「Mingde adaptability and innovation」

HKU ICB 2021 Spring Opening Ceremony and Workshop

Special Lecture (2)

My name is Mark Lee, and I am very happy to study with you today. In the past ten years of research in the Asia-Pacific region, I have discovered a very important proposition, which is how to innovate. Innovation is a common concern from the national level to the enterprise level. As a leader or middle-level manager, you need to lead the organizational team to cope with today's more stringent innovation needs. There are certain traps and contradictions. I would like to share the difficulties with you. to help everyone do better.

The management dilemma of innovative culture

First, we need to understand what difficulties innovation culture has in management. Many students want to work in investment banks. You can take a look at this picture. This is the office of Morgan Stanley, the world's top investment bank. You can feel the corporate culture from the working environment. The other picture is of Google's office. There are exercise and rest areas inside, so you can flexibly arrange work according to your favorite time.

I would like to ask everyone, do you prefer to work in a traditional environment with strict management, or in an environment of innovation and development like Google? You must have an answer in your mind. Many people like a free environment like Google because it is conducive to innovation. Amid the epidemic, trade wars and the digitalization process, companies must strive to innovate in order to survive. The importance of innovation culture has repeatedly increased and has become a necessity. Employees, leaders and bosses need to work together to create a corporate culture that is helpful for innovation and use innovation to Businesses create greater profits. But can an innovative culture be developed by giving employees great freedom and a relaxed working atmosphere, just like Google? In fact, this is a trap. Many people only see one side of innovation culture and think that a relaxed environment and opportunities to develop are all that innovation culture has. In fact, this is not the case. An innovation culture has certain critical success factors:

First, you are allowed to make mistakes.There must be fault tolerance. Innovation means doing something that has never been done before. The result will definitely be different from what was expected. Failure to a certain extent cannot be accepted.

The second point is to try boldly.It doesn’t necessarily take a lot of time to prove the idea and verify it through experiments.

The third point is psychological safety.Innovation needs to give employees psychological safety, so that even if they do not do well or make mistakes, they can be understood and encouraged to try again.

The fourth point is a high degree of collaboration.Innovation must collaborate with professionals and technical talents in various fields.

Fifth point, no hierarchy.Regardless of whether you are new to the society or an experienced employee, forming a team requires joint efforts.

The above is one of the key elements of innovation. Generally speaking, it is believed that these behaviors can better transform innovation performance. However, other studies have found that it is difficult to maintain an innovation culture. In the early days, everyone was full of enthusiasm, courage to try, and confident in getting things done, but gradually found that the results were not as good as expected. This culture did not innovate new methods and services to the people. Customers, the company's performance is not as good as expected. where is the problem? It’s not that they misunderstand the culture of innovation, but that their understanding is not comprehensive enough. They don’t know that in addition to the relaxed and free space of Google, innovation also requires another side. The other side is not so interesting, or even just the opposite, with the opposite behavior and values creating a balancing force with the innovation culture in our cognition.

First, incompetence is not tolerated. A company with an efficient and innovative culture does not tolerate incompetent people, and employees with insufficient abilities will be fired immediately. If you are a project manager, even if the employee is polite, has a good work attitude, and has a good relationship with you, you must fire him. This is the culture of Silicon Valley: failure is allowed, incompetence is not allowed.

The second point is strict discipline. Some people say that bold attempts are random attempts. No, innovation itself is more demanding than before, and the culture of innovation is not free. There is a lot of room for innovation, and it is impossible to spend endless time and energy trying everything one by one. Innovation must be carried out within limited resources and manpower.

Number three, brutal candor.Many times people think that the team should be humble and courteous, but the culture of innovation requires cruel criticism. Once I find something that is not feasible, even if the other party has invested a lot of energy, I have to bravely put forward my point of view to avoid wasting time.

The fourth point is personal responsibility. Although projects that individuals are responsible for are also teamwork, they require the project manager to bear independent responsibilities, so the person in charge needs to eat up his own loneliness, endure loneliness, and control the process.

The fifth point is strong leadership.Although there is no level distinction between everyone, the company must have strong leadership.

Innovation culture is a contradiction between the common perception of innovation culture and its less interesting side. Unless the tensions created by this paradox are properly managed, attempts to create an innovation culture will fail. In the face of changes in the external world, leaders and managers must handle the contradiction of innovation and balance the two forces. I know that many students were among the best when they were studying and had a good teacher-student relationship with classmates. Now you need to show your cruel side and cooperative side at the same time in order to balance the contradictions caused by innovation.Next, I will tell you how to balance the five opposing points of the innovation contradiction.

