"I Am Safe": How Two Amateur Radio Enthusiasts Secretly Passed Messages During the Falklands War

What’s your organisation’s type when it comes to cyber security? Is everything justified by the business risks, or are you hoping for the best? Over the decades, I have found that no two businesses or organisations have taken the same approach to cybersecurity. This is neither a criticism nor a surprise. No two businesses are the same, so why would their approach to digital risk be? However, I have found that there are some trends or clusters. In this article, I’ve distilled those observations, my understanding of the forces that drive each approach, and some indicators that may help you recognise it. I have also suggested potential advantages and disadvantages. Ad Hoc Let’s start with the ad hoc approach, where the organisation does what it thinks needs to be done, but without any clear rationale to determine “How much is enough?” The Bucket of Sand Approach At the extreme end of the spectrum is the 'Bucket of Sand' option which is characterised by the belief that 'It will never happen to us'. Your organisation may feel that it is too small to be worth attacking or has nothing of any real value. However, if an organisation has nothing of value, one wonders what purpose it serves. At the very least, it is likely to have money. But it is rare now that an organisation will not hold data and information worth stealing. Whether this data is its own or belongs to a third party, it will be a target. I’ve also come across businesses that hold a rather more fatalistic perspective. Most of us are aware of the regular reports of nation-state attacks that are attempting to steal intellectual property, causing economic damage, or just simply stealing money. Recognising that you might face the full force of a cyber-capable foreign state is undoubtedly daunting and may encourage the view that 'We’re all doomed regardless'. If a cyber-capable nation-state is determined to have a go at you, the odds are not great, and countering it will require eye-watering investments in protection, detection and response. But the fact is that they are rare events, even if they receive disproportionate amounts of media coverage. The majority of threats that most organisations face are not national state actors. They are petty criminals, organised criminal bodies, opportunistic amateur hackers or other lower-level actors. And they will follow the path of least resistance. So, while you can’t eliminate the risk, you can reduce it by applying good security and making yourself a more challenging target than the competition. Following Best Practice Thankfully, these 'Bucket of Sand' adopters are less common than ten or fifteen years ago. Most in the Ad Hoc zone will do some things but without clear logic or rationale to justify why they are doing X rather than Y. They may follow the latest industry trends and implement a new shiny technology (because doing the business change bit is hard and unpopular). This type of organisation will frequently operate security on a feast or famine basis, deferring investments to next year when there is something more interesting to prioritise, because without business strategy guiding security it will be hard to justify. And 'next year' frequently remains next year on an ongoing basis. At the more advanced end of the Ad Hoc zone, you will find those organisations that choose a framework and aim to achieve a specific benchmark of Security Maturity. This approach ensures that capabilities are balanced and encourages progressive improvement. However, 'How much is enough?' remains unanswered; hence, the security budget will frequently struggle for airtime when budgets are challenged. It may also encourage a one-size-fits-all approach rather than prioritising the assets at greatest risk, which would cause the most significant damage if compromised. Regulatory-Led The Regulatory-Led organisation is the one I’ve come across most frequently. A market regulator, such as the FCA in the UK, may set regulations. Or the regulator may be market agnostic but have responsibility for a particular type of data, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office’s interest in personal data privacy. If regulatory compliance questions dominate most senior conversations about cyber security, the organisation is probably in this zone. Frequently, this issue of compliance is not a trivial challenge. Most regulations don’t tend to be detailed recipes to follow. Instead, they outline the broad expectations or the principles to be applied. There will frequently be a tapestry of regulations that need to be met rather than a single target to aim for. Businesses operating in multiple countries will likely have different regulations across those regions. Even within one country, there may be market-specific and data-specific regulations that both need to be applied. This tapestry is growing year after year as jurisdictions apply additional regulations to better protect their citizens and economies in the face of proliferating and intensifying threats. In the last year alone, EU countries have had to implement both the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and Network and Infrastructure Security Directive (NIS2) , which regulate financial services businesses and critical infrastructure providers respectively. Superficially, it appears sensible and straightforward, but in execution the complexities and limitations