Why have so many companies been done in by disruptive technological and market changes?  Is it that in spite of all their efforts in strategy formulation, their management was unable to anticipate them and were caught by surprise?  Or it is that, as if actors in a kind of Greek tragedy, they see the changes coming and understand what needs to be done, but are somehow unable to make the needed strategic and cultural transformations?

“Evolutionary fitness of organizations is determined by their ability to effectively respond to environmental changes,” write Leo Tilman and Charles Jacoby in their recently published book Agility: How to Navigate the Unknown and Seize Opportunity in a World of Disruption.  “Extinctions generally follow a familiar pattern.  Environmental signals - both positive and negative - are undetected or ignored.  Leaders fail to recognize the new reality and accept it for what it is.  No viable strategic vision for the new environment is developed.  Instead, a myriad of tactical activities is deployed, without amounting to a coherent strategy.  Existential risks remain hidden until it’s too late.”

The Increasing Demand for Hybrid, “T-Shaped” Workers

A recent article in The Atlantic used the USS Gabrielle Giffords to illustrate the important changes taking place in the US Navy, - and in the world of work in general.  After discussing various features of its advanced design, the article noted that the ship’s most futuristic aspect is its crew.  “It was designed to operate with a mere 40 souls on board - one-fifth the number aboard comparably sized legacy ships and a far cry from the 350 aboard a World War II destroyer.  The small size of the crew means that each sailor must be like the ship itself: a jack of many trades and not, as 240 years of tradition have prescribed, a master of just one,” noted the article.  Due to increasingly sophisticated technologies and the high cost of personnel, the USS Gabrielle Giffords is among a new class of Navy ships that’s turned away from specialists in favor of so-called hybrid sailors who are able to handle multiple tasks and rapidly acquire new skills.

The replacement of highly specialized workers with problem-solving generalists who are able to handle and quickly learn new tasks has been taking place across a wide variety of  occupations and industries.  Increased productivity and lower costs, i.e., doing more with less, are some of the reasons for this change.  But, the increased complexity of products, applications and systems, and the unanticipated problems that often follow are other important reasons.

The concept of hybrid or T-shaped workers was first introduced around 25 years ago as a metaphor to describe the kind of individuals that the Navy and many other organizations are looking for.  The vertical stroke in the letter T represents a depth of skills and expertise in one or more specific fields; the horizontal bar implies broad multidisciplinary and social skills, as well as the ability to collaborate with experts across disciplines to jointly solve complex problems.

Impact of AI on Government - Opportunities and Challenges

A few weeks ago I wrote about Leveraging AI to Transform Government based on a 2018 report by the Partnership for Public Service and the IBM Center for the Business of Government.  The report illustrates how government is using AI by describing four use cases being pursued by different agencies.  In 2019, the Partnership and IBM collaborated on two additional reports, Assessing the Impact of AI on the Work of Government, and Building Trust, Managing Risks.

This first report is focused on the impact of AI on the federal workforce, based on an analysis of the jobs and tasks most susceptible to automation, as well as on roundtables and interviews with over 40 AI experts.  The overriding conclusion is that, over time, AI will have a deep impact on how government works.  More than 80 different federal occupations, employing over 130,000 workers, are likely be significantly transformed, including 30,000 in the Treasury Department, 16,000 in Defense, and 5,000 in Transportation, as well as a variety of occupations in independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Government Publishing Office.

In particular, AI will have a major impact in three key areas: the transformation of the federal workday, the potential for personalized customer service and the increased importance of technical and data skills.  Let me summarize the findings and recommendations in each of these areas.

How to Transform a “Big, Old” Company into an Agile Digital Business

“As consumers, we take digital technologies for granted…  We don’t wonder why these things are possible; we simply expect them,” said Designed for Digital a recently published book by Jeanne Ross, Cynthia Beath, and Martin Mocker in its Preface.  But, “the adoption of digital technologies in business doesn’t come as naturally,” - especially if you’re working in a big, old company.  “Inserting digital technologies to enhance operations and create new value propositions has proven extremely challenging.”

Previous research has uncovered this puzzling digital adoption discrepancy between individuals and organizations.  While in our personal lives we’ve enthusiastically embraced digital technology advances, many corporations and institutions still struggle to do so.  At a conference several years ago I learned about a so-called Sunday-night/Monday-morning syndrome, the name given to the frustration of  employees of large companies who, at home on Sunday night, have access to the latest devices and applications, but at work on Monday morning, have to use the more primitive devices and applications that their IT departments support.

A quarter century into the digital age, - as a recent McKinsey study found, - the digital maturity of traditional incumbent firms is still relatively low, - under 25% of their overall potential.  Big, established companies, in particular, have been slow to embrace digital organizational practices, - only 26% of worldwide sales are made through digital channels, 30% of internal operations have been digitally automated, and 25% of supply chains interactions have been digitized.

