Inkubator Menedżerów Archive

0

The Company of the Future

In the coming decade, companies will increasingly need to compete on the rate of learning. Technology promises to play a critical role: artificial intelligence can detect patterns in complex data sets at extreme speed and scale, enabling dynamic learning. This will allow organizations to constantly adapt to changing realities and surface new opportunities, which will be increasingly important in an uncertain and fast-changing environment.

But for companies to compete on learning, it is not enough to merely adopt AI, which alone can accelerate learning only in individual activities. As with previous transformative technologies, unlocking the full potential of AI—and of humans—will require fundamental organizational innovation.

In other words, to win the ’20s, leaders will need to re-invent the enterprise as a next-generation learning organization.

The next-generation learning organization will need to be redesigned to fulfill several key functions: (See Exhibit 1.)

  • Learning on All Timescales. The growing opportunity and need to learn on faster timescales, driven by technological innovation, is well known—algorithmic trading, dynamic pricing, and real-time customized product recommendations are already a reality in many businesses. But it is perhaps under-appreciated that slow-moving forces are also becoming more important. For example, trade institutions, political structures, wealth stratification, and social attitudes are slowly changing in ways that could have a profound impact on business. Gone are the days when business leaders could focus only on business and treat these broader variables as constants or stable trends. But such shifts unfold over many years or even decades. In order to thrive sustainably, businesses must learn on all timescales simultaneously.
  • Combining Humans and Machines Optimally. Machines have been crucial components of businesses for centuries—but in the AI age, they will likely expand rapidly into what has traditionally been considered white-collar work. Instead of merely executing human-directed and designed processes, machines will be able to learn and adapt, and will therefore have a greatly expanded role in future organizations. Humans will still be indispensable, but their duties will be quite different when complemented or substituted by intelligent machines.
  • Integrating Economic Activity Beyond Corporate Boundaries. Businesses are increasingly acting in multicompany ecosystems that incorporate a wide variety of players. Indeed, seven of the world’s largest companies, and many of the most profitable ones, are now platform businesses. Ecosystems greatly expand learning potential: they provide access to exponentially more data, they enable rapid experimentation, and they connect with larger networks of suppliers of customers. Harnessing this potential requires redrawing the boundaries of the enterprise and effectively influencing economic activity beyond the orchestrating company.
  • Evolving the Organization Continuously. The need for dynamic learning does not apply just to customer-facing functions—it also extends to the inner workings of the enterprise. To take advantage of new information and to compete in dynamic, uncertain environments, the organizational context itself needs to be evolvable in the face of changing external conditions.
  • By reconceiving the external and internal workings of the organization as a flexible, evolving ecosystem, businesses can handle much greater dynamism and complexity. This requires subjecting all aspects of the organization to market forces, enabling it to learn and adapt in response to new opportunities. And it requires internal systems that adjust automatically to new information, allowing learning and resource reallocation to occur at algorithmic speed. When combined, these capabilities can create a “self-tuning enterprise” that constantly learns and evolves according to its environment. (See Exhibit 3.)To harness the power of ecosystems throughout and beyond the organization, leaders must:
    • Engage external partners to create a shared vision of the future.
    • Develop capabilities for collaboration and information sharing at scale—for example, platforms and APIs.
    • Redesign internal processes to be more adaptive and data-driven, allowing the organization to become “self-tuning.”

By reconceiving the external and internal workings of the organization as a flexible, evolving ecosystem, businesses can handle much greater dynamism and complexity. This requires subjecting all aspects of the organization to market forces, enabling it to learn and adapt in response to new opportunities. And it requires internal systems that adjust automatically to new information, allowing learning and resource reallocation to occur at algorithmic speed. When combined, these capabilities can create a “self-tuning enterprise” that constantly learns and evolves according to its environment. (See Exhibit 3.)

To harness the power of ecosystems throughout and beyond the organization, leaders must:

  • Engage external partners to create a shared vision of the future.
  • Develop capabilities for collaboration and information sharing at scale—for example, platforms and APIs.
  • Redesign internal processes to be more adaptive and data-driven, allowing the organization to become “self-tuning.”