become clear. Some of the nuances include: Not Everything Is Regulated The absence of regulation doesn’t mean there is no risk. It just means that the powers that be are not overly concerned. Your business will still be exposed to risk, but the regulators or government may be untroubled by it. Regulations Move Slowly Cyber threats are constantly changing and evolving. As organisations improve their defences, the opposition changes their tactics and tools to ensure their attacks can continue to be effective. In response, organisations need to adjust and enhance their defences to stay ahead. Regulations do not respond at this pace. So, relying on regulatory compliance risks preparing to 'Fight the last war'. The Tapestry Becomes Increasingly Unwieldy It may initially appear simple. You review the limited regulations for a single region, take your direction, and apply controls that will make you compliant. Then, you expand into a new region. And later, one of your existing jurisdictions introduces an additional set of regulations that apply to you. Before you know it, you must first normalise and consolidate the requirements from a litany of different sets of rules, each with its own structure, before you can update your security/compliance strategy. Most Regulations Talk about Appropriateness As mentioned before, regulations rarely provide a recipe to follow. They talk about applying appropriate controls in a particular context. The business still needs to decide what is appropriate. And if there is a breach or a pre-emptive audit, the business will need to justify that decision. The most rational justification will be based on an asset’s sensitivity and the threats it is exposed to — ergo, a risk-based rather than a compliance-based argument. Opportunity-Led Many businesses don’t exist in heavily regulated industries but may wish to trade in markets or with customers with certain expectations about their suppliers’ security and resilience. These present barriers to entry, but if overcome, they also offer obstacles to competition. The expectations may be well defined for a specific customer, such as DEF STAN 05-138 , which details the standards that the UK Ministry of Defence expects its suppliers to meet according to a project’s risk profile. Sometimes, an entire market will set the entry rules. The UK Government has set Cyber Essentials as the minimum standard to be eligible to compete for government contracts. The US has published NIST 800-171 to detail what government suppliers must meet to process Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Businesses should conduct due diligence on their suppliers, particularly when they provide technology, interface with their systems or process their data. Regulations, such as NIS2, are increasingly demanding this level of Third Party Risk Management because of the number of breaches and compromises originating from the supply chain. Businesses may detail a certain level of certification that they consider adequate, such as ISO 27001 or a System & Organization Controls (SOC) report. By achieving one or more of these standards, new markets may open up to a business. Good security becomes a growth enabler. But just like with regulations, if the security strategy starts with one of these standards, it can rapidly become unwieldy as a patchwork quilt of different entry requirements builds up for other markets. Risk-Led The final zone is where actions are defined by the risk the business is exposed to. Being led by risk in this way should be natural and intuitive. Most of us might secure our garden shed with a simple padlock but would have several more secure locks on the doors to our house. We would probably also have locks on the windows and may add CCTV cameras and a burglar alarm if we were sufficiently concerned about the threats in our area. We may even install a secure safe inside the house if we have some particularly valuable possessions. These decisions and the application of defences are all informed by our understanding of the risks to which different groups of assets are exposed. The security decisions you make at home are relatively trivial compared to the complexity most businesses face with digital risk. Over the decades, technology infrastructures have grown, often becoming a sprawling landscape where the boundaries between one system and another are hard to determine. In the face of this complexity, many organisations talk about being risk-led but, in reality, operate in one of the other zones. There is no reason why an organisation can’t progressively transform from an Ad Hoc, Regulatory-Led or Opportunity-Led posture into a Risk-Led one. This transformation may need to include a strategy to enhance segmentation and reduce the sprawling landscape described above. Risk-Led also doesn’t mean applying decentralised, bespoke controls on a system-by-system basis. The risk may be assessed against the asset or a category of assets, but most organisations usually have a framework of standard controls and policies to apply or choose from. The test to tell whether an organisation genuinely operates in the Risk-Led zone is whether they have a well-defined Risk Appetite. This policy is more than just the one-liner stating that they have a very low appetite for risk. It should typically be broken down into different categories of risk or asset types; for instance, it might detail the different appetites for personal data risk compared to