“If digital technologies are consistently making our consumer lives easier, why aren’t they making it easier to succeed in business?,” asks Designed for Digital.  “Why are business leaders anxious about digital disruption rather than marveling about how quickly they can provide new, exciting, and ever-improving digital solutions to their customers?”  Based on five years of research at nearly 200 large companies, - including executive interviews, surveys of business leaders, and in-depth case studies, - the authors overriding conclusion is that “Big, old companies are simply not designed for digital.”

Leveraging AI to Transform Government

“AI has the potential to help address many of our country’s pervasive problems and advance our safety, health and well-being,” said The Future Has Begun, a report on the impact of AI on government by the Partnership for Public Service and the IBM Center for the Business of Government.  “That promise has great potential to transform government.”

 “The most challenging problems AI may help us solve - from fighting terrorists to serving vulnerable populations - will involve government.  More immediately, though not less consequentially, AI will change the way public servants do their jobs.  Because of the impact AI could have on how governments ensure our safety and further our well-being, government leaders are likely to play a significant role in dictating future directions for AI.”

To illustrate how government is using AI, the report is focused on four concrete use cases being pursued by different agencies.  In-depth interviews were conducted with 14 people from 10 organizations, including the various government agencies involved, as well as their collaborators in non profits and universities.  Let me briefly summarize each of these four case studies.

The MIT Work of the Future Report

“The world now stands on the cusp of a technological revolution in artificial intelligence and robotics that may prove as transformative for economic growth and human potential as were electrification, mass production, and electronic telecommunications in their eras,” said the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future in its recently released interim report.  The final report will be issued after conducting additional research over the next year.

The Task Force was convened in the spring of 2018 by MIT President Rafael Reif to address what may well be the most critical question of the digital economy: as emerging technologies raise aggregate economic output and the wealth of nations, will they also enable people to attain higher living standards, better working conditions, greater economic security, and improved health and longevity?

The report’s overriding conclusion is that the likelihood that AI and automation will wipe out major workforce sectors in the near future is exaggerated.  However, we’ve already seen important reasons for concern, especially the rising polarization of employment and wage distribution over the past few decades, which has disproportionately benefited high-skilled professionals while reducing opportunities for mid- and low-skilled workers.

“[A] critical challenge is not necessarily a lack of jobs, but the low quality of many jobs and the resulting lack of viable careers for many people, particularly workers without college degrees.  With this in mind, the work of the future can be shaped beneficially by new policies, renewed support for labor, and reformed institutions, not just new technologies. Broadly, the task force concludes, capitalism in the U.S. must address the interests of workers as well as shareholders.”

How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources

“We have finally learned how to tread more lightly on our planet.  It’s about time,” writes Andrew McAfee in the Introduction to his new book, More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources - and What Happens Next.   McAfee is Co-Director of MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy and a Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, as well as a prolific writer of books and articles.

“For just about all of human history our prosperity has been tightly coupled to our ability to take resources from the earth,” he adds.  “So as we became more numerous and prosperous, we inevitably took more: more minerals, more fossil fuels, more land for crops, more trees, more water, and so on.  But not anymore.  In recent years we’ve seen a different pattern emerge: the pattern of more from less.”

What led to the emergence of a more-from-less pattern?  The book provides a provocative answer to this question.  The most important forces responsible for the change are technological progress and capitalism.

How to Support the Widespread Adoption of AI

“Artificial intelligence is reshaping business - though not at the blistering pace many assume,” notes Building the AI-Powered Organization, an article in Harvard Business Review by McKinsey partners Tim Fountaine, Brian McCarthy, and Tamim Saleh in its opening sentence.  A number of studies agree that AI is the biggest commercial opportunity for companies and industries over the next 10-15 years.  Two recent reports by McKinsey and PwC respectively concluded that AI has the potential to incrementally increase global economic output between now and 2030 by an additional $13 to $15 trillion.

“Yet, despite the promise of AI, many organizations’ efforts with it are falling short,” adds the HBR article.  Surveys with thousands of executives, showed that most firms are only using AI in ad hoc pilots or applying it to a single business process.  Only 8% of firms are engaged in practices that support widespread adoption.

Why the slow progress?  “At the highest level, it’s a reflection of a failure to rewire the organization.  In our surveys and our work with hundreds of clients, we’ve seen that AI initiatives face formidable cultural and organizational barriers…  at most businesses that aren’t born digital, traditional mindsets and ways of working run counter to those needed for AI.”

To support the widespread adoption of AI, companies must make three fundamental shifts.

The Future of Work in the US: A Tale of Multiple Americas

The US economy looks good by almost any measure.  Unemployment is at historical low levels, forcing employers to raise wages and become more aggressive about hiring and training workers.  There are more job openings than unemployed people to fill them.  Inflation remains low.  A number of recent studies have concluded that over the next decade, our technology-based economy will create a significant number of new occupations which will more than offset declines in occupations displaced by automation.  Not only is the US economy doing well in the present, but despite our increasingly smart machines, automation fears appear to be unfounded.

