Printer Friendly

Blockchain and the Internet of Value: An Interview with Don Tapscott: Don Tapscott talks with Jim Euchner about blockchain, the Internet of value, and the next Internet revolution.

Don Tapscott is the author of 16 books and has been at the forefront of thinking on the Internet; digital transformation; crowdsourcing; and generational shifts in thinking, learning, and working. His most recent work is focused on blockchain, which he believes will be the foundation for an Internet of Value. Tapscott believes that blockchain will bring more far-reaching changes in the ways we work, organize, and interact than the Internet did. In this interview, he discusses these trends and their implications for those managing innovation and R&D in industrial companies.

Jim Euchner [JE]: I've read a number of your books, including Wikinomics, Growing up Digital, and, most recently, Blockchain Revolution. Your work is broad, but I'd like to look at it through the lens of those who are doing R&D and innovation, especially in large, industrial companies.

Don Tapscott [DT]: Okay, go for it.

JE: I'd like to start with Wikinomics and mass collaboration. (1) I know that you identified four aspects of mass collaboration: it's open, it's peer-to-peer, it includes sharing (especially of intellectual property), and it's global. Can you describe what you think is happening from an economic perspective as a result of mass collaboration?

DT: In Wikinomics, we talked about how the Internet of information enables us to collaborate in new ways. The sequel to that, Macrowikinomics, (2) discussed how this is extending beyond the corporation to every entity and sector in society, including health care, education, science, and government.

But since then, this extraordinary thing has happened, the most important innovation in computer science in a generation. It's comparable to the invention of the Internet. We now have not only an Internet of information, but we also have an Internet of value, blockchain. As profound as the Internet of information has been, buckle up--this is going to be even bigger.

JE: That's a big statement! I think that most people think of blockchain as the basis for a new currency (Bitcoin) and also as an enabler for automating some transactions. You're saying it's much bigger than that. Can you explain blockchain and its potential in simple terms?

DT: Well, for 40 years--and I've been at this that long-- we've had an Internet of information. If I send you some information--a PowerPoint, a PDF--I'm not actually sending you the information, I'm sending you a copy of the information. I retain the original. That works fine for information, but when it comes to the things that really make the economy work--assets, things of value that belong to somebody, things like money, stocks, bonds, financial instruments, intellectual property, contracts, loyalty points, carbon credits, our identities, even cultural assets like art and music or votes-- copying is a terrible idea. You don't want someone copying your identity, and if I send you $1,000, it's really important that I don't still have the money. Cryptographers have for decades called this the "double-spend problem."

The way we manage this problem in our economy is through intermediaries--banks, stock exchanges, governments, credit card companies, big social media companies. They perform all of the business and transaction logic for every type of commerce. They identify the asset with the party, they clear and settle transactions, they keep a record, and they enable us to trust each other to do business and to create value and wealth in society. Overall, they've done a pretty good job.

But in 2008, we experienced problems when one of these intermediaries, Wall Street, almost brought down capitalism. Beyond the institutional problems, there are other issues with current systems. These systems are centralized, which means they can be hacked. They exclude a couple of billion people from the global economy. They slow things down. Why does it take a week for money to move from one country to another, for example? It can take weeks for certain financial assets even to move up Wall Street. They also charge too much. Why does the global diaspora have to pay 10 percent to get their remittances back home?

The biggest problem, in my view, is that they capture our data. We have created a new asset class in the digital age-- personal data. The intermediaries expropriate it, creating a bifurcation of wealth. In today's world, we can't control that data and use it to plan our own lives; we have to cede it to others with their own objectives. Our privacy is undermined. What we need is a system where individuals collect and store that data in a self-sovereign "digital black box," enabling us to give permissions to third parties or even monetize our data as we see fit.

Enter blockchain. What if there were not just an Internet of information, but also an Internet of value, a vast, global, distributed ledger that can allow anything of value--from money to engineering designs, to our identities and our votes--to be managed or transacted in a secure and private way? What if there were a native digital medium for value?

Blockchain is the basis for such a system. In 2008, an anonymous person or persons named Satoshi Nakamoto wrote an historic paper that solved the double-spend problem. That person created a new form of cash called Bitcoin, through which people could transact on a peer-to-peer basis, without intermediaries. We can talk about Bitcoin in a second, but the important thing here is not Bitcoin--although it's amazing that it works. The important thing is the underlying capabilities of the technology itself, blockchain.

