The Great Filter for Digital Challengers

The Great Filter for Digital Challengers

It seems like almost weekly I’m hearing something about a new challenger or digital-only bank brand.  The velocity of news is substantial, but despite years of hype, it seems this class of institution is still largely treading water.

It reminds me of The Fermi Paradox.

The paradox was originally posed as a question by the physicist Enrico Fermi about the apparent contradiction between the probability of life in the universe and the complete lack of evidence to support it. With so many supposed earth-like planets, why haven’t we been able to find success stories?

One of the proposed theories is the idea of a Great Filter in the evolution of life.  The theory goes that as life evolves it must overcome leaps in species advancement, one of which is a Great Filter that almost always stops its progress.

In the universe of banking there’s plenty of “new life,” specifically challenger banks looking to compete with traditional institutions (I won’t compare them to advanced species for obvious reasons). Despite major fanfare within the industry, however, these challengers have largely struggled to adapt and grow. Like life in the universe, could there be “great filter” keeping these new entrants from flourishing?  I’d say there are a few contenders.

Technology

What old technology lacks in flexibility it makes up for in stability.  It seems that for emerging providers, what’s made up for in flexibility is lost in stability. Simple, for example, has had its share of technical issues over the past couple of years. In late 2014, a systems upgrade lead to a number of glitches, including bill payment going down, online banking being inaccessible, and the safe-to-spend feature showing incorrect balances.  Some accounts were locked for more than 24 hours.  The transition process to BBVA also presented issues with integration.  Systems had to be rebuilt, and customers had issues with using debit cards, not being US citizens, and just recently, losing their accounts (Simple said it wasn’t able to transfer everyone before its relationship with The Bancorp Bank ended).

Monzo (formerly Mondo) out of the UK had multiple issues inside of a week.  It had outages with its third party card processor, and then a few days later customers reported not being able to properly view their balances or display transactions.

Traditional financial institutions have long known that trust is an asset, whether it’s trust to keep money safe or trust to keep data secure.  Technology has been built around establishing reliability.  Challenger banks and neobanks may be opening themselves up to risks associated with applying concepts of agility to the complexities of banking, and this may be a strong enough filter for reaching critical mass.

Revenue

In addition to trying to provide an amazing customer experience, almost all challenger banks share the same commitment to fee transparency.  In recent years, many traditional banks have used fee income to supplant lower than usual net interest margins.  Fees have been (often rightly) perceived as punitive and opaque.

The quest for fee relief is admirable, but ultimately emerging challengers need to make money to fuel new investments. For some that’s been an issue. The neobank Moven, after struggling to find a significant core audience in the US or overseas, decided to pivot and start selling its underlying front-end technology to traditional banks, most notably TD Bank. Customers Bancorp recently put BankMobile up for sale, citing profitability concerns stemming from limitations on debit interchange once the bank’s assets exceeded $10 billion.  BBVA also recently reported a total of $89.5 million in goodwill impairment from the acquisition of Simple Bank in 2014.

Challenger banks are fully committed to reimagining financial services, but many haven’t yet reimagined the business model. Banks that are furthest along are the likes of Knab in the Netherlands and Fidor Bank in Germany (acquired by France’s BPCE Group) which have applied subscription-based pricing for consumers.  Similar to Netflix or Pandora, the idea is that consumers will pay for value.  What’s clear, however, is that the complexities of financial services require a scale of investment that presents a bigger barrier to entry than for other platform-based offerings (i.e. movies and music).  If consumers are paying for value, then the question is whether a challenger can persuade consumers that they’re receiving enough value to validate a subscription before it begins to hurt its financial viability.

Acquisition

When confronted with barriers to organic growth, some challengers have found it easier to be acquired. When BBVA bought Simple, CEO Josh Reich said that BBVA would provide them with the resources to grow faster.  Many took this as an admission that customer growth was slower than expected. When Fidor was purchased by the French banking group BPCE, the German bank said that the sale would “…allow Fidor to continue its international expansion…” as well as “…improving our overall financial sustainability.”

The question is: do challenger banks need traditional institutions? Well, they certainly need trust, and customers, and data, and  with the pressure to grow and invest in innovation, it’s obvious that the financial incentives of joining a large organization can be attractive.

Challenger institutions have been an important part of the banking ecosystem.  Most notably, they’ve moved the ball forward on what “good” looks like throughout the industry, better assimilating modern concepts of UX and UI design into their front-ends.  At the more extreme end, however, these challengers  were heralded as the white knights that would save consumers from pernicious traditional institutions with outdated technology.  So far that hasn’t been the case.

