第24集 - 创新是推动变革的华丽说辞

你需要被视为值得信赖的投资者，因为这确实应该是你的初衷——创造价值才是你承担风险的意义。但同时，除了量化交易结构外，还需要具备一定的情商。我认为这正是优质谈判与糟糕谈判的区别所在。明白吗？即使你达成了价值惊人的交易，若对方最终产生被操纵的感觉——我不想用'欺骗'这样强烈的词——那也绝非理想结果。

You need to be seen as the trusted investor because that truly should be your intention and to create value because that's why you take the risk. But also that there is still just another yeah it's still some emotional intelligence is also needed not just quantification into a deal structure. And that's also I think the the difference in between sometimes good negotiation and bad negotiations. Right? So you can have an incredible deal with incredible value and the the other party might walk away feeling completely, I wouldn't use the word rape because I don't know if I want to use that word but feel manipulated.

你同样不希望对方有这种感受，对吧？谈判必须公平，要让双方都能像婚姻关系般共赢。我们参与就要全力以赴，不存在半途而废。

And you also don't want that feeling, right? So it has to be fair conversation and a good negotiation for both parties to walk away that it's like a marriage, right? So we're in it to win it. We're not half pregnant.

深度访谈科技领域最具影响力的创新领袖，独家解析全球主要及新兴生态系统的数据与洞见，追踪全球最前沿的科技与开放创新动态——以上精彩内容尽在每期节目。欢迎收听《开放创新对话》，与行业领袖共话桥梁，启迪思维。

In-depth interviews with the most influential innovation executives of the tech arena, exclusive data and insights on major and emerging ecosystems all around the world, The hottest news on technology and open innovation at a global level. This and much more in every new episode. Welcome to Open Innovation Talks. Mind the bridge, chat with industry leaders.

当前电信运营商正面临创新困境，但我们的电信企业仍在推进创新议程。今天我们将与荷兰皇家电信（KPN）进行对话，特别荣幸邀请到KPN首席战略与发展官本杰·科蒂先生。欢迎您，本杰。

Our telcos are struggling with innovation. Our telcos are moving forward innovation agenda. Today we will discuss with KPN and specifically my guest today is Benjie Cotey. He is the Chief Strategy and Development Officer at KPN. Welcome, Benjie.

谢谢，阿尔贝托。早上好。

Thank you, Alberto. Good morning.

首先让我们理清脉络。虽然听众大多知道KPN，但或许可以用简短的SAS式介绍，让观众更清楚贵公司的业务范畴。除此之外，我更想从组织架构角度了解：创新业务在贵公司如何定位？据我所知归口于您麾下。作为首席战略官——这个职位本身就很值得探讨——您的具体职责是什么？

So first of all, let's put things in order. And first of all, let's try to, again, people know who's KPN is, but maybe a couple of words in SAS who KPN is might be used for our audience to decide what you guys are doing. But again, beyond that, I would like to know first of all, organizationally speaking, where innovation activities are placed. I know that are placed below you. You are Chief Strategy Officer, which is the role of the Chief Strategy Officer, I think is an interesting question.

紧接着的问题是：KPN目前开展了哪些创新活动？或者说整体开放式创新涉及哪些业务领域？

And then the next immediate question is what kind of innovation activities or the overall open innovation activities sectors are run currently at KPN.

好的，首先让我们从KPN开始。KPN全称为Koenig Legerpost Nederland，是荷兰领先的电信运营商之一。它曾是一家跨国且政府控股的电信公司，如今已在荷兰上市并专注于本土市场。我们通过简化全球业务来聚焦荷兰市场。非常自豪地说，我们不仅作为移动网络领域的领先运营商屡获殊荣，目前在荷兰的光纤网络部署中也处于领先地位，这完全契合我们将整个荷兰连接至可持续未来的使命——所有努力都融入了我们的ESG战略体系。

All right, so firstly let's start with KPN. So KPN stands for Koenig Legerpost Nederland, which is one of the leading telcos in The Netherlands. It used to be a multi country telco also government owned, now publicly listed but only in The Netherlands. So we simplified our operations globally to focus on The Netherlands. Very proudly to say that we have won multiple awards as the leading telco in mobile networks but also we are currently leading in the fibre rollout also in The Netherlands and fully aligned to our purpose to connect all of The Netherlands to a sustainable future so everything is compounded within our ESG.

我们于去年底发布的2024-2027年新战略'连接、激活、成长'，核心在于连接客户、激活基础设施/资产/人力资源，从而实现在荷兰本土和社会中的发展。这是家很棒的企业，我们拥有超万名全职员工。如你所闻我来自南非，很荣幸能直接与KPN高管（尤其是CEO）共事。在CEO办公室下设战略与发展部，该部门目前分为多个业务单元。

And the current strategy which we launched late last year from 2024 to 2027 is Connect, Activate, Grow and that is all about connecting with our customers, activating our infrastructure, assets and people and therefore growing within Netherlands and society. So it is a great company. We have more than 10,000 FTE. Not only Dutch as you can hear I am international and South African and I am very fortunate to work directly with the executives of KPN in particular the CEO. So within the CEO's office we have the Strategy and Development office and that office is split currently into several departments.

其一是初创企业与对外联络管理，职责是协调促进荷兰境内外的生态系统建设，这些工作既对电信业有重要意义，也能为客户创造价值。这超越了公司自身运营范畴，使我们避免闭门造车。除了培育生态，我们还致力于在全公司推行更具启发性的创业思维模式。第二个部门负责创新与战略合作。

One is with startup and liaisons management. The mandate there is to align and to facilitate both the ecosystem within The Netherlands and beyond that could be relevant for the telco industry but also for our customers. That also goes beyond our own operations so we are not completely inward focused. And then it is not only to facilitate the ecosystem but also to try and bring more inspirational entrepreneurial mindset thinking throughout the organisation. And the second department is the innovation part and strategic partnerships.

