n reality, a "wait and see" approach has much more risk than the action being avoided. Here's why. In the past, when we were going through rapid change (not massive transformation like we're seeing today), a company could use a "wait and see" approach because it was harder for competitors to develop and deploy new offerings quickly, and it was harder for established competitors to change the game or redefine completely. None of that is difficult anymore.
Today, new competitors can emerge rapidly, and they can even be from another part of the world. Geography is increasingly less of a hindrance. Anyone, at any time, can quickly become more relevant than you because the barriers to entry are low and the ability to scale is fast. Therefore, in a world were the game is changing rapidly, failing to take action-deciding to "wait and see"-can quickly put you on a path of increasing irrelevancy or a rapid demise.
Additionally, with many adopting a "wait and see" approach, the pace of recovery will be very slow indeed.
Today, new competitors can emerge rapidly, and they can even be from another part of the world. Geography is increasingly less of a hindrance. Anyone, at any time, can quickly become more relevant than you because the barriers to entry are low and the ability to scale is fast. Therefore, in a world were the game is changing rapidly, failing to take action-deciding to "wait and see"-can quickly put you on a path of increasing irrelevancy or a rapid demise.
Additionally, with many adopting a "wait and see" approach, the pace of recovery will be very slow indeed.