Strategic transformation balances innovation contradictions

Facing the new world, we must establish an innovation culture. We must first know where the contradictions in innovation lie before we can fully balance the contradictions in innovation. Let’s start with tolerance of failure and intolerance of incompetence.

The first point is to tolerate failure and not tolerate incompetence.

Innovation will not be easy all the way. Although we bravely rush forward, innovation is like Huawei's Ren Zhengfei said, "entering no man's land." What is no man's land? Ren Zhengfei said: "We have never experienced this technology field before. Only Huawei is at the forefront in the world." The difficulty is unprecedented. Therefore, real innovation has a high degree of uncertainty, so high that we don’t know the terrain or what difficulties we are about to face. In unknown circumstances, failure is understandable and acceptable.

There are also examples of failure in the innovation of large brands. Apple once released an application called MobileMe, but many Apple mobile phone users have never heard of it. It is based on Microsoft Office and integrates many functions such as calendar, email, address book, schedule, bookmarks and notebooks on the mobile phone. It thinks it is powerful, but users are unwilling to accept it. Another example is Google Glass. Wearing it is like wearing a small computer. This product was also a failure. It has not been sold on the market for more than ten years since its launch. Amazon also sells mobile phones. The students here must have never used Amazon mobile phones. Therefore, failure is understandable. Even super brands with funds, popularity, brand power and customer groups will fail. However, although these companies tolerate failure, they do not accept mediocre employees. They would rather slow down the project progress and ensure that Extremely high talent quality. Because when failure occurs, capable people will absorb experience and improve immediately; while mediocre people will only accept failure and work hard next time. Without a high-speed learning process, innovation cannot be promoted. Therefore, we must look for colleagues who are not afraid of competition. A big weakness of our culture is that we value the friendship of colleagues and will definitely waste efforts. However, there is no sympathy in market competition, and customers are discerning. As leaders and managers, we must Face reality and distinguish what is forgivable and unforgivable. It is forgivable for employees to try meaningful innovation and fail based on objective reasons; it is unforgivable for employees to be careless and mediocre in ability. Our first contradictory balance is to allow failure and not allow mediocrity.

Google has extremely high requirements in terms of target strategy and execution. There is a management method called OKR (Objectives and Key Results). About 20 companies in Hong Kong learned from me how to use OKR. The feedback they gave me after applying it was very bad. Because Google encourages failure, OKR is a cycle every three months. Each team sets a goal every three months. The goal is set very high. If the goal reaches 100 points, it means that the goal is not ideal enough. Generally, companies conduct annual performance appraisals to evaluate employees' work. Five stars or 100 points indicates excellence. However, Google believes that 100 points proves that the goal is not risky enough and innovative enough. It is best to get a score of 70 points. This is also a new impact for us. It turns out that Silicon Valley sets high goals in order to allow capable people to try their best to catch up with the goals. It is better to score 70 points than to score 100 points. What is difficult about being a manager? We do not simply set goals and evaluate achievement rates. A more risky goal that may not be achieved is more beneficial than a low goal that is achievable. Therefore, managers must learn to distinguish failures caused by employee capabilities and environmental factors. This is what we need to do in the face of a cruelly competitive world.

There is a pharmaceutical company that has several drug research and development teams. One of the team members is a Ph.D., but they have not developed any new results in ten years. This is a contradiction. Is it because the team has insufficient capabilities or is the goal too difficult to achieve? The most ironic thing is that although other research teams can develop patented new drugs, the teams with no results receive the same salary and bonus as the teams with outstanding results, resulting in the incompetent team being content with the status quo for a long time and producing no results. A research institute once interviewed the former management of this company. What do you think is the company's biggest problem? He replied: Our company culture is too fair. What he means by fairness is to ignore the punishment mechanism in order to allow failure and turn the company into a big family that will not fire people. This kind of corporate culture cannot really lead to innovation.

My students have PhDs and bosses. I once asked them if they all agree that "failure is the mother of success"? Half of the 100 CEO students disagreed. They believe that people who often fail will fail throughout their lives, because such people cannot learn from failures and can only passively face failure again and again. The question is whether we can distinguish between useful failure and useless failure. What is useful failure? Similarly, someone was hit on the head by an apple under a tree. Some people felt sorry for themselves and then ate the apple. But Newton thought about "why did the apple fall on my head" and discovered the force of gravity. For some failures that exceed expectations, capable people will take advantage of the opportunity. Create new technologies and business models.