该团队运用创新雷达系统，既关注行业内部也放眼外部，以此构建前瞻性视野。某些议题有时会让KPN这样的大企业感到困惑，但这恰恰是好事——当人们表现出些许不适，反而证明你走对了路。适度的不安往往能催生进步。比如量子技术、网络安全、AI趋势等前沿领域都是典型例证。

Within that team they work with a radar so both within the industry innovation radar and also beyond so that we create a little bit more of a forward looking view. Some topics sometimes creates a bit of confusion within a big corporate like KPN but that is good. If you see people a little bit uncomfortable with the topic you know that you are doing the right thing. Some discomfort is always sometimes good. And there you can think of for example quantum technologies, cyber security, I mean the AI trend etc.

这是虚伪还是务实？关键在于这个团队虽聚焦前瞻主题，但也会根据需求深度参与运营层面。当我们标记为创新的项目（稍后会详述）遭遇内部阻滞时，他们便以桥梁和投资者的角色介入。第三个促进创新的单元是风投团队，其明确使命是用独立基金投资已产生营收（而非早期阶段）的项目，以此补充KPN的业务、愿景和理念。我们从过去的间接基金投资转向直接注资，发现这对被投企业的规模化发展更具价值，也让我们能更直接与创始人协同，将项目融入KPN体系或服务于客户。当然战略部还有其他单元，但上述部门是专注创新的核心力量。

Is it a hypocite hypocitmeric what do you do? So there the team is very much focused on the forward looking themes but they also get very much involved on the operational level as and when needed when we see that certain initiatives that we have labelled as innovations which we will get to the topic a little bit later are either stuck internally therefore the team is on there as conduits and investors. The third subunit that facilitates innovation is the Ventures team and there the Ventures is a very clear mandate with a fund isolated to invest in not early stage but already ideally revenue generating stage and there again the mandate is a complement to KPN's activities, ambitions and notions. We used to do indirect fund investments now we only do direct investments and we see that it was also a lot more valuable one for the venture that we are investing in for scale but also for us to feel a little bit more skin in the game directly with a connection with the founders typically to make it work in KPN or for our customers. And then of course there is other units in the strategy but those are typically the ones that are focusing on innovation.

对KPN而言，创新的定义始终是个引发深思的话题——万物皆可创新。这个定义具有高度弹性，取决于对话对象和具体情境：流程加速算创新吗？价值释放算创新吗？成本降低算创新吗？

Then generally as KPN and a definition of innovation is always a topic of conscientious feelings because anything can be innovation. The definition of innovation is really flexible and elastic depending on the person that you are speaking to, depending on the situation. Is it innovation if you go faster in a process? Is it innovation if you unlock value? Is it innovation if you reduce costs?

减轻人们的挫败感算创新吗？我更愿将创新视为促成变革的修饰词，期许这些变革能让事物变得更好。这是我们力图在全公司贯彻的文化——虽然设有专职团队，但若没有整个组织的参与就无法实现，这是根本原则。值得一提的是（我认为这对KPN全体乃至业界都有益），当公司内部因变革受阻时，首席战略官亦可化身'首席解决方案官'来加速推进，否则进程将旷日持久。

Is it innovations if you reduce frustration in people? So I see innovation more as a cosmetic word for making change happen and hopefully that change just makes things better. And that is a culture that we try and insist on throughout the company. So yes, I might have some teams focusing but they cannot do it without the rest of the organisation and that is really fundamental. And it is nice to know and I think it is good for all of KPN and also for anyone in the market to know that if in the event that there is a struggle in the company to not make the change that makes things better that the Chief Strategy Officer can also be the Chief Solution Officer to say, okay, let's get it done faster and quicker, otherwise it's taking so long.

所以我希望这能带来

So I hope that gives a

我喜欢将表面功夫定义为推动变革的手段。这让我想起我们之前的一次对话，你有时会为创新的定义而困扰，因为我们常把问题也贴上创新的标签

I love the definition of cosmetic work for making change happen. This is something that you And I recall from a conversation we had that sometimes you are struggling with the definition of innovation because sometimes we label with innovation things that problems

一切如常

It's business as usual.

对吧？我记得你告诉我，我们称之为创新机器人的时候，实际上那只是个开发流水线。所以那里并没有真正的创新，对吧？上次说到，创新这个词一方面让事情听起来更酷更性感。也许，也许，也许还因为企业工作本质上仍然非常规避风险

Right? I remember you told me, the time we call innovation robot, but actually it's just a development pipeline. So there is not innovation into that, right? Last time, the word innovation makes things a bit more cool and sexy on the one hand. And maybe, maybe, maybe, because again, the corporate work is pretty still very risk averse.

大概是为了多一层保护，你知道，如果没成功可以说因为是创新。毕竟通常不允许失败，所以我们才用创新这个词。虽然失败仍不是选项，但若发生就归因于创新

Give a probably probably an extra protection, you know, if it doesn't work is because it's innovation. And so because typically you are not allowed to fail. And so that is why we've gone to use the word innovation. Still failing is not an option, but it happens is because of innovation.

是的，我认为这个观点很好。我发现大多数企业规避风险是有原因的，对吧？我们有受托责任，要对股东和利益相关者负责。要培养不冒险但鼓励实验的文化需要时间，所以要用对词汇——比如'我们测试一下'、'当作实验'，小规模投入看效果，不行就搁置也不要有压力。据我职业生涯观察（不仅在KPN），常会出现'宠儿项目'

Yeah and I think a very good point. How I have found that of course most corporates are risk averse and there is a reason, right? We have fiduciary duty, we have shareholders, we have stakeholders, we have responsibility, have accountability etc. And instilling that culture of not risk taking but experimentation takes some time and therefore also use the vocabulary, okay well let's test this, treat it as an experiment, So let's invest a small scale to see if it works and if not it will also be okay to mothball it when it is not living up to expectations. Because you also see a lot of well what I have observed in my career, not only at KPN, is that there is a typical darling project, right?

