Zarządzanie Firmą Archive

0

PWC: Global economic crime rates remain high as customer fraud continues to rise

  • 47% of companies report experiencing fraud in the last two years – the second highest reported level in 20 years
  • Customer fraud sees the biggest increase in the last two years, up from 29% to 35%
  • Customers, hackers and vendors/suppliers are responsible for 39% of all incidents in the last two years

Fraud and economic crime rates remain at record highs, impacting companies in more ways than ever. PwC’s bi-annual survey of business crime reports that fraud committed by customers tops the list of all crimes experienced (at 35%), up from 29% in 2018. Businesses report that customer fraud and cybercrime are the most disruptive of all the crimes. Although fraud committed by customers is on the rise, it is also one of the types where dedicated resources, robust processes and technology have proven most effective for prevention.

Globally, all regions experienced customer fraud in the last two years, with the Middle East (47% up from 27%) and North America (41% up from 32%) seeing the biggest increases. The Global Economic Crime and Fraud Survey examines over 5000 responses from 99 countries. It reports on the overall insights from companies who have experienced on average six incidents over the last two years. The report provides insights into the threat, cost of fraud and what companies need to do to develop stronger proactive responses. The report highlights the importance of prevention and how investing in the right skillset and technology can create an advantage.  Nearly half of organisations responded to crime by implementing and enhancing controls, with 60% saying their organisations were better for it.

However nearly half of respondents did not conduct an investigation at all. Barely one third reported the crime to their board, but of the organisations who did, 53% ended up in a better place. “Fraud and economic crime is a never- ending battle. Getting to the root of the problem is key to preventing and dealing with future fraud. Whether it’s through technology, new processes, skills and training, or a combination – the result is strengthening business as a whole against crime, which is ultimately good for the consumer too.” comments Kristin Rivera, PwC Global Forensics Leader.

The perpetrators: Who’s committing the fraud

Fraud hits companies from all angles – the perpetrator could be internal, external or in many instances there is collusion.

  • In the last two years, 39% of respondents said external perpetrators were the main source of their economic crime incidents.
  • One in five respondents cited vendors/suppliers as the source of their most disruptive external fraud.
  • 13% of respondents who experienced fraud in the last two years reported losing more than US$50 million.
  • Antitrust, insider trading, tax fraud, money laundering,  and bribery and corruption are reported as being the top five costliest frauds in terms of direct losses – sometimes compounded by the significant cost of remediation.

Taking action and being prepared

While technology is just part of the answer in fighting fraud, the report finds that more than 60% of organisations are beginning to employ advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to combat fraud, corruption or other economic crime. However, concerns about deploying technology are linked to cost, insufficient expertise and limited resources. 28% say it’s because they struggle to see its value. The benefit in using technology to fight fraud is undeniable but organisations must recognise that using tools or technology alone does not amount to an anti-fraud programme. “Collecting the right data is just the first step. How the data is analysed is where companies will have an advantage when fighting fraud. Companies often fail to see the value in technology when they don’t invest in the right skills and expertise to manage it” comments Kristin Rivera, PwC Global Forensics Leader.


Notes: Download the report at www.pwc.com/fraudsurvey.

Customer fraud is defined as fraud against a company through illegitimate use of, or deceptive practices associated with, its products or services by customers or others (e.g. mortgage fraud, credit card fraud).

Cybercrime features in the top three most disruptive crimes experienced in almost all industries reported in the survey – Financial Services (15%), Industrial Manufacturing and Automotive (15%), Technology, Media and Telecommunications (20%), Consumer Markets (16%), Government and public sector (17%), Health Industries (16%).

Globally, all regions report experiencing customer fraud in the last two years:  Middle East (47%), Africa (42%), Asia Pacific (31%), Europe (33%), Latin America (33%), North America (41%).

PwC highlighted the global issue of upskilling in its 23rd CEO survey and identified that whilst retraining/upskilling was seen as the best way to close the skills gap, only 18% of CEOs have made ‘significant progress’ in establishing an upskilling programme. In order to take advantage of what technology can do for your organization, hiring the right people to work alongside new technologies is important. This is apparent even when hiring staff to support advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to uncover fraud

0

The Classic Theory of Disruption

Before we look at how things have evolved, let’s briefly review why Christensen’s theory proved so influential and, indeed, disruptive to existing ideas of competitive advantage.1 Traditional strategy had been anchored on the notion of “generic strategies” in which a company could compete at the high end by differentiating, at the low end by pursuing cost leadership, or focus on serving a specific niche exceptionally well.2 Christensen illustrated a way for new entrants to cheerfully ignore these basic strategy dynamics. He showed how a new kind of dangerous competitor could wreak havoc by entering at the low end of a market, where margins are thin and customers are reluctant to pay for anything they don’t need.

