#worldknowledgeforum2014

by Shelby Dattilo

October 16, 2014

The risk of failure for startup enterprises is astronomically high, and IT startups are especially at risk of failure due to inefficient quality of marketing. In an insightful panel discussion at the 2014 World Knowledge Forum, Eric Jackson, CapLinked CEO and Co-founder, and Ken Miller, Gem COO, enlightened the audience with information on marketing and risk management for startups.

The discussion began with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Miller explaining that the most critical things startups need to be aware of are product features and customer happiness.

Mr. Miller noted that really good, developed features are best.

“[Developed features] are much more important than suffocating your customers with an endless amount of features that they don’t understand or need yet,” he said.

Both panelists agreed that at the time of launching, a product must be the minimal viable product (MVP) with the smallest set of features, adding that the startup should focus on developing those features more fully as opposed to attacking too many ideas at once.

The panelists noted that this will also aid in boosting the quality of products. If startups cut corners on quality control at their inception, they will invariably accumulate technical debt down the road, causing problems in software they must fix later.

“If you don’t build testing and quality assurance into everything you’re doing, your product will fail,” Mr. Jackson said.

Mr. Jackson pointed out that another pitfall of many startups is the assumption that they will gain a broader customer base if they start out as a free service and shift to charging for the same service later. He discussed how his own company, CapLinked, started out as a premium service but later moved to a subscription model to acquire business from more large scale enterprises.

“Free or premium isn’t always necessarily a good business model,” Mr. Jackson said, because it can be difficult to scale up later.

The panelists also focused a lot of attention on common perceptions about staffing in startups. In regards to making traditional hires versus hiring friends, Mr. Miller noted that startups involve a lot of time and hard work.

“Hire people who you trust and want to be around, because you will spend most of your time at your startup,” he said.

Mr. Miller also clarified that more staff does not equal more productivity. He stated that it is imperative to stay focused on building the minimal viable product (MVP) that customers want.

As he put it, “Stay lean, hire wise.”

In regards to staffing a sales team, Mr. Jackson stated that is is a myth that startups should hire experienced salesmen early on. Many startup founders may believe that experienced salesmen can help figure out how to position their product in the marketplace, but Mr. Jackson pointed out that this is not always the best route.

“There is no substitute for a founder getting right in there and talking to customers,” he said.

However, the importance of understanding the marketplace before attempting to enter it is key. Mr. Jackson described the unnecessary pressure put on startups to hit the global market too quickly. He related this to Korean entrepreneurs who may feel pressure to enter the United States markets they know less about.

“If you want to actually build a good company, focus on the market that you know,” he said.

Both panelists went on to discuss their personal stories in the startup world. Mr. Jackson discussed his job prior to joining PayPal at one of the former “Big Five” accounting firms, Arthur Andersen. He said that if he had not taken the risk in joining the PayPal startup when he did, his career may have been demolished alongside Arthur Andersen during the Enron scandal.

“You can fail at any aspect of life,” Mr. Jackson said, “…doing a startup is insanely risky, but risk is more complicated than that.”

Mr. Miller told of his entrepreneurial spirit as a child and how trial and error eventually propelled him into the autonomous life that startups could offer. He noted that he made many mistakes in his career, but that those mistakes were essential low points on the rollercoaster that is startup development.

by In-Jee Lee

October 16, 2014

During a morning session on the third day of the 15th annual World Knowledge Forum in Seoul, South Korea, leading roboticists discussed the future of robotics and potential consumer applications. The presentation included both video and live demonstrations by Ben Goertzel, chairman of OpenCog Foundation, and Mark Tilden, robotics physicist, industrialist, and design consultant.

Mr. Goertzel and Mr. Tilden are part of a design team operating out of Hong Kong, which develops robotic facial expressions, body movements, intelligence, interactions with humans, and consciousness.

“The fact is that there are methods for testing new technology and new marketplaces,” said Mr. Tilden, “and Hong Kong is the best place to make this happen.”

One of the main objectives that the team has been working to develop and improve is realism. With advances in perception, memory, and prediction in robots, the results have been astonishing.

Speaking on the uncanny resemblance of one robot to a real human, Mr. Goertzel said, “There’s one humanoid robot that David was working on, and when you walk past it, you think there’s really a guy there. And then you do a double take and realize, oh, that’s actually a robot.”

According to the panelists, robots are now able to burp, fart, sing in French, dance to Gangnam Style, and tell silly jokes. This leads to robots being viewed as a more commercially viable product.

“We found a robot that didn’t take itself seriously, and the customers loved it,” said Mr. Tilden.

However, according to Mr. Goertzel, there are still some obstacles that need to be addressed.

“It has elementary self awareness,” he said, while viewing a demonstration of Zoidstein, a miniature robot modeled after Albert Einstein. “It identifies toys as a young child would.”

