Retirement is an out of date concept

Retirement or not

It may be heresy to say this, but retirement is an out of date concept, born of an earlier age.

For many people the onset of internet based technology and more recently discussions about AI are making them scared and more inclined to want to keep the world of work in a similar pattern to the past. This includes a view that the retirement age shouldn’t go up but in fact should go down, so that people have more time “post work”. But perhaps the reverse is true? Perhaps we need to refashion what work means and the idea that it starts and stops in the way it might once have in the 20th Century? Now is the time to recognise that work is changing and we should proactively use this as an opportunity to re-imagine work.

Work is good for us. It gives us purpose and can be stimulating in a range of different ways. Purpose is so critical to living healthier and happier lives.

Technology overthrows past behaviours, activities and perceptions, but it also enables new ways of interacting with others and with the wider world that our predecessors could never have imagined. It makes it easier for people to monetise some of their skills and capabilities in other ways, including online. We can make technology work for the wider society.

If we re-imagine retirement then what are some guiding principles?

  • Work is a positive force for good. People should continue to work for as long as they can, but in very different ways and in order to be healthy and motivated and not just to make money.
  • The government should look at how it makes “education for life” a real option for everyone. In other words how government enables people to retrain in different ways to enable them to follow different types of work at different times in their lives
  • People are living much longer lives. The state shouldn’t be expected to pay pensions for 30 years for people if they don’t make any other form of contribution back to society.
  • However, the state should proactively look at how it facilitates older people finding new types of work and giving back to society for a wage.
  • Ageism is rife in society. It needs to be opposed as vigorously as any other form of prejudice.

We should use the COVID crisis to re-imagine our Society for the better and not feel the need to re-entrench past views and a mythical view of better times.

A lot of work will need to be done to create the right environment for this to happen, but we should start sooner rather than later, if we want to ensure that the UK continues to be productive and mould breaking.

What are the sacred cows in the NHS and UK healthcare system?

sacred-cow

At a time when the NHS is creaking under the strain of ever increasing costs there are a number of sacred cows that frequently get commented upon, but never get resolved and must eventually be key to a better solution. These scared cows graze happily in the grassy uplands of healthcare largesse, content in the knowledge that it is incredibly difficult to deal with them once and for all. Here are eight of these sacred cows:

1.      The ever increasing number of NHS managers and administrative staff at the expense of frontline staff. In spite of years of cross party rhetoric about the need for more frontline staff and less admin staff, the reality doesn’t seem to get a lot better. In fact the number of NHS manager numbers has risen by a quarter in 5 years. More than 6000 managers have been hired since April 2013 taking the number from 26,051 to 32,133 in October 2017. Pay offs for managers have cost £2billion with at least £92million going to staff who were quickly rehired. Now of course this is consistent with other areas of government like the Ministry of Defence where frontline personnel numbers go down while the numbers of civil servants go up

2.      The rising cost of negligence compensation and the role of lawyers in this cost. The total potential NHS negligence liability has risen from £29billion in 2014-15 to £65billion in 2017-18. Legal costs account for 37% of payouts for negligence, but somehow the lawyers are not being chastised.

3.      The significant rises in the average level of GP pay. 15,190 GPs earned more than £100,000 in 2014/15. More than 200 ‘Super GPs’ in the NHS earned more than £200,000 a year in 2015/16. Some GP’s continue to do astonishingly well out of the system.

4.      The cost of agency staff.  The NHS spent £2.9 billion on agency staff in 2016/17 – down from £3.6 billion in 2015/16, but still £700 million more than in 2009/10. Source NHS improvement 2017. Even when employer costs are added, permanent staff working at plain-time rates are a much more cost-effective solution for employers source Royal College of Nursing 2015. Changes to the tax treatment of locum doctors were introduced in April 2017 with the intention of controlling costs further, but it appears that salaries have risen by an average of 6.3 per cent since these staff were moved from payment through personal service companies to PAYE source The Times 23/10/17

