Innovation af forretningsmodeller
Talere der udfordrer, hvordan organisationer skaber, leverer og opfanger værdi på skiftende markeder
Speakers Associates represents 112 speakers on Innovation af forretningsmodeller, including Purna Virji, Tom Goodwin, Daniel Trabucchi & Tommaso Buganza, Diana Verde Nieto, David S. Kidder, Dhar Mann, John Mackey, Arunjay Katakam, Tim Calkins og Joerg Niessing.
Customer expectations now move faster than most innovation pipelines can absorb. Strategy teams see the shifts in the data, but by the time a proposition reaches market, the reference point has moved again. The real question is not which trend to chase, but how to build a repeatable method for turning early signals into commercial bets that leaders will back.
Leaders of banks, central banks and other regulated institutions know their organisations are being rewired by AI, platforms and new regulation. What they struggle with is translating that awareness into sequenced decisions about capability, talent and operating model. The gap is not vision. It is a practitioner view of which AI moves build durable advantage and which ones become stranded pilots.
Recurring-revenue businesses do not fail because their product is weak. They fail because acquisition, onboarding, retention and expansion are run by separate teams using different data, different vocabulary and different incentives. Scaling growth without redesigning that operating system produces compounding friction instead of compounding revenue.
Retail is no longer a store with a website attached. The commercial model sits across physical space, digital channels, supply chain and brand experience at the same time, and most retailers still run these as separate teams with separate budgets. Leaders need a sharper read on where customer behaviour is actually moving, and what to build next, before competitors reset the category.
Most organisations know how to innovate when budgets are generous and markets are stable. They are far less sure how to generate growth when resources are tight, customers are price-sensitive, and the competitive pressure is coming from firms built to do more with less. The harder question is how to redesign the business, and sometimes the institution behind it, to produce value under those conditions rather than in spite of them.
Most consumer businesses try to grow by cutting price, and most acquisitions destroy value instead of creating it. Owners and operating teams know the experience they sell is what customers actually pay for, but struggle to build an operating model that protects it at scale. The question is how to grow a multi-brand business through acquisition without losing the thing that made each brand worth buying.
Most large organisations know their old sources of advantage are eroding faster than their innovation pipelines can replace them. The pressure is to act like a challenger again, in a structure that was built to defend share. That gap, between strategic intent and operating reality, is where most transformation programmes stall.
European boards are being asked to deliver on climate, inclusion and innovation at the same time, while shareholders, regulators and governments pull in different directions. The question leaders keep returning to is not whether capitalism needs reform, but what a credible European version of it looks like in practice. Getting that wrong costs license to operate; getting it right requires a framework most executives do not yet have.
Most sustainability commitments sit in the annual report and never reach the supply chain. Boards are under pressure to prove their environmental claims are operational, not rhetorical, and that the numbers hold up to B Corp-grade scrutiny. The question is no longer whether to commit to circularity, but whether the business model can actually deliver it at margin.
Most consumer businesses do not invent new categories, they iterate inside existing ones. The leaders who do invent categories then face a second problem: holding the category open against well-resourced incumbents while the underlying economics shift beneath them. Knowing how someone has actually run that loop, not theorised it, is what boards want when their own model is under strain.
Large organisations want the speed and originality of a founder-led startup, but the operating system inside them rewards the opposite behaviours. Boards approve innovation budgets and then watch promising pilots stall in legal, brand and procurement reviews. The harder question is how to design a venture inside a corporate parent so that it survives long enough to learn something useful.
Most large companies have run AI pilots. Few have moved them into operating advantage. The tension is no longer whether to invest, but how to convert experimentation into revenue, new business units, and customer interfaces that legacy organisations can actually run.