Why are you spending 75% of your automation budget on services?

2018 is the year for workplace automation -- it has become the number one agenda item for the C-Suite of the Global 2000 and is driving real transformation across the enterprise. McKinsey in their report Four fundamentals of workplace automation wrote that

"...as many as 45 percent of the activities individuals are paid to perform can be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technologies. In the United States, these activities represent about $2 trillion in annual wages."

C-Suite excitement about the potential for using these technologies to improve business outcomes (oh, and there is that cost savings...) has made this the fastest growing enterprise software segment ever (the report is here: ...53% of the Global 2000...). One category, Robotic Process Automation (RPA), now has three "unicorn" startups -- Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, and most recently UIPath which announced a $153 million Series "B" investment.

But despite claims by these companies that automation is fast and easy to implement and deploy, customers seeking to benefit from this new technology are finding that they need a LOT of services from external consultants -- in fact one analyst reports that spending on external services makes up 75% of automation budgets (here is that report: Robotic Process Automation Market). One large global consulting firm I sat down with showed me their sales pipeline for automation projects and it totaled over $1 billion. And that doesn't include what companies are spending internally to support these initiatives so the total cost to implement automation is much higher.

While business processes should be owned by business people, the problem with automation technologies today is the heavy IT involvement required to design, develop, deploy, and operate automations. During the past few years I managed consulting teams implementing automation for companies around the world. The development and deployment in every case required a team of technologists supported by people who understood the business process being automated. Sure - many of the automation vendors claim to be able to "record" a process, limiting the need for software development. But in practice I never saw a process that had a single "happy path" allowing it to be automated with such a recorder. Software developers have to get involved once you start to define process variations, exceptions, human coordination in the process, or simply additional connections to ingest data or deliver output.

While the expenses incurred as a result of the programming skills required to implement automation are a significant hurdle, companies run an even bigger risk by reducing the flexibility of their business to adapt processes to changing requirements. Once a process has been "locked up" in a software program, making a change requires that the programmers come back again (and again...). This should be sounding off alarms in every C-Suite even more than the initial cost of automation. It's one thing to have your IT department manage the resting place for business critical data -- but do you want them to also control every aspect of how the business processes that create that data are conducted?

A regulatory change, a difference in how you do business in one region or division vs. another, or just a good idea about how to improve a process now becomes an IT "change request" and part of a backlog of other such requests leading to a terrifying rigidity in the business as more and more of our front and back office processes "benefit" from automation.

But there is a solution - one that we have been pursuing as business people since the first person carried a personal computer with Lotus 1-2-3 through the back door of their corporate office building: buy tools that let users develop and control their own automations.

Marc Benioff in 1999 created the "Software as a Service" industry with the insight that business users wanted to control their own sales information. Now that same concept of self service that Salesforce pioneered is coming to the automation category -- companies like mine (Catalytic.com) are putting the power back into the hands of the business people. I just spent an incredible two days in a workshop with one of our customers where business people had a "hackathon" building dozens of automations of their own business processes with tools as easy to use as Microsoft Excel and now they have the tools to go back to their jobs on Monday morning and continue to bring automation into their business processes.

Allowing the business process owner to design, build, and deploy automations has immense benefits over the technology-centric approach:

• Cost for implementing automation is reduced and automations are built and deployed more rapidly -- this significantly expands the number of use cases where automation can be used
• Companies can embrace an "iterative" approach to automation and easily manage multiple variations on processes to meet regional or divisional requirements
• Continuous process improvement can now be a part of a company's automation journey -- increasingly business process improvement or business process re-engineering teams can have automation tools that they use side by side with process analysis
• A SaaS based approach provides transparency across an enterprise for all of the automations being built, supporting larger digital transformation initiatives by showing where benefits can come from connecting processes upstream and downstream and also identifying best practices amongst a set of similar processes

Finally, empowering your business people with automation tools can help us to evolve how we think about automation -- it shouldn't be solely about cost reduction. Our companies will be more successful when we can embrace automation as a tool to augment and enhance human potential. Having business process owners building automations themselves will provide us with the opportunity to automate in a way that eliminates repetitive and mindless work while making the role of people in those processes more about what people do well -- human skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and social perceptiveness. The future of workplace automation should be about eliminating drudgery not people.

Automate or be Obliterated!