corporate intellectual property marked as 'In Strict Confidence'. Each category should clarify the tolerance, the circumstances under which risk will be accepted, and who is authorised to sign off. I’ve seen some exceptionally well-drafted risk appetite policies that provide clear direction. Once in place, any risk review can easily understand the boundaries within which they can operate and determine whether the controls for a particular context are adequate. I’ve also seen many that are so loose as to be unactionable or, on as many occasions, have not been able to find a risk appetite defined at all. In these situations, there is no clear way of determining 'How much security is enough'. Organisations operating in this zone will frequently still have to meet regulatory requirements and individual customer or market expectations. However, this regulatory or commercial risk assessment can take the existing strategy as the starting point and review the relevant controls for compliance. That may prompt an adjustment to security in certain places. But when challenged, you can defend your strategy because you can trace decisions back to the negative outcomes you are attempting to prevent — and this intent is in everyone’s common interest. Conclusions Which zone does your business occupy? It may exist in more than one — for instance, mainly aiming for a specific security maturity in the Ad Hoc zone but reinforced for a particular customer. But which is the dominant zone that drives plans and behaviour? And why is that? It may be the right place for today, but is it the best approach for the future? Apart from the 'Bucket of Sand' approach, each has pros and cons. I’ve sought to stay balanced in how I’ve described them. However, the most sustainable approach is one driven by business risk, with controls that mitigate those risks to a defined appetite. Regulatory compliance will probably constitute some of those risks, and when controls are reviewed against the regulatory requirements, there may be a need to reinforce them. Also, some customers may have specific standards to meet in a particular context. However, the starting point will be the security you believe the business needs and can justify before reviewing it through a regulatory or market lens. If you want to discuss how you can improve your security, reduce your digital risk, and face the future with confidence, get in touch with Tom Burton, Senior Partner - Cyber Security, using the below form.

Jason Jennings | Elevate your project management with AI. This guide for senior leaders explains how AI tools can enhance project performance through predictive foresight, cognitive collaboration, and portfolio intelligence. Unlock the potential of AI in your organisation and avoid the common pitfalls.

A New Era of Local Power: What’s in the English Devolution Bill? The UK Government has taken a major step forward in reshaping local governance in England with the publication of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. This is more than a policy shift — it’s a structural rethink that sets out to make devolution the norm, not the exception. This is a welcome change in direction. This framework could unlock new potential for place-based leadership, community decision-making, and joined-up regional delivery. But as with any big reform, the opportunity lies in the detail — and in how we respond. Key Changes Introduced by the Bill Standardised Framework for Strategic Authorities: Combined Authorities, the GLA, and County Combined Authorities will all fall under a new, consistent legal model — making future devolution smoother and more transparent. Mayors Gain More Leverage: Elected mayors now have a legal right to request further powers, with the Government required to respond. This could pave the way for greater local control over transport, housing, energy, and skills. Neighbourhood Governance Becomes a Duty: Councils will be required to introduce or enhance neighbourhood governance models, supporting community voices and hyper-local decision-making. Simplified Local Government Reorganisation: The Bill makes it easier to create unitary authorities and restructure Strategic Authorities, while mandating the leader-and-cabinet model across councils. Expanded Local Powers: Local authorities will gain new tools to manage shared transport (e.g. e-scooters), protect community assets, and take greater ownership of local planning and infrastructure decisions. Financial Oversight with New Audit Body: A dedicated Local Audit Office will strengthen transparency and public trust in the financial performance of devolved authorities. Why This Matters This legislation has the potential to reshape the relationship between central and local government. It provides: Greater clarity for local leaders navigating the devolution journey Stronger alignment between regional planning, investment, and delivery Formalised community empowerment as a core part of local governance Faster implementation of reforms, removing historical friction with Whitehall If implemented well, it could accelerate levelling up, boost public confidence, and enable councils to better serve their communities. Things to Watch While the ambitions are clear, some areas need close attention: Will funding follow the powers? Without sustained financial backing, councils risk being given responsibilities without the means to deliver. Can neighbourhood structures scale inclusively? Capacity and engagement