In the explanation of Fermi’s Paradox, humanity (or a challenger bank) is left with three possibilities, depending on where the Great Filter occurs: we're rare, we’re first, or we’re in trouble. Rare is the challenger that’s made it through the Great Filter.  First is the challenger within a pack of new institutions which has grown because of conditions that have only recently become favorable.  In trouble is the challenger that hasn’t yet reached the Great Filter.  There’s plenty of life in the banking universe, but it remains to be seen who will make first contact.

The Enduring Importance of Physical Engagement in Retail Financial Services

The Enduring Importance of Physical Engagement in Retail Financial Services

I take no issue with the growing importance being placed on digital in financial services. Indeed, it does not take extensive examination to see, in Wayne Gretzky’s words, “where the puck is going”. Digital needs to be a top technology priority among financial institutions – particularly in highly digitally-directed markets such as North America and Western Europe. But, that doesn’t mean physical engagement is unimportant. In my opinion, in-person (physical) engagement will be of lasting importance in financial services for at least three reasons:

1. Most consumers rely on brick and mortar for commerce and will continue to do so.

2. Most retail deposits still take place at the branch.

3. Most banks do not offer a decent digital customer acquisition mechanism

Most Consumers Rely on Brick and Mortar for Commerce

This week, comScore released its most recent measurement of digital commerce. It was truly exciting, with Q4 2016 m-commerce spending up 45% over 2015! But, even with that astonishing year-over-year growth, m-commerce constitutes just 21% of total e-commerce. And, with two decades of e-commerce, total digital commerce comprised just ten percent of total commerce in 2015. Plenty of consumers still like stores. * FRB Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2011 – 2016, Percent of smartphone users with bank accounts
** US Department of Commerce, Internet Retailer, Excludes fuel, auto, restaurants and bars
***comScore

Digital is not equally important across segments. Books and music, for example, are highly digital. Not so much for food and beverage. I’m being simplistic for brevity, but the data suggests that most commerce will remain tied to the store experience – at least in part – for the foreseeable future. I don’t think financial services will be an exception.

Most Retail Deposits Still Take Place at the Branch

Banks are keen to migrate low-value branch transactions to self-service channels, and there is perhaps no better low-hanging fruit than check deposits. Yet, with a decade of remote deposit capture utilization behind us, a January 2017 survey of US financial institutions (n=269) clearly shows that the majority of retail deposit dollar volume still takes place in the branch. Like it or not, the branch remains a key transaction point for many consumers and small businesses. Sure, the trend lines support digital transaction growth (thank goodness), but we have a long way to go – farther than the hype would suggest.

Most banks do not offer a digital account and loan origination mechanism

Even as banks would love to acquire more customers digitally, most aren’t well prepared to do so. Unlike most every other retailer on the planet, most banks initially invested in digital banking for transaction migration, not sales. That is changing, but not quickly. The mobile realm needs the most work. In a December 2016 survey of North American financial institutions, Celent found that large banks, those with assets of >US$50b, had made noteworthy progress in mobile customer acquisition capability since the previous survey two years ago. Smaller institutions lag considerably. For these reasons, branch channels are getting a make-over at a growing number of financial institutions, with the objective of improving channel efficiency and effectiveness – effectiveness with engagement, not just transactions. Celent is pleased to offer a Celent Model Bank award in 2017 for Branch Transformation. We’ll present the award on April 4 at our 2017 Innovation & Insight Day in Boston. In addition to presenting the award trophies to the winners, Celent analysts will be discussing broader trends we’ve seen across all nominations and will share our perspectives why we chose those particular initiatives as winners. Make sure you reserve your slot here while there are still spaces available!

