Future of Technology speakers
Technologists and futurists exploring how emerging innovation will reshape industries, economies and daily life
Speakers Associates represents 253 speakers on Future of Technology, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Mark Stevenson, Edvard Moser, Nikolas Badminton, Marc Saltzman, Alex Goryachev, Timandra Harkness, Chris Heemskerk and Dame Wendy Hall.
Most boards now treat AI as a strategic line item, but few know how to translate it into operating advantage without tripping the regulators, the workforce, or the customer. The gap between AI ambition and AI deployment is widening, not closing. Leaders need someone who has sat on both sides: the commercial side that has to ship, and the governance side that decides what shipping looks like.
Most leadership teams have an AI strategy. Far fewer have changed how the business runs. The gap between stated intent and operating-model impact is where executive teams stall, and where the investment case quietly unravels.
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.
Boards now plan inside a global order they no longer recognise. Sanctions regimes shift quarterly, alliances fracture, and the assumptions that underpinned thirty years of capital allocation no longer hold. Most leadership teams need a longer historical frame and a credible read on where the next decade is heading, not another monthly briefing on the cycle.
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.
Every board now owns cyber risk, but very few boards can read it. The attackers have industrialised, the attack surface has expanded into every connected device and vendor, and AI is widening the gap between what executives understand and what their defenders are actually facing. Leadership teams need someone who can make the threat concrete without making the room feel stupid.
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.
Boards are now expected to have a view on AI, online manipulation and digital trust without having lived inside any of those worlds. The gap between what executives understand about the internet and what is actually happening on it has become a governance problem, not a technology problem. Most strategy documents treat that gap as a training issue. It is closer to a credibility issue.
Most consumer technology ideas die in the gap between a working prototype and a business that can scale. The pressure comes from all sides at once: capital runs thin, distribution stalls, investors pass, and the founder has to decide what to keep building and what to cut. The organisations that want to back, buy, or learn from founders at that stage need an honest account of what the decisions actually look like from inside the company.
Most senior teams now agree AI matters. Far fewer can say what it changes about their specific business this quarter. The gap between abstract enthusiasm and operational decision sits at board level, and it widens every month a leadership team relies on vendor decks for its mental model of the technology.
Most organisations can describe what they want to build. Very few can get a physical, manufacturable product out of a sketch, through engineering, and into customers’ hands at scale without the idea collapsing along the way. The gap between design intent and what actually leaves the factory is where category-defining products are won or lost.
Most leadership teams have an AI strategy that describes adoption. They do not have one that describes consequences. The systems being deployed across defence, finance, and healthcare are no longer tools that can be audited line by line, and the gap between what an executive can authorise and what the underlying technology actually does is widening month by month.