5.      The inequality in female pay in the NHS. Full time female consultants earned £14000 less than their male equivalents source BBC 2018

6.      The misuse of public sector time and resources by private consultants. Too many private consultants do use their public sector resources for personal gain. The British Medical Association said: “There should be no conflict of interest between NHS and private work, and this principle is contained in consultants’ employment contracts. Consultants who want to do private work must first offer to do extra work for the NHS, ensuring NHS work is the priority.” But the reality is that it is often hard for these 2 sides not to get blurred. As some have argued, time spent in the private sector deprives the NHS of consultants’ hours, and creates “a perverse incentive” to increase NHS waiting times to further private business. Either way this is a tough nut to crack and no Health Secretary seems to want to tackle it.

7.      Waste. A 2014 year-long study by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the professional body that represents the country’s 250,000 doctors, found that the health service wastes up to £2.3bn a year on a range of procedures and processes that could be done better, more cheaply or not at all. In August 2017 Professor Tim Briggs, national director of clinical quality and efficiency, said the NHS wasted too much money on poor care and “doesn’t deserve more money until it puts its house in order”. The review of NHS efficiency by Lord Carter of Coles estimated that reducing unwarranted variation in how the NHS procures supplies and delivers care could save £5 billion of the £55.6 billion spent by hospitals each year. There is a genuine recognition of the problem, but will anyone actually solve it?

8.      Restructuring mania. Every government thinks that a “good restructuring” will sort out the NHS, but over the years the cold hard analysis would suggest that this is rarely the case. Certainly the Kings Fund concluded that “Politicians of all parties should be wary of ever again embarking on top-down restructuring of the NHS,” after the reforms of 2013.

If we are going to continue to improve the NHS and ensure that it is fit for purpose, then these issues need a resolution. The sacred cows can’t just be pushed into the long grass.

Why don’t we focus harder on non-medical solutions to healthcare issues?

In a recent study published in the Journal of Scientific Reports, it was demonstrated that for people living alone, having a dog can decrease your risk of death by 33 percent and reduce your risk of cardiovascular-related death by 36% -this is in contrast to people who live alone and don’t have a pet.

As a Medcity author commented, it is hard to find any drug or surgery that does the same without side effects and at a comparable cost.

Oh the magic of a pet!

Happy pets

The reality is that there is too little discussion about the unwritten pact between citizens and the state that the people need to take some responsibility for looking after themselves. Surely we should expect a minimum level of exercise from everyone who wants to use the NHS? Surely we should expect that people take some responsibility for their nutrition? In a world where, quite rightly, we all want the latest and most effective health technology, medicines, treatments and equipment, we must ask people to deliver their side of the bargain. It is time for this “pact” to be a mainstream part of the healthcare debate. It is time for the state to ask people to maintain a certain level of fitness, nutrition and self-preservation. This is not a discriminatory action. This is an example of normal everyday life, where people expect to make choices between different things that they do and don’t want.

3 great innovations for ageing

I came across these 3 innovations in the “ageing” space and wanted to share them

1. Bedal

We have all been in this situation before, when you have some sort of drip attached to your arm or wherever and you just can’t wash etc. Well obviously this problem is more acute for old people. So Bedal enables patients with IV therapy to wash autonomously. Its neat.

2. Sit and shower

Again this is a problem that we can all recognise. But it is less well known that 80% of falls for Seniors occur in the bathroom. Well this is a full on mobile seated shower that can fit into any bathroom without needing any complicated modifications.

3. Moff

Moff is a wearable IOT (Internet of things) 3D motion technology that allows you to monitor real time movements and is designed to change the way people rehabilitate.

10 principles for a 21st Century UK government

It’s no surprise that the 2017 UK General Election is dominated by Brexit and the associated debate. But the danger is that too much of the rhetoric is based on 20th Century thinking; on a country with an established place in the world and the recent history that defined it. Intolerance in all forms is increasing within society, and this also acts as a catalyst to use existing or outdated modes of thinking. It is exactly at a time like this when political leaders need to consider the future more holistically and cast aside some of their old fashioned assumptions about how the country should be governed. Accordingly now is a good time to lay down some core principles for a new government, for a government that is resetting the agenda for the 21st Century and not living by 20th Century rules.

