Category: Management ideas

Podcast with Paul Higgins: The difference between vision and execution

Thursday, 18 August 2011 12:35 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

This episode of the CompFutures Podcast features Australian futurist Paul Higgins, founder of Emergent Futures. Paul has a fascinating background, a veterinary surgeon who turned toward foresight after a simple ad for a futures studies grad program. In this episode, he describes when executives should think about the future versus tending to execution, how the future of trust will be key to our social institutions, and why Australia is a fascinating vantage point from which to think about global business.

 

Arik Johnson: Stochasm, mystery, philosophy and management

Monday, 13 December 2010 15:45 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

Arik Johnson is the chairman and founder of AuroraWDC, a top competitive intelligence firm based in the United States. Arik is one of the world’s top thoughtleaders in the field of intelligence and management. The concept he talks about most these days is stochasm, a funny but meaningful word that is Greek for the difference between what you think you know and what you actually know. In this world of Black Swans and wildcard scenarios, there is a lot of that going on these days.

Arik is concerned with the future, leadership, and the intelligence required to meet new, unprecedented challenges. In this thoughtful discussion, he covers:

  • Why the chaos of the current moment is a perfect time to think about how you think
  • Why our current obsession with “performance” may be misguided given the mysteries of the world
  • How the corruption of the monetary system puts all of our business metrics in jeopardy

Further thoughts on the past and future of intelligence

Friday, 26 November 2010 09:57 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

Since Tim Powell did such a great job summarizing our podcast, it would be a shame not to include his salient points here. This is why he’s such a great interview on the subject of market research, competitive intelligence, and more:

  • Businesses have always wanted and needed to know about each other’s activities.  Until the 20th century, this was mostly handled by direct conversations among business leaders.
  • The conditions that created the need for modern competitive intelligence in the US began to be laid by the anti-trust legislation of the early 20th century.  When businesses were legally prevented from sharing information, they had to devise some other way to obtain it.
  • The mid-century rise of TV as a business force gave rise to one of the immediate predecessors of competitive intelligence – market research.  Companies needed structured information about the world outside their borders, so they could increase the return on their advertising spending.

Read more ...

Tim Powell: The future of the intelligence profession

Wednesday, 17 November 2010 12:07 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

With a rapidly changing world, more and more organizations are hiring dedicated analysts to understand what’s next. Intelligence professionals are a hot commodity for both companies and governments in the years to come. That’s why the Competitive Futures Podcast is turning to our friend and colleague Tim Wood Powell, the CEO of New York City’s The Knowledge Agency, to tell us about the past and future of this most important discipline.

In this insightful interview, Tim tells us:

* Why Teddy Roosevelt’s antitrust laws made competitive intelligence necessary

* How most quantative management is “predicting the past”

* Why modern intelligence is a question of data vs. analysis

* The ways intelligence professionals are often at odds with senior management

* That getting beyond competitors is the next level of competitive analysis

With forty years of intelligence and decision making, Tim has insightful ideas about where the whole profession is headed. Enjoy.

Homo economicus mortus est? (Who needs economists?)

Tuesday, 06 July 2010 20:47 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

Does anybody need economists?

This is the subject of a fascinating polemic raised by our colleague Gregor MacDonald. He notes, in an incredible understatement, “economists don’t ‘do’ energy.” They are content to set Keynes and Hayek in a never-ending cage match over monetarism versus free markets, while petroleum dwindles, Boomers retire, technology flattens work hierarchies – while real things are actually happening.

Some of the debate is set off by the paper embedded below by a Federal Reserve Bank economist. As the title indicates, he doesn’t think much of the input of non-specialists. We then have a similar question for his profession – how is it that we all participate in economic activity, and only you feel qualified to comment on it? And while we’re on the subject, why didn’t you predict an absurdly obvious bubble and subsequent crash?

Some things are too difficult for the laity to understand. Most of the hard sciences are really impossible to comprehend to outsiders, and news reports on their breakthroughs are often comically misunderstood. But is economics a hard science? Isn’t it a social science based around people trading things? Can we discuss our economy without the need for technocrats of this sort?

Economics is Hard

« Older Entries

About the blog

This is the official trend blog of Competitive Futures, a management consultancy that provides trend research and analysis for business and government around the world. Here, we update you on interesting trends we see as part of our work for our clients.


For managing partner Eric Garland's new author and speaker blog, please consult and bookmark http://www.ericgarland.co

Get trend updates sent to your mailbox

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Sign up for the CompFutures Trend Report

Trends we’re tracking