are key. Local authorities will need support to build neighbourhood governance that is truly representative and impactful. Is the framework flexible enough? A standardised model may reduce complexity, but different places have different needs. Will the new system allow enough room for local variation? Politics, Patchworks and Practicalities: Navigating the Real World of Devolution While the Bill sets out a bold framework, turning that into action won’t be straightforward. Key challenges include: 1. Political Variation Across England Party control differs widely across councils and combined authorities. Some areas will embrace the model enthusiastically; others may resist due to local politics, institutional inertia, or differing visions of place-based governance. The perception of centralisation vs. genuine empowerment may vary depending on the colour of national vs. local government. 2. Tension Between Standardisation and Local Identity The Bill’s aim to simplify and harmonise structures may clash with deeply rooted local differences. Places with strong local identities (e.g. Cornwall, Yorkshire) may be wary of “off-the-shelf” devolution deals or generic governance templates. 3. Differing Appetite for Mayoral Leadership Not all areas want or have elected mayors. Extending powers to Strategic Authorities with mayors may widen the gap between those “inside” and “outside” the model. This could reinforce a two-speed devolution system unless flexibility is built in. 4. Election Cycles and Political Continuity Leadership turnover, locally and nationally can stall momentum, undo hard-won consensus, or shift priorities mid-implementation. Cross-party collaboration will be essential, but not always easy in contested regions. The advantages will need to be sold well. 5. Capacity and Capability Gaps Even with strong local political will, some councils may struggle with resourcing, skills, or institutional readiness to implement new duties or governance changes. What Should Local Leaders Do Now? Start preparing governance structures in anticipation of new duties Identify gaps or priorities where additional powers could unlock outcomes Engage partners early—from VCS organisations to universities to SMEs — to co-design delivery models Assess audit and performance frameworks to ensure compliance and transparency Final Thoughts This Bill is a welcome statement of trust in local institutions. It’s now up to councils, combined authorities, and delivery partners to turn this framework into lasting, meaningful change.

Today, we are proud to be spotlighting Faye Holland, who became Managing Partner at Cambridge Management Consulting for Client PR & Marketing as well as for our presence in the city of Cambridge and the East of England at the start of this year, following our acquisition of her award-winning PR firm, cofinitive. Faye is a prominent entrepreneur and a dynamic force within the city of Cambridge’s renowned technology sector. Known for her ability to influence, inspire, and connect on multiple fronts, Faye plays a vital role in bolstering Cambridge’s global reputation as the UK’s hub for technology, innovation, and science. With over three decades of experience spanning diverse business ventures, including the UK’s first ISP, working in emerging business practices within IBM, leading European and Asia-Pacific operations for a global tech media company, and founding her own business, Faye brings unparalleled expertise to every endeavour. Faye’s value in the industry is further underscored by her extensive network of influential contacts. As the founder of cofinitive, an award-winning PR and communications agency focused on supporting cutting-edge start-ups and scale-ups in tech and innovation, Faye has earned a reputation as one of the UK’s foremost marketing strategists. Over the course of a decade, she built cofinitive into a recognised leader in the communications industry. The firm has since been featured in PR Weekly’s 150 Top Agencies outside London, and has been named year-on-year as the No. 1 PR & Communications agency in East Anglia. cofinitive is also acknowledged as one of the 130 most influential businesses in Cambridge, celebrated for its distinctive, edge, yet polished approach to storytelling for groundbreaking companies, and for its support of the broader ecosystem. Additionally, Faye is widely recognised across the East of England for her leadership in initiatives such as the #21toWatch Technology Innovation Awards, which celebrates innovation and entrepreneurship, and as the co-host of the Cambridge Tech Podcast. Individually, Faye has earned numerous accolades. She is listed among the 25 most influential people in Cambridge, and serves as Chair of the Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce. Her advocacy for women in technology has seen her regularly featured in Computer Weekly’s Women in Tech lists, and recognised as one of the most influential women in UK tech during London Tech Week 2024 via the #InspiringFifty listing. Faye is also a dedicated mentor for aspiring technology entrepreneurs, having contributed to leading entrepreneurial programs in Cambridge and internationally, further solidifying her role as a driving force for innovation and growth in the tech ecosystem. If you would like to discuss future opportunities with Faye, you can reach out to her here .

From left to right: Tim Passingham, Tom Burton, Erling Aronsveen, Polly Marsh, and Clive Quantrill.