When we do experiments, we are full of uncertainties. There is a saying called "You don't know what you don't know", so it is understandable to learn as you go, but you cannot avoid difficulties retreating. This kind of failure will provide valuable experience on the way forward. Opportunities should be gained from the failure to improve the next step. Useless failures stem from the immaturity of the entire project, the lack of thoughtful design and in-depth analysis, resulting in low-quality experimental results. Our innovation culture should encourage innovation, but cannot tolerate incompetent people. When your employees are like Google, they must have the urge to innovate and take risks, and know how to learn from failures.

The first point of learning to balance the contradictions of innovation is to balance the two worlds, learn from failures, and make further progress from successes. Getting 100 points in every exam means that you have never challenged yourself. It is not enough to allow yourself to fail. You should try to challenge the unknown under the premise of careful planning and summarizing experience. At the same time, leaders must also have judgment and learn to distinguish useful failures. and useless failure. As a manager, you can take the following actions:

First, definition fails. The definition of "useful failure" and "useless failure" needs to be made clear to members, rather than generalized. It is necessary to create a culture that values failure. Useful failures will generate valuable information related to costs, while useless failures will result in points being deducted. If the definition of failure cannot be clearly defined, some employees will eventually be fired due to failure, while others will be tolerated. Colleagues will not be able to understand, think that the treatment is unfair, and raise questions. The company will face the same dilemma as that pharmaceutical company. For the sake of fairness, all employees will be retained. , just ask everyone to work hard and build a big family culture. Going back to the original question, why is it so difficult to maintain an innovation culture? The challenge lies here. Failure is often allowed at the beginning, but if the company does not define useful and useless failures, it will lead to unfair misunderstandings.

Second, capability culture. All students already have very good strength, but they still choose to improve themselves through learning. We must establish a culture that puts abilities first. We must not be satisfied with our current strength and use stronger strength. We need to build a competency culture that clearly articulates expected performance standards.

Third, be clear about expectations.If standards are not clearly communicated to team members, personnel decisions will be difficult to predict or misinterpreted as punishment for failure. Someone said to me that the best sentence I learned today is "It turns out that innovation management is failure management." Yes, remember this sentence. If you don't have any failures to manage, Sorry, you don't have any wishes, sorry for that. Senior leaders and managers throughout the organization should clearly communicate expectations and improve recruitment indicators. Even if it temporarily inhibits corporate growth, the more capable employees are, the more they can learn from failures, advance innovation progress, and enter a virtuous cycle.

The second point is to be bold and disciplined.

There is a famous biochemical company in Silicon Valley called Flagship Pionnering. This company loves innovation. Its founder Noubar Afeyan is from the Middle East. He once said: We will not ask "Is this true?" or "Is this true?" Is there data to support this idea?" What we want to do is not even supported by paper data. Instead, we will ask "What if it's really come true?" Be bold enough to dream and try boldly.

We have a huge market, culture and big data, which are full of unknowns. We should try boldly and adapt to the uncertainty and ambiguity of the current world. Don't pretend to know all the answers in advance. We might as well try to learn through exploration instead of producing feasible products. Products or services for immediate sale. But this does not mean that you can try it at any time. Some people treat innovation like a third-rate abstract painter who splashes paint on the canvas at will. Therefore, while boldly trying, the innovation process must be strictly controlled.

A disciplined innovation process should have strict standards and carefully design innovative experiments. Taking aerospace experiments as an example, exploring the vast universe should proceed step by step, first to the moon, then to Mars, and then to Neptune. All experiments pave the way for the next experiment. We should design strictly, clarify the standards, plan time, manpower and funds, collect useful data and information as much as possible, evaluate the effectiveness, and decide the next direction. Once it is determined that the original idea is wrong, we must activate the killing law. The law of killing is very cruel. There is no slide buffet or big family culture. There is no sympathy for the weak. You must contribute when you get a salary. Not only must they kill, but they must kill quickly, accurately, and ruthlessly. There are millions of possibilities for innovation. If you try one if it doesn't work, you should immediately cut it off and try the second, third, and fourth immediately. If you try quickly and manage failure, you can make rapid progress and outperform your opponents. I Call it "Killing for Innovation." In fact, even I don’t dare to kill my own research project. The research project is my son and daughter. Academic workers have a love for the research project and invest a lot of energy seriously.