In 1990 MIT computer science professor Michael Hammer started a revolution in management thinking with his HBR article "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate." The basic premise of his article, which put the business process re-engineering movement into high speed, was that organizations were wasting time and money putting technology into organizations to automate existing processes that created little or no value and that instead companies should first try to fix, improve, or even eliminate these processes.

Almost thirty years later most large enterprises continue to have some flavor of business process re-engineering as a part of their ongoing efforts to reduce costs, improve efficiency, increase customer satisfaction, and a myriad of related objectives. In particular the role of business process analysis and improvement has become a cornerstone of the outsourcing industry where it is critical to accurately map and often substantially improve processes before they can be relocated to remote teams.

In 2003 Dr. Hammer published "The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do To Dominate The Decade" and posthumously with co-author Lisa Hershman "Faster, Cheaper, Better." Both books continued to focus on the challenge that organizations face as a result of having inefficient processes that are mis-aligned to a company's objectives. Tragically Dr. Hammer passed away in 2008 at the age of 60 and thus did not live to see the advances in artificial intelligence and robotic process automation that have begun to sweep through the business landscape ten years later.

If Hammer were alive today, I wonder whether he would issue a new challenge in the spirit of his Agenda call --- "What Every Business Must Do To Dominate The Decade." If I can be so presumptuous to channel what he might have said, I would suggest that he would urgently tell companies:

1. Artificial Intelligence and Automation have the potential to radically and quickly transform the way businesses are managed -- specifically by re-engineering all existing business processes and reducing costs, increasing speed, improving quality, and even changing the way companies deliver their products and services
2. Most companies are woefully behind in improving business productivity against the speedy transformation of technology (a good analysis can be found in this reportfrom Deloitte University Press) and an urgent focus must be put on learning to manage a workforce and processes that combine people, bots, and AI
3. The worst mistake businesses are making today on this journey is to adopt technology solutions that are so dependent upon technical experts (data scientists, artificial intelligence experts, IT professionals) that they become disconnected from the company's business objectives and the business leaders who can truly understand the connection of processes to those business objectives.

So the imperative statement, the answer to "what every business must do to dominate THIS decade," is clear to me: Automate or you will be obliterated -- but be sure to go on this journey to use AI and automation in your business with technology solutions that empower the business to transform itself.

Maintain maximum agility -- put the power of AI and automation into the hands of the people who understand your business objectives and beware solutions that lock your business processes into inflexible technologies that require a host of experts to develop, deploy manage and improve.

The next decade will be one of immense and rapid change and transformation. To succeed in this time of change requires that you deploy simultaneously capabilities to exponentially reduce costs while maintaining maximum adaptability. Don't get caught in the trap of cost reduction that locks you into only one way of doing business in a world where your markets, customer expectations, product or service capabilities, and business models may turn upside down overnight.

The Automation Solution

I have joined the amazing team at Catalytic, Inc. as Chief Customer Officer. Forgive me the brief "advertorial" -- but I hope to have a chance to work with every one in my network as we scale this product and business...

After 10 years in consulting I am returning to what I have done for most of my career joining a small innovative team building an amazing new technology that I hope will make an enormous impact for our customers, their employees, and eventually the world.

As an AI native company, everything about how the Catalytic team approaches software is infused with making machine intelligence a part of how people will become more productive, more successful, and more satisfied at doing their jobs.

As a SaaS company we have found a way to deliver this technology quickly and inexpensively so that our customers can achieve an immediate cost savings. And our ease of use -- eliminating the software developer from automation -- addresses the typical barriers that companies face: lack of internal talent, lack of understanding, no time for IT to implement, not sure where to start...

Our Intelligent Automation platform is designed to make it easy to use AI in business processes -- both providing easy access to capabilities that we have built and a marketplace of capabilities that we are packaging from hundreds of other innovative companies. The web based process builder allows business people to select from these "actions" and automate tasks to improve operations quality, data accuracy, compliance, overcome bottlenecks, and generate actionable insights.

Why do I call this the "automation solution?"

In working with clients over the past few years I have seen four big challenges to enterprise adoption of AI and automation, despite the enormous potential benefits to quality, cycle time, cost, etc.

