Creating Customer Value Through Services

In the Cambridge Service Alliance we have long talked about the importance of focusing on outcomes - understanding deeply and intimately what it is that your customer or even your customer’s customer values and exploring how you can deliver this. One of the most powerful consequences of thinking this way is that it encourages you to change the way you think about the boundaries of your business.

Take, for example, Caterpillar - what is it that their customer’s customer values? Imagine, for example a mining operation or a quarry. Clearly the customer wants a safe working environment. Clearly they want equipment that is reliable and productive. Clearly they want minimum disruption to their operations and production schedules. But ultimately what they want is to be able to extract minerals in the volumes they need at the lowest cost. If lowest cost per tonne is what the customer wants, what can Caterpillar do to help their customer achieve this?

Well the first thing is they can recognize that the mine or quarry is a system - to achieve lowest cost per tonne you have to optimize the system and get all of the people and equipment working in harmony together. It is not enough for Caterpillar to be able to guarantee that their equipment has the lowest operating cost or even lowest total lifetime cost. Unless Caterpillar’s equipment works in harmony with the rest of the quarry the customer won’t achieve lowest cost per tonne.

Working in harmony requires coordination - coordination across mixed fleets of assets and equipment. One of the services Caterpillar and their Dealers now offer are quarry optimization services. They use the data coming back off their equipment to help the customer identify production inefficiencies and lost time. Trucks, for example, have sensors in their beds. As the truck is loaded with material, the sensors record the weight of material in the bed of the truck. So Caterpillar knows when trucks are fully loaded. They also track location, through GPS data, so if your data shows a truck is fully loaded, but its GPS position is not changing then its not moving. That’s lost time - once the truck is loaded it should be moving off up the haul road en route to dump its load in the crusher.

There are loads of similar examples. Bose thinks of itself not as a speaker manufacturer but as providing sound distribution systems. Pharmaceutical firms are reinventing themselves as healthcare solutions provides - seeking to find a new way to complete as the development cost of drugs increases and more and more drugs come off patent.

At this year’s Cambridge Service Alliance conference - creating value through customer services - scheduled for the 6^th October - we’ll be hearing from three leading providers of services and solutions - ABB, Rolls Royce and Zoetis. Each of them will be explaining how they have managed to develop business models - often enabled by data and analytics - to create value for customers by focusing on the outcomes their customers and their customer’s customers really want.

Rethinking Competition and Collaboration in Ecosystems: Who Should You Work With?

One of the themes that keeps emerging in the work of the Cambridge Service Alliance is the importance of the ecosystem. We define an ecosystem as the wider network of firms and organisations that can or could influence the way the focal firm creates and captures value through the provision of its products and services. Members of this wider network might include, but are not limited to: collaborators, regulators, clients, customers and consumers, their stakeholders, suppliers and competitors.

Why does an ecosystem perspective matter? The first reason is that thinking about ecosystems encourages executives to take a broader view on the opportunities they face. This argument was first made by Moore in his Harvard Business Review article - "Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition". As the boundaries between traditional industrial sectors break down organisations change the way the create value for their customers. Take a simple example - airlines. Are they in the travel business? After all their primary function is to transport people from A to B. Are they in the entertainment and catering business - they feed and entertain people while on their planes. Are they in the holiday business? Witness the emergence of BA and Virgin holidays. Are they in the telecoms business - think about in flight telecoms and wireless services. Even more extreme examples are seen in electronics and telecommunications. Phone companies now double as internet service providers. They offer on demand TV and video services. They are debating what else they can do given the cables they have running into your house. Utilities companies in general are blurring - water companies will provide gas and electricity. Gas companies will reduce the price you pay if you buy electricity from them as well. An even more radical example is provided by electric vehicles - some are exploring how they might be used as energy storage devices when not being driven. Boundaries between sectors are blurring and disappearing. As they do new opportunities emerge. Being constrained by a logic that says "we are an automotive firm" or "we are a pharmaceutical firm" simply limits innovation and creativity.