By Allison Bailey, Martin Reeves, Kevin Whitaker, and Rich Hutchinson

More: BCG https://www.bcg.com/

The BCG Henderson Institute is Boston Consulting Group’s strategy think tank, dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business, technology, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. The Institute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expand the boundaries of business theory and practice and to translate innovative ideas from within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration from the Institute, please visit Featured Insights.

 

0

The agile manager

The agile workplace is becoming increasingly common. In a McKinsey survey of more than 2,500 people across company sizes, functional specialties, industries, regions, and tenures, 37 percent of respondents said their organizations are carrying out company-wide agile transformations, and another 4 percent said their companies have fully implemented such transformations. The shift is driven by proof that small, multidisciplinary teams of agile organizations can respond swiftly and promptly to rapidly changing market opportunities and customer demands. Indeed, more than 80 percent of respondents in agile units report that overall performance increased moderately or significantly since their transformations began.

What do managers in agile organizations do?

These small teams, often called “squads,” have a great deal of autonomy. Typically composed of eight to ten individuals, they have end-to-end accountability for specific outcomes and make their own decisions about how to achieve their goals. This raises an obvious and seemingly mystifying question for people who have worked in more traditional, hierarchical companies: Who manages in an agile organization? And what exactly does an agile manager do?

Aaron De Smet is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Houston office.

More: McKinsey https://www.mckinsey.com

0

BCG – The Science of Organizational Change

There is a gap between where most organizations are today and where they will need to be to succeed in the coming decade. The companies that win in the 2020s will be designed to constantly learn and adapt to changing realities, combine artificial and human intelligence in new ways, and harness the benefits of broader business ecosystems. Reaching this necessary future state will require a fundamental transformation.

This change effort will be challenging. Many businesses have deeply entrenched operating systems that are predicated on hierarchy and human decision making. They will need to redesign their internal processes and build new capabilities and business models. Furthermore, this will not be a one-time change effort: the dynamic nature of business will require organizations to build capabilities for ongoing large-scale change to keep up with evolving technology and competition.

Traditional approaches to enacting organizational change are generally not very effective. Change management is generally thought of as one-size-fits-all and based on plausible rules of thumb. But our research shows that only about one in four transformations succeeds in the short and long run, and the success rate has been trending downward. Meanwhile, the stakes are extremely high: the cumulative difference between success and failure for the largest transformations over a decade can add up to the company’s entire market value.

Leaders need to take a new approach to change—one that deploys evidence, analytics, and emerging technology. In other words, leaders must apply the emerging science of organizational change, which is based on five key components. (See Exhibit 1.)

  1. Ground change programs in evidence.
  2. De-average change strategies according to the nature of the challenge at hand.
  3. Embrace uncertainty and complexity in change management.
  4. Use technology to identify the right talent to execute change.
  5. Tap into emerging science to enhance change programs.

By Lars Fæste, Martin Reeves, and Kevin Whitaker

More: www.bcg.com/publications/2019/

0

Statki autonomiczne już pływają i są dziełem polskich inżynierów i studentów

Jednostki autonomiczne już pływają, a zbudowane zostały przez polskich inżynierów i w polskich zakładach wynika z konferencji „Autonomous ships – Inevitable reality at sea”, która odbyła się na Politechnice Gdańskiej w marcu br. Jej uczestnicy prezentowali rozwiązania pozwalające na wykorzystanie potencjału polskiej nauki i przemysłu w produkcji bezzałogowych obiektów pływających z wykorzystaniem technologii ICT i satelitarnych.

Podczas konferencji odbyły się  trzy sesje panelowe: studentów (Young Stars), praktyków  i naukowców. W basenie modelowym Wydziału Oceanotechniki i Okrętownictwa PG odbył się także pokaz pływania jednostki  autonomicznej wykorzystywanej w Porcie Gdynia do badań hydrologicznych. Dzień przed konferencją, w Szkole Morskiej w Gdyni odbył się pokaz symulatora Kongsberg, jednej z wiodących firm zaangażowanych w budowę autonomicznych jednostek, zapewniającej innowacyjne rozwiązania techniczne dla statków, z wykorzystaniem programów informatycznych i kosmicznych.

