February 201619 support, technology leaders should now work with their lawyers to envisage where regulatory barriers for future products are outdated, and work to lead regulatory change to open new markets. Governments are certainly not against change, but they may lack a capacity to understand the potential of technological innovation and through foresight analysis drive regulatory innovation for future industries. When you plan for your annual budget and organi-zational structure, spend time consider-ing your pipeline of products and the reg-ulatory change that will be required to fully implement them. A major defense contractor is beginning to commercialize hybrid airships to move heavy equipment across dif-ficult terrains. Their operation will require legislative change in every country in which they aim to sell and operate these vehicles. Their critical path is now, in large part, regulatory change in each target country. In es-sence, regulatory innovation will be essential precursor for this product in the market. Lawyers may now be as essential to technological innova-tion as the engineering teams of the future. Lawyers are traditionally considered when a dispute is in sight, or a contract needs drafting. In more limited circumstances lawyers are brought in to advice on regulation. Rarely however, have lawyers been brought in to bring foresight, and strategic planning about the range of possible options of future regulatory regimes ­ the very regimes that will define the terrain of future corporate activity. This area of planning and strategic forward agenda for corporate innovation is the regular terrain of MBAs and engineers, or perhaps for in-house counsel. In an age of such rapid change, the role of expert external lawyers ­ and the understanding of the skills those lawyers will bring to strategy development and operational role-out, must change as well.In addition, technology leaders would do well to regu-larly create true multi-party public/private partnerships and workshops to envisage regulatory change for the future, without the im-mediate self interest of specific regulatory reform. This can lead to unexpected new opportunities. For example, governments such as My-anmar, PNG, Mozambique, Bolivia or Mongolia will all have a stake in the transnational regulatory devel-opments of the future ­ but many of these countries have extremely lim-ited governmental budgets ­ squeez-ing their ability to respond creatively. Industry associations that have in-dependent credibility can assist the rapid "leap-frogging" of regulatory agenda's in these countries to create entire new markets for technology in-novators. Africa has been transformed by cell phone access, leap-frogging over land-based phone systems. Many African countries did it again through innovative electronic banking. Rapid change in the poorest parts of the world is therefore proven and prob-able. But continued success, in a world of rapidly escalating tech-nological change, requires rethink-ing engagement (and support) with government. A major defense contractor is beginning to commercialize hybrid airships to move heavy equipment across difficult terrains
< Page 9 | Page 11 >