Let’s summarize some principles of strict discipline.First, prove the idea is a failure as quickly as possible. The sooner you prove it, the closer you are to success. Second, short time, multiple frequency, small budget. It's psychologically easier to leave. Third, enhance data drive. We need to strengthen scientific interpretation. If the experiment produces negative data in the hypothesis, we must re-formulate the plan as soon as possible, because in the later stage, we will become emotionally attached to the project and it will be difficult to judge objectively. Fourth, there is a strong motivation to observe discipline. If you are willing to start a business and start a new company, you must also have the courage to kill the business.

Creativity and control are inseparable, contradictory in themselves, but balancing each other. First, we need creativity, encourage employees to have unreasonable ideas, and scientifically formulate hypotheses about all possibilities.Second, we need discipline. There must be a specific time to obtain data to confirm or kill the hypothesis. The time interval is preferably shorter. Some bosses say it will take one year to enter the Southeast Asian market. You should make a three-month plan instead of one year, because you don’t know what will happen. Everyone in the company uses years as a unit, but Google uses three months as a unit of time. This is what we need to learn. Third, set an example of discipline. The boss should lead by example, accept and admit failure, and learn from failures. In the face of experimental data, you must be able to bravely terminate personal projects, or show your willingness to change your mind, and then boldly try to set an objective and useful failure example for employees. At the same time, discipline must be strict, with clear plans, time and results, and it must not be too strict or curb innovative attempts. So it's about balancing.

The third point is psychological safety and brutal candor.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the supreme commander of the Normandy landings (codenamed "Operation Overlord" in English) during World War II. When the British and American coalition forces counterattacked Germany, the operation had to be finalized three weeks before departure. Faced with a briefing on the battle plan by senior Allied officers, General Eisenhower invited all generals present to participate in criticism: "I think it is the responsibility of anyone who sees a flaw in the plan to say it without hesitation, and I have no sympathy for anyone. Regardless of his status, no one will tolerate criticism, and we are here to get the best results." From an innovation point of view, we need a corporate culture that dares to express opinions. It is better to be criticized in person than to die on the battlefield.

An innovative culture requires telling the truth, but colleagues also hope for psychological safety and a working atmosphere that is polite and tolerant, allows mistakes and allows for mutual learning, and is as relaxed and natural as Google. What's the catch? For the sake of our own face, we dare not criticize the ideas of colleagues, superiors, subordinates, and bosses, or the shortcomings of execution. Some people think that this is not a problem in their own department, and raising it is like an accusation, which will worsen the relationship between colleagues and cause fire. Everyone will be happy if it is not mentioned. But if there is no corporate culture that dares to criticize, the company will face a great crisis. It means that there are unknown weaknesses before the war, which can easily lead to defeat. The third contradiction of innovation is that cruel truth is uncomfortable. In the workplace, no one wants to hear accusations from colleagues and subordinates, or hear bad news. But seeking truth from facts is crucial to innovation. It is a means of evolving and improving ideas. Successful companies debate candidly, which may seem sharp and aggressive to outsiders, but people can defend their proposals with data and logic. We need to balance the third innovation contradiction. On the one hand, we must gain psychological safety in an environment full of friendship; on the other hand, we must also accept cruel opinions from friends who are chatting and laughing, because customers and the market are more cruel.

The fourth point is a high degree of collaboration and personal accountability.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos announced his resignation as CEO at Amazon's annual shareholder meeting, and Andy Jassy took over as Amazon CEO. Andy Jassy is not a technician, but more than ten years ago, Jeff Bezos asked Andy Jassy to be responsible for the development of Amazon Web Services (AWS). Andy Jassy collected many technical experts With the opinions of engineers and professional suppliers, comprehensive judgment, correct decision-making, and successful implementation of the project, AWS profits reached US$12 billion, so teamwork is very important.

