Innovación y disrupción
Oradores que analizan cómo se transforman las industrias y cómo las organizaciones pueden liderar el cambio en lugar de seguirlo
Speakers Associates represents 390 speakers on Innovación y disrupción, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Stevenson, Nilofer Merchant, Itai Green, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath y Katja Schipperheijn.
Most organisations plan as if the future is a continuation of the present, only faster. The future they actually face is shaped by turning points, unexpected shocks, and ideas that arrive from outside the industry. Long-range thinking is rarely a discipline inside the leadership team, which leaves strategy exposed to events that were predictable to almost no one in the room.
Most large organisations talk about innovation as culture and end up funding pilots that never reach the P&L. The gap is not ideas, it is process: how a bank, telco or pharma company moves a creative concept through the same operational rigour it applies to risk, finance and supply. Without a repeatable method, innovation stays personality-led and stops when the sponsor leaves.
Most organisations know what the safer option is. They choose the familiar one anyway. When procurement systems, regulatory bodies, and established manufacturers benefit from the status quo, a better solution can sit unused for decades.
Most enterprises now have AI on the agenda but no method for getting it into the operating model. Pilots stall, design teams default to features instead of customer problems, and the organisation cannot tell the difference between a real innovation portfolio and a list of experiments. The gap is not ambition. It is discipline.
Most organisations treat new ideas as intellectual problems – to be argued over, refined, and approved before anyone acts on them. That process is not a filter for bad ideas; it is a filter for action. The companies that build new things do not have better ideas. They have better discipline around testing the ones they have.
The largest consumer goods companies spend over a billion dollars annually on product innovation and see no measurable sales return. When retailers grow more powerful and private label erodes margins, the strategies that built a brand’s market position stop defending it. Knowing where to invest and how to negotiate the manufacturer-retailer relationship from strength has become the defining commercial challenge for FMCG leadership.
Most leadership teams understand that emerging technology will reshape their business. Far fewer can describe what a robot, a drone swarm, a generative model or a mixed-reality system actually changes about customer attention, trust and decision-making. The gap between technical capability and human reception is where strategy quietly fails.
Boards in banking, insurance and investment management are being asked to make capital decisions while macro signals, regulatory expectations and customer behaviour shift in different directions at once. The hard part is not gathering views. It is running a senior conversation that surfaces the disagreement honestly and lands on something a leadership team can act on. That requires a chair who knows the sector well enough to push back, and a journalist’s instinct for the question that reframes the room.
Boards have approved AI strategies they cannot fully explain, govern, or defend. Pilots multiply, ethical frameworks lag, and the human side of the operating model erodes faster than anyone planned. The question is no longer whether to deploy AI, but how to do it without losing the judgement, trust, and accountability that hold the enterprise together.
Most large organisations in emerging and developed markets are running digital transformation programmes that have stalled at the pilot stage. Boards want exponential technology translated into operating advantage, not slide decks. The harder question is whether the leadership team, the culture, and the customer model are set up to absorb it.
Most large organisations have run AI pilots. Few have turned them into operating advantage. The harder problem is cultural: senior teams know they need to move faster on AI, but the internal mechanics of how decisions get made, how creative work is commissioned, and how risk is held have not caught up. Without that translation, AI sits adjacent to the business rather than inside it.
Most organisations now run two AI agendas in parallel and neither one is working. The compliance agenda is ahead of the strategy agenda, and the strategy agenda is ahead of the operating model. Boards need a coherent way to think about AI as economic infrastructure, not as a procurement question, while the technology is still moving faster than their policies, their hiring, and their planning cycles can absorb.