Cambridge Management Consulting is delighted to announce that we have been recognised as a Platinum-level telecommunications consultancy in Consultancy.uk’s 2025 ‘Top Consulting Firms in the UK’ ranking. This achievement places us among an upper tier of telecommunications consultancies across the UK, reflecting our continued commitment to delivering exceptional expertise and results for our clients in this rapidly evolving sector. A Rigorous Assessment The Consultancy.uk ranking represents one of the most comprehensive evaluations of the UK’s consulting landscape, assessing over 1,400 firms across the country. This methodology combines extensive client feedback from more than 800 clients and peer reviews from over 3,000 consultants, alongside detailed capabilities assessments that examine the reputation of each firm, project track records, analyst benchmarks, industry recognitions, and thought leadership. Within the telecommunications sector specifically, over 500 consulting firms were evaluated, with only 50 qualifying as top players. The ranking system operates across five distinct levels – Diamond, Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze; thus, Platinum status cements Cambridge MC as one of the most trusted, expert, and influential telecommunications consultancies in the UK. This recognition is particularly meaningful given the competitive nature of the UK’s telecommunications consulting market, where established global firms compete alongside specialist independents. Our Platinum ranking demonstrates that Cambridge MC has successfully established itself as a leading authority in telecommunications strategy, transformation, and innovation. Building on a Foundation of Success This latest accolade adds to Cambridge MC’s impressive collection of recent achievements and industry recognition. At The Consultancy Awards 2024, we were honoured to receive three awards, winning in every category for which we were nominated. These included: Digital Transformation: Acknowledging our project management of a multinational oil and gas company’s EV charging hub portfolio. Productivity Improvement & Cost Reduction: Celebrating our delivery of over £10m in savings for a major UK online retailer. Fastest Growing: Recognising our remarkable 30% revenue growth and expansion across new geographies. Beyond organisational achievements, our individual team members continue to earn recognition for their expertise and contributions. Zoë Webster, expert at Cambridge Management Consulting for AI, Digital & Innovation, was named among AI Magazine’s Top 10 AI Leaders in the UK & Europe. Furthermore, Craig Cheney, Managing Partner for Public Sector & Education, was made an Alderman of the City of Bristol, and Marvin Rees OBE, a member of our advisory board, was introduced to the House of Lords. Craig and Marvin were also co-founders of the Bristol City LEAP project, which recently received the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Award of Distinction for Public-Private Collaboration in Cities. This £1bn partnership between Bristol City Council and Ameresco UK represents a world-first initiative in sustainable urban development, demonstrating our capacity to deliver transformational projects with genuine societal impact. At the Forefront of Digital Infrastructure and TMT Our Platinum ranking in telecommunications specifically reflects Cambridge MC’s deep expertise across the full spectrum of Telecoms, Media & Technology (TMT) challenges. We work alongside TMT companies to optimise digital infrastructure and estates while delivering integrated cost reduction services that enhance procurement and contract management functions. Our capabilities span from digital transformation, procurement and network transformation to data centre optimisation and emerging technology integration. The telecommunications landscape continues to evolve rapidly, with exponential data growth, IoT deployment, and the infrastructure demands of generative AI driving substantial transformation in both virtual and physical infrastructure. Our team support organisations to stay afloat in this changing market, with a proven track record including managing over $5bn in client revenues, saving organisations over $2bn, and driving procurement transactions exceeding $5bn. Recent case studies demonstrate the breadth of our telecommunications expertise, from conducting technical due diligence for major investment decisions, to designing and procuring modern network solutions for leading academic institutions. Our work with the University of Bristol, helping them to complete their progressive Modern Network transformation, exemplifies our ability to navigate complex technical and commercial requirements, while delivering measurable outcomes. Looking Ahead As we celebrate this Platinum recognition, Cambridge MC remains committed to pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in telecommunications consulting. Ever since Tim Passingham founded Cambridge Management Consulting, to support telecommunications startups in the city of Cambridge, UK, our purpose has been to help clients make a better impact on the world. This mission drives everything we do, from individual product delivery to industry-wide transformation initiatives. This achievement belongs to our entire team of specialist practitioners who bring decades of hands-on experience to every engagement. As we continue to expand our capabilities and global reach, this recognition serves as both validation of our progress and motivation for the challenges ahead. Thank you to everyone who has joined us on this journey.

