Search Results

Library CONSUMER FINANCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: LEVERAGING BIG DATA AND TECHNOLOGY TO PERSONALIZE PROTECTION Have you ever wondered why consumers tend to make suboptimal financial decisions, and why financial firms are often in a position to exploit them? Clearly, this is due in part to consumers’ biases and limited rationality... BIG DATA AND THE LEAN STARTUP APPROACH AS TOOLS FOR INNOVATION IN LARGE FIRMS Can larger firms face and survive the challenge of startups? The one question that comes to mind these days is whether they are still capable of fostering innovation... SOCIAL ACCOUNTING: A TOOL FOR MEASURING CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY Corporate social responsibility is an increasingly popular topic in the corporate world and beyond, highlighting a need for best practices and a stronger understanding of what it really means to be a sustainable business... DOING GOOD WHILE DOING WELL: THE CASE OF BUSINESS IT INITIATIVES How can organizations do good (help the environment) while doing well (boosting economic growth)? While both worthy goals, they can be at odds with each other, creating a dilemma for organizations... GDPR COMPLIANCE IN LIGHT OF HEAVIER SANCTIONS TO COME - AT LEAST IN THEORY Ridiculously low ceilings on administrative fines hindered the effectiveness of EU data protection law for over twenty years. US tech giants may have seen these fines as a cost of doing business... EU SUSTAINABLE GROWTH REGULATIONS: THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSPARENCY, COMPARABILITY, AND LEADERSHIP With the European Green Deal of December 2019 supporting long-term signals to support green investments, and the proposed European Climate Law as a framework for... HOW TO BUILD A PROACTIVE WORKFORCE: TRAINING PROBLEM SOLVERS OR STRATEGIC CHANGE AGENTS? Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career... SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THANKS TO THE DATA FOOTPRINT From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data... A DAWN OF DATA REVOLUTION AND WHAT'S AT STAKE? It is estimated that by year 2025, individuals and businesses alike will produce about 463 exabytes of data per day globally and there will be an estimated 175 zettabytes of data in the global data sphere. Businesses use data for a variety of reasons; including but not limited to analyzing customer behavior...

Corporate social responsibility is an increasingly popular topic in the corporate world and beyond, highlighting a need for best practices and a stronger understanding of what it really means to be a sustainable business. For this to occur, we need ways of measuring corporate sustainability: social accounting is one way of doing so. Adrian Zicari, professor at ESSEC, explains its merits, as well as its limitations, in a recent chapter in the Handbook on Ethics in Finance. SOCIAL ACCOUNTING: A TOOL FOR MEASURING CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY Corporate social responsibility is an increasingly popular topic in the corporate world and beyond, highlighting a need for best practices and a stronger understanding of what it really means to be a sustainable business. For this to occur, we need ways of measuring corporate sustainability: social accounting is one way of doing so. Adrian Zicari, professor at ESSEC, explains its merits, as well as its limitations, in a recent chapter in the Handbook on Ethics in Finance. First, a primer: social accounting refers to the measurement of an organization’s social and environmental performance, recognizing the need to go beyond measuring economic impact only. There are a number of indicators that can be used, for example the disclosure of pollution information or the composition of the company’s workforce, among others. The list of indicators goes on, as assessing social and environmental information is a complex matter. This makes the scope of social accounting quite broad, and also leads to the question of balancing comprehensiveness and comprehension: more information is not necessarily better, as it can make reports hard to understand. Many of these indicators are not measurable in financial terms, so practitioners of social accounting need to go beyond conventional accounting and gather information from different sources. This requires a significant investment. As a result, social reports are more common in bigger companies. Dr. Zicari explored five issues (1): The motivation behind corporate disclosure of social & environmental information The use of social accounting internally for management purposes The link between social accounting and financial performance Whether or not regulation contributes to sustainability The potential that social accounting has for contributing to sustainable practices Disclosure on social and environmental information Today, the disclosure of social and environmental information is usually voluntary, though some European countries have recently implemented regulations. For instance, some companies in France have to present a “déclaration de performance extra-financière”. This means that in many cases, companies can pick and choose what, how, and when they disclose. This makes it difficult to compare companies, as there are many different frameworks in use. If it is not mandatory, why do companies disclose this kind of information? One reason is to show their legitimacy, i.e. living up to social expectations. Others may have a more “defensive” strategy in play, like if they are under fire from environmental agencies. If they do produce social reports, their motivations may impact the content. Researchers have noted that companies with poorer environmental performance tend to talk more about their environmental projects (2) and use more optimistic language (3). In other words, companies tend to be strategic when deciding what they share and how they share it, and their motivation is often based on protecting or enhancing the company’s reputation. This does not necessarily mean that companies are acting in bad faith, but it does mean that they may not disclose all their social and environmental indicators. Dr. Zicari notes that this can lead to tensions between companies and stakeholders: companies may not disclose all information, while stakeholders may seek more transparency. Should disclosure be mandatory? Corporate social responsibility initiatives and social accounting alike are typically voluntary, but there are increasingly calls for more mandatory reporting. This would be beneficial in that it could increase comparability, standardize reporting, boost the scope of information shared, result in better-informed consumers. One way to increase regulation is through “soft-law” initiatives, meaning the use of frameworks that are voluntary, but provide structure, like GRI, SASB, and Integrated Reporting. If a company says that it complies with one of those, then it has to abide by that and provide the according data. This could also boost stakeholder engagement by providing a reference point and also make it easier to compare companies, as currently comparisons are hindered by the many different frameworks out there. Another option is the use of “hard-law”, legally-binding regulations. One example of this is the Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Union, under which companies with over 500 employees disclose non-financial information. Some initial research suggests that this could have a negative impact on information quality, as companies prefer to share good news (4). Increased regulations on social reporting could help, but regulation alone will not ensure disclosure, nor does increased disclosure lead to increased sustainability. This suggests that while regulation could be useful, it does not replace the need for stakeholders to advocate for sustainability. Using social accounting internally Much of the discussion has focused on disclosure to external parties. What about the goings-on inside the company? Internal indicators can help managers make decisions that align with CSR indicators. However, since the indicators can be hard to decipher, managers may struggle to work with them, especially as CSR work can be siloed within the organization. Companies use different approaches when using social accounting internally. An “inside-out” approach highlights the use of internal social accounting information by managers in their decision-making processes; this can be combined with the “outside-in” perspective, wherein external stakeholders use report information to inform their decisions (5). Both of these perspectives are important in striving for sustainability. To facilitate this process and also help managers interpret the information, CSR discussions should be integrated into corporate performance and dealt with across the organization, rather than being the responsibility solely of a specialized team. What is the link between social accounting and financial performance? Social accounting is not interchangeable with conventional accounting: how exactly do they relate? Their scopes are different, but there is a lot of overlap, both in content and in audience. For example, perhaps a firm makes an expenditure to make a process greener: this will be reported in Profit and Loss Statements (the cost) and in social reports (the effect of the green initiative). An investor may read both these statements, as the financial statements help evaluate the company’s potential and social reports show its environmental impact. The research is mixed when it comes to how sustainability actually impacts financial performance; as a result, managers may be unsure about the profitability of sustainable policies, even if they think the ethical rationale is strong. When measuring the situation, managers thus need to carefully consider the framework they use, and whether or not it is appropriate for the situation. Can social accounting lead to organizational change? Even if the link between sustainability and financial performance is unclear, sustainability remains a worthy goal. This means that social accounting, too, is useful, as a tool for achieving sustainability. What can it actually achieve? Some scholars (cf. 6) suggest that social accounting can inform better decision-making and facilitate teamwork. Others are less certain (cf. 7), who argue that it is mainly symbolic and may not lead to significant change. One thing is true: realizing true improvements is difficult, and the mere implementation of social accounting processes will not automatically improve sustainability. Further, over-reliance on social accounting may lead to a focus on the “small picture”, rather than truly revisiting conventional business models. While social accounting is not a silver bullet, it has shown success; the KPMG Survey of Corporate Reporting (2017) (8), studying reporting practices in 50 countries, found that social reporting is widespread, and there is a community dedicated to its improvement and implementation. Social accounting could also help with the “big picture”: while reports may highlight smaller, incremental improvements, these could inform long-term changes to conventional business practices. For example, mining: by definition a polluting activity, but nevertheless one that is necessary for industrial production. Using social accounting could give managers and stakeholders information that could help reduce the environmental impact as a short-term strategy, while preserving the need to look for long-term solutions that are better for the planet. Social accounting is necessary and helpful for improving