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 companies say they value culture, trust and people, then run the business on quarterly metrics that punish all three. The result is innovation programmes that stall, talent strategies that miss whole categories of high performers, and competitive advantages that erode faster than leaders expected. The hard question is what actually produces durable growth when product cycles compress and capital is impatient.
Most large organisations have an innovation function. Few have an innovation discipline. Pilots multiply, vanguard projects get presented at the offsite, and the operating business looks the same a year later. The hard question for the leadership team is no longer whether to innovate; it is what to industrialise, what to retire, and where the next source of growth actually comes from.
Most boards now have an AI strategy on paper and almost no honest read on which parts of it are real. The signals coming out of Silicon Valley are loud, contradictory, and shaped by people with money to raise. Leaders need someone who has watched this exact pattern repeat through the PC, the internet, the cloud, and now generative AI, and who will say plainly which bets are durable and which are theatre.
Leaders keep treating digital as a channel when it is now the substrate of their industry. The pattern is consistent: software, data and networks erode the unit economics of physical products, intermediaries and distribution before the incumbent sees the shift. By the time the financial impact lands, the strategic options have already narrowed.
Boards now sponsor science they do not fully understand, in fields where the ethical questions arrive faster than the regulation. Genetics, fertility, biomedical data and synthetic biology now sit on corporate roadmaps and government policy desks, but most leaders cannot interrogate the underlying claims. The gap between the people building this technology and the people accountable for it is widening.
Most large organisations cannot decide whether to back radical bets or defend the core, and the result is a portfolio of pilots that never become businesses. Founders who have actually built and scaled creative ventures think differently about risk, talent, and what an early signal of traction looks like. That perspective is rare inside corporates and increasingly valuable as AI and gaming logic reshape how products get made.
Cyber risk has moved out of the IT function and onto the board agenda, but most boards still cannot say what their cyber exposure is in financial terms. At the same time, the organisations they lead are competing against decentralised networks that do not behave like firms. Both problems require leaders who can think in terms of networks rather than hierarchies.
Boards are being asked to commit capital and credibility to AI before anyone has a settled view of what the technology will and will not do. The reflex is either to over-promise or to wait. Both positions are expensive, and neither produces the judgment a senior team needs to set policy on adoption, risk, and public trust.
Innovation inside large organisations rarely fails for lack of ideas. It fails because there is no shared method for finding the right ones, no way to repeat the process, and no language that connects a creative breakthrough to the operating plan. Most companies still treat innovation as a personality trait of a few teams rather than a capability the whole business can build.
Net zero commitments are now sitting on top of supply chains, capital plans and industrial policy that were not designed to deliver them. Boards are asked to allocate against energy and climate scenarios they do not control, while European industrial capacity in critical clean-tech segments has thinned to the point of strategic exposure. The decision is no longer whether to act on the transition. It is how to act without misreading the technology curves, the policy direction, or the geography of supply.
Most large organisations are still optimised for the linear era: long planning cycles, hierarchical control, fixed assets, internal R&D. The companies eating their margins run on a different operating logic, smaller headcount, leveraged external resources, data feedback loops, community-driven distribution. The strategic question is not whether to adopt new technology. It is whether the organisation itself is structured to compound on it.