This theme of innovation and creativity is a second reason why ecosystem thinking is so important. Firms define often themselves in terms of their markets, customers and competitors. Yet one thing we have seen in our work is the increasingly complex nature of inter-organisational relationships. It is common to see firms competing for some contracts, while collaborating on others. IBM, for example, competes with software vendors such as Oracle and SAP, yet also installs Oracle and SAP systems when their customers want them to. BAE Systems partners with Babcock to deliver services at Portsmouth Naval Base, yet competes with Babcock for other MoD contracts. This complex and nested set of relationships raises some interesting questions. If you define another organisation solely as your competitor there's a danger you miss opportunities for innovation and collaboration. The car industry provides an excellent example. Many car manufacturers have close relationships with (or in some cases own) Dealer networks. They see the Dealer as the primary route to market and the obvious choice for all after-sales service and support. Yet there are loads of small, independent garages that offer vehicle service and support. Often customers prefer these independent garages - they are cheaper, operate with lower overheads and only use genuine original equipment spares when needed. Traditionally the automotive manufacturers have seen these independent garages as the enemy. They take work from the Dealer network, build direct relationships with the end customer and generally disrupt the industry.

But if you draw a broader circle and include these "annoying independent garages" in your ecosystem, you could - as an original equipment manufacturer - start to ask how might we collaborate with these independent garages? Should we offer to manage their spare parts inventories through consignment stocks? Should we provide them specialist tooling and equipment, creating a larger market for proprietary technologies? As the use of telematics and remote monitoring increases, should we - the original equipment manufacturer - sell the engine diagnostic data to independent garages to help them provide better service to their customers? Perhaps the original equipment manufacturer can create a more seamless, integrated and lower cost service for their customers by collaborating with their traditional competitors.

Its only when you start to challenges the assumptions that you hold about how your industry operates and where the boundaries lie that you start to think creatively about the opportunities that are open to you. Taking an ecosystem perspective and broadening your horizon is a great way of thinking about how you might innovate your business model.

GE, The Industrial Internet and the Battle to Come

During Cambridge Service Week this year we heard from Stefan Bungart, Leader of GE Software Europe. Stefan talked about GE's development of a new services platform - Predix. Think of the iStore, but for the industrial internet. GE's position is that it wants Predix to become an openly available platform that can host apps developed by others - apps that are used to remotely monitor and manage machines and equipment, indeed any device connected to the internet - hence the industrial internet.

You could argue that Apple, Facebook and Google have largely sewn up the business to consumer internet - they are the dominant platforms. Other platforms may emerge, but they face an uphill battle to overcome the incumbent players. The industrial internet, however, is still wide open. We don't yet have any dominant players and they may never emerge. However, manufacturing firms across all sectors recognise the way the world is moving. More and more devices are being connected to the internet. These devices are feeding data back to central control hubs and the best of these are using the data to make predictions about product performance and how this can be optimized, as well as using the data to inform future generations of product design. The question - hence the battle to come - is which firms will dominate the industrial internet.

GE has already declared its intent - in 2015 the Predix platform will be made publicly available. Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of GE is quoted as saying "the more we can connect, monitor, and manage the world’s machines, the more insight and visibility we can give our customers to reduce unplanned downtime and increase predictability. By opening up Predix to the world, companies of any size and in any industry can benefit from the investments GE has made by eliminating the barrier to entry". What he doesn't say is what happens to the data that all of these devices generate as it passes through the GE platform. GE is reported to use 10 million sensors to monitor daily 50 million data points across $1 trillion of managed assets. The businesses order backlog is around $180 billion - a number that continues to grow as the installed base of GE assets and those that GE helps monitor increases in size. Will GE be the equivalent of Apple, Facebook and Google for the industrial internet or will someone else seize this market? Potential competitors from the software, applications and consulting industry might include IBM, Microsoft or Tata. From an industrial perspective the smart money might be on Hitachi, Samsung or Siemens. How about Apple, Google or Facebook? Can and will they make the transition to the industrial internet?