人们会推动某个项目上线，可能已投入一两年克服各种瓶颈。但当它未达预期时——无论是不愿归咎、误解还是假设——通常不会果断关停。可能是自尊心作祟，觉得是个人失败。而我更鼓励用体面和勇气说'这是个实验'，尽量快速干净轻量地执行，监测一年后尝试调整一两次，看是方法问题、客户旅程问题还是其他。若仍无效，就果断关停。否则系统会因保留过多冗余而变得复杂——每对一个项目说'是'，就意味着对另一个说'不'

So people will bring something live and they have invested a year or two years in getting it there because it's not always easy and the bottlenecks. But then when it doesn't live up to the expectation for whatever reason, not to blame anyone or misconception or assumption, typically they don't shut it down or mouth ball it. Maybe it's ego, maybe it's seen as or felt as a failure of themselves where I encourage more well it takes honour and courage to say hey this was an experiment, try to do it as fast and clean and light as possible, monitor it now for a year, okay we try to adapt once or twice to see if it will change, is it our approach, is it a customer journey, is it da da da. Okay, if it doesn't then work then okay switch it off, right? Because otherwise you are also keeping a lot of complexity at times alive than an ecosystem where every little thing that you say yes to you say no to something else.

所以如果你继续对失败的事物说‘是’，实际上就是在对可能成功的事物说‘不’。

So if you continue to say yes to something that is failing, you are actually saying no to something that could be winning. The

机会成本。实际上你刚才说的让我想起，我最近在一家大型跨国保险公司与你同行的一次谈话。他说他们一方面在努力寻找衡量风险客户活动的关键绩效指标，另一方面当他们收购一些公司后，这些公司会变成B级或C级服务，这时他们就陷入困境，因为他们倾向于用企业衡量活动的标准方式来评估结果。我再次认为——但想听听你的看法——这里存在一个重大误解，因为创新（我同意你说的我们有时可能过于宽泛地使用‘创新’这个词）真正的创新是遵循幂律法则的。

opportunity cost. And actually what you were just saying just pops up to my mind, a conversation I just had with your peer in a big multinational insurance company. And he would say, we actually were struggling to find the KPIs to measure on the one hand, our venture client activities. And also sometime we buy some companies and then they become service B, service C level and then we are struggling because we tend to measure the outcomes based on the standard way corporates do apply for measuring activities. And again, and I believe, but I want to hear from you here is that there is a big misconception because innovation, and again, I agree with you that sometime we use the word innovation probably too widely, but the pure innovation is something that works according to the power law.

它不是线性发展的。为什么企业思维是线性的？每个获批的项目，甚至那些通过概念验证的项目，在推向市场时都被要求立竿见影。当你进行收购尽职调查时，总会产生‘任何推出的东西都必须成功’的预期。但现实是成功应该符合幂律分布——可能只有少数会成功，大多数要么毫无产出，要么直接失败。

It doesn't work linearly. Why corporate way of thinking is linear? So each project that has been approved, but even the one that passed through pilot POC validation, they are sort of on point the launch in the market or you do the due diligence for acquiring something, then you will get some expectation and your expectation that anything that is launched should work. But the reality is still there should be a power law of that working then and some of them might be the ones, probably a few of them. Most of them would probably produce nothing or they will just go belly up.

这种误解在处理成熟创新时依然存在，但即便是成熟创新也受幂律支配。我认为企业至今未能理解这点，导致了很多问题。你如何看待

But this misconception remains also when you deal with mature innovation, but still also the mature innovation is subject to the power law. And that's the part that I believe corporates don't get it and it's creating a lot of issues. How do you

是的，我想对此稍微唱个反调。因为任何投资，无论大小、间接直接、投入时间还是金钱，都需要定义成功的参数和价值主张。也许这个价值主张是基于假设的客户流失预防——这正是我们商业案例的典型目标：延长客户留存时间。

Yes, I would say a little bit of devil's advocate on that one. Because anything that you invest in, be it small, large, be it indirect, direct, it by time or money, there are some parameters of what success would look like, why you do it. There is a value case behind it. Maybe the value case is based on assumed churn prevention, which is very typical of what we business cases. It will keep our customers for longer.

如果我把所有防止客户流失的商业案例和创新都算上，理论上我们应该实现负流失率。但现实并非如此。因此在这些成功参数中，我认为关键是要建立时间框架和实现路径，明确底线情景、基准情景和乐观情景，并设置时间节点。对于早期项目，由于成功率较低，应该采用更高的折现率，只有达到特定节点才能预期正收益。

And if I count up all the business cases, all the innovations that will stop our customers churning we would have negative churn. But that is not always the case. So within those parameters of success I think it is very important regardless of the stage of the change project, I would call it that instead of innovation, would be a timeframe and a realisation and certain assumptions with obviously your low case, your base case and your high case and a timing framework. And that is I think the place where you need to be flexible with the assumptions is to say okay this is a very early stage project so the likelihood of success is much lower over this timeframe, therefore you have a higher discount rate. So only at this point should we expect a positive benefit.

如果缺乏完善的商业案例管理和投资组合收益追踪，自然会陷入企业典型的短视陷阱——‘这个没效果’，却忘了我们当初说过需要七年才能见效。无论是小额投资、合作还是并购，如果没有完整的成功时间视野，就无法创造价值。比如并购中最大的错误之一，就是低估了实现商业案例中模拟协同效应所需的整合活动。十五年前我的硕士公司金融论文就研究过：公平意见书真能在并购中创造价值吗？结论与创新投资如出一辙——如果没有正确的时间视野和假设，比如对协同效应的合理预期，就无法在投资首日验证其价值，更不用说在第十天评估回报了。

And until if you don't have proper business case management and portfolio management benefit tracking of course it is going to fall privy to the typical corporate slice and dice oh this isn't working, yeah but we forgot that we said this is going to take seven years to take off. Right, similar even if you and why I say devil's advocate whether it be a small investment or a partnership or a big investment like a merger and acquisition, if you don't have the full scope or timeline of horizon in mind for success you are not going to create value. So for example in mergers and acquisitions one of the biggest mistakes that a lot of corporates make is they underestimate the post merger integration activities to capture the synergies that were simulated in an original business case when you made the offer. So more than one and a half decades ago I wrote my first corporate finance thesis for my Masters on the fact that do fairness opinions create value in M and A or does and A typically destroy value? And the findings were, which is the same as in innovation project investment, if you do not have the right horizon and assumptions and expectations in place, so are you fair on the synergy assumptions that actually validate the value of your investment at day one to see if you made a return by day 10, for example if it is a ten day horizon.