Rethinking the Customer Experience: Themes from the 2017 Model Bank Submissions

Rethinking the Customer Experience: Themes from the 2017 Model Bank Submissions
This is the third article in a weekly series highlighting trends and themes from Celent’s Model Bank submission process. Dan Latimore and Zil Bareisis led off with two great pieces on the evolution of the Model Bank Awards.  Articles from this week on will explore some of the broader themes within each category. Customer experience initiatives are typically the most numerous.  While this makes the category more difficult to judge, it offers immense insight into what’s happening in the market. The standards of customer engagement are constantly changing, and banks are experimenting with new ways to drive increased satisfaction, higher revenue, and greater loyalty.  Three themes stand out this year. Digital banking subsidiaries: Many banks are finding that existing systems are too rigid to accommodate a truly digital experience.  A number of customer experience submissions this year focus on building out separate digital subsidiary brands within traditional institutions. Banks are typically going in two different directions.  The first is a digital subsidiary as an offshoot of the parent bank.  These brands are basically separate products that offer a digital-first experience to a certain demographic, but are closely tied to the main bank. Brands are similar and products/ services are frequently cross-sold. The second type is a completely separate brand ring-fenced under a different technology stack, operating under the umbrella of the parent organization but effectively a separate entity.  These banks may leverage the parent for product support, but are usually sandboxes for “testing” digital.  Submissions were a mix of the two approaches. Fintech partnerships: The shift from disruptive to collaborative relationships between financial services and Fintech startups feature prominently in this year’s award submissions.   They range from standard B2B vendor relationships to more advanced functional partnerships where portions of the Fintech’s offering is exposed within the traditional institutions digital UI.  Initiatives reflect the growing acceptance among the industry that banks can’t be all things to all people.  Institutions are acknowledging the valuable and complementary role Fintech can play in providing a modern, innovative customer experience. AI and bot technology: Bursting out of the gate in 2015/16, Banks have begun a mad dash towards AI and other bot technologies.  This is a broad spectrum of projects that include everything from simple bots to cognitive computing.  Submissions this year show institutions spreading their resources across many different applications.  Like any emerging technology, most institutions are in a “test and learn” phase.   These technologies are at varying levels of maturity, but the potential to revolutionize the customer experience through AI may be truly transformational, and Celent was pleased to see so many projects in this space. This is just a taste of what we’ll have in store at the 10th annual Innovation and Insight Day on April 4th in Boston. We’ll be diving much deeper into the various topics, revealing the winners of all the awards, and discussing how they combined serious innovation with tangible business benefits to stand out from so many strong contenders. I look forward to seeing you all there.

Is the tablet banking honeymoon over?

Is the tablet banking honeymoon over?
Only a couple years ago, as mobile banking was growing rapidly, and the conversation around development strategies was at its height, tablets played a prominent role in channel strategies at the largest and most digitally mature institutions. The consumer interest in tablets over the last year or two, however, has plateaued—even waned. Tablet is nowhere near dead, but sales have started to level off. According to ABI Research, tablet sales experienced a 19% YoY decline in growth from 2014-2015. There are a few reasons for this:
  • Tablets have low replacement cycles: Tablets aren´t being recycled at nearly the rate of phones. Partially this has to do with wear and tear—tablets typically sit at home, aren´t charged as often, and aren´t dropped nearly as much—but likely a bigger reason is the lack of major advancements in hardware.   There simply hasn’t been a new tablet feature in the last couple years for which consumers are choosing to shell out another $400-600 (or more).
  • Phablets have taken over as the preferred device: consumers are increasingly going for phones that can provide the screen space of a tablet with the mobility of a smartphone. Phones have been steadily growing in size to meet this need. Phablets can provide the processing power to accommodate the needs of consumers for less.
  • Tablets haven´t carved out a distinct enough use case: It´s still unclear to what extent tablets are devices of leisure, business, lifestyle, etc. There´s the Surface 4 and others that are starting to seriously go after the laptop market with a full operating system and keyboard, but the best-selling tablets on amazon are all those with small screens and cheap price tags.
Celent´s discussions with banks have largely echoed this change, moving to a broader understanding of digital strategy and what it means to be “mobile.” It´s not that tablets aren´t important—far from it—but banks have limited resources dedicated to digital channels, and institutions should be thinking about prioritizing development where the opportunity is highest. A recent Celent report on digital transformation showed that more than 65% of banks cite resources and availability as a barrier to digital maturity. So what’s a financial institution to make of all this?
  1. Use responsive design: A bank may have been able to manage native apps when there were only a handful of devices, but that´s no longer the case. Responsive design has evolved to the point of being able to provide the same look and feel through an experience automatically tailored to the user´s device.
  2. Think about the consumer-facing branch tablet: This could be roaming personnel in the branch, tablet-like ATMs and kiosks, or as a way to streamline the on-boarding process.   The characteristics of tablet interfaces should influence design in other channels.
  3. Design the right app if large tablets are going to continue to be a priority: As the form and function of smartphones and tablets begin to move closer together, institutions will have to reassess where the full tablet experience sits within its strategic digital priorities. The consumer-facing tablet experience may need to reflect the evolving use case.
Celent will continue to discuss the role of tablets in financial services going forward, but the conversation around mobile banking will reflect the larger digital channels picture, rather than tablet vs smartphone vs. online banking. We feel this is more in line with the way the market is moving.