business models. Increased disclosure illuminates managers how the company can improve and informs the company’s efforts to be socially responsible. More transparency will benefit stakeholders and empower the public. We need to remember that social accounting remains a means to an end, and it will be tested by how effectively it creates measurable change in corporate practices. Key points and takeaways Tension exists between companies and stakeholders, as the former may not share all information and the latter seek greater transparency. Regulation could improve report quality, but will not automatically improve disclosure. Managers may find it challenging to work with social and environmental indicators, leading us back to the first point: some information may not be disclosed because it is not well understood or not readily available. We still do not have a clear picture of the link between sustainability and financial performance. We must be clear-eyed on the promise of social accounting. It can help improve existing business models, but does not create new ones, and managers should be encouraged to use complementary tools. All things considered: social accounting is an increasingly helpful tool for managers and stakeholders, and can help improve corporate sustainability. References Zicari, A. (2020). The many merits and some limits of Social Accounting: Why disclosure Is not enough. Handbook on Ethics in Finance, 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29371-0_14 Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 639-647. Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431-443. Costa, E., & Agostini, M. (2016). Mandatory disclosure about environmental and employee matters in the reports of Italian-listed corporate groups. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 36(1), 10-33. Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Burke, J. J., & Clark, C. E. (2016). The business case for integrated reporting: Insights from leading practitioners, regulators, and academics. Business Horizons, 59(3), 273-283. Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. H. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 107-129. Blasco, J. L., & King, A. (2017). The road ahead: the KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017. Zurich: KPMG International. by Adrián Zicari , 08.06.21 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career. For organizations, a proactive workforce which anticipates changes and is willing to contribute to innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. So how can organizations encourage employees to be more proactive?  HOW TO BUILD A PROACTIVE WORKFORCE: TRAINING PROBLEM SOLVERS OR STRATEGIC CHANGE AGENTS? Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career. For organizations, a proactive workforce which anticipates changes and is willing to contribute to innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. So how can organizations encourage employees to be more proactive? Previous research has highlighted two potential avenues for organizations wishing to increase the proactivity of their workforce: hiring new human resources with particular personalities and skills sets, or changing the work context, for example by enriching existing employees’ work. However, these strategies often encounter two issues that may block their implementation: the lack of opportunity to hire due to difficult economic or budgetary contexts, and the lack in means and resources to enrich job roles. It therefore falls to training and development to offer a feasible approach to promoting employee proactivity. Indeed, in the United States alone, organizations spent over $165 billion on employee training and development in 2013. But how should training approaches aimed at encouraging proactivity in the workforce be designed? And which training approaches are most effective for employees with different needs and priorities? Karoline Strauss, together with Sharon K. Parker of the University of Western Australia, decided to carry out research to address these questions. “It was clear to us that the training approach an organization should take would depend on the type of proactivity it is looking for in its employees”, says Prof. Strauss. The researchers suspected that a different training approach would be needed to encourage employees to become proactive in solving problems they encountered in their day-to-day work, or to encourage them to involve themselves in strategic change and become proactive in shaping the future of the organization. The researchers developed two distinct training interventions focused on encouraging these two types of proactivity. The researchers then recruited 112 volunteers from a police force in the North of England. The volunteers were randomly allocated to one of the two training approaches, or to a third group that received no training whatsoever. “To test whether the training approaches were effective in promoting proactivity, we compare employees who took part in the training to employees in this third group”, explains Prof. Strauss. “This means that we can rule out that employees throughout the organization became more or less proactive because of other changes that took place during the time of our study”. The researchers then tracked employees over 9 months to see if their proactivity increased. The findings showed that both training approaches were potentially effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, but that employees’ needs and preferences determined whether the training worked for them. Prof. Strauss’s findings showed that employees faced with a high workload were most likely to respond positively to the training approach aimed at encouraging them to be proactive problem solvers. “These employees felt swamped by