Digitale Transformation
Strategen und Technologen unterstützen Organisationen bei den technischen, kulturellen und kommerziellen Anforderungen der digitalen Transformation
Speakers Associates represents 234 speakers on Digitale Transformation, including Rahaf Harfoush, Purna Virji, Itai Green, Limor Ziv, Tom Goodwin, Daniel Trabucchi & Tommaso Buganza, Jeremy Blain, Dr Sidney Shapiro, Blake Morgan und Marc Saltzman.
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.
Western brands keep treating international ecommerce as a translation problem. It is a channel problem, a payments problem and an ecosystem problem, and the platforms that win in China, the Gulf and Africa are not the ones that win in Europe. Leaders need to decide which marketplaces to build on, which to resist, and how to price the trade-off between reach and dependency.
Most organisations have run AI pilots. Few have moved from pilot to operating capability. The gap is rarely the technology; it is the absence of a structure that connects model choice, team design, ethics, and day-to-day decision rights across the business.
Leaders are told to plan for an accelerating future, but the public commentary on technology cycles, energy systems and innovation is dominated by consensus thinking. That makes long-range capital decisions easier to defend internally and harder to get right. The harder task is reading where supply, technology and politics are actually heading, before the conventional view catches up.
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.
Established organisations invest heavily in optimising what already works, and that focus becomes the liability when the market shifts. The leaders most at risk are not those who ignore change but those who see it clearly and still cannot mobilise their organisation to act before the window closes. The gap between recognising disruption and profiting from it is rarely a knowledge problem; it is a strategic and cultural one.
Senior leaders are being asked to behave in two contradictory ways at once. They must be decisive and humble, data-driven and intuitive, in control and willing to let go. Most leadership models still treat these as choices, which leaves executives stuck managing the friction rather than using it.
Assembling the right panellists solves one problem. Ensuring the moderator can hold their own in the conversation – in two languages, across AI, data governance, and autonomous systems – is another. Most technology organisations choose format over content knowledge, and the audience notices.
Most transformation programmes fail before the technology becomes the problem. Leaders invest in AI tools and change programmes, then stall because people are still holding on to a stable world that no longer exists. The gap between what organisations know they must do and what their leaders are equipped to do keeps widening, and it shows up in market value, talent, and relevance.
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 senior teams know their organisations cannot scale decision-making fast enough to match the pace of change. Authority sits too high, accountability sits too low, and the layer in between is asked to execute strategy without the licence to lead. The question is not whether to distribute leadership, but how to make it operate without losing coherence, control, or commercial discipline.