The jury's out on how this opportunity will develop, but one thing is clear. The battle for the industrial internet will heat up in the next few years. The potential for innovation and greater efficiency in product and service design, as well as operation and maintenance is too great. The winners of this race will have access to unparalleled data that if used insightfully will drive significant service efficiency and innovation. Firms will still have to deliver great service - they'll have to get the basics right - but they'll do so from a rich and data-informed position that will put them ahead of the rest of the pack and so confer significant competitive advantage.

Creating Great Service Experiences: United (not even close) versus BA (great, eventually)

One of the great things about researching services is that every interaction I have with an organisation offers a new opportunity to observe what services they deliver and how well they deliver them. The last 24 hours has been one long lesson in service excellence (or the lack of it). Yesterday I had to fly from Denver to Chicago and then on to London. The Denver to Chicago leg was with United. The Chicago to London leg with BA. Just to give a sneak preview of where this is going - although I left for Denver airport around 30 hours ago, I am still in Chicago! Let me explain why and then ask what we can learn from this experience.

I arrived at Denver Airport at around 12:30pm on Monday, managed to clear security and get to my gate area by around 12:45pm. After a quick lunch, I made my way to the gate and was invited to board the United flight shortly after 14:00. Once everyone had got on the plane and sat down a member of cabin crew announced "the pilots for this plane have been held up. They are not going to be here for another hour so we are going to deplane you all. If you have connecting flights we suggest you go to the United help desk". Having just boarded 300 people, United then deplaned 300 people. You can imagine the queue at United customer services - strange that they only had two people on the desk. At one stage one of the reps left the desk and walked passed me. I said, "excuse me" and he just said, "I have to go to the bathroom and ran away". When he came back he walked right past me, so I said once again "excuse me". This time he had no choice but to stop and I asked why there were only two people on the service desk. He replied, "I don't control staffing". I said, "So is there a manager we can talk to". He said, "I don't know where she's at" and walked away.

I never made the front of the queue to talk to customer services as we were called away to board the plane again at around 15:30. By 15:40 I was back in my seat and at 15:45 the cabin crew announced the pilots had arrived and were getting the plane ready. At 16:00 the captain came on the tannoy - he was the first (and only) person from United to apologise for the earlier mess up and the delay. Then he said, "I've got bad news, they've closed Chicago, so we are going to be sitting here for 50 minutes. I am going to keep you on the plane until I get another update from Chicago and then we'll decide whether to deplane you for a second time".

Thirty minutes later and we've got a new route to Chicago, so the plane starts moving. While we've been waiting I've been trying to get the gate agent to get a message to British Airways saying I'm going to be pushed to catch the flight, but the gate agent is not interested in helping me - after all British Airways are in a different alliance to United! To make up for the delay the pilot enabled "free TV" on the plane, but every time an announcement was made the announcement drowned out the movies and the film didn't pause. That coupled with the incessant advertising breaks didn't make free TV a great experience either.

We finally arrive at Chicago at 20:03 (amazingly the time that one member of cabin crew hinted we were going to arrive about four hours earlier, when we kept getting told that we would be there by 19:00 and then 19:30, etc) - promise after broken promise. As soon as we arrive I turned on my phone to be greeted by a series of texts from United telling me the plane was going to be late. I knew that - I was on the plane. What a great system United flight updates is - what's the point of sending flight updates by text to passengers who are flying on planes and therefore have to have their phones turned off?

On arrival at Chicago I got off the plane, made my way to terminal 5 as fast as I could to find no British Airways staff available (they'd gone home) and although I cleared security, they BA staff had also left the lounge and shut up shop for the night. So I was stranded at Chicago. No way of re-booking a flight - the BA call centre was closed (I checked). No interest from United - they'd got to Chicago and now I wasn't their problem anymore.

Given the general chaos finding a hotel with a spare room was not straightforward, but I finally found one, made my way there and went to sleep at around 1:00am. At 4:00am I work up and called British Airways in the UK - their first response was "sorry, you've missed your flight, but we can't do anything. You didn't show up so we off loaded you. You'll have to buy a new ticket". I pointed out that flew with BA a lot, had a gold card for their frequent flier programme and could easily take my business elsewhere. At which point the guy I was speaking to went off to talk to his boss and came back a couple of minutes later saying "on this occasion and in recognition of your loyalty to British Airways, we'll get you on another flight. There's no space today (Tuesday), but we can get you out on Wednesday.