Mr. Goertzel remarked on the difficulty of developing robot-human interaction.

“Will it obey the questions, will it give me nonsense, will it give me a lecture on the meaning of death,” he mused.  “We’re improving the intelligence of the dialogue.”

The evidence of this improvement was apparent during a video demonstration of Zoidstein’s capabilities. The robot was able to recognize emotions based on fluctuations in the human voice.

Despite these advances, robots are still elusive to the average consumer. Reducing costs, reducing complexities, and increasing public exposure are steps that Mr. Goertzel and Mr. Tilden are applying to their marketing campaign, making it more accessible to the average consumer.

“We knew it would be successful,” said Mr. Tilden, recalling a demonstration in front of an audience of children in Australia, “because kids were fighting over the remote controls.”

With an eye on the future, the potential commercial applications are endless. According to both panelists, possible industries which may incorporate robotics include healthcare and the service industry.

 “We will have robo-touring, robo-shopping, and robot executive assistants,” Mr. Tilden predicted.

Some applications are even available now, according to Mr. Goertzel. He discussed the work of his colleague, David Hansen.

“His Zeno robot, his little boy robot, is used to teach autistic children,” he said.

Ultimately, robots may even provide home nursing to elderly family members. Mr. Tilden looks forward to the future of robotics.

by Sarah Miles

October 16, 2014

In a society where weakened labor markets can’t provide jobs for university graduates and rapidly advancing technology threatens to make traditional classrooms obsolete, questions about the future of education must be addressed. On the final day of the 15th Annual World Knowledge Forum, a politician, an economics professor, and a technology innovator came together to share their perspectives on the need to revitalize the global education system.

Carl Bildt, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, identified the growing importance of education for governments around the world.

“Education has always been an important topic,” he said, “but it has moved up the ranks of policy priority in the last few decades. It now probably ranks number two, right behind economy at number one.”

The panelists opened the discussion with their thoughts on problems with the current education system. According to professor of George Mason University and world-renowned economist Tyler Cowen, one of the key issues stems from the lack of available jobs for college graduates.

“The fundamental problem is that the product universities are selling is worth less than it used to be,” he said.

For Charles Leadbeater, strategic innovation consultant and former advisor to Tony Blair, the ultimate problem is content, what schools are teaching their students, because the current system doesn’t properly prepare children for an environment valuing creativity and entrepreneurship.

“The future of education is not to push people into systems that don’t deliver good results for them and which are training them for jobs that don’t exist anymore or habits that don’t work anymore. The basic problem is that the current system teaches children to put aside what fires them up and instead teaches them to learn how to comply, perform, deliver, and get through,” he said.

Mr. Bildt also pointed to challenges arising from transformations in recent society, namely globalization and the prevalence of technology.

“In recent centuries, education was a national endeavor. Now it is to some extent global, but certainly it has become a trans-border thing, so now we have to deal with the issues of education in a multicultural environment,” he said.

He continued, “We now also have the issue of the digital gaming generation. It’s not easy to get students to sit down and write an essay, it’s difficult. But we also have the question, is that good or bad?”

After detailing the issues faced by the current education system, the panelists took turns explaining how the system might be improved. Mr. Leadbeater again emphasized the importance of changing educational content.

“What students are looking for is math education and also language that gives them access to the global economy. Then they want the skills to acquire entry level jobs, primarily technology skills. So I see a new core curriculum based on math, language, IT, and skills that increase employability,” he said.

Dr. Cowen believes the ability to retrain will allow people to have greater access to jobs and give them the flexibility to react to changes in the job market.

“More and more of the people working in Starbucks have PhDs and higher levels of education. We need to re-gear the system to teach these people how to retrain themselves,” he said.

Additionally, Dr. Cowen posited a new line of thinking to focus more on what students actually get out of their education and what they need to succeed in the future. One of the important benefits of education, he said, is mentoring.

“Education brings us to mentors and exposes us to role models, and we need to reengineer the system to make this more explicit,” he said.

Along the same lines, Mr. Leadbeater was adamant on the role of education in building character and providing valuable life skills to students.

“Education, in a rather old fashioned sense, should be teaching students how to self-govern and how to work together to find better solutions with other people. We need to take seriously the idea that education is about character, not just skills, but building character to be able to persist in the face of setbacks and respond in creative ways,” he said.

In response to the rise of education technology, the panelists expressed a more subdued opinion, explaining the real impact of technology will likely not be felt for another ten years or so. For Dr. Cowen, “the problem of education technology is getting students to give a damn.”

Mr. Bildt echoed these thoughts, pointing to the job market as where the impact of technology will truly be felt.