Proposed new cyber security regulations will be a huge undertaking for financial institutions

Proposed new cyber security regulations will be a huge undertaking for financial institutions
New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDSF) is one step closer to releasing cyber security regulations aided by the largest security hacking breach in history, against JP Morgan Chase. The attack on JPMorgan Chase is revealed to have generated hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit and compromised 83 million customer accounts. Yesterday (Tuesday, November 10), the authorities charged three men with what they call “pump and dump” manipulation of publicly traded stock, mining of nonpublic corporate information, money laundering, wire fraud, identity theft and securities fraud. The attack began in 2007 and crossed 17 different countries. On the same day as the arrests, the NYDSF sent a letter to other states and federal regulators proposing requirements around the prevention of cyber-attacks. The timing will undoubtedly put pressure on regulators to push through strong regulation. Under the proposed rules, banks will have to hire a Chief Information Security Officer with accountability for cyber security policies and controls. Mandated training of security will be required. Tuesday’s letter also proposed a requirement for annual audits of cyber defenses. Financial institutions will be required to show material improvement in the following areas:
  1. Information security
  2. Data governance and classification
  3. Access controls and identity management
  4. Business continuity and disaster recovery planning and resources
  5. Capacity and performance planning
  6. Systems operations and availability concerns
  7. Systems and network security
  8. Systems and application development and quality assurance
  9. Physical security and environmental controls
  10. Customer data privacy
  11. Vendor and third-party service provider management
  12. Incident response, including by setting clearly defined roles and decision making authority
This will be a huge undertaking for financial institutions. Costs have yet to be evaluated but will be in the millions of dollars. It will be very difficult to police third party security because, under the proposal, vendors will be required to provide warranties to the institution that security is in pace. The requirements are in the review stage and financial institutions should join in the debate by responding to the NYDFS letter.

Biometrics: the next generation of corporate digital banking authentication

Biometrics: the next generation of corporate digital banking authentication
Corporate treasury departments initiate and approve millions of dollars in high-value payments on a daily basis. As an example, in May 2015 the average amount of a US Fedwire transfer was $5.7 million. Because of the dollar value of these transactions, banks were early adopters of enhanced authentication for corporate online banking applications. Many banks continue to offer one-time-password authentication (on top of traditional username and password) using RSA SecurID or Vasco DIGIPASS hardware tokens at both login and payment initiation. When Celent published its report “Corporate Mobile Banking Update: Adoption Conundrums and Security Realities” in September 2014, it highlighted alternatives to traditional two-factor authentication for corporate online and mobile banking applications. Alternative methods include voice, pattern and biometric authentication methods. As discussed in the Celent Banking Blog “Logging Into Your Bank in a Heartbeat”, several banks have rolled out Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint authentication technology for consumer online banking login authentication. However, as quickly demonstrated by clever hackers, Touch ID is vulnerable to various hacking methods. For this reason, banks are turning to more sophisticated biometric authentication methods for its corporate online and mobile banking applications. The focus remains on layered, multi-factor authentication, but combines authentication technologies in unusual and unique ways. Barclays Bank’s offering combines biometric and digital signature technology in an offering called “Barclays Biometric Reader.” To overcome limitations with traditional fingerprint scanners, Barclays is implementing Hitachi Europe’s Finger Vein Authentication Technology (VeinID) which reads and verifies the user’s unique finger vein patterns. The latest authentication announcement comes from Wells Fargo who is combining facial recognition with voice biometrics. Wells Fargo is working with SpeechPro to pilot the new bi-modal security solution (VoiceKey.OnePass) and fine-tune the biometric authentication features. The solution uses a standard smartphone microphone and camera to capture a facial image and voiceprint. Wells Fargo is also working on authentication using eye vein scanning (as opposed to typical retina scans). Biometrics New authentication technologies, from a slew of relative newcomers to the financial services space, could eventually replace traditional hardware tokens and eliminate multiple authentication hoops throughout the digital corporate banking experience. Watch this space.