Disclaimer: The text below was originally published on the Pembroke College website. Read the original post here to read the full article, including coverage of the award's other recipients, Duncan Rule and Ian Carry. 2025 Volunteers of the Year Announced Congratulations to Duncan Rule, Ian Carry and Tim Passingham (2022) whose contributions to Pembroke have been recognised in Pembroke’s Volunteer of the Year Awards for 2025. The award was introduced in 2022 to recognise not only the particular individuals who contribute their time and expertise for the benefit of the College and its community but also the value of volunteering itself. Duncan and Tim received their awards from the Master, Lord Smith of Finsbury, last week, with Ian set to receive his at the LEAP celebration event next term. Tim Passingham Since joining Pembroke as a William Pitt Fellow in 2022, Tim Passingham has become a highly valued member of the College community. A consistent supporter of the Corporate Partnership Programme, Tim has played a pivotal role in connecting students with real-world opportunities. Through his companies—Cambridge Management Consulting and partner firm edenseven—Tim has offered numerous internships to students on the LEAP programme, helping them build professional confidence and practical skills. Beyond internships, Tim and his team have supported LEAP students through reflective post-programme interviews, offering valuable feedback for both participants and the LEAP team. His impact is visible in many aspects of College life: from advisory work on the Milstein House sub-committee to generous support for Pembroke’s musicians, including the donation of a drum kit. Tim has also brought significant visibility to Pembroke within the wider Cambridge community. Under his leadership, the College was a key host during Cambridge Tech Week 2024, welcoming visitors for lectures, panels, and a Deep Tech Gala Dinner. Regularly using College spaces for high-profile meetings and team retreats, Tim has become a recognisable and influential figure around Pembroke—embodying the spirit of collaboration and innovation that the Corporate Partnership Programme aims to foster. On receiving this award, Tim said "when I was invested as a William Pitt Fellow in 2022, I stated that my desire was to give to the College and work hard to bring the worlds of Academia and Industry closer together. Since then, me and some of my team at Cambridge Management Consulting have supported numerous LEAP interns, sponsored our first PhD student at Pembroke, supported the CARA charity and initiative, supported the Mill Lane site programme, and given as much time and money as we have been able to support the Development Team and the growth of the College. I feel enormously honoured to receive this award which, for me, represents very much the beginning of a partnership which I hope will deepen and grow over many years to come. I look forward to the years ahead and to serving the College as we seek to continue to build on the incredible legacy of Pembroke by having a disproportionate impact for good on the world around us.”

Disruption now occurs with unprecedented regularity, as industries are upended not by traditional competitors but by unexpected entrants wielding innovative technologies and business models.  The difference between thriving and becoming obsolete increasingly hinges on your organisation's ability to anticipate and adapt to disruption before it's too late. The Ur-case of this was Blockbuster, who ignored the threat of streaming technologies, and specifically Netflix (which it could have bought), until it was far too late to pivot and catch up. Our article explores how businesses can develop strategies that offer predictions and agility, embedding creativity and insight into frameworks and actionable steps that plot a course through the disruptive landscapes of the next few years and beyond. Understanding the Nature of Disruption Disruption is no longer just a buzzword — or the philosophy of ‘break things and move fast’ that drove the early tech start-ups that now dominate our waking lives. The theory of disruptive innovation, popularised by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen, explains how new technologies, products, or services can start small but eventually surpass established offerings in existing markets[1]. This process typically begins when smaller companies with fewer resources challenge established or traditional businesses by addressing underserved market needs[5] in new ways; usually with business models that bypass normal routes to market and allow these companies to scale at pace. Recent examples include: fintech banks that challenge the need for brick-and-mortar; online over-the-top media applications that replace the need for print media and traditional broadcast television; digital media and the success of subscription models, replacing physical media for music, films and other forms of entertainment; and platform apps like Uber, which connect us to a fleet of independent drivers who are paid per ‘gig’ and regulated by a ratings system. Today's notion of disruption is characterised by several key features: Accelerated Pace of Change The pace of disruption has accelerated beyond anything previously seen, with transformative technologies reaching mainstream adoption faster than ever[15]. While it took decades for technologies like electricity and telephones to achieve mass adoption, modern innovations like smartphones and AI have transformed entire industries in just a few years. Cross-Industry