The jobs with the most demand are not for people who can write essays, but those who can write code,” he said.

by Adam George

October 15, 2014

At the 2014 World Knowledge Forum, new developments in brain engineering were discussed by Dr. Ben Goertzel, the Chairman of the OpenCog Foundation, and Dr. Jaeseung Jeong, associate professor of KAIST. The two doctors have conducted research on brain engineering, and their findings provided an inside look into how much the brain is already capable of doing, as well as what we will be able to achieve through brain engineering in the near future.

Dr. Goertzel commenced the session by focusing on the neural regions of the brain, explaining that each region carries out numerous cognitive functions. In his research, Dr. Goertzel must examine specific neural regions that, when examined apart from its cerebral connections, have specific functions.  This, however, poses an issue for Mr. Goertzel and his peers.

“How to divide the brain up into regions is a problem within itself that we don’t totally agree on,” Dr. Goertzel said.  Due to the fact that each region’s function changes when looking at the connections it has with neighboring regions, segregating one region and assigning its functions proves challenging.

Dr. Goertzel also described the roles of neurons, the brain cells that transmit ideas from one  to the other.  He explained the convolution of the brain, noting that each neuron has its own function.  In one example that examined an epileptic patient, researchers would “measure specific neurons that only fire when they see a specific actress,” according to Dr. Goertzel.  Ultimately dubbed the Jennifer Anniston Effect, the patient had specific neurons that only fired when he viewed a picture of the actress.

Dr. Goertzel’s work on artificial intelligence, or AI, must delve into these intricacies of the brain, yet disregard the complex nature of the brain.  His goal is to “simulate biological neurons…intending to build a thinking machine, the same way people can.” His research falls under the Brain-Computer Interface aspect of brain engineering.  This realm explores the ways to connect brain and computer functions into one.

The idea of Cognitive Synergy helps Dr. Geortzel to understand his research findings.

“[Cognitive Synergy] refers to the way the whole is a lot more than the sum of its parts in a brain system… when you put [the parts of the brain] altogether, it would not be easy to predict by looking at each part separately,” he said.

Dr. Goertzel also expressed hope that brain engineering development will one day witness more elaborate products derived from brain-computer interfacing.  These ranged from the ability to broadcast feelings to others, to implanting USB ports and memory sticks into one’s head. 

Shifting focus to Dr. Jeong’s research, he explained more aspects off the commercialization of brain engineering.  For example, Dr. Jeong started his portion of the session with a new means for advertising.

“Called train windows, or talking windows, [audio is transmitted] by vibrating without any sound.  If the passenger leans against the window [on a train], the window is vibrating.  The technology is called ‘bone conduction technology’ which transmits vibration to the hair cells in the cochlea which transfers the vibrations to sound,” he said.

Dr. Jeong’s research also looks at artificial limbs that, when connected to a patient, accurately follow the patient’s neural commands.  In a video, Dr. Jeong showed a monkey with a robotic arm. 

“The monkey has the intention to control the robot like his real arm,” he noted, showing the success of his research. 

The goal of replacement rings true for Dr. Jeong’s work, in that artificial organs and neural prosthesis help humans retain elements that the body suddenly lost. 

Dr. Jeong also mentioned a more recreational aspect to the commercialization of his research, particularly in the video game, World of Warcraft.

“In the future,” he said, “you play World of Warcraft without using the keyboard, just thinking!”

by David Currie

October 15, 2014

Success is not always easy to achieve, and defining it can be a challenge. Mr. Pindar Wong,  Chairman of Consultancy at VeriFi Limited, attempted to do so during a roundtable discussion at the 2014 World Knowledge Forum in Seoul, Korea.

“It is one’s determination to succeed no matter what,” Mr. Wong said, that is the key. But the question, he said, is where to focus such determination, as the world is now in a transformational state that is creating new jobs and industries at an accelerating rate. 

Mr. Wong was joined by Mrs. Noni Sri Ayati Purnomo, President Director and CEO of Blue Bird Group Holding, Dr. Tetsuo Ochi, managing partner & CEO of MCP Asset Management Co. Ltd. and Mr. Xiaozhong Yang, Vice President of Trina Solar, to discuss a blueprint for success in Asia.

Currently, larger companies are earning most of the profits in Asia. But Mr. Wong said that such companies act as “big ships,” which are difficult to turn in the seas of constant change. Mrs. Purnomo added that smaller ships, or startups, are necessary for Asia to prosper in the future, yet they must have a strong corporate culture to continue to succeed as they grow.

Unfortunately, the panelists noted, Asia is struggling with innovation, most notably in the technology sector, while nations like the United States are currently thriving.

Addressing a group of students from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Mr. Wong said, “The jobs you think you want to go into might not even exist now.”

“Asia is building the wrong kind of ecosystem,” he continued, adding that no one is willing to finance the risk of startups that can potentially offer substantial returns.

Mrs. Purnomo offered that Asia benefits from having a very tolerant and communal culture, but lacks the ambition of Western cultures.