如果不采取正确行动且缺乏合理假设，自然无法实现预期价值。这本质上是同一回事。我认为关键在于参数设定、敏感度和可能性评估——这些才是真正的决策点。而在企业运营周期中，需要找到支持者明确表态：虽然我们最初约定需要两三年时间，但即便两三年后未达预期，也要进行复盘分析，查明原因并为团队建立学习闭环。

If you don't do the right things and you don't have the right assumptions then of course it is not going to realise expected value. So it is exactly the same thing. So I think in the parameter setting and the sensitivity and the likelihood that is where you set it. But then within the corporate cycle it is to have that sponsor that says yes but we agreed initially this is going to take two years or three years. But then also if you said two to three years, if it didn't happen do the post mortem, understand why and create the learning loop for others.

正如我所说，这套方法论适用于从风险投资到并购活动、资产剥离等全流程。这是种值得培养的良好机制，即便在最严格的企业架构中也能贯彻实施。然后要激励高管思考：还能采取哪一两个额外措施？若能将其转化为效益指标，我认为就成功了。

And that's throughout like I said from a venture all the way to your M and A activities, your divestment activities etc. So that's just good hygiene which you can instil even in the strictest of corporate setups, right? And then inspiring your executives to say, what's the one or two extra measures? But if you can divert that into a benefit metric, then I think you're winning.

我同意，你说到了关键——设定合理预期与正确周期。因为创新分三种：核心创新能立即产生价值，周边创新需要时间沉淀，而战略创新则需更长时间才能显现价值。最终获得的是战略选择权。

Yeah, I agree and I think you say the right word. That's up the right expectation about right horizons. Because again, innovation, unless you're working on very h one innovation and the very adjacent to the core, something that actually you deploy and off you go with a clear immediate value. Anything is horizon two and horizon three takes some time to get to the point that will become a real value. The value will be the strategic optionality that you're getting.

但三次尝试中可能只获得一次选择权。这常被误解，因为并购时企业常把创新项目与传统业务混为一谈。他们困于估值困境——很多公司收购初创企业时感到困惑，因为传统并购估值模型根本不适用。

But you get one optionality out of three attempts. You don't get optionality out of all of the three. And sometime it is misconception because at the end, when we go through the M and A, most of the corporate treat M and A of your stuff or innovation, call it whatever you like, at the same table. So they're struggling with the valuation that are, obviously they are in certain way. I see many company that feel the rate when they buy a startup because the traditional M and A matrix doesn't fit at all.

收购EBITDA为负的初创企业后，他们虽感勉强，但出于合规要求仍要强行估值并坚持执行。

I can buy a startup with a negative EBITDA, all that value and at the end, so they feel about that they got it. Force themselves and then but still they need to also for compliance reasons they need to put something and then they go stick with that and at the end.

确实，任何交易结构都涉及如何激励双方。我相信公平交易原则——这很关键。除合规和传统估值外，正如你提到的，还有各种工具和选择权来设计交易后成功路径。当然取决于是否全盘收购等因素。但我认为通过情商管理，能获得很多——比如对方创始人或所有者对你的事业成功仍保有内在关切。

Yeah, and I think that is also how you, I mean in any deal structure it is also how you incentivise both sides, right? I believe in fairness in all transactions And that makes a big difference to okay, one there is always the compliance aspect, is the valuation aspect with the vanilla traditional approaches I would say it that way. But then there is also all the tools and options you have, like you mentioned, optionality to engineer the post closing success. Of course it depends if you do a full out or not etc. But I do believe that there is quite a lot that you can gain just from some emotional intelligence that the founders on the other side or the owners on the other side still have some inherent interest in the success of what you are doing.

无论是收购困境企业准备转型，还是合资或部分收购，都要成为可信赖的投资者。这应是你的本心——因为承担风险就是为了创造价值。交易结构不仅需要量化分析，还需要情商智慧来维系。

Be it buying a failing business and you are going to do a turnaround. They still inherently would like to see it as a turnaround, right, because it is whatever the case may be, their baby project or whatever. Or if it is a joint venture or if it is a partial acquisition etc. You need to be seen as the trusted investor because that truly should be your intention and to create value because that's why you take the risk. But also that there is still just another some emotional intelligence is also needed not just quantification into a deal structure.

我认为这正体现了优质谈判与劣质谈判的区别。你可以达成一项价值惊人的交易，但对方可能带着被操纵的感觉离开——我不想用'强奸'这个词，但确实有被操控感。我们都不希望对方有这种感觉，对吧？所以必须确保对话公平，让双方都能带着良好感受离开谈判桌。特别是在风险投资这种我们占少数股权的合伙关系中，这就像一场婚姻——我们全力以赴追求共赢。

And that's also I think the difference in between sometimes good negotiation and bad negotiations, right? So you can have an incredible deal with incredible value and the party other might walk away feeling completely I wouldn't use the word rape because I don't know if I want to use that word but feel manipulated. And you also don't want that feeling, right? So it has to be fair conversation and a good negotiation for both parties to walk away with a good feeling and I think that also is like the especially if it is a partnership, like a venture investment where we take a minority stake, whatever the case may be, that it is like a marriage. So we are in it to win it.