When we talk about innovation, it’s all about teamwork, regardless of each other. In fact, in the face of uncertainty, we need a high degree of collaboration, collective cooperation, connecting different skills, information, and technologies to form a new working model. This is innovation; but collective cooperation does not mean collective responsibility. Every innovation project requires There is a person in charge, like Andy Jassy, who decides who to work with and is responsible for the final outcome. When Disney's Pixar Animation Studios makes a movie, the overall decision-making power is given to the director. The director can visit different new technology teams to obtain different ideas and methods, listen to two completely opposite opinions and make a decision. , the director is responsible for the quality of the film produced. If a technical colleague is unwilling to use a new technology and the director agrees, the technical colleague has no responsibility. In Asian culture, it is often believed that collective cooperation equals collective responsibility. This is wrong. Ren Zhengfei of Huawei once said, "Let those who hear the sound of gunfire make the decision." The person who makes the decision must bear the responsibility, and the collaborators do not share the responsibility. , we need to establish a culture of accountability, shared responsibility will lead to inefficiency.

To deal with the fourth contradiction of innovation, we should step out of our own framework, actively engage in team collaboration, and at the same time assign responsibilities to people. Managers may have multiple groups under their control. If one group makes a mistake, the whole group cannot be punished. The leader should be held accountable. Only with personal accountability can incompetent people have no escape. Personal accountability and brutal candor are related to not allowing incompetence. Because of brutal candor, many real opinions will be collected to help make correct decisions. If the decision cannot be made in this way, then it is the responsibility of the person in charge.

The fifth point is no hierarchy and strong leadership.

Microsoft boss Bill Gates said on his first day at work on February 4, 2014: We don't respect ours old size. Customers are ruthless and will not miss past achievements. No matter how many contributions a company has made, if it cannot keep pace with the times through innovation, customers will not miss it.

Two car brands have changed their CEOs when they faced difficulties. The first thing the new CEO did after taking office was to flatten the company structure, retaining only three to four layers of administrative structure. In the past, a CEO only faced 8 people, but now one A company with 1,000 people has only a four-tier structure. The CEO corresponds to 46 subordinates. They basically meet once a week and can only meet for one hour a week. In order to cope with the flexible and changing market demands, the enterprise structure must be adjusted to adapt to it. Flattening can allow news to be fed back from the bottom to the top. Top-level decisions can be sent back to the front site as quickly as possible, so there must be fewer levels. Under a flat structure, managers need to face more subordinates and have more hands than before. They need to be on the front line, listen to the voices of customers, and highly cooperate with R&D, marketing, and human resources. This requires managers to have Strong leadership.

Some people have also fallen into the misunderstanding, thinking that flatness represents democracy, with meetings and voting, and decision-making and support by the majority. This is not the case. The flatter the system, the stronger the leadership. Ren Zhengfei will guide employees to find the direction they want to take; some people say that Ma Huateng is the best product manager. Ma Huateng also said that he is a product engineer. To provide the best products to customers, the leader is a product manager. A strong leader sees the direction and leads the team on the right path. Some industries are rich in resources and have many patents. They have little demand for agile organizations and can still rely on multi-level operations to survive. However, if the industry is impacted by the wave of technology and digitalization, companies must innovate, flatten the corporate structure to improve responsiveness, exert strong leadership, and allow managers to move to the front line. The past practice of bosses reviewing documents from behind is no longer suitable for the digital age. Your opponents are no longer competing companies in the traditional sense. Any industry may be your new opponent. For example, Alibaba can get involved in the hotel or banking industry at any time. If the reaction is not fast enough, the boss will not be able to control the frontline situation in time and make correct decisions.

If we want to manage innovation, maintain customers, and transform strategies, we must balance the contradictions of innovation and win the final victory. We tolerate failure, but not incompetence; we try boldly, but plan carefully; I create a sense of security, but will be brutal and frank; we work together, but clearly assume responsibilities; we have no hierarchy, but have strong leadership. rather than blind democracy. I hope you can learn from today's speech how to seize opportunities in today's era, balance your innovation contradictions, and achieve victory and success.

Question Time

Question 1: In different entrepreneurial periods, the requirements for employee competency models are very different. In the early stages of a business, it is suitable to hire loyal and mediocre employees. When the company is able to recruit excellent employees, how should it balance the treatment of old employees in the entrepreneurial period?

Answer: Corporate transformation and business innovation are a kind of culture, not targeted at any one person. Just like making a movie, you also need to find popular and well-known actors. Everyone recognizes this. However, the company will not treat its employees badly, and will guarantee their basic life for a period of time, allowing them to move to other industries. Maybe the industry has been transformed as a whole, but there are other industries such as banking and trading that need original talents in this industry. Talent resources can also introduce each other, which is a reasonable way to handle it.