Disruption Disruptive threats increasingly come from outside traditional industry boundaries. Companies must now monitor not only direct competitors but also adjacent industries and completely unrelated sectors where transferable innovations might emerge[15]. For example, tech giants have disrupted financial services, retail, healthcare, and automotive industries without prior experience in these sectors. Technology-Enabled Business Models Today's most powerful disruptions combine technological innovation with business model innovation. Examples include: Platform models: Uber revolutionised transportation by connecting riders and drivers through a user-friendly mobile app, utilising independent drivers who pay for their own vehicles for rapid scalability[1]. Subscription services: Netflix and Spotify transformed entertainment consumption by shifting from physical media to on-demand streaming with personalised algorithmic content recommendations[1]. Direct-to-consumer approaches: Tesla's direct sales model bypassed traditional dealership networks while integrating advanced electric vehicle technology and autonomous capabilities[1]. From Traditional to Adaptive Strategy Traditional strategic planning approaches — characterised by multi-year roadmaps and rigid implementation plans — have become increasingly inadequate in today's fast-moving business environment. We look at some of the challenges businesses now face below. The Limitations of Traditional Strategy Conventional strategies often fail because they: Assume relative stability in market conditions Take too long to develop and implement Lack flexibility to respond to unexpected changes Rely heavily on historical data to predict future outcomes The Adaptive Strategy Advantage Adaptive strategy, often described as the "Be Fast" approach, emphasises agility, experimentation, and continuous evolution[3]. This approach thrives in fluid industries with high uncertainty and a fast pace of change, such as technology, fashion, entertainment, and start-ups[3]. Organisations that embrace adaptive strategies gain significant advantages: Higher profitability: Companies ranking high in adaptability enjoy up to 75% higher profitability than their less adaptive counterparts[10]. Faster market response: Adaptive firms achieve approximately 60% faster time-to-market compared to traditional competitors[10]. Innovation capacity: The ability to experiment boldly and rapidly iterate creates an environment where breakthrough innovations are more likely to emerge[10]. Real-World Adaptive Strategy Success Consider Netflix's journey from DVD rental service to streaming giant to content producer. Rather than creating a 10-year plan, Netflix constantly evolved based on emerging technologies, customer preferences, and market opportunities. This adaptive approach allowed them to pivot whenever necessary while maintaining their core value proposition of convenient entertainment access[1]. A New Framework for Ensuring Strategy Relevance To maintain strategic relevance amid disruptive trends, companies need a systematic framework that balances stability with flexibility. Anticipate Disruption Through Trend Analysis Successful businesses identify potential disruptions before they manifest fully by monitoring Hard Trends — future certainties based on measurable facts[15]. These include demographic shifts, technological advancements, and regulatory changes that provide predictable directional guidance. For example, financial services firms that recognised the Hard Trend of increasing digital connectivity were better positioned to respond to the rise of mobile banking and fintech disruption. Build your Agility Organisational structures and processes must be designed to support rapid adaptation: Decentralised decision-making: Empower teams closest to customers and market changes to make decisions without lengthy approval chains[3]. Cross-functional collaboration: Break down silos between departments to enable faster information sharing and coordinated responses to change[3]. Agile methodologies: Adapt software development approaches like sprints, continuous integration, and iterative testing to broader business strategy[3]. Foster a Culture of Innovation Innovation cannot be an isolated function — it must permeate your entire organisation: Encourage experimentation: Create safe spaces for testing new ideas with minimal bureaucracy and fear of failure[3]. Customer-centric innovation: Ground innovation efforts in a deep understanding of customer needs rather than internal assumptions[14]. Structured innovation processes: Establish clear pathways for moving ideas from conception to implementation while maintaining flexibility[14]. KPIs that support innovation: For example, looking at the value of a portfolio of innovations rather than a specific innovation project. Leverage Data & Technology Data-driven insights provide a vital competitive advantage in your disruption response: Real-time market intelligence: Deploy advanced analytics to detect weak signals of change before they emerge fully-formed[3]. Predictive modelling: Use Agentic AI to identify patterns and forecast potential disruptions[2]. Digital transformation lifecycle: Invest in the necessary expertise and infrastructure to undertake on-going programmes of transformation — a big step, and potentially expensive, but it can help immunise your business against disruptive technologies and new models. Practical Implementation Steps Translating disruption awareness into effective action requires specific tactical approaches.