我们不会半心半意地合作，而是期待共同成功。因为他们的胜利就是我们的胜利，这是我们努力的方向。但正如我所说，并非所有投资都能如愿。有些项目确实未能达到预期，毕竟不是每个公主都能成为新娘，对吧？

We are not half pregnant and hopefully win together because if they win we win. And that is something that we obviously work on. But also like I said it is not always the case. There are some ventures that we have participated in that have not turned out as we'd hoped. But not every princess becomes a bride, right?

这也是我们心知肚明的现实。

So it's also a reality that we are well aware of.

我想回到另一个话题：关于您主导创新却不承担结果的角色让我很感兴趣。您说自己是CEO的客观谏言者，但最终无论我们做什么，结果都不由我们负责。能否详细说明这点？

Let me go back to another topic, I think, that corporate conversation got my attention was your role of leading innovation, but actually you are not owning the results. You're not responsible for the results. And again, you say, I'm an impartial voice of reason to the CEO, but at the end, whatever we do, again, we put the fees but at the end the outcomes are not on us. Can you elaborate a bit more about that?

是的，这是作为CEO乃至所有高管的陪练伙伴的双重性。我们既要通过变革项目或创新项目来启发支持他们，又远不止于此——有时就是协助解决日常业务难题。在RACI矩阵中，虽然战略团队（不仅是我个人，这是团队协作）没有'负责'和'问责'的标记，但这不意味着我们缺乏责任感。

Yeah, that's a dichotomy of being the sparing partner not only to the CEO but to all executives. One is to obviously inform, inspire and support them both on change projects or innovation projects but also far more than that. Sometimes also just helping them solve a problem in the business day to day. In the RACI map just because in the RACI map the strategy team because I won't say only myself because it's a team effort I just happen to be a proxy. Just because we do not have the responsibility and accountability tick does not mean we do not feel the responsibility

而且

and

我们常处于'被咨询'的技术定位，同时负责信息同步。这是个很有意思的部门。但我要说，如果组织取消这个独立公正、没有私心项目、能激发特定领域探索欲的团队，创新速度会远比想象中放缓。难道要把责任和问责都强加给我们吗？

accountability. Often we are consulted that is technically where our tech sits in the RACI map and we keep others informed. It is an interesting department to be part of. However, if I had to say as an organisation do nothing and do not have a team that is impartial, independent and don't have pet projects etc etc to facilitate, stimulate and encourage curiosity on certain topics, I think you would slow down a lot more than happiness. Would you make it responsible and accountable?

不，我认为我们都对公司的成功负有共同的责任和担当。去年年底我们制定了新战略，未来四年我如何判断自己作为战略官是否成功？第一，战略落地情况如何？第二，业务部门是否具备可实施性？第三，当计划出现偏差时，团队是否仍有动力持续推进？

No, I think we all share responsibility and accountability for the success of the company. So we defined a new strategy at the end of last year, in the next four years how will I determine if I was successful as a Strategy Officer? So one, how did the strategy land? Two, was it implementable by the business? And three, was people motivated to continue with it when sometimes it doesn't go as planned?

对吧？因为现实总会发生意外。所以我并非...正因如此我们才有优秀的高管团队来实现目标。但归根结底，当我查看财务报表时，通过我们的参与度、影响力、投入以及战略架构——毕竟这是高管战略，CEO战略——就能间接判断这个叙事和计划是否足够完善。

Right? Because realities happen. So yes, I am not. That's why we have great executives to make that happen. But at the end of the day indirectly I will know when we look at our financials whether our participation and influence and input and structuring of the strategy because of course it's the executive strategy, CEO strategy was a good enough narrative and plan.

因此我认为管理确实时有难度，但最终这取决于CEO的决策权。当计划出现偏差时，CEO自然会问'发生了什么，让我们共同解决'。这时作为独立顾问的角色就至关重要，要让所有XCO成员感受到支持，因为我们终究在同一条船上，这是我们共同想要壮大的公司。这就是我的观点。我不愿...

So I would say that it is difficult to manage at times, however then it also comes down to the CEO's mandates because the CEO will of course, when there is something that doesn't go to plan, say okay what's going on, let's solve it together. And that's where it's important to be that sparring partner independently to all XCO members, that they feel supported to solve it because at the end of the day we're in the same pot together, it's our company that we want to make great. So I see it that way. I wouldn't want to No,

我认为这非常合理，因为最终你提供的是更全面的工具包。工具是否被使用及使用方式虽不取决于你，但某种程度上又与你相关——因为你是赋能者，是文化变革者。

I think it makes a lot of sense because at the end, you are providing the tools, broader set of tools. At the end is not up to you if the tools will be used and how they will be used. But it's also up to you because again, you are also the enabler, you are the culture changer.

是的，我认为关键在于

Yeah, I think it comes

——如果你工作到位，工具被正确使用、在适当时机发挥作用的概率就会大幅提升。

down And if you do properly your work, you have a bigger chance that the tool will be used and they will use in the proper way in the proper time.

确实。作为团队和公司我们学到的经验是：无论推进哪个变革项目，关键在于你带来的叙事逻辑和背后依据。如果无法让该业务板块的高管相信你提出的变革项目或创新项目的价值，后期就难以成功。所以核心在于：我们是否选对了投资方向？为什么？

Yeah. There are lessons that I think we've learned as a team and as a company, is that when and if you bring something to the table regardless of which change project it is, what is the narrative and what is the case behind it. Because if you are unable to get the executive of this particular segment to believe in the narrative or the change project or the innovation project that you bring to the table, it will not be successful later on. So it's also about did we select the right things to invest in? Why?