Question 2: Innovative talents are the wealth of an enterprise. How do enterprises scientifically screen who are the talents suitable for enterprise innovation during the interview process?

Answer: Interviewing itself has its strengths and blind spots. I have a student who is the owner of a software company. His son graduated from the University of Waterloo in Canada and applied for a job at Amazon. After six rounds of interviews, the last one was for eight people who were interviewed together to complete a three-day interview in a hotel. The project evaluates the quality of talent by actually completing a project. A 3-day small project is enough to judge the talent level. The interviewer may hire 8 people at the same time, or none of them. This child was a top student, and Amazon asked him to write a program that could be used in practical applications; in another case, a job applicant failed Amazon's Level 6 interview because he could not write a program that was practical enough. This is a direction, you can refer to the case.

Question 3: When a company innovates many projects internally, what models and methods are used to determine which ones should be invested, and how to stop losses in a timely manner if there are risks in projects that have already been invested?

Answer: When teaching graduate students, I generally recommend that they learn from private equity funds and refer to the past successful cases of the project leaders. Let’s imagine the psychology of investors. Why some people are willing to invest 10 million yuan in a project, while others are only willing to invest 1,000 yuan? It’s not that the person in charge’s words are not good enough, but whether he has a Reference Case. This is why I prefer to do small projects, which can quickly see the Reference Case.

Question 4: What kind of organization is required for the implementation of OKR, and at what stage of development, or what type of signal does the company release to indicate that the organization can start OKR?

Answer: Many companies are interested in learning OKR from me, but I find that they only do OKR for the sake of OKR, which is a bit blind. If the nature of the company's work does not involve much innovation, then there is no need to introduce OKR, just use KPI. Although I teach OKR, I often advise companies not to use OKR, because the company does not yet have the conditions to use OKR. This condition has nothing to do with ability. OKR requires a certain degree of innovation in the work content itself. If the work content is A+B= C, A+B=C comes and goes, and introducing OKR will only make it more confusing. Therefore, it is necessary to adapt to local conditions. Any company can use OKR, but it may be used by a certain department, a certain project team, or a certain BU department (business unit).

Question 5: Everyone in the team has different starting points, so they make many different voices. If you want to accept brutal frankness, is there any way to effectively get everyone to reach a unanimous goal?

Answer: In fact, it is to create the atmosphere and atmosphere of corporate culture. Let employees know that brutal candor is the most scientific approach on the first day of work. There is a classic case of Motorola. The innovation process of Motorola's mobile phones has stagnated. After the business failed, it was sold to Google. Google asked the general manager of Motorola to speak in the Google lobby, and Google employees asked him many challenging questions. The general manager was very dissatisfied and said that he did not approve of such a corporate culture. The employees were too cruel and not polite enough to experienced engineers. Three months later, the boss of Google sold Motorola again. He believed that Motorola's corporate culture was not good, it could not accept cruel confessions, and it was not competitive.

Question 6: Regarding accountability, the person in charge generally has a relatively high level, and accountability may have a great impact. what to do?

Answer: Today's young people have relatively high educational levels, and they also hope to get opportunities to perform. In innovative companies, senior managers can serve as project supporters rather than managers, supporting young people to perform at the front of the stage. When it comes to accountability, if young people at the front of the stage can be held accountable, they will achieve higher results. Satisfaction, the role positioning of senior management will also play a greater significance, this is a reference for everyone.

(This article is compiled from a recording of Dr. Mark Lee’s speech)

APIFS is committed to the advancement of strategic thought leadership, and we look forward to continuing to provide platforms for meaningful dialogues and actionable insights.

Related Articles:

[HKAS] Hong Kong Apparel Society: 20th Anniversary & Inauguration Ceremony & Business Strategy Award

[Interview with Shih Wing Ching] Challenges and opportunities for Hong Kong companies in High-tech

[China Daily Hong Kong] The shopping festival serves as a touchstone

[GBA Strategy] How can companies in the Bay Area and Mainland China leverage Hong Kong "Going Abroad

[Change Management] What can we do to face the challenges of the New Normal?

[Greater Bay Area] Industry Clusters for Global Innovation

[CEO Coaching]BEA Interview: Development Opportunities for Hong Kong Banking Industry

[CEO Coaching]Ericsson (HK) Limited Interview：Would Hong Kong lose its competitive edge in 5G era？