1. The economics of RPA are uncertain, initial costs are high -- ROI promises are too far in the future, maintenance and management expense is uncertain, and business continuity planning can easily swamp benefit cases;
2. Many AI initiatives are inherently experiments since much of this work is being done for the first time ever -- tools are complex and require experts in technology who may not be experts in the business making it difficult to define path to benefit;
3. Supply of experienced staff for implementation is limited -- both for process analysis and especially for automation development -- making it difficult to staff and scale automation initiatives;
4. The approach to design and implementation is typically "top down" -- taking existing business processes and focusing solely on the release of headcount to achieve cost savings which makes employees and even managers uneasy about the technology thus delaying or even derailing initiatives.

Catalytic delivers a much-needed solution to this set of problems -- fast to implement, less expensive to maintain, and focused on enhancing how people and AI work together. We have a lot of work to do to achieve all of the promise of our new platform, but we are already at work with some amazing large companies in manufacturing, insurance, banking, real estate, and retail.

Catalytic. Work done better.

Hope to hear from you about how we can work together!

The Automation Dilemma

Over the next decade a steady stream of new companies and products will use AI and automation to change the way work gets done across the economy. One of the books that I found time to read this summer was The Economic Singularity by Calum Chace. Calum provides a terrific summary of the debate about the impact that AI will have on individuals and society as the pace of change increases.

I am definitely on one side of this debate -- I believe that we are going to have a very bumpy time ahead of us as one set of human activity is ceded to the machines. Even if we are simultaneously creating new jobs as the old jobs are eliminated, I believe we will have a "lost generation" of workers who will find it difficult to develop the skills required for those new jobs.

So on the one hand automation will improve our lives -- cost reduction, quality improvement, etc -- but on the other hand automation has the potential to disrupt our lives by making it impossible for some members of our society to produce goods or provide services in a way the economy values. The Automation Dilemma.

I believe that those of us involved in the creation or deployment of these new AI and automation tools have a moral responsibility to go beyond the simple objective of "cost reduction" and do things with these technologies that make people's lives better. While reducing costs is not going away as an objective, we should be simultaneously asking how these technologies help us create growth -- both for our companies and for our employees.

Corporate automation initiatives today are typically very top down -- process re-engineering teams and software development teams work together to automate work, largely keeping the process the same but focused on removing people from any tasks that are repetitive, proscribed, and time consuming.

But what if we could approach automation bottoms up? Give automation tools to the employees themselves and ask them to automate the tasks which they know are repetitive, but also identify opportunities to change the way the work gets done by substituting the eliminated time for activities that can create more value for the business. Could companies become better faster if we trusted employees to own the task of improving?

We must find ways to use AI and automation to enhance human potential, increase the time we spend doing things that are uniquely human and find those places where a person plus a machine is greater than either one alone. We humans are curious, creative, problem solvers, relationship builders, empathetic and compassionate. These are qualities we want in ourselves and our society -- let's get our machines to help us be better at using these positive qualities to improve all of our lives.

Five Years May Be Too Long

If you were an architect designing a brand new commercial building in downtown Los Angeles, the city building code would require that you include in your plans one parking place for every 250 s.f. of floor space. An exception might allow you to reduce this to 1 parking place for every 400 s.f. of floor space (it depends on how the space will be used). 

So how much thought should you give to the design of the parking floors? Its just parking, right? 

But a building may last 100 years. Will we still own or drive cars in even 20 years? If I were an architect, I'd be thinking about how to design parking floors that could easily be converted into more commercial space if (I think when) autonomous vehicles radically transform our ideas about the need for parking.

But what about your own company and the plans you are making right now for the future? Are you making investments in new manufacturing capabilities that will be overtaken by automated or accretive manufacturing processes? Are you configuring office or retail space for the way people worked or shopped in the twentieth century instead of the twenty-first? Are you entering into partnerships and vendor relationships that are going to tie your hands if market trends or technologies disrupt your current business model? Are you defining a five year plan that will be invalid the first time something happens in your market that you didn't anticipate?

The problem with a traditional strategic planning approach in 2015 is that the we are living in a moment where our behaviors and expectations as customers and employees are rapidly changing, putting increasing pressure on companies to change. Business models, operating models, product and service definition, partner ecosystems -- we can expect all of these to change for every company.