从‘为什么’开始并保持一致，因为对于一个真正践行路线图使命的领导者来说，若要对交付成果负责，中途改变方向是非常困难的。这某种程度上也考验我们作为战略制定者的有效性——能否确保核心理念真实持久，且行动理由清晰明确。如果理由不充分，我们就不该行动。正如我反复强调的，每当你对某事说‘是’，就意味着对其他事说‘不’。因此我认为，我们所有战略制定者都要像陪练伙伴那样保持警醒：我们仍在做正确的事吗？

Start with why and then be consistent with that because it's very difficult for a leader that is responsible and accountable for something to be delivered to change course if they actually are an ambassador for the things on the roadmap. So it does come back a little bit to how effective are we as strategists to ensure that that narrative and that belief is true and it stays and it's clear as to why we do that. And if it's not clear then we shouldn't be doing it. Like I said again, whatever you say yes you say no to something else. So that to me I also believe is very much being that sparing partner, all of us strategists, is okay are we still doing the right thing?

为什么？请明确表态：加入还是退出？这里不接受模棱两可。如果心存疑虑——考虑到我们‘信任、勇气、成长’的核心价值观——那么请问：你是不信任这个计划？还是缺乏执行的勇气？

Why? Okay are you in or are you out? No half pregnant here. And if don't believe in it then also part of our values is trust, courage and growth, then okay do you not trust it? Do you not have the courage to do it?

并且要坦诚面对，对吧？我认为这恰恰是企业文化的基础：这是流程问题，无关个人。虽然对我这样感性的人来说很难做到，因为我常把个人身份寄托在某些事物上。但这是个很好的提醒：你为何不相信？我能否调整视角？

And be transparent about it, right? So I think that's also very fundamental in the company culture that it's a process, it's not personal, And that's sometimes very difficult for a very emotional person like myself because I do really put my identity sometimes in two things. But that's a good reminder. Why do you not believe it? Can I adjust the perspective?

如果不能，或许我该针对这个具体案例或假设调整自己的视角。

If not, maybe I should adjust my own perspective on this particular case or assumptions.

或许时机不对，或许人员不匹配，或许业务单元不合适，又或许应急方案欠妥。我认为创新工作者（或你所说的开放式创新变革者）的职责之一，就是选择必须打的仗。有时内部政治环境会导致战役无法获胜——关键人员不到位的情况确实存在。

Well, maybe it's not the right time or maybe it's not the right people, maybe it's not the right unit or maybe it's not the right contingency. At some time I believe that the role of people working in innovation, open innovation change as you prefer to call it, is also to pick up the battles that you need to fight. Yeah. Sometimes there are some political internal condition that do not allow the battle to be won. There is not the right people.

是的，当下时机成熟，需求明确，但团队成员不匹配。如果强行组队就会失败，不如转向成功概率更高的方向。

Yes. The time is now. The need is there, but the people are not the right ones. If I play with that team, I lose. And so it's better to divert when there is definitely a larger chance of success.

不，我认为始终存在选择余地。当然时机、团队和文化确实关键。但这也取决于高管层能否培育适宜土壤。幸运的是KPN的领导层非常开明，这很有帮助——虽然并非事事如此，因为他们也清楚资源和人力的局限性。我们确实不具备完成所有事情的全方位能力。

No, I think there's always there's sorry, always there's always choices. And of course timing is really important team and culture. But there again it is also up to the executives to create that nurturing ground. So fortunately I know for KPN our executives are very open so that helps but not always on everything because they also know that they have limited capacity, limited people. Of course we don't have all the competencies that are possible to do everything.

我是说，作为一个公司，即便我们拥有极其聪明勤奋的员工，这也是不可能实现的。有时候就是时机未到，对吧？这不是拒绝，只是现在不行，或者有时确实是明确的拒绝，但没关系。你也必须尊重这一点。

I mean that impossible to have as a company even though we have incredibly smart hard working people. That's also sometimes it's just not now, right? It's not a no, but just not now or sometimes it is a clear no, but okay. So you have to respect that as well.

是的。让我转到另一个我认为超级相关的话题——创新关键绩效指标（KPIs），衡量你们产出的成果。让我再引用你的话，有时我会说我不相信创新的绝对影响力。

Yeah. Let me bring you to another topic that I think is super relevant. It is innovation KPIs, measuring the outcome that you are producing. Let me quote you again. Sometimes say that I don't believe in the absolute impact of innovation.

那么你能帮我详细阐述这个话题吗？如何衡量创新？可量化的创新成果是怎样的？在你的...

So can you help me elaborate this topic? How do you measure innovation? How is measurable innovation outcomes? On your

团队里？是的，《衡量重要之事》是本很棒的书，对吧？但在创新领域，这又取决于定义是什么。如果是变革项目，你从何时开始衡量？

team? Yeah. Measure What Matters is a great book, right? But in innovation it depends again on what is the definition, right. So if it is a change project, when do you start measuring?

首先这也是我个人纠结的问题。我们该从何时开始衡量？是从探索概念阶段开始，还是从与公司接洽时，或是进行用户体验设计时？具体哪个节点才真正进入追踪周期？这是第一个问题。第二个问题是：假设我们确定了开始追踪的时间点，那具体要追踪什么？

Firstly that is also something that personally struggle with. When do we start measuring? Is it from the moment that we start exploring the concept, engaging with a company or engaging on a UX design, at what point do you actually start the tracking period? Is the first one. The second one is then okay, if we know when we are at least going to start tracking then what are we going to track?

所以先确定'何时'，再明确'追踪什么'。而'追踪内容'又要回溯到'我们为何相信需要这样做'。比如：这将极大加速我们为客户推出增值服务的速度——目前需要三个月，而你想在三天内完成，节省的两个月零二十七天相当于X万欧元，乘以规模效应，很棒。这很清晰，就是时间节省。

So first the when and then what are we going to track. And the what then links back to the why do we believe we want to do this. So okay this is going to really speed up our ability to launch a value added service to our customers in the checkout. Currently it takes us three months, you want to do it in three days and that saving of two months and twenty seven days will equate to x thousands of Euros, okay that multiplied, okay cool. That is clear, time saving.