Why the branch banking controversy will continue

Why the branch banking controversy will continue
The branch is dead, long live the branch! Controversy around the wisdom (or not) of investing in the branch channel amidst rapidly growing digital banking adoption is showing no signs of letting up. Consider three articles published in the past week:
  • Bank Innovation covering Associated Bank branch closures to fund digital channel initiatives.
  • BTN coverage of Wells Fargo branch/digital convergence alongside the banks’ steadfast advocacy for maintaining its massive branch presence.
  • Brett King’s Op Ed in Banking Exchange, critical of the recent FDIC report, Brick-and-Mortar Banking Remains Prevalent in an Increasingly Virtual World
  I’ve observed that most advocacy is binary; either branches are next to worthless or the branch is king. Where is the middle-of-the road position?   I’d like to offer one. For starters, retail banks serve a diverse market with diverse needs and preferences. Why then do so many critics insist banks must react to digital banking’s growth in lock-step? How many times have you heard the comment, banks are lemmings? Well, this time they’re not. Get over it! We will continue to see a diverse response to the digital ascendency.   But, I do struggle with the sustainability (or even desirability) of the current branch density in many markets – particularly in the US. I don’t think it will be defensible for very long. Let’s put it into perspective. Between 2000 and 2010, US bank branch density grew from 230 to 270 branches per million. Celent looked at a dozen other retail categories and couldn’t find a single one (except banks) that grew store density over the same period. Just the reverse happened, even though digital commerce remains less than 20% of total retail sales.
Source: US Department of Commerce, FDIC, Datamonitor, Celent analysis

Source: US Department of Commerce, FDIC, Datamonitor, Celent analysis

Like retailers, banks have certainly embraced digital channels. But, unlike retailers, banks have not invested in digital engagement. Until recently, digital channels weren’t about sales and servicing (that’s what branches are for…) but about facilitating transactions. Rare is the retailer of any size that does not have a digital presence designed to conduct commerce. But, the significant majority of banks do not yet have that capability. And, in some cases, the user experience is poor. Why? In part, because banks have focused on transactions, not sales and service in the digital channels. As this changes (and it is), I believe we will see a corresponding contraction in branch densities – just like in most other retail segments. Until banks demonstrate the ability to sell and service customers digitally, they will be overly reliant on the branch channel.
Source: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

Source: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

The next few years will be telling. What do you think?

Are security fears hindering corporate mobile banking adoption?

Are security fears hindering corporate mobile banking adoption?
Corporate mobile has been a popular topic for a number of years now. While many banks have launched solutions, corporate adoption has stagnated. 66% of respondents to a Capital One survey  indicated “security challenges with sensitive corporate data” as their number one barrier to adoption. There are other reasons for slow adoption of corporate mobile, but this one is quite interesting and can be challenging to overcome. Should banks and corporations be concerned about mobile banking security? Is it a real threat at this stage? The short answer is that security should always be a concern — there are all kinds of real threats out there. However, it’s important to quantify and understand the risks and myths associated with current threats. At this stage, I would argue that security is an often overlooked BENEFIT to corporate mobile banking. It provides an additional layer of security; when executives receive mobile alerts, they have the ability to intercept potentially fraudulent transactions in near real time. A sandboxed app can also be quite helpful. I can go on and on here, and encourage you to read more about it in, Corporate Mobile Banking Update: Adoption Conundrums and Security Realities. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Should banks be investing in corporate mobile given these adoption challenges? There is a chicken and egg situation; it’s quite difficult for banks to prioritize mobile investments when corporate adoption simply isn’t there. Celent believes that all banks should be investing in digital infrastructure that encompasses online, mobile, and tablet banking. Each of these touchpoints should leverage common components and banking modules (e.g., ACH, wires, etc.) This infrastructure should allow banks to eventually support mobile. Banks don’t need to deploy actual mobile solutions immediately, but should be poised to rapidly deliver when customers ask for it. Customer demand should dictate when banks invest their hard-earned IT budgets in corporate mobile apps and solutions. I’ll be at the AFP Conference next week, drop me a note if you would like to meet to discuss this topic.

Is St. George Bank really getting rid of online banking?

Is St. George Bank really getting rid of online banking?
There was an interesting headline in the news last week that grabbed my attention – St George Bank to ‘decommission’ online banking for mobile. I read this article with great interest, particularly since St. George was such an early mover in online banking. The message is confusing, as is the quote from the bank’s CIO:
“We will have our first implementation for tablet in October 2014, a second mobile implementation in March 2015, and then desktop sometime in 2015, so we’ll have it as one system altogether.”
All this really tells me is that the bank is going to have a single digital platform and they are focusing on a mobile first approach. The next gen desktop implementation will arrive next year!  This also begs the question of what really is mobile or desktop these days? Is a Windows 8.1 convertible unit a tablet or a desktop? If I access “online banking” through the web browser on my iPad is it online or mobile banking? It doesn’t really matter. Customers expect to pick up their device of choice and have the appropriate experience. The burden is on the bank to provide it. The controversial nature of the headline certainly grabbed my attention. Online banking is far from dead. Feel free to add your comments, I’m interested in your opinion on the St. George bank announcement.