With blockchain, for the first time in human history, people and organizations can trust each other directly, without intermediaries. Trust is not achieved by a middleman; it is achieved by cryptography, collaboration, and some clever code. My son, Alex, and I call this the "trust protocol." This is critical: Trust is native to the medium.

The Internet of information was a big deal. I probably sold more books than anybody else exploring the potential of the Internet. But in my opinion, the changes wrought by the Internet will be eclipsed by blockchain and the Internet of value.

JE: That's quite a statement. Why do you say that? What are the drivers that make it so big, beyond digital cash?

DT: With blockchain, we are talking about the potential for major shifts in the economy and economic models. The Internet didn't fundamentally change business--it just repackaged existing processes in a digital wrapper. Sure, you can sell things online, and there are all kinds of clever advertising models being refined, but corporations still look like corporations and governments still look like governments. There hasn't been a profound change in the deep structure or architecture of these institutions. With future applications of blockchain, the changes will be very profound at an economic level, not just at an information level.

JE: Help me to understand. How will the existence of a trust protocol change the fundamental architecture of a corporation, for example?

DT: I'll explain it in terms of economic theory. I've been talking about Ronald Coase, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, since 1994. He asked a deceptively simple question: Why does the firm exist? If Adam Smith was right, and the open market is the best mechanism for allocating goods and services and managing information, people, and money, why isn't everybody an independent contractor at every step along the way in production? Why do we have firms?

Coase's answer is transaction costs. He defined them broadly in four categories. First is the cost of search; imagine trying to make a shoe or a car when you have to go to an open market to find all the right people, information, money, and materials. That would be a nightmare. Firms bring that search problem inside their boundaries, where we have mechanisms for acquiring and managing resources.

Second are the costs of coordination. The cost of getting all these people and assets to work together without a coordinating entity is prohibitive. Inside the firm, we have management processes and compensation systems and other devices to lower the cost of coordination.

Third is the cost of contracting. Imagine if every little activity in the economy were a contract, and a physician needed to do 80 contracts every time she performed surgery--contracts for equipment and medication and people and facilities and devices and so on. When you bring that contracting inside the boundaries of the firm, we can rely on contractual understandings that cover many transactions.

Fourth is the cost to establish trust. Trust-building intermediaries take a significant cut from any transaction and add to the overall time it takes to process that transaction.

The Internet of information began to reduce transaction costs somewhat. We also started to see more network businesses--Cisco was one of the first--built on a network of partners. But the firm is still the dominant organizing entity.

Blockchain has the potential to devastate these transaction costs. For example, it could greatly reduce the costs of finding the money to fund something. You used to have to go to banks and venture capitalists and do an IPO; now you can do an ICO (Initial Coin Offering), without banks and other financial intermediaries. ICOs have gone from $165 million in 2016 to $6 billion last year, and they will be close to $20 billion this year.

JE: Wow.

DT: And there's no investment bank, there's no stock market, and there's no stock.

JE: If the transaction costs plummet, if the Coasean floor, as economists call it, drops, what does that do to corporations?

DT: The way we orchestrate capability in society will change. Our future is a more distributed future; I think that much is inevitable. A more distributed society will create really deep change, and if we do it right, it could be very positive change.

JE: Is this because, as you've dramatically reduced costs, you've freed up people who might have been locked out of the existing structures to be creative and to contribute?

DT: Exactly right. But the tonic of the market will also be brought to bear on many things that have been shielded by the traditional corporation. You will not only have more efficient operations, you will have more empowered people. The social implications are pretty extensive.

Consider something like land titles. Seventy percent of the land titles in the world are not enforceable. A land title may be stored in some centralized computer in Honduras, but when a dictator comes to power, he may say, "You have a piece of paper that says you own your land, but the central computer says my friend owns your land." This has actually happened.

If you put land titles on a blockchain, you can't mess with them, and they're public, so everyone can see them--everyone, including journalists, and lawyers, and international institutions, and governments.

JE: The intermediary of the title company goes away.

DT: Yes, that happens, but that is not the only consequence. Disintermediation is a big, big factor. But there are also opportunities to re-intermediate. This is a term I coined in 1994, while writing The Digital Economy. (3) I said then that, if you're in the middle, it's time to do some serious thinking. I noted that bookstores were in the middle between publishers and readers, so I expected that they would be toast; I hypothesized that something new could emerge in the middle that's even bigger than bookstores, and I observed that the leaders of the old middle would typically not be the ones to create the new middle.

And that of course happened. It's the case of Amazon.

