Teknologins framtid
Teknologer och framtidstänkare utforskar hur innovation kommer att omvandla industrier, ekonomi och vardagsliv
Speakers Associates represents 253 speakers on Teknologins framtid, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Mark Stevenson, Edvard Moser, Nikolas Badminton, Marc Saltzman, Alex Goryachev, Timandra Harkness, Chris Heemskerk och Dame Wendy Hall.
Boards want the upside of founder-led growth without the chaos that usually comes with it. Most corporates cannot tell the difference between a genuine scaling business and one that simply spends fast. The gap between how operators build and how incumbents invest is where value is lost.
Banking, payments and customer trust are being rewritten by code, and most incumbent institutions are still organising around branches, products and quarterly earnings. Boards know the platform players, embedded finance and AI agents are reshaping the economics of the industry. The strategic question is how far to push, how fast, and what kind of institution remains on the other side.
Organisations invest heavily in understanding technology trends, yet most briefings start with the applications and skip the science behind them. The result is leaders who can name the tool but cannot reason about where it leads. Quantum computing, space-based infrastructure, and AI all rest on physical principles that reward first-principles thinking – and penalise those who lack it.
Blockchain and digital currency have moved from curiosity to board-level question, and most executives still cannot separate the credible use cases from the noise. Regulators are writing rules in real time, and early decisions about custody, tokenisation, and settlement will shape cost structures for a decade. Leaders need a translator who has sat on both sides of the table, inside government and inside the research lab.
Most incentive systems reward speed and individual credit: the exact qualities that undermine genuine collaboration. When teams know that recognition goes to whoever announces first, patience and rigour become competitive disadvantages. The organisations that claim to want bold innovation are often the ones that have inadvertently designed against it.
Most large organisations are reacting to AI and digital disruption, not directing it. Leadership teams know the operating model needs to change but keep funding incremental programmes that preserve the status quo. The harder question is how to spot the shifts that matter, get the company aligned around them, and turn innovation from theatre into a measurable change in how the business runs.
Leaders assume that deploying AI leaves their own judgment intact, but that assumption has not been tested. Algorithmic systems shape beliefs and steer decisions from within organizations, through the architecture of information rather than through visible force. The organization that cannot distinguish its own conclusions from those it has been guided to reach has a governance risk without a name.
Boards are being asked to make capital and workforce decisions on AI without a shared map of where the technology is actually heading. Internal teams default to either pilot-by-pilot caution or unchecked enthusiasm, and neither produces a defensible long-range position. What is missing is a credible read of what the next decade looks like, grounded in technology history rather than vendor marketing.
Most boards now accept that AI will change their business. Few have a defensible view on what it changes first, what it changes structurally, and what it does to the labour model their P&L assumes. The gap between accepting AI as a trend and treating it as a strategic variable is where serious organisations are exposed.
Most leadership teams treat digital risk as a technical problem they can delegate. The real exposure is power: who controls the information, the platforms, and the narratives that now decide a company’s reputation, a market’s direction, and an election’s outcome. By the time that shift is visible on a balance sheet, the advantage has already moved.
Most organisations are spending heavily on AI without a clear view of which decisions the technology is actually supposed to improve. Models get shipped, dashboards proliferate, and senior leaders still cannot tell whether any of it is changing the quality of the choices the business makes. The missing layer is not more data or better algorithms, it is a disciplined way to connect AI outputs to the decisions a company is trying to get right.
Boards now treat information integrity as an operating risk, not a communications problem. Coordinated manipulation, hostile narratives and regulator pressure arrive on the same week, and most leadership teams do not have a shared language for any of it. The gap sits between the security function that sees the signals and the executives who have to act on them.