开发人员工时的时间红利，非常明确。我们如何衡量？很简单：一旦功能上线，增值服务的平均速度是多少？是否存在差异？

Time dividend of developer hours, very clear. How are we going to measure that? Okay, it is very easy. We are going to say once the capability is launched what is the average speed of the VUS? Is there a delta?

但我有个疑问，好吧，我们现在三天就完成了，这很棒。但原本两个月的开发工时去哪了？我们是真的节省了这些工时吗？还是说我们把它们重新分配到了更高绩效的项目上？没错。

But then I have the question, okay, we now do it in three days, fantastic. But where did the two months and twenty seven days of developer hours go elsewhere? Did we actually save it because of course it's still man hours? Or did we reallocate it now to more high performing projects? Right.

因为这个理念就是要释放能带来价值的时间和产能。所以我认为关键在于何时开始、衡量什么，这非常项目特定，然后量化目标——这个项目的目的是什么？可能是工时，可能是流失率，也可能是其他指标。但要非常明确：项目是否已启动？我们目标的差值是多少？如果没达成目标，我们实际能感受到影响吗？在哪里？

Because the idea is to free up time and capacity which brings value. So I think there it is really about when do you start, what to measure, it is very project specific and then quantifying okay what is the objective why of that project And it could be time hours, it could be churn, it could be whatever. But being very clear okay, is it now started? What is the delta that we target? And if that is not achieved, do we actually feel it and where?

还是说我们只是没给工程师们安排更多任务？所以他们感受不到区别，依然觉得我们总让他们加班——因为我们没有为他们创造更多需求。我觉得这很棘手，但必须要有明确价值，否则何必做呢？如果说这个项目的价值在于改善员工居家办公的网络连接，那具体意味着什么？可能会降低流失率，因为员工在家网络不好时压力会很大。

Or did we just not fill up the engineers' backlog with more stuff? So they don't feel the difference, they still feel like we are stretching them all the time for working late hours because we are just not creating more demand for them. So I think that it is a very difficult one but there clearly has to be some value otherwise why do it in the first place? If we say okay the value of this project is going to improve employees work from home office internet connection, so okay what does that mean? Okay well it might reduce churn because obviously employees get very stressed when they are working from home and the internet connection is not good.

因此我们可以间接假设：如果能通过某种技术实现这一点，并作为KPN客户的免费增值服务提供网络保障，客户就更可能留在KPN——因为他们感受到我们关心其工作的重要性。在这个混合办公的新时代，我们确保你能顺畅工作，这样就能重新计算商业案例：预计能减少多少流失率？因为网络不稳定导致多少Teams通话问题？你可以建立假设，然后验证：上线后相关投诉是否减少？如果没有，那有多少用户在使用这服务？

Therefore we can indirectly assume if we had to be able to do that or support that through some kind of technology and give that surety guarantee as a free additional value added service if you are a customer at KPN. You are more likely to stay with KPN because you feel that we care, that we know that your job is important to you. And therefore in the new world where we all work hybrid, we ensure that you are able see so you can then create the business case again how much churn do we think we prevent by this, how many call drivers are there because I am doing a Teams call and I have an unstable internet connection. So you can make assumptions and then say okay has the number of calls of this topic reduced since we've gone live? Okay, not really but okay how many users are using it?

我们激活这个功能了吗？这样你才能开始分析过程。但你要记住最终目标是减少因居家办公网络问题导致的流失。虽然需要些分析工作，但前期设定非常重要。这也是我常和创新团队乃至普遍遇到的困境。

Have we activated it? So then you can start the dissecting process. But you do know that the ultimate goal was less churn based on home connectivity when on a work call. And then so it does take a little bit of dissecting but setting it up in the beginning is very important. So that's the struggle that I sometimes have also with my own innovation teams or in general.

在企业里很容易说'我们做这个因为它能让事情变好'。不，必须要有明确价值，而且要提前定义。我们要如何衡量成功？哪怕只是个简单KPI，也要在开始时就设定成功标准。这是最基本的准则——无论是个人发展、职业成长、感情生活、工作还是商业案例都要设定目标。

In a corporate it's very easy to be like oh we just do it because it makes things better. No, there has to be value behind it and you have to determine it beforehand. So how are we going to measure if this is a success or not? Even if it's just one stupid KPI but already in the beginning set what is success going to look like. And that's just basic hygiene and setting goals be it in your personal development, your career development, your romantic life, your work life, your business cases.

要有衡量成功的标准，或至少知道你想通过做/不做这件事避免什么——至少清楚要规避什么。我认为这是项目初期非常重要的事。如果不明确，就要不断回溯直到明确为止。

Have a metric of what success looks like or at least know what you want to avoid by not doing it or by doing it this is at least what I am going to avoid. So I think that is a very important thing in the beginning of the process. And if it is not clear, keep coming back to it until it's clear.

不，再说一次，如果最终没有关键绩效指标（KPI），你就无法终止它。这就是我们之前讨论的问题——最终我们不断做事只是为了做而做，却不去定义它。是的，有可能。我看到的问题，也是我与你们许多同行都面临的困境，就在于虽然存在一些可衡量、可获取的具体成果（或如你所说的红利），但还有更多无形的红利正在产生，这些极难衡量和预测，但它们确实存在。所以我认为你们的工作会产生品牌影响力、战略转型影响力，甚至潜在的文化影响力。

No, again, if you don't have KPIs at the end, you cannot unplug it. And that's the problem that we were discussing before that at the end we keep continuing to do things just for the sake of doing and not call it. Yeah, possible. The problem that I see and then I struggle with many of your peers is again, there are some tangible outcomes, some tangible dividends the way you call it that you can get and you can measure, but there are more intangible dividends that you are producing that are very difficult to measure and to anticipate, but they are. So I think about what you do as a branding impact as a strategic transformation impact, potentially a cultural impact.

如何衡量你们产生的这类本质上无形却对成果至关重要的红利？

How to measure this kind of dividends that you are producing that are intangible by definition but they are material for their outcomes.