So now I'm in my hotel, I've checked in for tomorrow's flight and I'm wondering what BA and United come have done differently. Let's start with United - it’s not just the raft of broken promises. They were compounded by the operational chaos - not having pilots, not realising that when pilots came in on a delayed flight they might be "illegal" and not allowed to fly anymore. Predicting this isn't hard and then you enact your contingency plans to get spare pilots to the airport. United just didn't seem to have any contingency plans. It was as if they'd never encountered bad weather before - everything was a surprise to them and they just hadn't thought about how to manage service recovery. Having two staff to deal with 100 people trying to rebook flights is ridiculous. As for British Airways, I was really frustrated that nobody from the airline was in the airport to help passengers who were bound to have missed their flights. I was really frustrated, although not surprised, when they told me it was my problem and I'd have to book another flight. But I was really delighted when they relented and booked the flight for me - they've increased my loyalty to the airline. As for United - well they claim they are great at social media - just look at the stream of complaints they deal with daily on Twitter! The problem is I want my airlines to be good at delivering their core service - getting me from A to B when they promise to and when things go wrong recovering the situation fast. Maybe United should spend a little less on social media and a little more on being brilliant at the basics - getting their service right.

A postscript - so what could have made this a fantastic customer experience? Imagine one simple thing. BA knew I was planning to catch the flight to London - I'd already checked in online and accessed my boarding pass. If you miss a plane that you've checked in for chances are something untoward had happened. How would I have felt if upon arrival at Chicago I'd received a text from BA saying - really sorry to have to inform you that we have offloaded you from the London flight because we had to leave without you. We hope everything is OK, as its unusual for you to miss flights (I have never missed a BA flight before and they know this from their records. They also have all of my contacts details on file so the text would have been easy). The final part of the message could have said - "if there's anything we can do to help please call us. That simply act of communication would have changed my mood and attitude completely. I still think British Airways did a great job in the end, but with one small additional act they could have converted me to a customer for life.

Is servitization for everyone?

One of the questions I have been asking my students recently is whether "servitization is a strategy for everyone". Effectively I ask them to take any product they wish and develop an idea for a service that is directly related to the product. The students have come up with some great ideas. One group developed a business model for renting umbrellas. Imagine having umbrella rental kiosks at busy main line stations in London. You arrive at Kings Cross, without an umbrella, only to find it is raining. Rather than buying an overpriced umbrella in a local store, you can rent one for a day and if you don't return it, you forfeit your deposit, but are then allowed to keep the umbrella. Another group developed a business model for exchanging baby products - a store where you could buy second hand cots, toys and prams (all of which had been fully refurbished and reconditioned). As your baby grows older and bigger the store would take back products you no longer needed and sell you a new set - a child's bed rather than a cot or toys for a three year old, rather than a new born baby. Any products you returned to the shop would be refurbished, reconditioned and sold on to a new set of parents. Yet other groups have suggested technologically enabled services. One team came up with the idea of machine tool manufacturers offering environmental monitoring services. This group proposed that firms should couple an energy monitoring service with the machine tools they sell. In essence the manufacturer of the machine tool would provide guidance and advice on how to reduce energy consumption of capital equipment.

While the ideas themselves are interesting, one of the things that I have found most fascinating is that nobody has yet come up with a product that could not be accompanied by a service. Luxury goods - where ownership might confer status - are appealing as rental items. Why own that fantastic diamond necklace (and carry the risks and costs associated with ownership of a very valuable piece of jewellery) when you can rent whatever jewellery you want for particular events. A counter argument might be that jewellery as a gift is important. If I told my wife that I had rented our wedding ring rather than bought it for her I might get short shrift. But the jeweller who sold me the ring offers a reconditioning service, a personalisation service and could offer a consultancy service, providing advice on which product to select.