As customers and employees we will quickly adapt to these changing markets and find the companies that we want to do business with because they are meeting our new needs. The decision for us as business people is whether we will be reactive to these new market demands or whether we will steer our companies into paths where we can be proactive -- anticipating disruption and being ready to take advantage as a first mover and not a follower. 

The imperative is clear. In market after market companies that take the lead as a disruptor have had an enormous impact on slower moving competitors. Amazon has substantially disrupted retail and is now beginning to disrupt enterprise software. Uber has disrupted transportation and may begin to disrupt package delivery. AirBnB is disrupting hospitality. You've heard all of these stories before but you think, "not in my business..."

But think about this a little bit differently. If you are doing something of value to your customers (a reasonable premise if you are running a for-profit busines), and there is an opportunity to do what you do better -- faster, cheaper, higher quality -- the way markets work today makes it easy for the innovator to intervene in your market with their new product or service and put pressure on your existing business.

So don't look at the businesses that have already been disrupted as the model for how yours will be disrupted. Look at your own business and ask, what could possible happen to change the circumstances of my market and create that opportunity for someone to disrupt the way we do business today? I call this anticipating disruption and I believe that there is a process that you can manage in your business to help you anticipate disruption.

First of all, you need to establish that innovation is a crucial part of the way you run your business -- fund innovation, staff innovation with thought leaders, make sure that company leadership is rewarded for embracing innovation...

Second -- undestand that managing innovation is about managing process, not managing outcomes. Do not set out on a journey that says "we are going to make a widget that costs 50% less to produce" or any other specific goal. And do not decide that innovation has succeeded or failed because of the achievement of that specific goal. The only innovation methodology that matters is the one that is continous and routinely questions all aspects of the business looking for those opportunities to transform.

Third -- staff innovation with curious employees and partners (important to  include partners!). Make sure that they have the right tools and expertise to cast a broad net across all aspects of your business and look at what the market, societal, technology, and competitive trends are that can suggest where change is likely to emerge and flourish.

Fourth -- be a scientist and experiment. Develop hypotheses, define experiments, run the test and learn from the successes and the failures in order to define the path forward.

The companies that will grow and prosper are the ones that embrace innovation and manage it as a core process -- continuous and incremental innovation that is constantly experimenting with and evolving the business. Not setting five year planning goals and trying to manage the outcomes. So what are you doing today to make sure this is true at your company?

Turning the good ship Twitter

Much has been written on the fate of Twitter over the last few weeks as Jack Dorsey (@jack) has retaken the helm and promised to put the company back on course. And a lot of what has been written is sensible and constructive but mostly either misses the core problem or speaks about it without calling it out directly. And that core problem is the product.

Honestly its been the core problem all along. I was first introduced to Twitter back in 2007 (@tshelton) and back then it was, well, a lot like it is today. Back then we could post 140 characters to a group of people who had decided to follow us, and along with other people they had followed they'd get our posts in the same chronological order in which they were sent.

Today -- sure there are photos and videos and advertisements... but its basically the same universal message bus that it was back in 2007. As infrastructure it was very cool back then. Having a universal message bus excited all sorts of people, thinking about how messages could be sent by anyone and anything and received by anyone and anything. High speed, hugely scalable, global reach...

But after 8 years so many new things have emerged that have carved out pieces of what Twitter could have been -- what Twitter should have served as an infrastructure to power.

But I do not believe it is too late for Twitter. I've compiled ten specific things Jack should be working on in four specific categories to make Twitter relevant again. Some have been tried, some have been mentioned by others, and some (hopefully) Twitter is really working on. But I've gathered together these ten things because I think that collectively they would offer a complete shift in product strategy and from there a renewed meaning and importance for Twitter:

Improve how we create content

1. New content types -- Twitter needs to go way beyond media types and think more about the wide range of possible content types that could be in a message envelope. Each tweet is a data element. Give these data elements a range of self-indentifying types that serve different purposes. For example: A tweet-object could be an iCal event and your calendar could subscribe to a particular feed and receive a stream of updates. Think about message types that might flow between people, from people to machines, and from machines to machines.

2. New ways to submit content -- In 2007 (remember pre-iPhone?) having 140 characters and being able to send a tweet via SMS seemed fantastic. But now I have lots of technology that should be able to send messages including a lot of it without my having to do anything. For example, why not have an app on my phone that uses Twitter to automatically check in to an event with the organizer? 