是的，这让我想到企业公民贡献这个概念。虽然衡量非常困难，但任何事情的试金石始终是它是否对社会、环境、治理或安全总体上做出了积极贡献。是或否，对吧？简单的是非题。积极影响，是或否。

Yeah, so that makes me think about corporate citizenship contribution as a corporate citizen society. It is a very difficult measure however the litmus test for anything is always that it does have a positive contribution in general either to society, the environment or governance and safety. Yes or no, right? Is a simple yes or no. Positive impact, yes or no.

这就是试金石。思考衡量次要影响的目的是什么——只要确认是否应该继续。因此，即使项目可能未达到财务指标，但其间接影响极其积极。例如某些在冲突地区支持的创新项目，财务上虽不总是合理，但企业公民行为对社会特定群体意义重大，你们作为企业公民仍肩负责任。

That is the litmus test. Think what is the purpose of measuring that secondary impact would be okay do we continue with something yes or no. So even if the project maybe is not achieving its financial metrics but its indirect impacts are extremely positive. For example, you can think of certain innovations that you support in areas of conflict. So of course financially it doesn't always make sense but your corporate citizenship makes a big difference to a certain part of society and you still have a role to play as a corporate citizen.

我认为衡量影响力或效果的标准需因事而异，但必须保持开放态度。不过这不该成为启动创新项目的标准。

I think those metrics to measure the impact or the influence is a case by case method but you do need to be open to it. But that can't be the criteria that you use to start an innovation.

不，确实不该。我唯一的担忧，也是我想结束这场精彩对话的原因在于：你们许多人日常工作依赖支持，但我们常看到高层支持者因无法量化你们创造的价值而退出。实际上价值确实存在，问题只是难以衡量。所以我同意没有好的KPI就不该开始。你说哪怕是愚蠢的KPI——至少我们尝试去衡量可衡量的部分。

No, it's not. My only concern and then where I like to end this beautiful conversation is since again, for living with support many of you use your daily job and most of the time we see that many of you lose the top level by in support because they are not able to justify the value that you put on the table. And the reality is they are putting value on the table, the problem is just difficult to measure. So I agree with you that without a good KPI, you shouldn't even start. You say also stupid KPI, at least we have, because we need to have at least the attempt to measure what is measurable.

但有些东西本质就难以衡量，而这恰恰是你们工作的核心所在。

But there's something that by definition in essence is difficult to be measured, that at the end is the essence of your job.

而且如果

And if

如果在下一次政府换届时你无法证明这一点，你可能

you're not able to prove it at the next government change you might

是的，我认为这部分可以回溯到——简单总结一下，我认为归根结底是企业文化和对目标的信念。我们KPN的整体战略就是以目标为导向的，'将整个荷兰连接到一个可持续的未来'。因此我们在这个领域非常认真地对待自己的角色。不过那个试金石确实有帮助，对吧？我们做的每件事都有正反两面。

be Yeah, and I think that share goes back to and also just to summarize that, I think it comes down to company culture and belief in a purpose. So our whole strategy at KPN is very purpose driven, connect all of The Netherlands to a sustainable future. So we take our role very seriously in this area. However, that litmus test does help, right? Whatever we do is a positive or negative.

然后当我们发现某个领域存在加强力度的机会时——可能是某些利益相关方未能尽责，无论是政府、私营部门、甚至我们的竞争对手——当然你有责任去思考'我们能为此做些什么'。但接下来就要判断'这属于我们的职责范围吗？'。如果不属于，那我们需要评估'要承担这个角色需要多少投入？'；如果确实属于我们的职责，那就当作常规商业案例来处理。我认为这个试金石标准始终适用，而且在一个民主开放、不断变化的社会中运作本身就是件好事，因为需要适应新要求和影响能让你保持诚信、与时俱进并持续创新。

And then in the event that we see that there is an opportunity to step up in an area where maybe certain stakeholders are failing, be it governmental or not or private or even our conduit, a competition, of course you have the responsibility to say okay what can we do about it, right? But then it becomes okay is this our role, yes or no? And if it is not our role, okay but how big is the investment needed for us to still play that role, right? And if yes it is a role for us to play, okay then it is a normal business case, right? So I think that litmus test stays and it is also about I think it is a good thing that you work in a or you operate in a society that is democratic and open and changing and you need to adapt to new requirements and influences because it keeps you honest, keeps you relevant and it keeps you innovating actually.

举例来说，在地缘政治或金融形势变化中展现适应能力，正是你灵活性的体现。我认为真正检验创新力的标准是：你能否在并非一帆风顺时，甚至当遇到意外状况时，依然保持足够的灵活性和稳定性来克服困难并提出解决方案。这对社会有益，当然也对企业及其股东有利。所以，

To be adaptable in changing geopolitical scenarios for example, financial scenarios also shows your flexibility muscle and that is I think how you truly know whether you are innovative or not is that you can adapt even it is not only when it is all sunshine and roses but sometimes also when there is some unexpected things on your path that you are flexible enough but also steady enough to overcome them and come with a solution. Good for society, of course good for you as a company and for your shareholders. So yeah, I think that's also

因为最后再引用你的话——我们讨论的不是创新，而是变革项目。大多数时候变革是件好事。非常感谢你抽时间参与，本杰。

Because we're the end quoting you again, we're not talking about innovation, we're talking about change projects and changing is most of the time is good, is a good thing. So thank you so much, Benji, for for your time.

谢谢你，阿尔贝托。

Thank you, Alberto.

我们继续交谈，因为稍后我还会从你那里得到更多信息。你。

We keep up our conversation because, again, in a while, I will have some more input from you. You.

很高兴和你聊天。非常感谢你抽时间。

Lovely to talk. Thank you so much for the time.

感谢您今天与我们相聚，下期《开放创新对话：Mind the Bridge与行业领袖访谈》再见。

Thank you for being with us today and see you in the next episode of Open Innovation Talks Mind the Bridge Chat with Industry Leaders.