Expert session #104 featured Björn Ognibeni, a long-time advisor on digital transformation working across strategy, product, and commercial execution. His work sits at the intersection of systems, not tools. China, in his framing, is not a trend to observe. It is an operating environment to understand.

The conversation opened with a familiar premise. China is ahead. The question that followed was more useful.

Most discussions on this topic default to comparison. Who is leading in AI. Who is investing more. Which models are more advanced. These are surface-level questions. They assume that both sides are playing the same game, only at different speeds.

That assumption does not hold.

What emerged early in the session is that the gap is not defined by capability. It is defined by orientation.

In Western markets, innovation is often framed as a forward-looking narrative. New models, new tools, new possibilities. Organisations discuss transformation in cycles. Strategies are outlined, pilots are launched, internal alignment is negotiated. Progress is visible in announcements, not always in outcomes.

In China, the same technologies appear in a different form. Less visible in discussion, more visible in deployment.

Systems are implemented at scale, often without the same level of narrative surrounding them. The emphasis is not on what technology could enable, but on where it is already embedded, this distinction matters because it shifts how progress should be evaluated.

If one system is optimising for articulation and the other for application, comparing them on the same terms leads to the wrong conclusions. It creates the impression of a race, when in reality the structures of the race are different.

The result is a persistent misreading.

Once the framing shifts, the next step is to locate the gap precisely.

It is not in access to technology. It is not in awareness. It is not even in talent.

The gap sits in deployment.

One example surfaced early in the discussion. Ping An, one of the largest insurance companies globally, has been processing the majority of its claims through AI since 2018. Not as a pilot. Not as an experiment. As part of its operating model.

This is not an isolated case. Similar patterns appear across logistics, manufacturing, and commerce. Systems are not introduced at the edges. They are embedded into the core.

In Western organisations, the same technologies exist. The difference is where they sit.

AI is often introduced through controlled environments. Innovation teams. Experimental budgets. Limited scope initiatives. These efforts produce demonstrations of capability, but they rarely move into full-scale operations.

The constraints are well known.

Data sits across fragmented systems.
Ownership is distributed across functions.
Incentives are not aligned with long-term integration.

As a result, scaling becomes difficult as the organisation cannot absorb it.

This creates a structural pattern.

Capabilities are proven in isolation, then stall at the point of integration.

The organisation moves forward with partial adoption, while continuing to operate largely as before.

In contrast, the Chinese approach appears less constrained by these boundaries. Systems are implemented across functions, often in environments designed with fewer legacy constraints. Integration is not treated as a secondary phase. It is part of the initial design.

This allows for a different type of progression.

Instead of validating whether something works, the focus shifts to how quickly it can be applied across the system.

That distinction compounds over time.

A system that deploys early, even imperfectly, benefits from iteration. Feedback loops tighten. Improvements are continuous. Scale becomes a byproduct of use, not a separate objective.

A system that delays deployment in pursuit of precision accumulates friction. Each additional layer of validation introduces dependencies. Over time, the cost of integration exceeds the perceived benefit of change.

The gap, then, is not technological but organisational.

And it becomes visible only when the same capability produces fundamentally different outcomes. On one side, conversational commerce. How interactions are moving into messaging environments, where context is continuous and transactions are embedded.

On the other, creators. Not as amplification, but as distribution and increasingly as part of the commercial layer.

What stood out was not the themes themselves. These are already widely discussed.

It was how operators described the reality.

Journeys are fragmented across platforms. Discovery, distribution, and conversion no longer sit in the same place. Internally, organisations are still structured as if they do.

Teams optimise for channels. Consumers move across systems. Attribution breaks. Decision-making slows.

The operators in the room were not trying to resolve this theoretically.

They were building around it.

Connecting creators to revenue more directly. Using messaging as a layer of continuity. Accepting that the system is not clean, and designing for that instead of against it.

There was no sense of completion. Only direction.

If the gap is not technological, the next question is why it persists.

The answer sits in incentives.

Organisations behave in line with what they are measured against. Over time, those measurements shape how decisions are made, what gets prioritised, and what is allowed to scale.

In Western markets, particularly in technology, the dominant reference point is financial.

Market capitalisation.
Revenue growth.
Investor expectations.

These are not abstract metrics. They influence internal behaviour directly. Leadership teams allocate resources in ways that support the story being told externally. Product decisions, hiring, and timing are all affected by how the organisation is perceived in the market.

This creates a specific dynamic.

Innovation becomes closely tied to narrative. New technologies are introduced, communicated, and positioned as signals of progress. The organisation demonstrates movement, even when underlying systems remain largely unchanged.

This is not necessarily intentional. It is a consequence of alignment.

When external perception drives internal decision-making, progress is often measured by visibility rather than depth.

In the session, this contrast emerged clearly.

While Western companies compete to define the next category or dominate a narrative, Chinese companies appear to compete through execution. The emphasis is less on explaining what is being built and more on deploying it.

This difference becomes particularly visible in how AI is treated.

In Western organisations, AI is often framed as a strategic initiative. It sits alongside other priorities, requiring alignment across multiple functions before it can be integrated.

In China, AI appears less as an initiative and more as infrastructure. It is introduced where it improves outcomes, then expanded through use. The question is not whether it fits within an existing structure, but how the structure adapts around it.

This leads to a divergence in outcomes.

One system produces continuous articulation of what is possible.
The other produces continuous iteration of what is already in place.

Over time, the second accumulates advantage.

It is not that one side understands the technology better. It is that one side is structured to absorb it more effectively.

Incentives, in this sense, do more than guide decisions.

They define what is allowed to become real.

The discussion moves beyond companies.

It sits at the level of systems.

For board members and senior advisors, this is where the relevance lies. Most strategic conversations still operate within firm boundaries. Budget, capability, execution.

The shifts discussed in this session do not start there.

They start one layer above.

Three gaps stood out.

1. Misreading coordination as speed

Many interpret China’s progress as faster execution.

What is often missed is coordination.

Infrastructure, regulation, and industry move with a level of alignment that reduces friction at deployment. This allows systems to scale earlier, even when imperfect.

Western leaders tend to assess competitors at company level. The reality sits at system level.

Without that lens, responses are partial.

2. Underestimating deployment as advantage

Technology access is no longer the constraint.

Deployment is.

The session made this explicit. AI is already embedded across sectors in China. Not as pilots, but as operating layers.

In Western organisations, similar capabilities are visible but remain contained. Innovation exists, integration lags.

For boards, this changes the question.

It is no longer what the company is building.

It is whether the organisation can absorb what already exists.

3. Applying the wrong reference points

Silicon Valley remains the dominant benchmark for many leadership teams.

That lens prioritises product, narrative, and capital markets.

The Chinese model observed in the session operates differently. It prioritises application, infrastructure, and system-wide impact.

Using one lens to interpret the other creates distortion.

Strategies built on that distortion tend to arrive late.

Want to learn more about Bjorn’s work
Check him out here
https://www.ognibeni.de/evolve
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ognibeni/

EVOLVE brings together VC’s, PE’s, Family offices, board-level leaders, ambitious founders, and senior operators across commerce markets through ongoing structured conversations.

These discussions take place through expert sessions, small gatherings, roundtables, and private dinners across markets.

The objective is to understand how experienced operators navigate the realities of commerce as those realities evolve.

For leaders who want to participate in these conversations, EVOLVE offers private membership and corporate partnerships for organisations seeking closer proximity to the people shaping commerce across markets.

The room stays small by design.

The conversations stay practical for the same reason.

Curated. Personable. Global.
That is EVOLVE

If you’d like to learn more how to partner with, please email us at
[email protected] or [email protected]