The new entrant comes in with a product or service that’s cheaper and more convenient but that doesn’t offer the same level of performance on the dominant criteria that most customers expect from incumbents that have been working on the technology for years. The incumbents feel they can ignore the newcomer. Not only are its products inferior, but its margins are lower and its customers less loyal. Incumbents choose instead to focus on sustaining innovation — making improvements to the features that have been of most value to their high-end customers.

More: https://sloanreview.mit.edu

0

BCT – 40 lat w kontenerach

Bałtycki Terminal Kontenerowy w 40 roku działalności na polskim rynku przeładował ponad 500 tys. TEU (standardowych kontenerów  20 -stopowych). W grudniu 2019 r.  świętowano więc nie tylko powitanie Nowego Roku ale również historyczny rekord, który osiągnięto  w ramach grupy ICTSI – międzynarodowego operatora terminali kontenerowych. 

Znakomity wynik w przeładunkach kontenerów w ub r. 512 tys. TEU uzyskaliśmy przede wszystkim dzięki cumowania dużych kontenerowców, a także nowym połączeniom feederowym i modyfikacji połączeń MSC, które zwiększyły podaż kontenerów w naszym terminalu ale także dzięki uruchomieniu w Gdynia obrotnicy i uruchomieniu w porcie systemu dokładnego pozycjonowania ruchu statków – wyjaśnia  Michał Kużajczyk, Dyrektor Handlowy  Bałtyckiego Terminalu Kontenerowego.

Czterdziestolatek. Bałtycki Terminal Kontenerowy, znany na rynku międzynarodowym jako BCT (Baltic Container Terminal) uruchomiony został 29 października 1979 r. Przez długi czas wraz z Polskimi Liniami Oceanicznymi przecierał polskie szlaki konteneryzacji w transporcie morskim i lądowym. Obie firmy wprowadzały do Polski standardy w obsłudze i wykorzystaniu kontenerów. W specjalnie zbudowanym magazynie kompletowano kontenery i przygotowywano je do wysyłki w świat. Najnowocześniejszy wówczas kontenerowy terminal kolejowy pozwalał na kompletowanie pociągów kontenerowych.

Na początku pierwszej dekady XXI wieku terminal kontenerowy został wystawiony na sprzedaż. To konsekwencja ustawy, która rozdzielała zarządzanie portem od działalności eksploatacyjnej.  W 2003 r. 100%  udziałów Bałtyckiego Terminala Kontenerowego  wydzierżawił  filipiński operator  ICTSI (International Container Terminal Services)  i na 20 lat uzyskał koncesję na zarządzanie i prowadzenie działalności eksploatacyjnej. Najkrótsza charakterystyka terminalu to widoczne z Trasy Kwiatkowskiego nabrzeże przeładunkowe Helskie I o długości 800 m wyposażone w 6  suwnic nabrzeżowych do rozładunku i załadunku kontenerów na statki. Na początku nabrzeża, blisko terminala promowego znajduje stanowisko dla statków ro-ro, przy którym cumują statki przewożące samochody lub inne pojazdy, które samodzielnie wjeżdżają na statek. Rozładunek i załadunek pojazdów ułatwia sterowana hydraulicznie rampa.

Armatorzy i statki.Liderem wśród morskich klientów BCT jest włoski  armator Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), który zapewnia obecnie trzy  połączenia tygodniowo z portami Morza Bałtyckiego, Północnego i Śródziemnego w ramach połączeń feederowych i żeglugi krótkiego zasięgu – mówi dyrektor Kużajczyk. Unifeeder dowozi kontenery między gdyńskim terminalem a portami Morza Północnego i Bałtyku aż 7 razy w tygodniu, a statki Containership docierają do portów Danii, Wielkiej Brytanii.  Asseco/Yang Ming Line zapewnia stałe połączenia z Hamburgiem, a Eimskip utrzymuje kontakt Gdyni z Rejkjawikiem. Kontenery między BCT a innymi portami wożą głównie mniejsze jednostki, tzw. feedery, o pojemności od kilkuset do około 2 tys. TEU. Ale przypływają tu również jednostki o pojemności powyżej 6500 TEU  i większe.