JE: Turning to R&D, can you imagine that the corporation might retain its identity but that the product development process might become much more distributed? Not just via open innovation, in the Chesbrough sense, but more dynamic, more ad hoc, more collaborative. Could something emerge for new product development that looks like the way movies are made in Hollywood today?

DT: That was the argument in Wikinomics, but the Internet of information could only take us so far. Consider a supply chain. You have a lot of partners, but supply chains are pretty primitive things, and it's not because of limitations in information flow; it's because a supply chain must manage the flow of assets-- things of value, like money and tax forms and bills of lading and escrow documents, and all kinds of other things. Trains and boats and airplanes. Do you know how you know what's in a railway car today? Inside the car, there's a paper envelope sticking up in the corner that describes the contents!

What happens when all of that moves to a distributed ledger? You will have what we refer to as a shared network state. A couple of research directors at the Blockchain Institute, Tom Serres and Bettina Warburg, are trying to understand this more deeply. With a real-time look at the network through blockchain, everyone can see the same thing. You have a single version of the truth, which speeds up the metabolism of commerce; the number of lawyers and intermediaries is reduced; the error rate goes down.

This is a $50 trillion industry. There are very few vertically integrated companies today, in the Industrial Age sense. Computer companies don't make computers anymore, for example. Apple doesn't make devices; Foxconn does, and Foxconn is a big outsourcer. One of their biggest roles is to organize all of the suppliers.

With blockchain, there will be bigger opportunities to distribute the manufacture and distribution of things and to produce them in an interval much closer to real time.

JE: Is that because it'll be easier to shift from one vendor to another, easier for a smaller vendor to qualify and plug in?

DT: Those are small features, but the main thing blockchain brings is greater transparency, so real value comes to the fore. Value creation is evident; it is more open and transparent.

Truth is kind of a touchy topic these days. What is the truth? Well, with blockchain, you have a single version of the truth. Today you sometimes have dueling spreadsheets in the supply chain, where five managers show up, each with different data. If we have a single version of the truth, it will make a real difference to these operations.

JE: In Blockchain Revolution, you talk about the Internet of value, and you include physical assets in that scope. (4) You talked about a Stradivarius violin, for example. What's the connection between blockchain and physical assets?

DT: A Stradivarius is never going to have a chip in it. But you can do a lot of things with the Stradivarius on a blockchain. You could buy it, and then do an ICO so that everybody could own a little piece of the violin. You would store it in a safe place; you would make sure it was insured properly or given to the concertmaster at the Toronto Symphony for his use or whatever. As the value of the asset went up, the investors would be holding tokens that represent a share in the interest of the Stradivarius.

JE: Is an ICO very easy to issue, as opposed to trying to create a company for the asset?

DT: Oh, yes. A company couldn't do an IPO for a physical thing.

JE: What about more pedestrian things, like tires, for example. How might blockchain affect innovation in a particular product space, for example?

DT: When things become more distributed and decentralized, there are greater opportunities for innovation. This is both good and bad. In today's economy, innovative little companies tend to get swallowed up by big digital conglomerates.

It's sort of humbling to admit, but the digital age has not quite turned out to be what many of us had hoped. The subtitle of The Digital Economy is "Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence." When I was asked to write the 20th-anniversary edition of the book, I had to read it again, and rereading it was a humbling experience. The book itself was very upbeat, although I did have a section on the dark side, where I outlined a bunch of things that could go wrong. Our data could be captured by a tiny handful of companies, for example; we could have a growing bifurcation of wealth; the economy could grow, but the middle class might shrink. Check. Check. Check.

I thought maybe the data we create would be captured by others, and our privacy would be irrevocably destroyed. Well, 1 don't know if it's irrevocably destroyed, but it sure is being destroyed.

I wrote that Schumpeter's creative destruction might not apply: maybe technology would come on so strong and so fast that it would wipe out entire industries without creating new jobs. Well, we have full employment now, although we have declining prosperity. That's interesting.

Soon, I don't think a job is going to be an assumption for having a prosperous life. Think about it--in 48 of 50 states, the number one job for men is truck driver, and for women it's cashier. Most of that work will be gone in a decade.

And it's not just blue-collar work: computers can diagnose patients better than doctors and dispense drugs better than pharmacists and analyze X-rays better than radiologists. The combination of AI and blockchain, the two killer technologies of the next period, will lead to structural unemployment, and we're going to need a new social contract.