Otwierając konferencję prof. Zdzisław Brodecki – prezes Think Tanku Bałtyckiego Klastra Morskiego i Kosmicznego stwierdził, że jej celem jest wykorzystanie entuzjazmu młodych inżynierów i studentów oraz doświadczenia profesorów i praktyków biznesu. Zaproponował, by wykorzystać aktywność Klastra w bałtyckich projektach unijnych i uruchomić studia doktoranckie o profilu międzynarodowym. Przybyłych licznie przedstawicieli nauki i  biznesu gospodarki morskiej oraz studentów i samorządowców powitał prof. Jacek Namieśnik, rektor Politechniki Gdańskiej, który poinformował, że Politechnika Gdańska już rozpoczęła starania w tym kierunku i planuje uruchomienie zintegrowanych międzynarodowych studiów doktoranckich wspólnie z Instytutem Maszyn Przepływowych PAN oraz z Instytutem Budownictwa Wodnego PAN.

Lody przełamane. Statki autonomiczne, bezzałogowe platformy wiertnicze, pojazdy zdalnie sterowane lub pływające po zaplanowanym kursie bez udziału człowieka już pływają i są dziełem polskich inżynierów i studentów – mówił Marek Grzybowski, przewodniczący zarządu Baltic Sea & Space Cluster. Pod koniec ubr. Rolls Royce zaprezentował w Finlandii możliwości pływania promu po zadanej trasie bez ingerencji załogi. A ponieważ prezentacja odbyła się w pobliży Turku, można powiedzieć, że pierwsze lody zostały przełamane. Polscy naukowcy, inżynierowie i studenci  nie odstają  w tym obszarze zarówno w sferze projektowej jak i produkcyjnej. Konstruują i wykorzystują mniejsze jednostki nawodne i podwodne.

 Pojazdy bezzałogowe wykorzystujemy do potrzeb hydrograficznych, pomiarów głębokości i  również badania dna morskiego – mówił Maciej Lang z Echogram, który zaprezentował możliwości jednostki na basenie modelowym. W praktyce Echogram badał posadowienie pali na których stoi  Molo, nabrzeża i baseny w stoczniach i portach. Autonomiczność naszej jednostki polega na tym, że możemy zadać trasę za pomocą dedykowanej aplikacji i po prostu puścić pojazd w obieg pod nadzorem. Wówczas wykonuje on profile pomiarowe bez naszego udziału – wyjaśnia Maciej Lang.

Autonomiczne Gwiazdy. Po raz pierwszy w historii konferencji naukowych pierwszą sesję panelową udostępniono studentom i młodym naukowcom. Okazało się, że tytuł „Young Stars” trafił w sedno tematu statków autonomicznych. Zastosowanie „zielonych” technologii dla pojazdów autonomicznych ma na swoim koncie studencki klub naukowy K.S.T.O. KORAB z Wydziału Oceanotechniki i Okrętownictwa, którego wieloletnim opiekunem był prof. Wojciech Litwin.  Koło ma też na swoim koncie liczne zwycięstwa w regatach jednostek zasilanych panelami elektrycznymi oraz siłą ludzkich mięśni.  Nawigacja morska – wyzwania algorytmu sterowania autonomicznymi jednostkami żeglarskimi to nie tylko teoretyczne rozważania Darii Lewandowskiej kierującej studenckim kołem naukowym SimLE z Wydziału Mechanicznego PG. Mimo ograniczonych finansów studenci zbudowali jacht, który ma odbyć najpierw bezzałogowy rejs po Zatoce Puckiej, a w dalszych planach jest przejście przez Atlantyk. Pomysłem zainteresowali się uczestnicy Innvation Day, które miały miejsce w Szwecji (Karlskrona Blue Science Park).

