{"id":4834,"date":"2018-10-04T07:12:20","date_gmt":"2018-10-04T05:12:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.alainveuve.ch\/more-willingness-to-take-risks-in-the-digital-transformation-please\/"},"modified":"2026-04-12T11:20:30","modified_gmt":"2026-04-12T09:20:30","slug":"more-willingness-to-take-risks-in-the-digital-transformation-please","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.alainveuve.ch\/en\/more-willingness-to-take-risks-in-the-digital-transformation-please\/","title":{"rendered":"More willingness to take risks in the digital transformation, please!"},"content":{"rendered":"

I see it time and again: the need for action is recognized, the data speaks for it. But implementation is hesitant. Companies would do well to take care of their digital transformation with more vigor. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(Reading time: 4 minutes)<\/em><\/p>\n

Hesitant today means dangerous<\/h3>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

What is considered risky or risk-free is usually reversed in the digital transformation. In the “pre-digital transformation era”, for example, investments in new initiatives and products often represented a high risk. <\/p>\n

Today, however, it is more the case that waiting to make investments represents the greater danger. This is because existing, traditional offerings are increasingly being replaced on the market by digital or digital-supported offerings. I often hear from decision-makers that this development will not happen so quickly and that they have time. I generally agree with that. But all too often people forget that other influencing factors can also play a role. <\/p>\n

If a market suddenly tightens rapidly due to external factors, for example, it is always better to have the more competitive offer on the market. What previously appeared to be a long-term development in such situations can quickly turn into high market pressure. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

I wouldn’t advise any undue haste. I also think that as entrepreneurs we have enough time to further develop our business models. However, when I say “enough time”, I don’t mean the “enough time” of the 1980s, but that of today. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The 5-year plan<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

When people talk about time frames in the context of corporate development, I always shudder a little when I hear about 5-year plans. Traditionally, I see these as almost an anachronism today. <\/p>\n

Because it seems crystal clear to me that this plan will have to be fundamentally adjusted at some point. Five years has become a long time in which a lot can – and will – happen. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Don’t lose sight of the long-term horizon<\/h3>\n
\n
\n

On the other hand, and this is what makes it so complicated, more strategic attention must be paid to the long term.<\/p>\n

“Long-term short-sightedness” must be replaced by “short-term long-sightedness”.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

I am also of the opinion that most companies today make the mistake of planning too long operationally, but lack the foresight for technological and social changes. As a result, the major underlying trends are overlooked and long-term planning is undertaken with almost no strategic basis. A classic example is the definition of a desired market position as a strategic goal. A la: “We want to be the market leader in area xy in five years’ time”. You can set yourself a lot of goals. And yes, you should. But I also believe that you should base your decisions on fundamental changes in the environment. Like riding a wave. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Short-term farsightedness<\/h3>\n
\n
\n

In this context, I consider it more expedient to demonstrate “short-term foresight”. This should mean recognizing the underlying, mostly technologically driven trends and using them strategically for the company. In operational planning, however, you should remain agile and opportunistic. I am convinced that this approach is better suited to the demands placed on companies today. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Risk appetite<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n

So once you have identified the strategic developments and built a strategy on them, I think you should take much more risk. Not senselessly, but in such a way that you have a chance to make rapid progress with new initiatives and products on the market. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

I often come across companies that launch great digital initiatives but have taken a very long time to do so. On the other hand, there are the fast, agile players who have developed and communicated a resounding offer in a shorter time. The fast players usually win, even though they were often relatively late to the game. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Conversely, this means that you don’t have to be one of the first to get involved in a changing market with digital products. On the contrary: it is usually helpful to start after the “early adopters” of a technology or a new business model. However, this wait-and-see approach should not be confused with the “late harvest concept” which, in my opinion, almost always goes wrong. <\/p>\n

In any case, it makes sense to act courageously and with appropriate commitment. This usually promises the most success. And success does not come without risk. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

This article originally appeared on the AOE blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Artikel auf Social Media teilen:<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div>