I've said I think technology will bring us together, because we will all have access to the same information. But the opposite could also happen; we could end up following those with our own point of view and creating little self-reinforcing echo chambers. I don't think the purpose of information is to inform for a lot of people; it's to give them comfort with their preconceived notions. That has led to a total fragmentation of public discourse.

JE: I agree with you. It may be a natural consequence of the amount of change people are experiencing. When there is so much uncertainty, people seek comfort in what they think they know; they want to believe that they understand where the world's going, and they want reassurance that they're not left in the dust.

DT: Yes. All of these things are a fertile ground for populism, or worse.

The loss of jobs in the United States is not because of Mexicans or outsourcing or Canadians; it's because of technology. Ninety-one percent of job loss has been attributed to technological change. But it's easy for a populist to blame others for these problems and seek to turn inward, create a protectionist, closed economy, hype up nationalism. We've seen this storyline before.

JE: I'd like to shift focus a bit and talk about global solutions networks. As I understand it, a global solutions network is a self-organizing group with a purpose. You gave the example in one of your books of a clinic in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans after the hurricane there. I'm wondering if you might talk about these global solutions networks and relate them back to an R&D model.

DT: At the Blockchain Research Institute, we're doing syndicated research programs, and we have 80 projects underway. Our penultimate program was the global solution network program, and it looked at new distributed networks. These networks are solving problems in governing that are not controlled by nation-states or by single corporations, and they are becoming more important, especially under the conditions of the current social and political environment. They enable us not just to solve problems but to govern resources in entirely new ways. Because they're multi-stakeholder, with participation from corporations, NGOs, academics, governments, and stakeholders at all levels, they can access previously unthinkable ways of getting things done. Our research shows that there are 10 types of these networks.

We started by looking at the remarkable network that governs the Internet of information. It consists of about seven different types of networks: standards groups like the IETF and the W3C; policy groups like the Internet Governance Forum; advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation; operational networks that just do things-- ICANN, for example, which manages domain names. Operational networks are not advocating; they're not creating policy; they're just doing things. All of these organizations come together, and they create a governance network. And if you ask anybody in any of these organizations what they are doing, they will discuss their mission. ICANN, for instance, will say, "We're creating domain names." But if you really press them, they'll say "We're part of the global set of networks that's trying to run the Internet and govern the Internet."

There are also really sophisticated, complex networks, which we call networked institutions. The World Economic Forum would be an example of such a network; it's also involved in governing the Internet.

What got me into blockchain was that I began to wonder what else you could govern with networks. I thought about cryptocurrencies. One day, when my son and I were on a ski trip together, we started comparing notes over dinner. He was an investment banker, and he was seeing all this Bitcoin deal flow. We decided to work together, and he wrote a very important paper about how we might be able to govern Bitcoin in a better way. That led to our decision to collaborate on a book [Blockchain Revolution].

Regarding corporate R&D, most innovation that creates products and services is private-sector stuff. The global solutions network model doesn't apply directly. But increasingly, no business can succeed in a world that's failing, and businesses are inexorably being drawn into broader networks and collaboration structures to achieve things.

JE: Is open-source software, like Linux, an example of what you would call a global solutions network?

DT: It uses the same principles, and it absolutely can be multi-stakeholder. Within an open-source community, there are individuals, corporations, academics. There may be NGOs that care about the issue, as well. To the extent that an open-source network could be thought of as a global solution network, they would fall into the category of operational and delivery networks. These are networks that are just trying to create something or do something, to get something done.

JE: How about the Ninth Ward clinic? It was very ad hoc, but it has persisted. How would you categorize something like that?

DT: That's an unbelievable story about a kid named Joe, a university student, and his girlfriend, who came from New Orleans. After Katrina, they went down to New Orleans to see if they could help, and there was no health care immediately following the hurricane. Katrina had devastated the Ninth Ward. So Joe created one. He said, "If you have the Internet, you can do anything. If you need an air conditioner, you can get an air conditioner." The clinic is still functioning. It sees 9,000 patients a year. It's an example of collaboration, but it's more a story of the extraordinary leadership of a young innovator.

JE: That is the next topic I wanted to talk about--digital natives. You have probably studied that group more than anyone, and you have written about what it means to grow up as someone living with digital technology from a very early age.

DT: When I wrote my first book on the topic, which was about the millennials, I didn't use the term millennial because I realized that the year 2000 was going to come and go, and that was not the defining characteristic of the generation. I dubbed them "the Net Generation." That term never really took off.