W lutym ubr. w terminalu zacumował Charlotte Maersk, kontenerowiec o pojemności 9 640 TEU i długości prawie 347 m oraz blisko 43 m szerokości. To najdłuższe tego typu jednostka, które weszła do portu w Gdyni. Kolejny rekord pobił kontenerowiec Cap San Juan. Statek, którego operatorem jest niemiecki Hamburg Sud, pobił rekord  pojemności i ładowności kontenerowców zawijających do Gdyni. Mimo, że jednostka ma 331 m długości i ponad 48m szerokości, może na swój pokład przyjąć 10 600  jednostek TEU, w tym 1000 kontenerów chłodzonych. – Wejście tak dużych statków do naszego terminalu są możliwe również dzięki inwestycjom portowym , czyli nowej obrotnicy w Porcie Gdynia i systemowi GBAS-RTK oraz wyposażeniu terminalu w nowe suwnice przeładunkowe pozwalające obsługiwać statki do 19 rzędów kontenerów między burtami  – podkreśla dyrektor Kużajczyk.

Magazyn i terminal kolejowy. Ważną rolę w działalności termnalu odgrywa magazyn. Tu przyjmuje się i przechowuje ładunki klientów, którzy powierzają obsłudze terminalu kompletowanie kontenerów, w których towary eksportuje się na cały świat. Tu również przechowuje się drobnicę wrażliwą na warunki meteorologiczne przed wysyłką do odbiorcy krajowego.

Istotną częścią terminalu jest terminal kolejowy. Po niedawnej modernizacji i rozbudowie, terminal dysponuje trzema torami o długości 670 m każdy, przystosowany do jednorazowej obsługi 40  wagonów z kontenerami. Projekt  “Modernizacja terminalu BCT w Gdyni dla zwiększenia potencjału w zakresie przeładunków intermodalnych” współfinansowany był przez Unię Europejską ze środków Funduszu Spójności. Całkowita kwota inwestycji przekroczyła 186,5 mln zł, a kwota dofinansowania wyniosła około 50,4 mln zł. – W terminalu kolejowym możemy ładować kontenery na 3 pociągi jednocześnie – wyjaśnia dyrektor Handlowy BCT. Modernizacja terminalu kolejowego sprawiła, że poprawiły się warunki transportu kontenerów koleją do i z terminalu. Były okresy, że 40% kontenerów BCT  było obsługiwane w transporcie intermodalnym. Dziś jest to około 30%, a liderami na tym rynku są Loconi Intermodal oraz PCC Intermodal. Tygodniowo w terminalu kolejowym BCT obsługuje się 50 pociągów.

Nie  tylko kontenery.  Obserwując place składowe, w oczy rzucają się głównie różnokolorowe kontenery. Ale BCT to nie tylko kontenery. Bałtycki Terminal Kontenerowy obsługuje również przeładunek  drobnicy, jak np. stali walcowanej.  Tu również znajduje się skład celny (drobnicy i samochodów). W terminalu zapewnia się również przeładunki i składowanie  ładunków ponadgabarytowych (“Project Cargo”).   Od kilku lat w terminalu obsługuje się statki przywożące do Polski elementy farm wiatrowych. Jeden statek dowozi kilkanaście kompletnych masztów. Do  terminalu docierają również generatory prądotwórcze wież wiatrowych,  a także łopaty i głowice, w których są one montowane.  Warto podkreślić, że do BCT elementy farm wiatrowych z Chin płynęły w okresie letnim  Drogą Północną, o połowę krótszą niż połączenie przez Ocean Indyjski i Kanał Sueski.

Poprzez terminal BCT polska gospodarka łączy się liniami kontenerowymi z rynkami krajów Morza Północnego i Śródziemnego i dalej z Dalekim i Bliskim Wschodem oraz portami położonymi w Ameryce Północnej i Południowej. „40 lat minęło jak jeden dzień” – mówią słowa piosenki. W BCT było tych dni wiele. Przez ten czas dokerzy terminalu przeładowali ponad 9,3 mln TEU. Terminal pracuje bowiem we wszystkie dni tygodnia bez przerwy. Ciągłość obsługi statków samochodów, pociągów zapewnia obecnie 325 pracowników. Potencjał przeładunkowy BCT to 1 mln TEU.  0,5 mln TEU w 2019 r. stanowi więc dobry punkt startu do pobicia kolejnego rekordu.

Tekst i zdjęcia Marek Grzybowski

0

How to Turn AI into ROI

After several decades of progress, AI technology is now poised to become a sig-nificant source of value for a wide range of businesses. In the 2019 MIT Sloan Management Review and Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Artificial Intelligence Global Executive Study and Research Report, 9 out of 10 respondents agree that AI represents a business opportunity for their company.In addition, a growing number of leaders view AI as not just an opportunity but also a strategic risk: “What if competitors, particularly unencumbered new entrants, figure out AI before we do?” In 2019, 45% perceived some risk from AI, up from an already substantial 37% in 2017. This shift suggests an increasing awareness of and concern with competitors’ use of AI. In China, perceived risk from AI is even higher.Significant challenges remain, however. Many AI initiatives fail. 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 signifi-cant investments in AI. Even so, this means 40% of organizations making significant investments in AI do not report business gains from AI.The crux is that while some companies have clearly figured out how to be successful, most compa-nies have a hard time generating value with AI. As a result, many executives find themselves facing a set of AI realities: AI is a source of untapped opportunity, it is an existential risk, and it is difficult. Above all, it is an urgent issue to address. How can executives exploit the opportunities, manage the risks, and minimize the difficulties associated with AI? How should they navigate all three factors?