Move to the other end of the scale and think about commodity products. Take something as simple as a paperclip. What service could be associated with paperclips? At first blush this appears to be a more challenging question. Paperclips are so plentiful and cheap that it is more difficult to conceive a service. But think about how many paperclips are wasted, taken off sheets of paper and dropped in the bin or put in that jar that sits on your desk and gradually fills to overflowing. What about a service centred around paperclip recycling, where unwanted paperclips (like spent batteries) are collected and returned to source. What about paperclips with RFID tags on them - paperclips that could provide location information so you would never again lose that important document in a pile of paperwork!

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the world of services and solutions is endless. Some of my academic colleagues argue that products are only ever a means to deliver services. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I think it is right to say that all products can be supported or supplemented by services. I'd be interested to hear of examples of products that you think it would be difficult to support or supplement with services.

Innovating Your Service Business Model: The Capabilities to Succeed

One of the themes we have been exploring in the Cambridge Service Alliance is the question of how organisations best innovate their service business models. In some of our early work Ivanka Visnjic and I developed a framework of 12 capabilities that underpin successful service business model innovation. Since then we have been developing and iterating this framework, creating a maturity model that firms can used to assess the maturity of their capabilities for innovating their service business models. It seemed to me that it would a good idea to write a series of blogs on this framework and the twelve capabilities that underpin it - so here's the first one - explaining the framework.

In essence our research suggests there are four categories of capability that really matter when it comes to innovating the service business model. These are: (i) the ecosystem; (ii) the value proposition; (iii) the value delivery system and (iv) accountability spread. Let me explain these in turn.

The first set of capabilities are concerned with the ecosystem - increasingly competition is taking place at the level of the ecosystem, not the individual firm. In today's interconnected economy, what matters is the way the ecosystem is configured and how your firm is positioned to capture value from it. Apple and HP illustrate the point. If you ask the question - "of the $1,000 someone pays for an Apple or HP machine, who gets the money" - you find that Apple keep 60-70%, while HP keep only 30%. Why the difference? Because Apple use their own proprietary operating system (they don't cede money to Microsoft), they use their own chip (they don't cede money to Intel) and they have created their own distribution infrastructure (they don't cede money to the retailers).

So what can HP do? It is too late for them to develop their own operating system or get into chip manufacturing. Both technologies are too well established, with large incumbent players and high barriers to entry. The cost of establishing a retail infrastructure, certainly a high street retail infrastructure, is prohibitive. But what they can do is invest in Linux. If HP help Linux become a more dominant operating system then Linux reduces Microsoft's power in the marketplace and hence their ability to appropriate value, leaving more of the money on the table for HP. And in fact, it is in the interests of all of HP's traditional competitors to increase the power of Linux. So if HP collaborates with other laptop manufacturers, then collectively they can try to shape the ecosystem and their ability to capture value.

It is not just the ecosystem perspective that matters. The second theme that we saw in our research was the importance of innovating the value proposition - really understanding what the customer valued and the outcomes they were looking for. There's an old Theodore Levitt quote - "customers don't want quarter inch drills, they want quarter inch holes".  We don't think this is right. Customers don't even want quarter inch holes. When innovating your value proposition you have to understand why the customer wants the quarter inch hole. If it is to hang a picture, then how else might the picture be hung - you could glue it to the wall. You could invite an artist in to paint the picture on the wall. The key to innovating you value proposition is to understand deeply what your customers really value.

Beyond the value proposition, the third category of capabilities centred on the value delivery system. Here we are shifting into the question of how do we configure the resources and activities required to deliver the value proposition. What should we do? What should we ask others to do? Many of the services firms deliver today require networks of organisations to pool their capabilities. Understanding the right network structure and identifying the right partners is essential when innovating the service business model.

Finally, we shift to capabilities concerned with accountability spread. Here the idea is that by taking on responsibility for the outcomes your customers want - you increase your risk and exposure. By innovating the value delivery system - either through technology or partnering with others - you may decrease the control you have over the ecosystem. Hence you have increased your accountability, but potentially reduced your control - hence you may have increased your risk or accountability spread. Understanding the implications of this and how the risk will therefore be managed is paramount if the service business model is to be sustainable.

