Archiv der Kategorie: Disruption

Harvards View on Types of Project Managers

Read harvard business review here: https://hbr.org/2017/07/the-4-types-of-project-manager

Few issues garner more attention among top executives than how best to grow their organizations. However, few executives work systematically with the types of employees they need to realize various growth opportunities. Your organization’s growth opportunities fall into four different categories, and in order to develop your business in a commercially sustainable manner, you need four specific types of project manager to pursue them. These types emerged from our ongoing work of understanding how different business development projects can drive strategic renewal in organizations, and the matrix below has helped in capturing potential misalignments between employees and projects.

The employee types and the growth opportunities that they are best at pursuing can be positioned along two dimensions: (1) Is the growth opportunity in line with our existing strategy? (2) Can a reliable business case be made? These two questions create a matrix that distinguishes the four different kinds of project leaders, each of which is optimally suited for a different type of project.

Will every organization need all four types of employees to sustainably develop and grow their organizations? We argue that even the most stable and conservative industries may be threatened by disruption — and the most dynamic and hypercompetitive industries also entail incremental growth opportunities that can be quantified and realistically assessed. Consequently, there is often a job for all four types of employees in most organizations, although the optimal dose of each can differ. At the very least, executives need to be aware of the variety of growth opportunities that they may be losing out on by leaning heavily on a single type of project manager.

The Four Types

The four types pursue different growth opportunities and follow different communicative logics to gain support within the organization (see the table below). In other words, you need them all because they see and support different types of growth opportunities. In that respect, they complement each other. This does not necessarily mean that you need an equal number of each, as most organizations must predominantly rely on executors to ensure the alignment and feasibility needed to maintain profits in the short term. However, you will need a few prophetsgamblers, and experts to be able to identify and pursue growth opportunities at the periphery that can help you renew your organization beyond the chosen path. In the following, we further explain the characteristics of each of the different types.

Prophet. This type of project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie outside the existing strategic boundaries in an area where it is extremely difficult to obtain trustworthy data concerning the likelihood of success. Hence, the prophet seeks to gain organizational followers for a grand vision of a growth opportunity that is strategically different from the status quo — and without trustworthy quantitative evidence, consequently relying on organizational members making a leap of faith in support of the vision. Obviously, running such projects is risky, as it is likely that the growth opportunities will not materialize, and therefore that the employee may be a “false prophet.” Be that as it may, a prophet is needed to challenge the existing strategy and to pursue overlooked growth opportunities.

A constructive use of this employee type is found at Google, which has a unit called X (formerly Google X), which is a self-proclaimed moonshot factory. Employees in this unit seek to solve big problems using breakthrough technologies and radical solutions. Hence, the projects in X tend to be outside Google’s current domain and strategic focus. In such projects, it is typically impossible to realistically assess the likelihood of success before they are tried out.

Gambler. This type of project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie within the existing strategic boundaries but have no good business case attached, as trustworthy data concerning the likelihood of success is lacking. Hence, the gambler seeks to gain organizational followers for a big bet on a growth opportunity that is consistent with the current strategy but without trustworthy quantitative evidence. In other words, gamblers play by the rules of the game as they pursue growth opportunities within the existing strategy, but they cannot predict the likelihood of success. Consequently, the gambler seeks to engage other organizational members who also like bets. This can obviously be viewed as an uncertain path, as there is some likelihood that the growth opportunities are not feasible and that they may therefore result in significant losses. However, gamblers are necessary, as they can update the existing strategy by pursuing analytically overlooked growth opportunities.

This type of project champion is documented in a study by Paddy Miller and Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg, which shows that MTV’s first digitally integrated and interactive program, Top Selection, was initially tried under the radar before the project’s backers had sufficient proof of concept to get managerial approval to continue. This project was driven by gamblers, as they stayed inside the existing strategic boundaries but were unable to document the likelihood of success before the idea had been tested.

Expert. This type of project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie outside the existing strategic boundaries but for which trustworthy data builds a solid business case. Hence, experts wish to gain organizational followers for a change in action in favor of a growth opportunity that is inconsistent with the current strategy but is supported by solid, trustworthy quantitative evidence. Consequently, experts rely on organizational members actually listening to their advice. Although the growth opportunities are well supported and should therefore be feasible, the main challenge is to make organizational members aware of the need for strategic change and of the urgent need to act in this regard. The expert is needed to challenge the existing strategy by pursuing well-supported growth opportunities that lie outside the organization’s current strategy.

