As technology has changed, so too has the amount of data that’s created. A memory card in 2014 could fit 1,000 times more memory than the same sized card available in 2005. Put another way, a memory card that fits on the tip of your finger has 32 million times more memory than the guidance computer on Apollo 11.

It’s not just the amount of new data which is staggering, it’s the rate with which it’s shared. Look at social media. Every minute, around 280,000 tweets are sent, 72 hours of video are uploaded on YouTube, and around two and a half million posts are ‘liked’ on Facebook. These numbers are less surprising when you consider that more than 2.2 billion people actively use social media.

No single person or company can hope to control or lead all change in the technological landscape. But companies can embrace this change.

Take Uber and Air B&B. They’ve come in and are shaking up the services sector. These companies aren’t generating change. They’re tapping into the overarching technological revolution taking place and using it for a specific outcome, whether it’s taking on taxi companies
or hotels.

Some companies, of course, choose not to ride the wave of change. Look at what happened with Kodak. It’s a well-known example, but pertinent nonetheless. Steven Sasson, a Kodak engineer, invented the world’s first digital camera in 1975. Although bosses at the company were warned this could transform their industry, they failed to change their business model.

Did the pace of change in their world throw them off guard? Did they feel their successful products were immune to the changes? Or were they misguidedly hoping an existential threat to their status quo would blow over?

One thing is for certain: despite the ever-presence of change, it catches many of us – people, governments, schools and companies – off guard from time to time. Perhaps that’s what compelled Thomas Hardy to write that “time changes everything except something within us, which is always surprised by change.”

Perhaps the greatest change is a challenge that is unfolding over the course of this century. This challenge boils down to the following: how do you address two key global imperatives – rising global demand for energy, and
climate change?

Demand for all types of energy is on the rise – from power to plastic, and heating to transport. In fact, the International Energy Agency, the energy watchdog, expects global demand to be 37 per cent higher in 2040. This increasing appetite for energy is coming from a global population growing by 200,000 people a day. It’s also coming from economic growth and a rising middle-class, with a growing desire for products and lifestyles.

When looking at future demand, there’s a critical point which can’t be overlooked. And that’s the fact that one in every six people on the planet still don’t have access to electricity. A lack of electricity means no light for students to use when doing their homework in the evenings. It means no access to the internet to research a project they’re working on at school. Measurements of human wellbeing, such as education, are correlated positively with the supply of stable and affordable energy.

All of this points to the reality that meeting future demand for energy is a formidable challenge. At the same time, there is the need tackle climate change. Ultimately, we need much more energy, with far fewer emissions. Easy to say. Tough to do. To address both challenges the world must undergo a transition over the course of the century to a low-carbon future. This macro change to the global energy system is not something that can be led and controlled by any one company or government.

Looking back over all of the changes I’ve been involved with, there are three practical lessons I’ve taken away.

Lead change from within. One, ownership of change is critical. Leaders – whether a head teacher or a CEO – need to get stuck into the conversation and drive the process forward. Employees know their company a heck of a lot better than an external consultancy. So change should be led from within, and not outsourced to others.

Coupled with ownership must be a long-term commitment from leaders. If there’s a quick succession of education ministers appointed in Westminster, I don’t need to tell you that this will upset the balance in your line of work. But if a minister is in post for a reasonable length of time – and if that minister owns the changes being implemented – they’re bound to be better.

Pages: 1 2 3 4