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.
For two decades, the economics of distribution favoured the hit. Digital shelves, open-source tooling and cheap production have quietly inverted that logic, and most organisations still plan their assortment, pricing and manufacturing as if scarcity were the default. The unresolved question for commercial leaders is how to build a growth strategy when niche demand, zero-cost copies and distributed production are each reshaping the economics at the same time.
Most organisations say they want breakthrough innovation but design approval processes that guarantee safe outcomes. The ideas most likely to create new categories are also the ones expert consensus will most reliably reject. Getting something genuinely new to market requires a method for staying in motion when the evidence argues against you.
Most large organisations now claim an AI strategy and an innovation function. Few can show what either has produced in the last twelve months. Pilots multiply, capability stalls, and the question of how to move from experimentation to operating advantage stays open.
Boards are being asked to make large, irreversible bets on AI while the rules governing it are still being written. The people drafting those rules, and the people deploying the technology, rarely sit in the same room. Without a translator between Westminster, Silicon Roundabout and the executive committee, firms either over-invest in the wrong guardrails or under-invest and wait for enforcement to find them.
Most leadership teams are reacting to AI and Web3 from outside the rooms where capital is being deployed. They cannot tell which companies, products, and behaviours will define the next cycle, and they cannot tell which are noise. Without a credible view of where venture money is going, and why, strategic decisions on partnerships, acquisitions, and product bets are guesses dressed as strategy.
Most leadership teams have more information about emerging technology than they have clarity about what to do with it. Platform launches and AI announcements arrive daily, and most will be irrelevant within a year. The question that matters is which signals to trust, and which to filter out before committing budget.
Most leadership teams treat AI as an efficiency question rather than a question of identity. When algorithms absorb cognitive work, the traits that actually differentiate an organisation become both more valuable and harder to preserve. The strategic question is not whether to adopt AI but what a business chooses to remain unmistakably human about as AI reshapes the default.
Boards have approved AI pilots, signed responsible-AI principles, and named ethics committees, and still cannot answer whether their deployed systems would survive a regulator’s audit or a serious public failure. The gap is not awareness. It is the operating distance between governance language and the decisions engineers, product leads and procurement teams actually make every week.
Senior leaders are running ever larger events on AI, transformation and the energy transition, with regulators, investors and operators in the same room. The quality of the conversation, on stage and in the recording, decides whether the day reads as strategic clarity or as a logo parade. The chair has to be fluent in the subject and confident enough to interrupt a CEO when the answer is evasive.
AI has moved faster than the institutions it is reshaping. Leaders now face a version of the problem that universities are confronting first: when the tools students, employees, and customers use can produce plausible work in seconds, the old boundaries around expertise, integrity, and credentialing stop holding. The question is no longer whether to adopt AI, but which parts of the institution it quietly dismantles if you do.
Brands keep losing time and money on social platforms they do not understand. Most marketing teams cannot explain why one TikTok travels and another dies, and they have no working view of the safety and reputational risk that comes with putting a brand in front of a younger audience. The result is either timid content that nobody watches, or noisy content that creates problems nobody saw coming.
Most organisations talk about innovation and ship incremental product. The gap shows up in how invention is governed: which problems get resourced, how patents become products, and how a founder or intrapreneur converts a research prototype into a funded, regulated, commercial business. Boards want operators who have done both sides, scaled invention inside a multinational and built a venture from nothing.