Experts in action are seen in the well-known story of Intel’s transition from memory chips to microprocessors, where key employees within the organization tried to persuade Intel’s management of the value of the opportunity for some time. It took the executive team several years of internal soul-searching before they were ready to make the organizational transition. In this case, the growth opportunity was outside the existing strategy, but it was possible to document the commercial potential and the likelihood of success with some certainty.

Executor. This project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie within the existing strategic boundaries and have great cases. The executor gains organizational followers for a sure-thing growth opportunity that is consistent with the current strategy and is backed by trustworthy quantitative evidence. In other words, there is no risk, no uncertainty, and no challenge — just a need for execution. Consequently, executors rely on organizational members to follow their rigorous analyses of a strategically embraced project. This can be viewed as the most certain path to success, as the growth opportunity is well documented and aligned with the existing strategy. However, the executor can only point to a limited number of growth opportunities that are low-hanging fruit — the executor cannot provide insights into the more radical and unknown business opportunities. Many who bear the formal title of business developer systematically analyze, prepare, and support growth opportunities that lie within the strategic boundaries and for which it is possible to realistically assess the likelihood of success.

For instance, DuPont has a systematic approach for assessing and implementing growth opportunities. It entails a phased and systematic handling of new opportunities within a disciplined framework built on best practices, providing standardized guidance throughout the process from initial concept to subsequent commercialization. A comprehensive business case is essential to initiate the process — and as the approach involves key work streams and “blocks of work” that the core team must plan and execute in an effective manner, it is particularly suitable for executors.

How Do They Interact?

The various types of project managers may struggle in their interactions with each other. For instance, a prophet may see an executor as overly bureaucratic and rigid, while an executor may view a prophet as unrealistic and disorganized. Consequently, conflict tends to loom among the different types.

What typically happens is that the logic of one of the types becomes dominant throughout the organization. The fact that a single logic pervades the organization at the expense of the others may mean that key employees of a different type leave the organization and take their ideas with them. Moreover, relying on a single type of logic may lead to organizational inertia, which is dangerous in dynamic and evolving markets. You need to ensure enough room for all of the logics within the organization, ideally by introducing boundary-spanning individuals who can navigate among these logics. In this regard, it is beneficial if top management adopts a “bridging” role to allow for coexistence and diversity.

As an executive, you can similarly seek to stimulate a fruitful understanding and interaction among the different types of employees. For instance, having identified the different types within your organization, you can set up a workshop where one type meets and discusses with their alter ego (that is, executors talk to prophets, and gamblers talk to experts). This interaction can help clarify differences in opinions, routines and values — which may help create a greater mutual understanding and respect among the different employee types.

Do Executives Contribute to the Problem?

Executives partly contribute to unsuccessful projects and unrealized growth opportunities when they don’t think through who should be assigned to which projects. Prophets, gamblers, experts, and executors each have their own strengths and weaknesses that are optimally suited to fit certain project types. Therefore, no type is inherently better or rarer than the others.

Executives contribute to organizational failure when they misalign projects and project managers, but this fact is often hidden in the ruins of a failed project. There may be a tendency to see prophets and gamblers featuring on prominent magazine covers or taking newspaper headlines if they succeed with their high-profile projects. For this reason, executives tend to assume that prophets and gamblers are the best. In such cases, executives may be likely to promote good executors to run a prophet-type project, as senior management may think that the executor is finally ready for this big opportunity (with potentially disastrous results). Or executives may assume that they should tap prophets to run a project that really needs a great executor — which may lead to managerial befuddlement when the prophet doesn’t succeed. Instead of assuming that certain types are better than others, executives need to be aware of, value, and give appropriate room to all four types — and match them with the right projects.

The bottom line is that the diversity of styles offers a competitive advantage in terms of business development, and all four types are necessary pieces of your organizational constellation, even though the optimal dose of each may differ. As an executive, it is crucial that you:

  • Make sure you have each type within your organization
  • Make room for each type to work in their own manner
  • Make sense of their respective ideas, by following their respective logics
  • Make time for matching projects and project managers correctly

Meeting the various types where they are, and paying attention to their diverse ways of thinking, will help you obtain the needed diversity among your employees to develop your business. Moreover, this resonates with comprehensive findings that emphasize that the hallmark of great managers is that they discover and capitalize on the unique strengths of individual employees.

