Informatyka w Firmie Archive

0

Cybersecurity: Linchpin of the digital enterprise

Two consistent and related themes in enterprise technology have emerged in recent years, both involving rapid and dramatic change. One is the rise of the digital enterprise across sectors and internationally. The second is the need for IT to react quickly and develop innovations aggressively to meet the enterprise’s digital aspirations. Exhibit 1 presents a “digitization index”—the results of research on the progress of enterprise digitization within companies, encompassing sectors, assets, and operations.

As IT organizations seek to digitize, however, many face significant cybersecurity challenges. At company after company, fundamental tensions arise between the business’s need to digitize and the cybersecurity team’s responsibility to protect the organization, its employees, and its customers within existing cyber operating models and practices.

If cybersecurity teams are to avoid becoming barriers to digitization and instead become its enablers, they must transform their capabilities along three dimensions. They must improve risk management, applying quantitative risk analytics. They must build cybersecurity directly into businesses’ value chains. And they must support the next generation of enterprise-technology platforms, which include innovations like agile development, robotics, and cloud-based operating models.

Cybersecurity’s role in digitization

Every aspect of the digital enterprise has important cybersecurity implications. Here are just a few examples. As companies seek to create more digital customer experiences, they need to determine how to align their teams that manage fraud prevention, security, and product development so they can design controls, such as authentication, and create experiences that are both convenient and secure. As companies adopt massive data analytics, they must determine how to identify risks created by data sets that integrate many types of incredibly sensitive customer information. They must also incorporate security controls into analytics solutions that may not use a formal software-development methodology. As companies apply robotic process automation (RPA), they must manage bot credentials effectively and make sure that “boundary cases”—cases with unexpected or unusual factors, or inputs that are outside normal limits—do not introduce security risks.

About the author(s)

James Kaplan is a partner in McKinsey’s New York office, Wolf Richter is a partner in the Berlin office, and David Ware is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office.

More: www.mckinsey.com

0

BCG – The Digital Imperative in Freight Forwarding

A wave of digital disruption is about to hit sea and air freight forwarders. Startups, suppliers, and even customers are using digital technologies to develop a variety of innovative business models that will dramatically improve the customer experience and eliminate entrenched operational inefficiencies. These digital business models have the potential to overturn the dominant position traditional forwarders have long held in the industry.

Traditional forwarders that wish to survive have no choice but to digitize. By our estimate, automating manual processes now could reduce certain back-office and operations costs by up to 40%, while digitizing significant parts of the sales process could reduce related direct costs even more. And as the new business models gain traction over the long term, digital capabilities will open up tremendous opportunities to win in the marketplace.

What’s Driving the Digital Rush

Two major issues have long challenged the air and sea freight-forwarding industry, and provided impetus for new entrants.

Lackluster Customer Experience. The traditional offline quotation and booking process is lengthy and cumbersome, often necessitating several interactions to reach a final price. A shipper who asks a forwarder for a quote can wait as long as 100 hours, according to a recent study by Freightos. Filling out and checking shipping documents can be tedious and time consuming.  And it is difficult to track shipping orders in real time, so when exceptions occur, customers don’t have a chance to make the decisions needed to ensure their cargo will arrive according to plan.

Manual Processes. Compared with other industries, an unusually high number of manual processes is the norm in air and sea freight forwarding. Some companies still rely on email, personal handoffs, and even faxes to convey shipping docments—all time-consuming and error-prone methods that jack up costs and squelch profits. The Freightos study found that only 5 out of the top 20 forwarders send automated confirmation emails and even fewer provide instant quotations. Costs to serve are especially high for companies with a large number of transactional customers. (See The Digital Imperative in Container Shipping, BCG Focus, February 2018.)

Disruption on Many Fronts

Eager to seize the opportunity, many companies have entered the digital fray. Five types of companies pose a threat to traditional forwarders (see Exhibit 1):

  • Startups such as Freightos and Flexport developed digital business models that streamline the customer experience and provide greater visibility into the supply chain.
  • Competitors such as Kuehne + Nagel and Maersk-Damco are digitizing their go-to-market approach, incubating new business models to revamp the customer experience, improve profitability, and drive new growth.
  • Suppliers such as Maersk, with its portal, my.Maerskline.com, are digitizing their booking processes to significantly reduce the time needed to complete a container booking. Increasingly, carriers are trying to sell directly to shippers and bypass forwarders altogether.
  • Integrators such as FedEx (including its TNT Express subsidiary) and UPS are increasingly expanding their activities in logistics by leveraging their end-to-end IT systems.
  • Customers with strong technology capabilities who are eager to gain control of the complete online customer experience are entering the race. Amazon, for example, is set up well to move into air and ocean freight forwarding.