3. Curation of content (channels) -- Twitter could be a fantastic source for news and information, but there is too much and Twitter just delivers it at a steady stream, one chronological post after another. Channels could be created by interested users or entities to curate the best content. And the content wouldn't simply be chronological, but would be organized through a deliberate ordering process. The Washington Post would maintain a channel that simply matched the organization of their website news sections while an individual tech reporter might pull the best from several news outlets and decide what was the most important. Automated algorithms could be applied by users to their own selected sources, allowing me for example to achieve a Facebook style feed of my friend's posts based on who I seemed most interested in at any given time. Importantly users who invested the time to create channels should have a payback model, earning through the number of subscribers in order to encourage quality and engagement.

Improve how we consume content

4. Those curated channels I mentioned -- this will require a big change in the user interface, allowing me to easily flip from channel to channel rather than viewing the whole stream. Perhaps even entirely new reading experiences need to be developed.

5. TV style programming for video content -- I want to simply play @kingbach one after another endlessly and not click on each link. Twitter could be an amazing way to organize and provide instructions to all types of playback devices for online video channels

6. Machine readers not just human readers -- many applications on my desktop and devices in my home could be recipients of Tweets and have new functionality as a result. Use twitter as the message bus for digital picture frames, lawn watering schedules...

Help companies do a better job

7. Companies need easier integration into CRM -- if Twitter is going to be used as a way for consumers to connect to customer service or sales organizations, make it super easy for a company to connect with that customer, know who they are, and provide timely responses to their inquiries.

8. Consulting to help with best practices -- don't just throw the message bus out into the world hoping that companies will figure out how to use it -- provide hands on assistance to help them. This could be an important new revenue stream as well as improving company behavior on Twitter which improves user's experiences.

9. Enable special experiences — When I arrive at Disneyland, Twitter could connect me to the magic kindom in a magical way. Combining messaging, location, and the connection between people and companies could enable a whole new range of customer experiences. This could be much more powerful as an "advertising" vehicle for the company.

Insights - for people and companies

10. Twitter should have a big analytics team tracking public policy issues, investigating questions that companies have, enabling inquiries into trends... Many third parties try to offer these services but Twitter has all of the core data. Why not be the authoritative source? And there is significant money to be made by offering these insights to companies and other organizations.

I've enjoyed using Twitter over the past 8 years but like many others I do find my attention shifting elsewhere. There are too many ways to communicate and too many ways to stay informed. Many of them have pushed into the areas I mention above and are providing the kinds of new experiences that I want in my mobile-centric life. But I don't think it is too late for Twitter to turn the ship. And I for one am hoping Jack will succeed.

Sustainable Competitive Advantage

My contention is that the true object of strategy is to sustain value creation, which demands a capacity to relentlessly create and capture new value. The difficulty with setting a given market position or competitive advantage as your strategy’s goal is that its direction-giving guidance is effectively dead upon your arrival. It fails to reveal what’s next.

Todd Zenger - Trial and Error is No Way to Make a Strategy

Sustainable competitive advantage is typically defined as "a long-term competitive advantage that is not easily duplicable or surpassable by the competitors." The American Enterprise Institute reports that the length of time that a company is in the Fortune 500 has declined from 75 years in the 1950s to just 15 years today. Why does is seem to be getting more difficult for companies to create long-term competitive advantage?

One answer, according to author and consultant Richard Foster, is that "creative destruction" is wiping out companies faster than ever. His observation is that big companies are very bad at out-innovating the market and a conclusion one could take from his research would be that big companies are going to continuously be disrupted and displaced by smaller competitors. 

In my opinion this would be the wrong conclusion. I believe that companies CAN get better at strategy and innovation and can participate in the same forces of creative destruction that threaten them. But most do not and here are three primary reasons and some things you can do about these challenges in your company:

1. People will behave in ways that relate to their rewards. Companies have reward systems that reinforce old patterns and discourage change.
2. Innovation in 2015 has a lot to do with technology and business leaders do not sufficiently understand technology trends to anticipate how those trends will create disruption. 
3. Companies have not operationalized innovation as a core process in their businesses nor invested enough in innovation.

Behavior and Rewards

"Hey, our company has an award that the CEO gives out each year for innovation - what do you mean we reinforce old patterns?"