“End the Carnival!” – Innovation as Part of the Business – Practitioner Roundtable

“End the Carnival!” – Innovation as Part of the Business – Practitioner Roundtable
We just held our 3rd Innovation Roundtable in New York City and the event further underscored how important this area is to financial services institutions.  The format of these gatherings is discussion-based and senior leaders from banks and insurers share their experiences in building innovation capabilities in their firms. The New York group included large insurers (all were $5B DWP and above) and a variety of banks, from among the largest in the world to smaller, regional providers.  Mick Simonelli, previously the Chief Innovation Officer at USAA, also attended and contributed his experience. Across these firms, there is a real diversity in their approach – a reflection that innovation programs are most successful when they adapt to the culture of a company. One attendee describes their innovation strategy as making big bets only on carefully selected areas that are the highest importance to their company. Another wants to increase their “innovation velocity” and pursues incremental initiatives that, when added together, result in meaningful contributions the short to medium term. In contrast to these differences, the participants agree that that their senior leaders recognize emerging disruptive threats and/or opportunities posed by new entrants, increasing commoditization, and changing consumer expectations.  For example, one bank reports that its senior leaders are very actively tracking Amazon’s recent activity offering loans to small businesses. This awareness in these companies is not surprising, since these roundtables are attended by organizations which are already actively pursuing innovation.  Most attendees mentioned that they regularly report to their Boards of Directors on their progress. In Celent’s opinion, just the presence of a firm at the roundtable signals that they are building, or on their way to building, a competitive advantage. Without identifying individual participants, here is a sampling of the content of the afternoon:
  • One company, in their 5th year of a focused innovation program, describes their current approach as “moving away from the Carnival”, away from event, one-time crowdsourcing ideation efforts and towards making innovation a systemic and continuous part of their business. Their objective is to “create a social layer of innovation.” They were kind enough to detail the technology and process that they have used so far.
  • There was agreement that financial services firms advance innovations much too slowly.  This has been confirmed in numerous conversations that Celent has had with clients and has also validated our research. In order to address this, one company actively establishes 3rd party partnerships in order to move innovation faster. They partner with startup firms in order to increase their velocity of change.
  • A common theme throughout the day was evolving digital capabilities and how other firms, outside of financial services, are changing the customer experience.  One firm concentrates on building a “macro view” of what they want their customer to experience. As they improve and innovate their current customer process, they are using this this wider set of considerations to ensure that they remain focused. This is exactly consistent with a recent post on this blog regarding designing digital platforms (see Stop Designing to be a Digital Insurer; Use a Business Value Proposition)
  • The attendees were also global, both by birth and by company.  They report the greatest adoption of mobile platforms occurs in Asia and in emerging economies.  It was also noted that in EMEA, the experience of dealing with multiple languages, cultures and multiple European regulatory regimes increases their companies’ agility and, thus, their innovation capability. For firms that have global operations, concentrating on reverse engineering innovations from one region to another is a valuable investment and a viable strategy.
  • During the discussion about changing company culture to further innovation capability, one practitioner noted that innovation leaders have to be very careful about the manner in which they discuss emerging threats (and opportunities) with their business partners.  Leaders must be very careful to use what was called “empirical specificity” in such discussions. In other words, before beginning a discussion about an emerging threat or opportunity, an innovation leader must do their homework and be prepared to offer exact examples of actual cases where the threat/opportunity has actually taken place. Otherwise, the communication is ineffective and “Pollyannaish”.
There were a number of other very useful areas that we covered – governance, prioritization, prototyping, building to a minimal level of functionality, testing innovations, etc. Thanks to all of the participants for an active, open and productive dialog. Celent is continuing this series and we invite senior innovation leaders to join a session.  Listed below are the dates and links to the upcoming roundtables. Tokyo Feb 26: https://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=1435248 London March 5: https://classic.regonline.com/builder/site/default.aspx?EventID=1439152 Chicago March 20: https://classic.regonline.com/builder/site/default.aspx?EventID=1446980 Many thanks to my colleague Mike Fitzgerald who posted this blog originally.