the demands they were facing”, states Prof. Strauss. “We succeeded in training them to approach their job in a more proactive way and take charge of challenges and obstacles they were facing”. Training these employees to identify problems in their job and to develop ways to address these problems helped them to find more efficient ways of completing their day-to-day tasks. On the other hand, the training approach aimed at encouraging employees to become more proactive in shaping the future of the organization was most effective for those who are generally more focused on long-term rather than short-term benefits. Employees who were more interested in the short-term did not respond to the training approach in the same way – they did not become more proactive. “Our findings really show that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to proactivity training”, explains Prof. Strauss. “For organizations who want to enhance proactivity in their workforce this has two important implications. First, what kind of proactivity do they expect? Do they want employees to become proactive in overcoming obstacles and finding more efficient ways of working, or do they want employees who think about the long-term future and about strategic change at the organization level? Second, organizations need to consider the situation the employee is in. What are the employee’s needs and preferences? Pushing somebody who is generally not very interested in the long-term to contribute to bringing about a vision of the organization in the future is unlikely to be effective in making them more proactive, and our findings suggest that it can even backfire”. Prof. Strauss’s work has been recognized for the strength of its experimental design which rules out alternative explanations for changes in employee proactivity. However, she suggests that more research is needed on the effects of training interventions on employee proactivity. “Our study is an important first step in determining which type of training approach can be effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, and who is most likely to respond positively to the training. But can we, for example, combine the different training approaches, and are there other ways in which employees and organizations can benefit from proactivity training?” Further research will need to explore these questions in other organizational settings. by Karoline Strauss , 03.10.16 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THANKS TO THE DATA FOOTPRINT Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, companies have had to accelerate their digital transformation. This implies increased investments, so substantial that they require C-level support. The stakes are high for organizations. From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data. Data from transactions, customers, products, etc. invades the daily operations of organizations, constituting a potentially valuable asset, but above all an important challenge in terms of governance and management. Organizations must increase the understanding of these data as part of their transformation. In the very short term and in an uncertain time, data becomes more crucial than ever to identify the levers of performance of companies. Optimizing costs, increasing business revenues, and driving process efficiency are all initiatives based on the availability of relevant data. As the decision cycles accelerate, many decision-makers will no longer be able to drive their businesses with approximate and often inaccurate data. Having good data - and just in time - has become a pressing necessity. But this prospect seems attainable only if the data heritage is better mastered. This is precisely the purpose of the "Data Footprint" method designed by Kearney and Essec. Evaluating the data footprint now constitutes an essential approach to secure investments and increase control over data assets. The Data Footprint approach introduces a virtuous practice that aims to understand the data heritage, risks, challenges and limits linked to data within organizations. The Data Footprint is an evaluation process based on a 360° analysis of the data required as part of a company initiative steered by the entity in charge of Data Governance. The aim of the Data Footprint is to assess the data assets to establish a risk assessment score. Based on multiple dimensions of analysis such as data quality or security, our method allows a quantified assessment of the data heritage in an organization. Today, the data heritage is still poorly controlled and exploited in many companies. What is the quality level of critical data sets in the organization (e.g customers/suppliers’ data)? What is the level of risk associated? What is the degree of control and ownership of data in the organization? These questions are often asked by decision makers without concrete answers based on a structured assessment. The complexity of information systems combined with the lack of governance make the data equation often complex and costly. The Data Footprint allows companies to get a tangible data assessment across multiple dimensions in order to establish a risk score. The purpose of such a measure is to be able to accurately assess areas of weakness and to monitor data heritage improvements. The approach also allows internal and external benchmarks based on a standardized analysis grid. The strategy for implementing a Data Footprint should be progressive while focusing on the critical data sets in the context of companies’ major programs, projects or business transformation initiatives. The approach should involve several collaborators, at least representatives of business lines and IT, who jointly use a score sheet based on the following five dimensions:accessibility and availability,quality, ownership,risks, and