By Jens Riedl , Ted Chan , Simone Schöndorfer , Frederik Schröder , and Michael Sønderby

More: www.bcg.com

0

Financial crime and fraud in the age of cybersecurity

As cybersecurity threats compound the risks of financial crime and fraud, institutions are crossing functional boundaries to enable collaborative resistance.

In 2018, the World Economic Forum noted that fraud and financial crime was a trillion-dollar industry, reporting that private companies spent approximately $8.2 billion on anti–money laundering (AML) controls alone in 2017. The crimes themselves, detected and undetected, have become more numerous and costly than ever. In a widely cited estimate, for every dollar of fraud institutions lose nearly three dollars, once associated costs are added to the fraud loss itself. 1 Risks for banks arise from diverse factors, including vulnerabilities to fraud and financial crime inherent in automation and digitization, massive growth in transaction volumes, and the greater integration of financial systems within countries and internationally. Cybercrime and malicious hacking have also intensified. In the domain of financial crime, meanwhile, regulators continually revise rules, increasingly to account for illegal trafficking and money laundering, and governments have ratcheted up the use of economic sanctions, targeting countries, public and private entities, and even individuals. Institutions are finding that their existing approaches to fighting such crimes cannot satisfactorily handle the many threats and burdens. For this reason, leaders are transforming their operating models to obtain a holistic view of the evolving landscape of financial crime. This view becomes the starting point of efficient and effective management of fraud risk.

The evolution of fraud and financial crime

Fraud and financial crime adapt to developments in the domains they plunder. (Most financial institutions draw a distinction between these two types of crimes: for a view on the distinction, or lack thereof, see the sidebar “Financial crime or fraud?”) With the advent of digitization and automation of financial systems, these crimes have become more electronically sophisticated and impersonal.

Financial crime or fraud?

For purposes of detection, interdiction, and prevention, many institutions draw a distinction between fraud and financial crime. Boundaries are blurring, especially since the rise of cyberthreats, which reveal the extent to which criminal activities have become more complex and interrelated. What’s more, the distinction is not based on law, and regulators sometimes view it as the result of organizational silos. Nevertheless, financial crime has generally meant money laundering and a few other criminal transgressions, including bribery and tax evasion, involving the use of financial services in support of criminal enterprises. It is most often addressed as a compliance issue, as when financial institutions avert fines with anti–money laundering activities. Fraud, on the other hand, generally designates a host of crimes, such as forgery, credit scams, and insider threats, involving deception of financial personnel or services to commit theft. Financial institutions have generally approached fraud as a loss problem, lately applying advanced analytics for detection and even real-time interdiction. As the distinction between these three categories of crime have become less relevant, financial institutions need to use many of the same tools to protect assets against all of them.

One series of crimes, the so-called Carbanak attacks beginning in 2013, well illustrates the cyber profile of much of present-day financial crime and fraud. These were malware-based bank thefts totaling more than $1 billion. The attackers, an organized criminal gang, gained access to systems through phishing and then transferred fraudulently inflated balances to their own accounts or programmed ATMs to dispense cash to waiting accomplices (Exhibit 1).

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com

Significantly, this crime was one simultaneous, coordinated attack against many banks. The attackers exhibited a sophisticated knowledge of the cyber environment and likely understood banking processes, controls, and even vulnerabilities arising from siloed organizations and governance. They also made use of several channels, including ATMs, credit and debit cards, and wire transfers. The attacks revealed that meaningful distinctions among cyberattacks, fraud, and financial crime are disappearing. Banks have not yet addressed these new intersections, which transgress the boundary lines most have erected between the types of crimes (Exhibit 2).

More: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk

Authors: Salim Hasham is a partner in McKinsey’s New York office, where Shoan Joshi is a senior expert; Daniel Mikkelsen is a senior partner in the London office.

0

Growing your own agility coaches to adopt new ways of working

Agile coaches play a vital role in enterprise-wide agile transformations. To develop enough coaches, companies should create specialized training academies.