My top 10 principles for future UK governments are as follows:

  1. Free trade. Now that the UK’s relationship with Europe is changing, it must look to establish comprehensive free trade principles across all parts of the world. The UK cannot afford to be half in and half out of Europe; to be neither fish nor fowl. If it is leaving then it needs to set out a new trade philosophy for the world and stick to it. Whatever the result, the UK should be fighting for minimal trade barriers and pushing to reduce the subsidies that artificially inflate prices for consumers.
  2. Freedom of civil rights. It is easy to forget that over the last few centuries many people gave up their lives to win civil liberties for future generations. This was hard fought. We must remain vigilant at keeping these. Although terrorist threats are real and frightening, we should not sacrifice these freedoms in the face of terrorist threats. After all we have faced worse before, without giving in. This means that we should not give away online civil liberties too easily just because we can.
  3. Technology leadership. Technology is at the heart of every aspect of society. We now need to be the masters of own technology destiny. We need to invest in every aspect of technology across industries and in educating all our citizens. We should aim to be at the forefront of technology innovation and see it as a source of future wealth and prosperity rather than as a threat.
  4. Personal responsibility. There is a growing tension between those people who believe that the state should guarantee ever more benefits to its people, without expecting them to take on more personal responsibility, and those who think that society cannot extend its arms ever further. We need to enable and expect people to take on more individual responsibility and be happy to support the minority that cannot, but that minority cannot become the majority. We need to push personal responsibility onto people, as part of our evolving society.
  5. Reinvention. We should be prepared to challenge existing assumptions around every aspect of government. The pace of change continues to increase and societies cannot survive unless they evolve with that change. We must be prepared to reinvent aspects of society and government more frequently. This includes challenging assumptions around healthcare, education, finance, housing and defence. For example  why should the richest members of society have endless access to free healthcare, when the system is struggling to provide free care for the poorest?
  6. Cradle to grave entrepreneurship. We need to help people at every age to work and be self-employed, and not be dependent on an ever smaller group of large employers and the state. This should not be just focused on teaching the youth to code. It is important to help people create new enterprises though into old age – in other words cradle to grave entrepreneurship.
  7. Lifetime education. The most enlightened and richest employers are encouraging their employees to live in an endless cycle of re-education. Given the pace of change, we need to ensure that all society can live in this way. We need to ensure that there is educational capacity to do this across people’s entire lives.
  8. Financial planning. We need to think much more creatively about how we can afford all the aspects of our society. This includes thinking about how we pay for education for children and care for the elderly. We need to facilitate different ways for people’s work to pay for the choices that they want in their life, whether homes, or pensions or care.
  9. Global integration. Whether everyone likes it or not, our world is getting ever more interconnected. We need to debate and define a system that will work for the next 100 years and not just for today. We need to ensure that we engage with other countries and with the most skilled workers that we need, whilst being able to protect our own citizens. At the moment every government of the last 10 years has failed to debate, define or implement anything sustainable. The people do not believe anything that any government tells them about migration.
  10. Sovereign Fund. We need to build our own sovereign fund to enable the country to take a more long-term strategic view on investments.

These principles need to be woven into any future government’s plans. It is likely that this 2017 Election will be unusually short of policy commitments outside of Brexit, but we cannot allow our governments to just focus on the here and now, and not to take key strategic decisions for our future.

Challenger banks – overhyped and under-delivering

challenger-banks

Challenger Banks receive a ton of positive publicity. It would appear as if they are re-inventing the banking sector. But is it justified?

The reality seems very different. They offer relatively little that is new and nothing so far that is game changing.

As Tandem founder Ricky Knox said: “A really cool mobile app is great, but it’s not what is going to drive mass customer uptake.” He promises that they are looking for a new business model which brings new economics to the market in a way that the customer can really perceive.