While companies may tinker at the edges with encouraging innovation, the reality is that running a successful business requires most people to focus most of their time on the way things are now and not on the way things might be in the future. Successful companies are successful because they have defined an operating model which allows them to efficiently accomplish a particular thing very well (at least at the moment).

Think of this as a smoothly oiled machine -- for example, a successful hotel chain needs to be good at setting up franchisee hotel owners, filling rooms with guests, monitoring and maintaining quality... and they need the majority of their staff to stay focused on continuing to do those tasks well and NOT be distracted by some disruptive idea like Airbnb.

Can anyone in your company come up with a good idea? Sure they can! Should you have a system in place in your company to let people suggest ideas? Definitely! But the reality of continuing to run the machine is that most people, most of the time, need to stay focused on keeping the machine running as it is and not thinking up how it might be in the future. You have to have sales goals and you need to reward people for achieving them. A successful business has a "business as usual" way of reaching those sales goals and doesn't need all the sales people running around testing new ideas for achieving those goals, many of which would be unsuccessful.

To be clear -- do not get confused about the difference between continuous improvement and innovation -- when you are running business as usual everyone should always be looking at how processes can be improved. But improvement is a fundamentally different activity from innovation. When we innovate we look for a way to do something entirely differently. Airbnb, for example, makes every home owner into a kind of franchisee hotel owner and each makes each hotel the size of one room (or house) -- you can't have your franchisee operations team off experimenting with an Airbnb model when they need to continue opening 100 room hotels. 

It may be a hard pill to swallow, but most people should not be innovating -- that is, should not be breaking the machine -- at least in their primary job. And the incentive models that encourage not-innovating are fine for the most part.

The problem most big companies get into, however, is that the people running "business as usual" have too much power over the future of the organization as opposed to the present. And companies don't have adequate incentive models for that portion of the company which should be exploring and inventing that future -- especially in cases where the future threatens the business as it is today.

Companies need to create the right incentives for all business leaders to embrace disruptive change that destroys business as usual when it has been shown to be successful. And a portion of the company must be given the explicit job of coming up with those ideas that will destroy business as usual and be given the resources to test and prove those ideas.

Technology and Business Leaders

For too long leaders in business roles -- sales, marketing, operations, service, finance -- have looked at information technology (IT) as a cost center. IT is a necessary evil and the CIO's job to manage cost down. But in an age of constant disruption from new technologies, companies need to develop what Gartner callsbi-modal IT. Gartner defines this as

"...the practice of managing two separate, coherent modes of IT delivery, one focused on stability and the other on agility. Mode 1 is traditional and sequential, emphasizing safety and accuracy. Mode 2 is exploratory and nonlinear, emphasizing agility and speed."

Business leaders and IT leaders need to be close partners around mode 2 -- recognizing that technology will be a primary source of competive advantage. Manage cost on mode 1 IT -- in fact outsource or send to SaaS as much of that category of IT as possible. But mode 2 will require a different operating model and a different level of investment. This is where your next product, business model, staffing method, or partnering strategy is going to come from. 

Operationalizing Innovation

Strategy and innovation, as Todd Zenger in the previously mentioned HBR article points out, will not reliably come through trial and error. Companies can not depend upon an ad hoc process for innovation. Any company which seeks to maintain a dominant position in its market must commit to a program ofcontinuous innovation just as successful companies commit to continuous improvement.

The amount of investment required will certainly vary from industry to industry and the strategy for these investments will entail different activities. Some mix of the following are certainly required for any large company:

• Venture investing both to participate in and learn from disruptive start-ups
• Mergers, acquisitions and disposal of unproductive assets
• Continuous examination of market conditions and trends 
• A scientific approach to the development and testing of hypotheses
• Investment to engage in these activities at a sufficient scale

The right organizational structure for taking on these activities will include disciplines as widely ranging as business strategy, IT solution architects, experience designers, and data scientists. And these professionals will need to work hand-in-hand with the very business leaders whose "business as usual" operations will be threatened by this innovation.

Companies that succeed in developing long-term competitive advantage will be those that follow these three principles -- creating and investing in a strategy and innovation team and process, making sure that strategy and innovation is developed through close collaboration between business and IT, and fixing incentive models so that business leaders will embrace the creative destruction and benefit from the transition of their existing business as usual to new models.