Growth and business development are top priorities in most C-suites across the globe, but too few executives focus on maintaining a wide range of people to ensure the identification of novel opportunities. Therefore, executives who want to develop their businesses need to first develop the right amount of staff diversity to drive a diverse portfolio of growth opportunities. Only when diverse people are on board can an organization drive commercially sustainable growth.


Carsten Lund Pedersen is Postdoc at the Department of Strategic Management and Globalization at Copenhagen Business School, where he researches in project-based strategy, employee autonomy and matching employee types with business development projects.


Thomas Ritter is a Professor of Market Strategy and Business Development at the Department of Strategic Management and Globalization at Copenhagen Business School, where he researches business model innovation, market strategies, and market management.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Take Down Request by the Spiegel Germany Online

Dear Spiegel Online (www.spiegel.de)

Never before in the existence of this personal blog (since 2011 – the day Steve Jobs died) have we received an article take down request where a correctly quoted article that we posted was requested to be taken down AND a website wanted money for the max. 1-2 hours that we had the article online.

Our vision: We create Innovation, enable exchange and try to give the best ideas to the world by always correctly quoting them.

By following take down requests immediately (yesterday it took us 10 minutes between their email at 14.47 and us having it taken down fully at 14.57) we comply with the internet rule-set of respecting other wishes fully. As a consequence we have never encountered any troubles with anyone and we would like to keep that this way.

Since June 19th 2017. Then it happenend: German Online Newspaper The Spiegel, head of law department Jan Siegel, requested the take down of the cooperational column written by internet activist Sascha Lobo that we thought would fit perfectly to the innovational approach on our website. We are not sure if we can post the link to the article but as a reference here it goes:

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/homepod-alexa-und-co-bevormundung-durch-kuenstliche-intelligenz-kolumne-a-1151017.html

We are deeply sorry that we cannot feature Sascha Lobo anymore, although he states on his website that his texts can be used under the Creative Commons Licence when correctly quoted by naming him as author and with the URL provided and most importantly unchanged. That’s what we did and now “The Spiegel” tries to money punish us with this?

So the authors rights are diminished by the newspapers rights?
Does anybody understand German author rights?
The author explicitly states on his website  http://saschalobo.com/impressum/ „Die Texte (mit Ausnahme der Kommentare durch Dritte) stehen sämtlich unter der Creative Commons-Lizenz (CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 DE).“
In our understanding this means that you can use the text under the Creative Commons Licence for free when being private like here at dieidee.eu. So that the newspaper later cannot deny this and cannot punish you with money requests for literally a handful article impressions?

We hope to be able to resolve this matter in a friendly and respectful way with the Spiegel as we state here clearly no harm done, no harm will be done in the future, and please state clearly on your website which author (or internet activist as with Sascha Lobo) allows the usage of his texts on any internet website.

Your thankfully
dieidee.eu

How Banks Can Compete Against an Army of Fintech Startups

It’s been more than 25 years since Bill Gates dismissed retail banks as “dinosaurs,” but the statement may be as true today as it was then. Banking for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been astonishingly unaffected by the rise of the Internet. To the extent that banks have digitized, they have focused on the most routine customer transactions, like online access to bank accounts and remote deposits. The marketing, underwriting, and servicing of SME loans have largely taken a backseat. Other sectors of retail lending have not fared much better. Recent analysis by Bain and SAP found that only 7% of bank credit products could be handled digitally from end to end.

The glacial pace at which banks have moved SME lending online has left them vulnerable. Gates’ original quote contended that the dinosaurs can be ”bypassed.” That hasn’t happened yet, but our research suggests the threat to retail banks from online lending is very real. If U.S. banks are going to survive the coming wave in financial technology (fintech), they’ll need to finally take digital transformation seriously. And our analysis suggests there are strategies that they can use to compete successfully online.

Lending to small and medium-sized businesses is ready to move online

Small businesses are starting to demand banking services that have engaging web and mobile user experiences, on par with the technologies they use in their personal lives. In a recent survey from Javelin Research, 56% of SMEs indicated a desire for better digital banking tools. In a separate, forthcoming survey conducted by Oliver Wyman and Fundera (where one of us works), over 60% of small business owners indicated that they would prefer to apply for loans entirely online.