Why then are so many Americans so anxious about the future?  Why do they feel left behind despite our growing economy?  Why is the country so polarized?

A recent McKinsey report, The Future of Work in America: People and place, today and tomorrow, sheds light on these very important questions.  For the past several years, McKinsey has been conducting research on the impact of automation technologies on the future of work at a national level.  This new report is radically different, based on a detail analysis of more than 3,000 US counties and over 300 cities.

Overall, the study found that while in aggregate the country is doing well, there are actually multiple Americas, each with widely different economic patterns and on sharply different trajectories, some of which are doing quite well and face an exciting future, while others are not in good shape and risk falling further behind.

The report is organized into five main sections, and includes a number of tables, graphs and maps.  Let me summarize the key findings of each of the sections.

The Digitalization of the American Workforce

“Over the past half century, wave after wave of digital innovation has ensured that digitalization - the diffusion of digital technologies into nearly every business and workplace and pocket - has been remaking the U.S. economy and the world of work,” said the Brookings Institution in Digitalization and the American Workforce.  The digitalization of everything has both increased the potential of individuals and societies while contributing to widespread anxiety about its impact on jobs and economic inequalities.  “And yet, for all of the evidence that big changes are underway, surprisingly little data exists to track the spread of digital adoption.”

The Brookings report quantified the spread of digitalization by analyzing the changes in the digital content of 545 occupations between 2002 and 2016 based on O*NET, the most comprehensive data on US occupations sponsored by the US Department of Labor.  O*NET includes highly detailed, task-level information on hundreds of occupations, and includes quantitative measures of knowledge requirements, skills, tools, education, training and work activities. In addition, the report collected information on the occupations’ particular industries, pay, growth rates, geographical locations and distribution across educational and demographic groups.

Each of the 545 occupations, - which encompassed 90% of the US workforce, - was assigned a digital score between 0 and 100 based on the required digital skills.  High digital occupations are those with scores over 60.  They include software developers - with a score of 91; computer system analysts - 79; and financial managers, - 61.  Medium digital occupations scored between 33 and 60, and include lawyers - 58; automative service technicians - 55; office clerks - 55; and registered nurses - 55.  Low digital occupations have a score below 33, and include security guards - 31; restaurant cooks, - 18; construction laborers - 17; and personal care aides - 14.

The (Updated) Purpose of the US Corporation

In September of 1997, the Business Roundtable (BRT), - an association of CEOs of major US companies, - issued a Statement on Corporate Governance which argued that “the paramount duty of management and of boards of directors is to the corporation’s stockholders; the interests of other stakeholders are relevant as a derivative of the duty to stockholders.”

Last week, the BRT released an updated statement on the Purpose of a Corporation which moves away from it’s previous commitment to shareholder primacy to now emphasize a “Commitment to All Stakeholders” and to “An Economy that Serves All Americans.”  This new statement, which was signed by almost 200 CEOs, now places shareholder interests on the same level as the interests of all its other stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, and communities.

The recent BRT statement has received mostly positive coverage. “Top CEOs Say Companies Have Obligations to Society.  Business Roundtable urges firms to take into account employees, customers and community,” said the WSJ in its article’s headline.  Speaking of the change, Fortune noted that over the past decade “Capitalism, at least the kind practiced by large global corporations, was under assault from all sides, and CEOs were getting the message loud and clear…  Capitalism, it seemed, was desperately in need of a modifier.”  The only note of discord I came across was the response of the Council of Institutional Investors, which expressed concerns that the BRT statement “undercuts notions of managerial accountability to shareholders.”

I applaud the BRT statement.  “This is great,” I thought when first reading it, followed by “what took you so long?”  Given the suffering brought upon so many Americans by the 2008 global financial crisis, - the worst since the Great Depression, - restoring trust in business and in our capitalist economic system should have been a top priority for corporate leaders.  To help appreciate why it’s taken the BRT over a decade to affirm that companies have obligations to society, let’s take a look at the prevalent economic and political context of the past 50 years.

The Challenges of Automation in a Fast Changing Economy

“Technological innovation should be embraced,” notes Automation and a Changing Economy, a recently published report by The Aspen Institute.  “Automation has been a largely positive economic and social force, and looking forward,   automation will be necessary to feed, house, and raise the living standards of a growing and aging population.” 

But, “While it is important to note that automation’s overall, long-run effect on the economy has been positive - more jobs, more growth, higher living standards - this does not negate the disruptive impact of automation on individuals and communities, which results from displacements, changing skill needs, and income inequality.”

The report is divided into two sections: The Case for Action, which explores how automation impacts the economic security and opportunity of American workers, and Policies for Shared Prosperity, which outlines a policy agenda for addressing automation’s challenges and opportunities.  Let me summarize the key conclusions and recommendations in each of the report’s two sections.