Natomiast jednostka autonomiczna skonstruowana i zbudowana przez  młodych inżynierów, którzy jeszcze na studiach założyli firmę SEARIS   zdobyła StenaLine Propeller Prize i.. od razu ze Szwecji popłynęła do pracy i badania lodowców. Zaprojektowane i budowane przez nas bezzałogowe polarne łodzie badawcze MUSE zwyciężyły w kategorii Marine Technology Innovation – informował  Jakub Zdroik, który wraz  Aleksandrą Zgrundo i Konradem Klepackim opracował łodzi.  Nadal jesteśmy trochę w szoku. Tym bardziej, że jesteśmy pierwszą firmą z Polski, która w ogóle w 5 letniej historii konkursu zakwalifikowała się do finału. A całe wydarzenie, na którym przyznawana była nagroda, aż buzowało od innowacji i startupów. Projekt DUCKIET zaprezentowany przez Stowarzyszenie Robotyków SKALP to platforma nauczania przydatna do działania  autonomicznego portu. Istotnym uzupełnieniem rozważań  technicznych był wykład prawnika. Aspekty prawne eksploatacji statków autonomicznych i problemy odpowiedzialności za kolizje i utratę ładunków omówił Wojciech Zawadzki z Koła Naukowego Studencki Klaster MorskoKosmiczny z Wyższej Szkoły Administracji i Biznesu.

Marek Grzybowski

więcej: www.pgt.pl

0

McKinsey – Getting organizational redesign right

Companies will better integrate their people, processes, and structures by following nine golden rules.

Recent McKinsey research surveying a large set of global executives suggests that many companies, these days, are in a nearly permanent state of organizational flux. Almost 60 percent of the respondents, for example, told us they had experienced a redesign within the past two years, and an additional 25 percent said they experienced a redesign three or more years ago. A generation or two back, most executives might have experienced some sort of organizational upheaval just a few times over the course of their careers. One plausible explanation for this new flurry of activity is the accelerating pace of strategic change driven by the disruption of industries. As a result, every time a company switches direction, it alters the organization to deliver the hoped-for results. Rather than small, incremental tweaks of the kind that might have been appropriate in the past, today’s organizations often need regular shake-ups of the Big Bang variety.

Frustratingly, it also appears that the frequency of organizational redesign reflects a high level of disappointment with the outcome. According to McKinsey’s research, less than a quarter of organizational-redesign efforts succeed. Forty-four percent run out of steam after getting under way, while a third fail to meet objectives or improve performance after implementation. The good news is that companies can do better—much better. In this article, we’ll describe what we learned when we compared successful and unsuccessful organizational redesigns and explain some rules of the road for executives seeking to improve the odds. Success doesn’t just mean avoiding the expense, wasted time, and morale-sapping skepticism that invariably accompany botched attempts; in our experience, a well-executed redesign pays off quickly in the form of better-motivated employees, greater decisiveness, and a stronger bottom line.

Why redesign the organization?

Organizational redesign involves the integration of structure, processes, and people to support the implementation of strategy and therefore goes beyond the traditional tinkering with “lines and boxes.” Today, it comprises the processes that people follow, the management of individual performance, the recruitment of talent, and the development of employees’ skills. When the organizational redesign of a company matches its strategic intentions, everyone will be primed to execute and deliver them. The company’s structure, processes, and people will all support the most important outcomes and channel the organization’s efforts into achieving them.

When do executives know that an organization isn’t working well and that they need to consider a redesign? Sometimes the answer is obvious: say, after the announcement of a big new regional-growth initiative or following a merger. Other signs may be less visible—for example, a sense that ideas agreed upon at or near the top of the organization aren’t being translated quickly into actions or that executives spend too much time in meetings. These signs suggest that employees might be unclear about their day-to-day work priorities or that decisions are not being implemented. A successful organizational redesign should better focus the resources of a company on its strategic priorities and other growth areas, reduce costs, and improve decision making and accountability.

The case of a consumer-packaged-goods (CPG) company that chose to expand outside its US home base illustrates one typical motivation for a redesign. Under the group’s previous organizational structure, the ostensibly global brand team responsible for marketing was not only located in the United States but had also been rewarded largely on the performance of US operations; it had no systems for monitoring the performance of products elsewhere. To support a new global strategy and to develop truly international brands and products, the company separated US marketing from its global counterpart and put in place a new structure (including changes to the top team), new processes, new systems, and a new approach to performance management. This intensive redesign helped promote international growth, especially in key emerging markets such as Russia (where sales tripled) and China (where they have nearly doubled).

By Steven Aronowitz, Aaron De Smet, and Deirdre McGinty

More: https://www.mckinsey.com/