“Women are most limited by themselves,” she said, explaining a common struggle to achieve signifiant prosperity due to a lack of confidence and the ability to be assertive.

To overcome this, Dr. Ochi reasoned that one must not be afraid to fail.

“It’s a shame when one fails, but it does not kill character, desire or hope. One needs to appraise himself,” he said.

This appraisal will help to determine strengths and weaknesses, which is necessary to achieve success, Mr. Yang validated.

“Failure is the mother of success,” Mr. Yang added. In the investing world, he explained that venture capitalists often seek entrepreneurs who have already failed twice. This individual was referred to as “a third time person,” which Mr. Yang said is a positive characteristic in an entrepreneur, as they have a better perspective on how to achieve success and how to measure risk, two qualities necessary for a good investment.

Touching on different ideas of success in Asia, Mr. Wong stated that parents in Hong Kong

typically do not want their children to become entrepreneurs. They would prefer them to have a safe and reliable occupation, such as a doctor or engineer, rather than taking risks on starting a business. Mr. Wong, on the other hand, has a much different parenting style.

“I want [my children] to fail early and often, as it is not failure if one learns from it and innovates from it,” he said.

Innovation in Asia also has much to do with the cultures each new business grows within. Mr. Yang expressed that companies must have respect for other companies and other regions they want to do business with. Without this understanding and mutual respect, a company’s culture can be misaligned with the local culture and business will suffer.

“Adaption is necessary for survival,” Mrs. Purnomo said, agreeing with her co-panelist.

She stressed that as new prosperous companies in Asia begin to accelerate their growth, a choice must be made to maintain success: losing corporate culture or slowing down growth. This adds to Mrs. Purnomo’s advice that companies need to know its own capabilities to be successful. Without this knowledge, she said, it can become lost and business will deteriorate.

The panel concluded on a positive note, with all speakers confirming that there is always a chance for success, no matter how unpredictable the future may be.

by In-Jee Lee

October 15, 2014

Panelists:

Chenggang Xu, Quoin Professor in Economic Development, University of Hong Kong

Stefan Schaible, Deputy CEO, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, member of the GEC

Josef Brada, Professor of Economics Emeritus, Arizona State University

On the second day of the 15th annual World Knowledge Forum held in Seoul, South Korea, the potential for reunification of the Korean peninsula was discussed by a panel of experts from around the globe. The panelists, including Josef Brada, Professor of Economics Emeritus at Arizona State University, Stefan Schaible, Deputy CEO of Roland Berger Strategy Consultants and member of the Global Executive Committee, and Chenggang Xu, Quoin Professor in Economic Development from the University of Hong Kong, offered different perspectives on reunification.

Mr. Schaible spoke from personal experience as a German citizen.

“Twenty-five years ago brought end to a regime of oppression and deprivation. For Korea, it is longer,” he said, adding that the political circumstances aren’t comparable. “The North,” he said, “is more complex.”

It was generally accepted, however, that a smooth transition would require the South Korea to take the reins. Another critical aspect the panelists addressed is the method of transitioning North Korea into a free market economy.

According to Mr. Brada, East Germany, like Southern Italy and the Southern United States, fell into the same trap of one side prospering while the other lagged behind after unification.

“East Germany got an early bump. The east is still heavily dependent on government  expenditures. Unemployment rates are high. Germans were willing to pay for this. Are Koreans willing to pay for it?” he asked.

Mr. Schaible suggested that North and South Korea might avoid these pitfalls.

“You in Korea are in a much better position than we were at that time. You are drawing from previous collapses of socialist countries,” he said.

Professor Xu, however, focused primarily on the economic transition necessary for North Korea. Using the contributions of Hong Kong to the development of the Chinese economy, he also highlighted differences in the situations.

Mr. Xu argued that South Korea, like Hong Kong, is quickly becoming a major financial center. This, he suggested, could play an important role in North Korea’s economic development following unification.

“South Korea has a GDP 110 times higher than the North,” said Mr. Xu. Reunification would also require the active participation of legal and financial institutions, with private enterprises doing much more than the government.

Mr. Brada discussed other potential difficulties in unifying Korea.

“North Korea is different from these other unifications in the sense that its a pretty militarized place, and not only do they have a military that’s big, you have a party and government apparatus that has a lot of people, too. What are you going to do with those people? Send them on vacation? Send them to an island?”

Mr. Brada continued in a somewhat negative tone by questioning whether there are any historical success stories of reunification.

“I didn’t mean to cool down anyone’s zeal for unification,” he said. “I meant to go in with eyes open. Don’t think we can’t make it.”

Despite the overall theme of the discussion centering around managing expectations, preparedness, and a slow economic transition for the North’s economy to join the South Korean economy, Mr. Schaible reminded everyone that unification is about more than just integrating economies - it’s integrating people.