Well if that is true then we haven’t seen it yet from MetroTandem, Monzo, Atom, Starling, Aldemore or B

To be fair to him, Tandem hasn’t launched his products yet, so maybe he will surprise us. And his criticism of the existing retail banking business model is fair – its more punishment and inertia than anything else.

What we have seen from all of the Challengers is slick marketing, crowdfunding and nice clean user interfaces.

But many of the core banks have fairly reasonable banking apps so that’s not enough.

The problem seems to be threefold:

  1. In spite of the apparent customer focus, too many of these challenger banks have got overexcited about their technology and apps. The fact that Atom bank is excited about using the Unity gaming platform as their underlying software is not helping deliver a better product. There is much talk about hyper personalisation and predictive analytics, but it might be better to show it rather than tell it!
  2. Secondly, although Millenials may apparently like it, who cares about receiving your own logo, and being able to name your bank whatever you want to, as Atom bank does. This feels like a different set of personalised gimmicks to entice me in rather than anything fundamental.
  3. Thirdly in many cases they are just fiddling with the current account and how you can spend and record your money on an everyday basis.

We need a more fundamental look at how banking should be delivered and not just like a fitness app

Still there are 2 reasons to like Challengers even now:

  1. They consistently offer better saving rates than the more established banks. In a world of low inflation, this is helpful. How long they can maintain this across a wider set of products is yet to be seen.
  2. They are definitely trying to provide better access to their customers. Metro Bank’s accessibility is way better than the other established banks

So let’s enjoy the benefits but tone down the hype until they can really demonstrate it!

Why are entrepreneurs failing to disrupt the Professional Services industries?

There is continuous disruption in almost every industry today. So it’s amazing that the professions (lawyers, accountants, auditors, architects etc.) have escaped so unscathed.

Ok so every week we hear about attempts to disrupt one or other professional service. And yes the names on the top of the doors have changed around a bit, yes it’s much more competitive, and yes there have been some tweaks to the operating model, but relatively speaking they march on relentlessly, without any worries. Certainly for most customers, whether consumers, small businesses or Corporates, little has improved.

So what has changed?
The legal industry has seen some important changes, even if most of the effects haven’t been felt widely. These include the following:

1.      The legal industry has deregulated. By 2014, 3 years after this event, there were over 300 applications for Alternative Business structures to run legal services, Including Saga, DLG and PWC.

2.      There are new companies trying out different business models like Riverview Law, which offers a fixed-rate contract, rather than billing by the hour. Riverview Law charges clients an annual fee for all their legal needs up to the point of litigation.

3.      Technology is being used to reduce costs whether this be legal templates like Rocket lawyer, Epoq, or simply-docs or paid Q&A like Just Answer or online compliance checking like Cerico set up by Pinsent Masons. But legal comparison services remain in their infancy and the consumer has yet to engage fully

4.      Private equity has moved in to try to aggregate high street firms into consumer brands like Quality Solicitors.

The truth is that in spite of all of this activity, for most individuals or businesses outside of Legal Aid, access to legal services remains remarkably expensive. Even fairly average solicitors demand a minimum day rate of £1600. It is far easier to get a high quality engineer for less money than a relatively junior solicitor. Frankly it’s a scandal that entrepreneurs haven’t had a greater impact on the professional services. And I can say this as an entrepreneur who raised external investment to disrupt the legal industry, but hasn’t cracked it yet.

Why is this?

Well the main topics of discussion in the legal industry are whether the Partnership structure should survive and whether law firm profitability should be calculated before partner costs as they are currently or whether they should be treated as a cost of sales as in a traditional P&L. This was a core part of the discussion at the Business Leadership Summit organised by The Lawyer in London in September 2015. This is as good as it gets!

The conversation isn’t about what the customer wants and why trust in the profession is in rapid decline. The Legal Services Consumer Panel and YouGov found that only 42% of consumers trust lawyers to tell the truth in 2014, down from 47% in 2011. The decline is mirrored in other professions, the research acknowledges. Lawyers remain more trusted than accountants, bankers and estate agents, but less trusted than teachers and doctors. This is an industry unlike many others, that continues to get away with ignoring the voice of the customer.