These four categories of capability - ecosystem, value proposition, value delivery system and accountability spread - form the highest level of our framework for understanding business model innovation. In future blogs I'll unpack each of these categories in turn and explain the capabilities that underpin them.

Struggling to make the shift to services? Write your own obituary!

It is clear that organisations across the globe are making the shift to solutions. Often the ultimate aspiration is providing the outcomes the customers (and in some some cases the customer's customers) want and need. Often this journey is described in terms of a service ladder - gradually moving from providing products to supporting the products with spares; through to remote or condition based monitoring; and finally onto contracting for capability or outcomes. While a logical flow and an inherently attractive proposition, successfully making this shift to solutions in reality is challenging. A critical issue is winning the hearts and minds of people who are used to a world of products. If you've always worked in a product or technology centred business then a commonly heard fear is "won't services cannibalise the product business" or put more directly "aren't we sowing the seeds of our own destruction - we'll kill the product business if we are too good at offering solutions".

Hearts and minds are always difficult to win, but one useful trick is to play on this fear. Recently we have been experimenting with asking organisation's to write their own obituary. The exam question we set is "write or record a short obituary for our services business. Imagine we are five years down the road and we haven't made our services business work (while all of our competitors have). What would the press be saying about us? What would they put our failure down to? Who would get the inheritance (e.g. which competitor gets our business and why)".

A simple trick, but the responses that are generated are both illuminating and in some cases humbling. Senior executives start to verbalise ideas like "ACME Inc has divested all of its remote and condition monitoring efforts and sold them to Monitoring-R-Us, a private company specialising in industrial solutions". Five themes consistently shine through these obituaries - the failure of the organisation concerned to keep pace with change; the inability to break away from the product-dominant culture; the need to get closer to customers and really understand their businesses; the reluctance to make the necessary investment - dabbling rather than committing to services and solutions; and missing the opportunity that the era of big data and sensors offers. In another blog I'll try to write more about these issues, but in the short-term if they strike a chord with you, join us in Cambridge on 1st October for the Cambridge Service Alliance conference - "Successfully Making the Shift to Solutions" - where we'll hear from organisations that are making the shift and overcoming the barriers. 

The Great Myths of Measurement: Satisfaction is Dead

In the late 1990s Jeffrey Gitomer wrote a book entitled - "Customer Satisfaction is Worthless, Customer Loyalty is Priceless" - a title which neatly encapsulates the second myth of measurement, "loyalty is better than satisfaction". What Gitomer and countless others seem to miss is that "loyalty" cannot and should not "supersede" satisfaction.

The way to think about this is to consider the evolution of customer measures. Years ago we used to think that complaints were a good way of tracking customer satisfaction - simply count how many times people complain and then you'll know how good your products and services are. We now know that measuring the numbers of complaints is not a particularly effective measure of customer satisfaction. There are two reasons for this - first, in some organisations it is difficult even to get a complaint registered! Second, and more commonly, people don't complain directly to their organisation, they simply tell their friends about their bad customer service experiences.

So we move from customer complaints to customer satisfaction. Here firms decide to be more proactive and go out and ask their customers what they felt. Hence the plethora of surveys and phone polls asking for your opinion about service experiences. Xerox collected data in the late 1990s that showed highly satisfied customers were much more likely to repeat purchase than customers who were merely satisfied, so again the focus shifted - this time to "how do we get highly satisfied customers that will keep buying from us". The natural evolution was to customer loyalty - how do we measure the loyalty of our customers? Do they keep coming back and buying again - delivery repeat business? Do they help grow our business by recommending it to friends and colleagues (think how popular the net promoter score has become in recent years).

The final twist comes with the introduction of customer profitability as a measure. This was prompted by work which recognised that some customer were undesirable. Bain and Co released data suggesting that 140% of bank's profits come from 20% of their customers. The other 80% actual cost the bank money. So there was a sudden flurry of activity where people were trying to work out which customers were profitable and which were not. For the unprofitable customers the choice becomes - can we reduce the cost to serve (and make them profitable) or should we fire the customers and stop dealing with them.

