Innovation und Disruption
Experten, die zeigen, wie Industrien sich transformieren – und wie Organisationen Veränderung gestalten statt nur folgen
Speakers Associates represents 390 speakers on Innovation und Disruption, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Stevenson, Nilofer Merchant, Itai Green, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath und Katja Schipperheijn.
Most organisations talk about inclusion as a policy and innovation as a pipeline. The harder question is whether the people the system was not designed for can actually build inside it, and whether their work is treated as engineering or as a story. Cultures that cannot answer that question lose both the talent and the output.
Most boards are now briefed on AI, but few have thought seriously about what happens when AI has a face. Customer service, healthcare, education and hospitality are all heading towards interactions with machines that look back at you, recognise you, and hold a conversation. The strategic question is no longer whether the technology works. It is how organisations design for trust, responsibility and emotional register when the interface is a humanoid.
Food and agribusiness companies tend to operate within one part of the value chain – retail, manufacturing, production, or inputs – and make strategic decisions based on a partial view. Consumer preferences, retail power dynamics and sustainability pressures are all shifting simultaneously, and their effects travel in both directions along the chain. A business that reads only its own segment will consistently misread both the timing and the scale of what is coming.
Customer expectations don’t shift gradually – they reset when a leading business makes a move that becomes the new standard. Most organisations track their own customers too closely and the forces reshaping those customers not closely enough. The arrival of AI has made the problem acute: more signals, faster change, and a greater penalty for placing bets on the wrong ones.
Most organisations sit on more data than ever and communicate less clearly than they used to. Boards, customers, and employees are drowning in dashboards, decks, and statistics that fail to land. The gap is not analytical capacity. It is the discipline of turning numbers into a story people actually act on.
Most organisations can name the technologies disrupting their sector. Few have leadership frameworks capable of responding at the speed those technologies actually move. The gap is not strategic awareness – it is the absence of a decision-making model built for exponential change rather than incremental adjustment. Organisations that cannot distinguish truly disruptive technologies from merely revolutionary ones will continue making that call by instinct – and that instinct was calibrated for a slower world.
Most boards are setting AI strategy from briefings that are already out of date. The pace of frontier development now exceeds the speed at which incumbent organisations can absorb it. Telling which shifts genuinely change the operating model from those that do not has become a core test of senior leadership.
Established companies are built to run the core, not to discover the next one. The instinct under pressure is to optimise what already exists, which is exactly when a rival builds the thing that replaces you. The hard problem is not having ideas. It is installing a repeatable way to find, test, and fund new growth without breaking the business that pays the bills.
Female founders raise less than two pence of every venture pound deployed in the UK, and most growth-stage businesses still treat that gap as a marketing problem rather than a capital one. Boards that want to act find they have neither the operator language nor the investor network to move money differently. The question is no longer whether to back women, but how to redesign the pipeline that decides who gets funded.
Founders scale fast, then stall when the discipline that built the business no longer fits the business they have built. Boards back ventures on conviction, then struggle to read which numbers, which people and which markets actually deserve more capital. The hard call is rarely the idea. It is when to walk away, when to double down, and what good looks like in between.
Most technology products fail not because the technology stops working, but because people won’t use them. Organisations pour investment into building capability and almost nothing into understanding adoption. The psychology of why users reject genuinely useful innovations is a problem most corporate innovation teams are not equipped to see – let alone solve.