identification of the future users. The overall score calculated on these five dimensions can range between 0 and 15, the lower the score the higher the risk related to the enterprise initiative. Consider as an example a company specializing in the distribution of electronic equipment to the general public through its distribution network of more than 2,000 stores. As part of its data strategy, the company decides to launch a priority project that deploys a “Customer-centric” approach in order to increase customer value. The objective is to capture a better understanding of customer preferences in order to meet their expectations. The company anticipates a significant potential risk linked to data (availability, quality, etc.) and decides to launch a Data footprint approach. The total Data risk score for this company was less than 5 in the evaluation exercise. On the recommendation of the Chief Data Officer in agreement with the rest of the team, the decision to launch the project is postponed pending the implementation of a specific data related action plan. This approach allowed the company to apprehend a major risk related to data on this project. Indeed, a rapid launch of this project without prior assessment would have potentially led to failure with economic consequences (losses estimated at a few hundred thousand euros). The approach also made it possible to initiate collaborative work around the data over the entire duration of this assessment (one month), and thus avoiding internal misunderstandings about the responsibilities of the various stakeholders (Business lines, IT teams, etc.). Finally, a clear action plan could be drawn justifying the investment of technical and human resources to upgrade the information system. by Jeroen Rombouts , 19.10.20 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

For entrepreneurs to flourish, they need funding: venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high-risk, growing entrepreneurial companies. Venture capital is particularly attractive for new companies with a limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets, and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering The role of venture capital securities in entrepreneurship For entrepreneurs to flourish, they need funding: venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high-risk, growing entrepreneurial companies. Venture capital is particularly attractive for new companies with a limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets, and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering. In exchange for the high risk that venture capitalists (VCs) shoulder by investing in smaller and less mature companies, venture capitalists usually get a significant portion of the company's ownership (and consequently their value). Once a VC decides to invest in a venture, the involved parties need to settle on a deal structure. When negotiating the deal structure, parties need to keep a few considerations in mind: The deal structure needs to protect the VC against losses and should encourage entrepreneurs to work hard to make the venture a success. Most VC investments are illiquid, which means that unlike shares of listed companies, they cannot be sold very easily. Finally, most investments are characterized by asymmetric information. In general, the entrepreneur knows more about the venture than the investor. VCs typically use convertible preferred equity to finance ventures. As the name suggests there are two important features of these securities: conversion and preferred. Investors of convertible preferred equity have the option of either holding a debt-like claim -preferred equity or converting into common equity. Converting into common equity implies sharing ownership in the venture with the entrepreneur. Preferred terms make it similar to a loan (debt), gives holders a right to interest payment (dividends) and additionally gives preference in payments over common equity. In other words, the preferred feature ensures that preferred investors are paid before common equity holders. In a typical deal, VCs would hold preferred equity and the entrepreneur common equity, thus the VC can get paid before the entrepreneur if the venture does not do well. However, if the venture succeeds and its value increases, the VC would convert the preferred equity into common equity and share the fruits of this success with the entrepreneur. AAnother feature of VC investments is that they are done in stages. VCs would never provide all the capital upfront to a venture; instead, they would only provide sufficient capital to reach the next milestone. Once the capital has been used up, the entrepreneur has to raise another round of financing to reach the next milestone. The advantage of staging is that VCs can stop financing if the venture is not doing well. It can also be advantageous for the entrepreneur, as the terms can be made more favorable to them if their venture is successful. Staging also helps reconcile the aforementioned asymmetric information levels between entrepreneurs and VCs, since future investments are only made based on past outcomes. Finally, in addition to providing capital, VCs also monitor and guide the venture. The structure of most deals is designed to ensure the monitoring role of VCs. While VCs do not hold the majority of shares, they would have the right to nominate members to the board of directors. These rights help the VC monitor progress and guide the venture and gives them the power to replace managers if operations are not going smoothly. Having discussed the general features of VC investments, we will now explore details of some specific securities used in VC contracting. It must be noted that convertible preferred securities come in various flavors. Dr. Arcot analyzes