Companies are increasingly looking to infuse agility into their operating models. However, as organizations attempt to scale these efforts across their entire business, new challenges that simply didn’t exist at the micro level are beginning to surface. These challenges are especially prevalent where traditional organization silos need to interact.

The big realization for many companies is that scaling agile is not simply a matter of replicating agile practices across more teams. This is why trying to adapt project-management offices (PMOs) to support agile projects or bringing in more scrum masters is unlikely to be effective (see sidebar, “The scrum master’s role in scaling agile”). Rather, agility as an operating model requires the rewiring of core enterprise-wide processes. With this comes a need for the organization to operate differently.
The degree of change required to adopt agile ways of working across an entire organization is simply too large to repurpose existing roles and structures. Only by investing in agility coaches—and a comprehensive program to identify, train, and support them—can companies expect to scale and sustain agile across the enterprise.

To ensure the success of the agility coaching academy, it is critical to have the right support and leadership structure. Typically, the academy is led by a full-time executive who reports to either the CHRO or some other member of the C-suite depending on who is really driving the agile transformation—it could be the CIO, the head of transformation, or the COO. The academy lead is accountable for the following:

  • Setting the strategy and defining the delivery road map for the academy
  • Running the day-to-day operations of the academy, such as building and refining the academy backlog
  • Leading the recruitment of coaches
  • Overseeing learning and development of the trainee agility coaches, and administering the learning and development of graduated coaches
  • Defining the evaluation criteria and mechanisms to measure effectiveness of the agility coaches
  • Deploying the right agility coaches to the right areas and teams
  • Overseeing performance evaluations for the agility coach cohort

More: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/

By Amit Anand, Sahil Merchant, Arun Sunderraj, and Belkis Vasquez-McCall

About the authors: Amit Anand is a senior expert in McKinsey’s Sydney office, Sahil Merchant is a partner in the Melbourne office, Arun Sunderraj is a digital expert in the New York office, and Belkis Vasquez-McCall is a partner in the New Jersey office.

0

Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends 2019 Report

In 2019, an intensifying combination of economic, social, and political issues is challenging business strategies. Faced with the relentless acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive technologies, and automation, 86 percent of respondents to this year’s Global Human Capital Trends survey believe they must reinvent their ability to learn. After nearly 10 years of economic growth,1 and despite a perva-sive corporate focus on digital transformation, 84 percent of respondents told us they need to rethink their workforce experience to improve productivity. And in the face of new pressures to move faster and adapt to a far more diverse workforce, 80 percent believe they need to develop leaders differently.

Prowadzenie firmy odpowiedzialnej: zmiana w zarządzaniu – człowiek w centrum uwagi

Prowadzenie firmy odpowiedzialnej 4.0 wymaga całkowitej zmiany podejścia. Przełomowe zmiany społeczne, polityczne i gospodarcze wymagają od pracodawców reorientacji: pracownik musi stać się centrum strategii biznesowej.

Raport „Global Human Capital Trends 2019” sprawdza, w jaki sposób pracodawcy mogą zmienić miejsce pracownika w procesie prowadzenia działalności, strukturze organizacyjnej i jak na dużą skalę zmodyfikować procesy kadrowe, by uwzględniały wszystkie aspekty interakcji, motywacji i nadawania sensu wykonywanym czynnościom.

Pracownik, to przede wszystkim człowiek – jego oczekiwania, obawy i potrzeby, znajdują się w centrum uwagi i stają kluczowym motorem zmian w firmie, w której pracuje. Nowe technologie, rozwój gospodarczo-polityczno-kulturowy, ale i rewolucja przemysłowa 4.0 diametralnie wpływają na rynek pracy, działające na nim firmy, a także działy HR, które stoją na froncie tego pozytywnego przeobrażenia nie tylko biznesowego, ale przede wszystkim społecznego.

Badanie „Global Human Capital Trends 2019” przeprowadzone wśród blisko 10 tysięcy liderów HR, a także IT oraz członków zarządów w 119 krajach, w tym 300 z Polski, a także rozmowy z przedstawicielami kadry kierowniczej największych organizacji – pozwalają twierdzić, że to nie koniec diametralnych zmian.

Więcej: https://www2.deloitte.com/pl/pl