In Management consulting, some things have changed in a similar way. There is pressure to reduce costs, there is much more competition and some of the names on the doors are different, but the core principles wouldn’t look out of place in 1980.  So what has changed?

1.      The classic strategy consulting giants have all moved downstream into more executional or implementation work. For example in 2007 Mckinsey launched Mckinsey solutions. This was based on software and technology-based analytics and tools rather than the traditional human capital business model.

2.      As Clayton Christiansen stated in Harvard Business Review in 2013; “the share of work that is classic strategy is now about 20%—down from 60% to 70% some 30 years ago.”

3.      There are more agile competitors like Eden McCallum and Business Talent Group

But in some ways there has been more consolidation and less choice amongst the big consulting groups. The old “Big 8” has been reduced to the Big 4 including PWC, Deloitte, EY and KPMG. This means that an increasing number of companies are having to use these giants for services from audit, assurance, tax, consulting, advisory, actuarial, and corporate finance to legal services.

Fundamentally it remains extremely hard to buy any form of consulting that is based on value generated or results achieved. The industry remains stuck on outdated day rates and continuous selling cycles that actually reduce value for clients.

 

What hasn’t changed?
In spite of all the razzmatazz, the key principles are undisturbed:

  • Most professional services remain as partnerships
  • Most believe that the day rate model should not be changed and have no intention of changing
  • A majority of lawyers and accountants believe that they should charge for every minute from the time they pick up the phone to a customer.
  • There is no sense of customer service.
  • Many of these professional services are so bound up with the establishment that they believe it is their divine right to be paid a high salary. This is particularly true of organisations like the Law Society.

 

Why hasn’t more changed?
Professional services are critical to the success of the UK economy, representing 15% of UK GDP, 14% of employment and 14% of exports source PWC. So it is no surprise and indeed in many ways a good thing, that it is highly respected and that much effort is expended in defending all aspects of the sector. Since 1979 Nuffield election studies show that no less than one in ten MPs from the three main parties have been barristers or solicitors. So although legal services only account for 1.7% of the UK GDP, it has considerable support at the heart of government. This ensures that the industry is well protected.

In the same way that business people used to say “you don’t get fired for choosing IBM”, you now don’t get criticised for selecting Clifford Chance, PWC, Spencer Stuart or McKinsey. And no Non-Executive Director will argue with you on that. This in turn creates a guaranteed market for the traditional professional service firms and little impetus to innovate more than is required.

The Professional services continue to claim that every argument, every problem, is different and requires an unique answer. The reality is that this is no longer true, if it ever was. Technology, outsourcing and business model change can transform the way that challenges are met and answers are given.

 

What should change?
As You Gov polled in 2014, “British people want fewer lawyers and more doctors, scientists and factory workers in Parliament. The professional services are over-represented in all aspects of government. And in spite of the well intentioned deregulation in legal services and other area of professional services, the end customer has not reaped any rewards yet, either in better service or lower costs.

The professional services will only change fundamentally when the following principles are ripped apart:

  • A dependence on hourly and daily rates. This should be replaced by value-based pricing
  • A belief that partnership structures benefit the customer. Firms should become proper corporate structures with standard financial accounting.
  • Traditional Corporate dependence on the big audit firms. This should be opened up to the wider market.
  • An unpreparedness to be judged on results.

The artificially high costs of most professional services keep them out of reach for most SME’s and consumers. This remains an incredible business opportunity for an entrepreneur. In addition very few professional services firms understand the power of the brand to engage the customer and disrupt an industry. It’s only a matter of time before someone builds a professional services brand that rapidly gains trust and takes market share, by improving the service it provides and changing the business model that drives it. Let’s hope that more entrepreneurs take up the challenge

 

The Uber of something…

In the last week, three different people have pitched me the line, “we are going to be the Uber of x,y or z..”