one such security called participating convertible preferred security (PCP), used widely in venture capital contracts (Arcot, 2014). Participating convertible preferred stock gives its holders the right to be paid first (before common shareholders generally held by the entrepreneurs) and at the same time, allows them to participate in excess earnings (i.e., the cash flow after all debt and preferred claims have been satisfied) along with the common stockholder. PCP holders thus concurrently hold both a debt-like claim (preferred equity) as well as an equity claim (participation rights). However, PCP holders lose their preferred rights if they convert this PCP stock into common stock. His research explores why venture capitalists are willing to convert their PCP stock into common equity and give up their preferred rights. He proposes a signaling model for PCP stock based on its role in venture capital exits. The two major forms of exits observed in venture capital are the initial public offerings (IPOs) and the trade sale. IPOs are exits where shares of the venture are sold to investors and then listed on the stock market and trade sale is a transaction in which a venture is sold to another company. Typically, a PCP stake is converted into common equity during an IPO exit, but is not converted in a trade sale exit. The model shows that VCs can signal the quality of their venture in an IPO by converting their PCP stake into common equity and giving up some of their cash flow rights. By giving up something during an IPO, VCs are signaling to investors that the venture is of a high quality. Signaling is of particular importance in an IPO, because in an IPO shares are sold to new investors who do not have access to documents to analyze the venture’s performance. Investors in an IPO typically have to rely on a bank to perform the due diligence and hence are thus relatively uninformed about the venture. In contrast, potential trade buyers are given access to documents, which they can analyze to reach conclusions about the venture’s quality. Since trade buyers typically come from the same industry as the venture, they are likely to have industry knowledge and are better equipped to interpret the information provided. When exit is through an IPO, the entrepreneur retains control of the firm. Thus, when the firm value is high, an IPO exit rewards the entrepreneur and should be the preferred exit route. However, the VC may be reluctant to take that route, given that investors in an IPO are less informed and the VC may not get the full value for his stake. When the firm value is high, the VCs may prefer to target investors who are more informed and get a higher value for their stake. In other words, exit through a trade sale. However, the interests of VCs and entrepreneurs are more easily aligned when the VCs convert their PCP stakes into common shares and exit through an IPO. Venture capitalists investing in start-ups use sophisticated financial instruments to structure their investments. This article provides a rationale for the use of one such instrument, PCP stock, based on the venture capitalist’s exit strategy. In doing so, it makes a connection between the exit route and entrepreneurial effort. This highlights factors that have direct implications for the incentives of venture capitalists to invest in ventures and entrepreneurs to exert effort to make them a success. by Sridhar Arcot , 04.01.22 Source: Knowledge Lab

Istanbul IT Leadership Summit IT and Data Executives Register Now! In-Person Event | January 12, 2023 Attending Companies Discover More Why Attend our Event? Exclusive Content – In-depth, trend-forward sessions – with tons of practical takeaways and ideas to keep you ahead in the IT space. Connections – Hundreds of seasoned IT decision makers, cyber security experts, strategists, risk managers, data heads, marketers, and more to mingle and connect with. Meet your customers, vendors, expert resources, friends and colleagues. Network with leading solution providers – As a delegate, you will experience cutting-edge technology from solution providers that can fulfil your business requirements. Showcase of Technology solutions - Gather practical perspectives from many real-world use cases shared by the market’s leading players, including early adopters and leaders from across the region. Key Topics Technology is part of our daily lives and even more so in our professional environment. The goal of this invitation-only event is to encourage discussions and dialogue on what it means to be a successful IT executive and to provide tools and strategies to assist current and emerging leaders. We urge our leaders to confidentially share their experiences and plans while hearing from inspirational and visionary speakers. We explore and share the main topics amongst which artificial intelligence, fintech, cybersecurity and the metaverse are the most popular. We encourage you to come and meet some of the biggest players when it comes to cloud computing, big data security, customer service and enterprise technology. Coming together will not only expand your networks and knowledge, you can meet the industry specialists and learn more about their expert services. Innovation & Emerging Technologies Cybersecurity, Data Protection & IT Risk Management Metaverse, Blockchain & Cryptocurrencies Leadership & Business Transformation AI, Data & Analytics Cloud, Infrastructure & Operations The Agenda The event's dynamic agenda will take you through a series of roundtable discussions, real-life use cases, and dedicated industry tracks, giving you a bird's eye view of the current market situation, the latest technological innovations and strategies for propelling your organization to meet the unique challenges of these unprecedented times. Our Upcoming Events