I started studying kids when I noticed how my own children were able to use all sorts of sophisticated technology effortlessly. This was in the early 1990s. At first, I thought, "My children are prodigies!" Then I noticed that their friends were as at ease with technology as they were. I started working with 300 kids in 1998, and I wrote the book Growing Up Digital.5 There are some big ideas in that book. For example, this is the first time in human history during which young people are an authority on something really important. I was an authority on model trains when I was 11, but that was a hobby. Today's young people are an authority on the digital revolution, and that is changing every institution on the planet. We don't have a generation gap today, because kids and parents get along well. We have a generation lap where kids are lapping their parents on the digital track.

The Net Generation is the Baby Boom echo. The boom was 1947 to 1965, then the birthrate dropped off for 12 years as some boomers delayed having kids. Around 1978, the boomers started having kids again, and over the next 20 years, they produced a huge generation: Gen Y, the Millennials; I call them the Net Generation.

Now we've got a new generation that has all kinds of names--Gen V, the Mobiles--and they're literally bathed in bits from birth. It's not necessarily a good thing, but we just throw an iPad in a baby's carriage to keep the baby quiet. Personally, I don't think a one-year-old needs to develop their interactive skills with a screen; they ought to be playing with a dog and bouncing a ball around and being hugged and kissed by their parents.

How will these young people be different from the Millennials? From everything I can see, they're the same only 100 times more so. The Net Generation has several norms. They want to customize things, for example. I never got to customize my Mickey Mouse Club membership, but these kids can change their world. When I was a kid, I had three media choices. Today, kids have millions. They are a generation that wants freedom and choices, just like they want oxygen.

They're also a generation of innovators. When I was a child, the pace of innovation was glacial. We used to go to the Canadian National Exhibition every year in the summer to see this year's innovation. An ice cube maker in a refrigerator! And the whole thing is avocado colored! How crazy is that? At the Consumer Electronics Show this year, there were 22,000 new products, in around 1,500 product categories.

This is also a generation that loves speed. It's not immediate gratification, as it's pejoratively spun, it's that they have legitimate expectations that things shouldn't take so long.

They're also a generation that likes to have fun, and as they come into the workforce, they're bringing in their culture, which is really the new culture of work.

We need to listen to them. They may seem weird, but there's a lot that we can learn in the workplace by paying attention to the young people.

JE: What are some of the things you think people should be listening for?

DT: I think everything we know about HR and management is probably wrong. What do we do today in corporations? We recruit, train, compensate, supervise, retain, and evaluate the performance of employees. I don't think you should do any of that.

You shouldn't have to recruit at all. You should start working with young people at an early age: give them internships, projects, work in the schools. Then, by the time they're ready to work, it's just a boundary decision for them and for you for them to join your company. You're not recruiting; you already know the person you're hiring.

You shouldn't send people off to training either. Rather, create work-learning environments where work and learning are the same activity.

Compensation is important, but the new generation cares more about learning in their first job, and they want the work to be interesting.

Annual performance review? Dumbest idea ever. Young people want feedback daily, not annually.

Retaining talent? I don't think you retain people in the conventional sense. You keep them engaged. We just had our first employee at the Blockchain Research Institute leave to pursue her own project. We're retaining her--she's still part of our network; she's just outside the boundaries right now.

As I said, everything we know about management today is wrong if you look at it through the lens of this generation.

JE; Some of the things that people say millennials want are the same things that people wanted in the Quality-of-Work-Life movement back in the '60s--autonomy and contribution and participation.

DT: I tell people at the Blockchain Research Institute that you shouldn't have good work-life balance. Around here, we want work to be life. We want work to be fun, and if you want to do stuff from home, and keep plugged in, that's great; if you want to unplug, that's great too.

JE: That makes sense. You also note that growing up with these technologies changes the way young people think. They're multitasking, they're engaging in just-in-time learning, they're more collaborative. Can you talk about that?

What is gained, but also what is lost when people are online so much of the time?

DT: This is one of those complicated, good-news/bad-news stories. I think that the brains of young people are different from my brain. Both of my kids work while they're listening to music, for example, and I can't do that. My brain doesn't work like that. I grew up doing one thing at a time.

They're wired differently. As a manager or CEO, you might think that they're not actually working, or they're checking social media in the middle of the day or something. But the studies we have done have found that they work, they get deeper and deeper and deeper into something, and then they disengage and have a cool down--they check the sports or something.