In each case they have waited expectantly for me to respond enthusiastically about their elevator pitch.

I don’t want to be a killjoy, but please spare me this “boil in a bag” entrepreneurship. As someone who has made their fair share of elevator pitches, I do really understand the need for clarity and brevity. I recognise how powerful an analogy from another market sector can be, particularly when it is a multi-billion dollar success story. But if everyone is using the same unicorn references to bolster their own story then it becomes meaningless.

The problem is that the media is feeding everyone the hype that one can become a billionaire overnight by reading the right textbooks and going to the right “tech meet ups” and saying the right things, but the reality is that this happens to a tiny percentage of people. For the rest there is no shortcut. As an entrepreneur or any business person today, you have to work harder than ever to create an individual story for your brand. The story needs to be authentic and passionate, a beacon of light for customers who have the problem or the need that you are solving.

I know personally how difficult it is to find, synthesize and articulate that simple powerful story. I have done it for some businesses but not every time. Equally i know how valuable it is when you get it right. And that is never the result of short-handing or plagiarising other brands’s stories.

So let’s avoid being the “AirBNB of a,b or c”!

flock, crowd

Marketing technology or ad technology – should we care about the difference?

I recently flew out to San Francisco to attend the MarTech 2015 conference. I was struck by the different perspectives on marketing in the US from what I had encountered in the UK.

What do I mean and why does it matter?

In the US, marketing technology is seen as being more disruptive to the existing marketing status quo, than it is in the UK.

Firstly it is going to become a huge industry. Neeraj Agrawal of Battery Ventures talked about it growing from $5bn to $40-50bn. And Ashu Garg of Foundation Capital believes that Technology spend by CMO’s will grow 10x from $12bn to $120bn over the next 10 years.

Secondly it is going to disrupt every part of the marketing value chain. This will include design, marketing automation, customer data, experience optimisation, personalisation and many others and not just ad technology.

Thirdly the development of marketing technology is going to disrupt every aspect of the business and not just marketing. This is an exciting prospect. Nothing will be untouched by this phenomenon.

Conversely in the UK, the discussion is much more about ad technology

I believe that the UK should catch up and understand the significance of the marketing technology movement. In part this will require it to understand that the marketing industry is still over obsessed by

  • campaigns and not products
  • ads and not relationships
  • awareness and not trial and usage

It will need to obsess more about how marketing can create enduring growth.

And it will need to recognise that advertising technology is going to be dominated by the big guys; Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. There just isn’t enough room to accomodate the myriad number of start-ups and platforms launching into this space.

There are many exciting new technologies coming to the market, but if you are the Marketing boss, you are going need to see how the full ecosystem works before you can make point decisions about the sexiest thing on the block. This is about marketing and not advertising

 

The Digital Magpie

What ever happened to the expert?

We live in an era when too many people “steal” other people’s ideas and claim them as their own. Or they simply copy and paste everything around them and seek to benefit from this borrowed interest.

It’s hard to find people with deep and genuine knowledge about a subject because there is so much digital noise that obscures the good from the average.

Social media has grown massively on this wave of personal expression and will continue to do so.

But how strange it is to see friends on Facebook post comments from Freud or Churchill as if they were their own. Strange, not only because this is clearly not the case, but also because they never used to pretend to be psychological gurus or Renaissance men or women.

I am told the solution to this problem is the curator. That learned, slightly earnest creature who could tell a real Rembrandt from a fake or summarise the differences between one philosopher and another. But the reality is that everyone is now a digital curator, claiming to be able to tell you the best place to go, the best book to read, the best app to use, the best school for your kids, etc. etc.

Not only that, but every day I myself compound this problem, dreaming up ideas to facilitate brands getting closer to their customers and consumers expressing their views or “crowdsourcing” something new. And this will get worse as more and more people become “mini brands”, selling their own products and services, writing their own films and books and competing to be first to comment on every new happening in the world

We are all guilty of escalating quantity over quality, and yet how I yearn for less mediocrity and more excellence.