These different perspectives on measurement complaints to satisfaction to loyalty and profitability are often seen as a natural progression, with more mature companies measuring loyalty and profitability. This is simply wrong. And it is wrong for a very simple reason. We have to different between what the customer wants of the organisation (great service, good prices, etc) and what the organisation wants of the customer (their loyalty, a decent return by working with them, etc). Customer loyalty and profitability don't supersede customer satisfaction - they look at the issue of customer measurement through a different lens. Customer loyalty and profitable are what the organisation wants. Great service and good value for money is what the customer wants. Our measurement systems have to track both, as both perspectives matter in successful organisations.

Five predictions for the future of services

What does the future hold for services? I was recently invited to give a talk on this topic and gazing into a crystal ball produced five predictions...

1. Services will become more automated, but automation will brings risk...
Clearly technology will play an increasingly important role in services. RFID tags and barcodes on installed products will store service and parts histories - no need to search for those old service records anymore. Social media and unstructured data will be used to guide service interventions. The city of Chicago, for example, is seeking to harvest Twitter data to identify potential problems with public infrastructure. Weblogs, loyalty cards, smart phones - coupled with position location trackers - provide valuable data that can be used to tailor and customise services.

Yet this increasingly interconnected world also brings new risks, particularly as organisation join data up across domains. Think of your local convenience store and the loyalty card data they collect. How happy would you be if they started selling data on your shopping habits to your health insurance providers? The automation of services will increase their efficiency, but firms will have to consider very carefully the ethical and morale implications of how they use data they can access.

2. Services will become more localised and personalised...
Technology is already enabling the localisation and personalisation of services. Couple these developments with environmental drivers, such as the cost of carbon, and we'll see an even great shift towards localisation and personalisation. Take 3-D printing – in the future we’ll have printers in our homes that can create incredibly complex products (things that can’t currently be manufactured). 3-D printing will revolutionise manufacturing, but it will also revolutionise the spares market – what will you do do when customers can 3-D print their own spares to order?

3. Health services will be massive...
The demographic changes that are afoot will have profound implications for healthcare – already pharmaceutical firms are redefining themselves as healthcare businesses. As their drugs come off patent, they are realising that they have to change their business model, reinventing themselves as healthcare solutions providers. A much more customer focussed approach - most of us don't want to take medicines, we want to be healthy in the first place. So if you can be the healthcare solutions provider that stops people getting ill you are in a powerful position. In healthcare, its not just the changing nature of the economic environment that matters. The ageing population will also stress the medical system – many countries won’t have enough capacity (beds) in hospitals for the potential demand and it is too costly to keep people in hospitals anyway. So Governments will look for alternative forms of healthcare provision, e.g. assisted living, where people remain at home and are remotely monitored, perhaps using biometric monitoring devices built into their clothing.

Then there’s the question of healthcare diagnostics – IBM's Watson, the software solution that won Jeopardy, is now being put to use in healthcare, supporting doctors in patient diagnosis. And the potential for new healthcare services does not end their. Will we see organ farms – farms where people grow replacement body organs that are sold on the open market?

4. Everything that can be digitised will be...
Digitisation is already a significant trend in some sectors - take books, music, films… When will we stop producing physical version of products that can be made available as electronic services? Will we stop producing cash – we can use electronic credits on our mobile phones – indeed M-Pesa already does! When will virtual holidays become the norm – augmented reality means we can take a Carribean cruise without leaving our house – we certainly won’t need to fly miles in an aeroplane…

5. We'll stop being consumers...
The growing pressure on the earth’s resources will make “consumers” outlaws… We won’t be pleased to be called a consumer – instead we’ll look for ways of sharing resources and physical assets. We won’t all own our car, our own washing machine, our own lawn mower… Instead we’ll share resources across neighbourhoods. Do we really need watches? Our digital devices (whatever comes after the iPhone) can tell the time, double as a TV, etc, etc.