Archiv der Kategorie: Disruption

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

Advertisements

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