In addition to improving the experience for business owners, digitization has the potential to substantially reduce the cost of lending at every stage of the process, making SME customers more profitable for lenders, and creating opportunities to serve a broader swath of SMEs. This is important because transaction costs in SME lending can be formidable and, as our research in a recent HBS Working Paper indicates, some small businesses are not being served. Transaction costs associated with making a $100,000 loan are roughly the same as making a $1,000,000 loan, but with less profit to the bank, which has led to banks prioritizing SMEs seeking higher loan amounts. The problem is that about 60% of small businesses want loans below $100,000. If digitization can decrease costs, it could help more of these small businesses get funded.

New digital entrants have spotted the market opportunity created by these dynamics, and the result is an explosion in online lending to SMEs from fintech startups. Last year, less than $10 billion in small-business loans was funded by online lenders, a fraction compared to the $300 billion in SME loans outstanding at U.S. banks. However, the current meager market share held by online lenders masks immense potential: Morgan Stanley estimates the total addressable market for online SME lenders is $280 billion and predicts the industry will grow at a 47% annualized rate through 2020. They estimate that online lenders will constitute nearly a fifth of the total SME lending market by then. This finding confirms what bankers fear: digitization upends business models, enabling greater competition that puts pressure on incumbents. Sometimes David can triumph over Goliath. As JPMorgan Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, warned in a June 2015 letter to the bank’s shareholders, “Silicon Valley is coming.”

Can banks out-compete the disruptors?

Established banks have real advantages in serving the SME lending market, which should not be underestimated. Banks’ cost of capital is typically 50 basis points or less. These low-cost and reliable sources of funds are from taxpayer-insured deposits and the Federal Reserve’s discount window. By comparison, online lenders face capital costs that can be higher than 10%, sourced from potentially fickle institutional investors like hedge funds. Banks also have a built-in customer base, and access to proprietary data on depositors that can be used to find eligible borrowers who already have a relationship with the bank. Comparatively, online lenders have limited brand recognition, and acquiring small business customers online is expensive and competitive.

But banks’ ability to use these strengths to build real competitive advantage is not a forgone conclusion. The new online lenders have made the loan application process much more customer-friendly. Instead of walking into a branch on Main Street and spending hours filling out paperwork, borrowers can complete online applications with lenders like Lending Club and Kabbage in minutes and from their laptop or phone at any hour of the day. Approval times are cut to days or, in some cases, a few minutes, fueled by data-driven algorithms that quickly pre-qualify borrowers based on a handful of data points such as personal credit scores, Demand Deposit Account (DDA) data, tax returns, and three months of bank statements. Moreover, in instances where borrowers want to shop and compare myriad options in one place, they turn to online credit brokers like Fundera or Intuit’s QuickBooks Financing for a one-stop shopping experience. By contrast, banks — particularly regional and smaller banks — have traditionally relied on manual, paper-intensive underwriting processes, which draw out approval times to as much as 20 days.

The questions banks should ask themselves

We see four broad strategies that traditional banks could pursue to compete or collaborate with emerging online players—and in some cases do both simultaneously. The choice of strategy depends on how much investment of time and money the bank is willing to make to enter the new marketplace, and the level of integration the bank wants between the new digital activities and their traditional operations.

Two of the four options are low-integration strategies in which banks contract for new digital activities in arms-length agreements, or pursue long-term corporate investments in separate emerging companies. This amounts to putting a toe in the water, while keeping current operations relatively separate and pristine.

On the other end of the spectrum, banks choose higher-integration strategies, like investing in partnership arrangements, where the new technologies are integrated into the bank’s loan application and decision making apparatus, sometimes in the form of a “white label” arrangement. The recent partnership between OnDeck and JPMorgan Chase is such an example. Some large and even regional banks have made even more significant investment to build their own digital front ends (e.g. Eastern Bank). And as more of the new fintech companies become possible acquisition targets, banks may look to a “build or buy” strategy to gain these new digital capabilities.

For banks that choose to develop their own systems to compete head-on with new players, significant investment is required to automate routine aspects of underwriting, to better integrate their own proprietary account data, and to create a better customer experience through truly customer-friendly design. The design and user experience aspect is especially out of sync with bank culture, and many banks struggle with internal resistance.

Alternatively, banks can partner with online lenders in a range ways – from having an online lender power the bank’s online loan application, to using an online lender’s credit model to better underwrite and service bank loan applications. In these options, the critical question is whether the bank wants to keep its own underwriting criteria or use new algorithms developed by its digital partner. Though the new underwriting is fast and uses intriguing new data, such as current bank transaction and cash flows, it’s still early days for these new credit scoring methods, and they have largely not been tested through an economic downturn.

Another large downside of partnering with online lenders is the significant level of resources required for compliance with federal “third party” oversight, which makes banks responsible for the activities of their vendors and partners. In the U.S., at least three federal regulators have overlapping requirements in this area, creating a dampening effect that regulatory reform in Washington could serve to mitigate.

Banks that prefer a more “arm’s-length” arrangement have the option to buy loans originated on an alternative lender’s platform. This allows a bank to increase their exposure to SME loans and pick the credits they wish to hold, while freeing up capital for online lenders. This type of partnership is among the most prolific in the online small business lending world, with banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and SunTrust buying assets from leading online lenders.

The familiar David vs. Goliath script of the scrappy, internet-fueled startup vanquishing the clunky, brick-and-mortar-laden incumbent is repeated so often in startup circles that it is sometimes treated as inevitable. But in the real world, sometimes David wins, other times Goliath wins, and sometimes the right solution involves a combination of both. SME lending can remain a big business for banks, but only with deliberate choices about where to play and how to win. Banks must focus on areas where they can build a distinct competitive advantage, and find ways to partner with or learn from the new innovators.

https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-banks-can-compete-against-an-army-of-fintech-startups

Der Kreis derer, die als Chief Disruption Officer überhaupt nur annähernd in Betracht kommen, hat den Radius „null“

Ich bin eine eierlegende WollMilchSau – und der neue Chief Disruption Officer Deiner Firma!

Eierlegende Wollmilchsau

Eierlegende Wollmilchsau

Fotolia #83825279 | Urheber: jokatoons

Herausforderung: die Auftragsklärung

Ein neuer CDO soll bei den Konzernen oft den „Tanker bewegen und in Schnellboote verwandeln“, schließlich hört und liest man ja überall von Startups, Agil, Dynamik, Disruption und stetiger Veränderung. Da stellt sich doch die Frage (typischerweise an HR) wer erstellt den das JobProfil für einen Job, den es noch nie gab und dessen Ziele so faszinierend unterschiedlich, ja widersprüchlich sind. Schließlich wird jeder seine eigene Vorstellung davon haben, was der künftige CDO „endlich“ angehen soll – fragen Sie doch mal Kollegen aus unterschiedlichen Funktionen!

In der folgenden Liste habe ich einmal einige (Achtung Buzzword-Bingo) zusammengefasst:

Typische CDO Erwartungsperspektiven:

  • Neue(s) Business Modell(e) finden, entwickeln und bitte gleich den Return on Investment im ersten Jahr sicherstellen
  • Change Manager (Disruption, Innovation…) der die gesamte Organisation in die neue Arbeitswelt führt
  • Neue Vertriebs- und Finanzierungskanäle – vom Crowdfunding über Crowdstorming, Crowdworking und Social Marketing
  • Digital Mindset / Organisationsentwicklung – nachhaltige Veränderung der Unternehmenskultur
  • Board Coaching / Trainer für die anderen Vorstände
  • Smart Factory – die intelligente Fabrik, digitalisierte, automatisierte und vernetzte Produktionsumgebungen mit neuen agilen Werkzeugen bis zur Losgröße 1 (zugleich stetig wachsender Fokus auf Service-Orientierung stattfindet – also „nicht-produktion“)
  • BigData / Analytics / Predictive – alles was man mit Daten, deren Analyse und Vorhersagbarkeit so treiben kann
  • Rechtsanwalt – Arbeit 4.0, Zusammenarbeit mit Externen, Compliance… siehe unten „illegal“
  • Neues IT Framework – moderne Softwarearchitekturen, Werkzeuge und Apps einführen
  • Digitales Vorbild / Botschafter – Sichtbar werden für neuen Arbeitsstil, Führungskultur – am Besten auch nach außen werbewirksam
  • Digitale Prozesse / Digitale Effizienz – den systemischen Organisationsmotor generalsanieren
  • Social Media extern – von Arbeitnehmerattraktivität über Recruiting (von natürlich Digital Professionals) bis zu Wirkungsverbesserung durch virales Marketing
  • Interne Kommunikation und Zusammenarbeit (Enterprise Social Networking)… – die gesamte Belegschaft, inklusive Fabrikarbeiter mobil, vernetzt, zeit- und orts-unabhängig sowie skallierbar in Arbeit 4.0 führen

Diese Liste an Erwartungen ist sicher alles andere als vollständig, soll aber zeigen, dass es nicht einfach ist, das Profil für diese Position so zu definieren, dass der Inhaber überhaupt eine Chance hat Wirkung zu entfalten. Schließlich gilt es neben den fachlichen Aufgaben auch die bestehende Kultur, Politik, Seilschaften etc. kennen zu lernen und dann nachhaltig zu verändern.

Herausforderung: Woher nehmen, diese CDO – eierlegende WollMilchSau?

Wie einer der Headhunter mal so schön formulierte:

„der Kreis derer, die als CDO überhaupt nur annähernd in Betracht kommen, hat den Radius „null““

Es gibt keine Ausbildung zum CDO, typische Karrierewege erzeugen meist „system-stabilisierende“ Vertreter, wer will einem „jungen Wilden“ die Verantwortung über einen Konzern geben. Die Zahl derer, die in ähnlichen Rollen erfolgreich sind, ist äußerst überschaubar – Nachahmung schwierig- und oft auch nicht einfach übertragbar… auch die großen Consulting Riesen sind hier sicher keine Hilfe, da deren Reifegrad hier ähnlich jungfräulich ist (Es gibt keine Blaupausen, die man aus der Schublade ziehen könnte, keine Beweise, kaum Studien die als Handlungsanleitung taugen)

Also wird nach Kompromissen gesucht, das kann dann z.B. so aussehen:

  • wir nehmen eine(n), der schon Vorstand war/ist … dort findet man kaum Digital Natives (damit ist nicht vorrangig das Alter, vielmehr deren Haltung gegenüber neuen, disruptiven Entwicklungen gemeint, die noch nicht allgemein als erfolgreich, bleibend und wichtig/prägend anerkannt sind), aus Karrieregründen kaum jemanden, der mit Transparenz, Beteiligung und agilen Methoden risikofreudig umgeht
  • wir nehmen eine(n), der IT kann … wohl einer der häufigsten Fehler, Digitale Transformation mit IT zu verwechseln. Wohl ist ein guter Teil (ca. 20%) mit Software, Tools und IT KnowHow verbunden, der Großteil geht aber um völlig andere (oft sehr IT fremde) Themen – es geht sehr viel um Führung! siehe Liste oben
  • wir nehmen eine(n), der schon ein Startup erfolgreich gemacht hat … das führt auf beiden Seiten zu großen Enttäuschungen: Freiheit, Sicherheit, Vorgaben, Rahmenbedingungen, Größe, Internationalität… Assimilation garantiert
  • wir nehmen jemanden, der Karriere machen will und großes Potential zeigt … Wer Karriere machen will ist meist doch recht Regel-konform unterwegs. Wer traut es sich „alles“ in Frage zu stellen bei einem System, in dem er/sie groß werden will? Risikobereitschaft, Fehler machen (dürfen) sind nicht die üblichen Treiber einer erfolgreichen Karriere
  • wir suchen jemanden von Extern – klar, neue Besen kehren gut… wie sieht es aber mit der damit verbundenen sehr langen Anlaufzeit aus. Kann es sich z.B. ein Automobilkonzern in der heutigen Lage leisten jetzt mit jemandem bei null anzufangen, was die internen Kenntnisse, Netzwerke (oder besser Verstrickungen), Politik, Kultur angeht?

Den „fertigen“ CDO zu finden dürfte also ein schwieriges Unterfangen sein – eine Lösung wäre in meinen Augen mit der aktuellen Priorität zu beginnen und zu versuchen die fehlenden Merkmale zu intern zu entwickeln (ideal parallel mit allen anderen). Neben Kultur, Führung ist sicher „neues, konstantes Lernen“ auf allen Ebenen höchst relevant.

aus: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/der-cdo-wirds-schon-richten-harald-schirmer