Our findings — based on a survey of more than 2,500 executives and 17 interviews with leading experts — provide a data-driven view of what organizations that succeed with AI are doing and what real success with AI looks like. Companies that cap-ture value from their AI activities exhibit a distinct set of organizational behaviors. They:•Integrate their AI strategies with their overall business strategy.•Take on large, often risky, AI efforts that priori-tize revenue growth over cost reduction.•Align the production of AI with the consump-tion of AI, through thoughtful alignment of business owners, process owners, and AI ex-pertise to ensure that they adopt AI solutions effectively and pervasively.•Unify their AI initiatives with their larger busi-ness transformation efforts.•Invest in AI talent, data, and process change in ad-dition to (and often more so than) AI technology. They recognize AI is not all about technology. More: www.bcg.com

More: Winning With AI. Pioneers Combine Strategy, Organizational Behavior, and Technology. OCTOBER 2019RESEARCH REPORT, By Sam Ransbotham, Shervin Khodabandeh, Ronny Fehling, Burt LaFountain, and David Kiron.

0

In a Crisis, Companies Are Better Off Working Together

The private sector plays an essential role in humanitarian preparedness, response, and recovery efforts, but large numbers of independent actors—no matter how well intentioned—can introduce complexity and potential duplication of efforts, particularly when companies react in an ad hoc or uncoordinated way. 

To deliver maximum impact, many forward-thinking companies have begun to forge private-sector networks. These networks of companies and local businesses collaborate in a country or region to strengthen their own risk preparedness and to mobilize and coordinate the private-sector response to an emergency. 

In the lead-up to the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit (WHS), the United Nations consulted with more than 900 stakeholders (including large global companies as well as small and medium-sized enterprises) to try to understand how the private sector could best contribute to disaster risk reduction, preparedness, response, and recovery. As a result, the WHS called on the private sector to join with governments and other humanitarian actors in addressing the growing humanitarian challenges facing societies. 

By participating in these networks, companies can better identify their own vulnerabilities to hazards, improve their ability to reduce and manage risk and protect their workforce, understand how they can contribute to their communities in times of emergency, and develop new mechanisms and processes that allow them to recover more quickly in the wake of a crisis. It’s a smart move from a business perspective—and networks provide extraordinary benefits for society as well. When companies engage directly with key humanitarian actors in a coordinated way, they can deploy their unique capabilities and resources where they are needed most, which is enormously beneficial to communities in crisis.

A World of Hazards

Private-sector networks address three types of hazards.

  • Natural Hazards. These are natural processes or phenomena—such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, droughts, volcanic activity, and landslides—that may cause injury or loss of life, property damage, social or economic disruption, or environmental degradation.
  • Health Epidemics. These occur when a disease becomes widespread, clearly in excess of expected levels in a certain location and for a specific period. Recent examples include instances when Ebola, H1N1, and Zika led to epidemics. 
  • Man-Made Hazards. Examples include food shortages, industrial accidents, and conflict. They may involve political complexities, making it more challenging for the private sector to respond.                    

For companies to make a difference when disaster strikes, they must be well prepared at four levels. (See Exhibit 1.) At its foundation, a resilient company requires a prepared and ready workforce, and therefore companies must prepare employees for emergencies and help protect them and their families from harm. Employees must have adequate training and access to resources in order to respond safely and effectively in an emergency. 

Given a prepared and ready workforce, the company then needs strong business-continuity planning and smart, well-understood processes to secure company assets and keep operations running with minimal downtime when disaster strikes. 

The better prepared companies are in an industry sector, the better the sector will be positioned to respond in an emergency and the more valuable it will become as a partner to government and society in meeting the challenges of disasters and recovery. Furthermore, when companies in, for example, energy, communications, logistics, health, infrastructure, and consumer goods come back online quickly, the total economic and social impact of a disaster is smaller. 

In addition, companies can contribute beyond their own sector at the societal level to support operations nationally, regionally, or even globally. For example, logistics companies may transport emergency supplies to affected areas, or telecommunications companies may exploit their communications network to send emergency messages. (See “Lessons from Fiji.”) 

By Wendy Woods , David Young , Rudolf Müller , Marcos Neto , and Marcy Vigoda

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