Having said that, it's obvious to anybody that we need to find time to reflect. I gave a convocation speech at INSEAD --I'm an adjunct professor there. I told them that you need to find time to think; you shouldn't just scan for information. That's not enough. A young person said to me on a panel once, 20 years ago, "I don't read the newspaper. If the news is important it will find me." When he said that, I thought, "Well, that's cool." I don't think it's cool anymore. You need to find the news. And you shouldn't just scan stuff or look at Twitter; you need to read articles from beginning to end.

We can pretend that snipping and sampling tidbits of stuff will help us be deeply informed or brilliant innovators. But innovation requires deep knowledge, and knowledge, by definition, is specialized, at least according to Peter Drucker, who tends to be wise about these things. But innovation comes from deep collaboration as well, and digital technology helps a lot with that.

JE: I think that's true. What advice do you have for those inside Fortune 2000 companies who are leading R&D or innovation? How should they keep up with technologies, like blockchain, and apply them in their context?

DT: There are some simple techniques. Google Alerts is one. I've got a blockchain Google Alert, and every day I read a dozen articles that blow my mind about things I had no idea were happening in this industry.

But then there are deeper ways to get access to innovation and knowledge. Things like Inno360 (full disclosure, I'm an investor in that company) and others like it. I wrote in Wikinomics that these are good companies that enable network models of innovation.

If you want to understand blockchain or similar technologies, personal use is a precondition for any kind of comprehension. You should download a Bitcoin wallet and go buy something. You'll learn more about public-key cryptography in five minutes than if I talked to you all day.

Show some curiosity. If this is really the second era of the Internet, it's bigger than the first era. Maybe you want to check it out firsthand.

There are all kinds of ways to become informed. Create a community of practice around blockchain, or for that matter, around any topic. That's a very old idea, but it's an idea whose time has come, because we now have the tools to do it well.

Make sure you have a collaborative technical environment. E-mail is not going to do the trick; you need to have more structured collaborative tools.

JE: What about leaders of organizations? How can they stay innovative and leading-edge?

DT: At the Blockchain Institute, we are starting projects on the impact of blockchain on the seven functions of the C suite. For the CFO, what does it mean to do triple-entry accounting, which is what blockchain introduces? That's the biggest change in accounting in four centuries. What does blockchain mean for the head of operations as supply chains move onto blockchain? For the CIO, it's bigger than the Internet: the Internet affected the evolution of IT architecture; blockchain is going to revolutionize it. Do you know about that? Are you checking it out? Blockchain and HR--what does it mean when talent is outside your boundaries, which increasingly will be the case?

Big, big changes are coming in the way we manage and structure companies. Dive into what's happening and learn. Try things. Experiment. Tap into external resources. Don't let this new wave pass you by.

Don Tapscott is one of the world's leading authorities on the impact of technology on business and society. He has authored 16 books, including Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (Penguin-Portfolio, 2006); his most recent book, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies is Changing the World (Penguin-Portfolio, 2016; revised ed. 2018), was coauthored with his son, Alex. In 2017, he and Alex co-founded the Blockchain Research Institute, a global think tank conducting the definitive investigation into blockchain strategy and use cases and blockchain-based organizational transformations. He is a member of the Order of Canada and is ranked the second most influential management thinker and the top digital thinker in the world by Thinkers50. He is an adjunct professor at INSEAD and Chancellor of Trent University in Ontario. don@ tapscott.com

Jim Euchner is editor-in-chief of Research-Technology Management and Honorary Professor at Aston University (UK). He previously held senior management positions in innovation leadership at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Pitney Bowes, and Bell Atlantic. He holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering from Cornell and Princeton Universities, respectively, and an MBA from Southern Methodist University. euchner@iriweb.org

DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2019.1541711

(1) Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (New York: Penguin-Portfolio, 2006).

(2) Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, Macrowikinomics: New Solutions for a Connected Planet (New York: Penguin-Portfolio, 2010).

(3) Don Tapscott, The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995).

(4) Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin is Changing Money, Business, and the World (New York: Penguin-Portfolio, 2016).

(5) Don Tapscott, Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997).

Caption: Don Tapscott believes blockchain will provide the foundation for an Internet of Value that will fundamentally reshape both business and society.
COPYRIGHT 2019 Industrial Research Institute Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:CONVERSATIONS
Author:Euchner, Jim
Publication:Research-Technology Management
Article Type:Interview
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2019
Words:5868
Previous Article:Innovation Archaeology.
Next Article:Today's Innovation Leaders: In a changing environment, innovation leaders need a wide range of skills to succeed and take varied paths to the role.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |