Chance to market Kenya getting lost

If you do not trust the process, trust the results. I had an epiphany a few days ago, as I listened to a conversation about transformation.

As human beings we're predisposed, so ingrained it is almost genetic, to wanting things to remain the same, to shirking change. Being a strategy specialist, one of my main roles is to sell change, and to get beyond people's deep-seated affinity towards maintaining the status quo.

One of the questions I most encounter in my bid to sell as close to the ideal but seemingly unattainable vision is usually 'how do we know this will work?' Sometimes, it takes something akin to throwing away the box to allow creativity and innovation to flourish.

And sometimes it takes demonstrating the end result before we can get people to trust the process. In governance we say that when people see the effects of doing good, then the affinity towards best practices increases.

But back to transformation, processes and results. I was privileged to be in England during the 2012 London Olympics. Unlike the narrative of the 1996 Atlanta sporting event I gave last week, there were fundamental differences between the two cities. By 2012, London was already a very well-known, bustling, some would even say congested metropolis, attracting tourists on its own merit.

It had cemented its status as a worldwide financial hub and Canary Wharf, home to key financial services firms such as Citigroup, J.P Morgan and Fitch Ratings, once formed part of the world's busiest port.

The detractors, staunchly decrying the value of London holding the Olympics, were emphatic that it made no economic sense. The proponents on the other hand, had some impressive projections. Jobs and training could create and support a total of 354,000 years of employment across the United Kingdom. I will give you a minute to contemplate the magnitude of that number. This metric did not just measure the total number of jobs but how many years of employment could be supported.

If this is not long-term thinking at its best, then I don't know what is. Small and medium-sized businesses, my pet topic, were also expected to deliver more than half of the total GDP contribution of the Olympic Games. One particular story jumped out at me and has been a source of inspiration since I heard about it. Golden Bear, a toy manufacturing company, had been selected to produce soft toys of the official mascots for the Olympics.

The success story went even further when, as a direct result of its involvement with the Games, the firm procured a highly lucrative deal with BMW to make a toy Mini, a miniature replica of the formerly British brand now owned by BMW. If you do not trust the process, trust the results.

There are a couple reasons I would defend this spending of significant public funds, contrary to the perspective of disparaging views, and specifically post the 2008 financial crisis. One, that when you have an economy that supports large scale financial infrastructure, it is especially essential to spur economic growth in times of financial crises.

Second, the question posed was whether the gains would have been garnered without the Olympics. My short answer is no. The publicity created by the event was instrumental in creating and allowing businesses to take advantage of the related global opportunities.

Even further, while central London may need no help in maintaining relevance, East London, neglected, in some parts derelict and long in need of regeneration, benefited from the ripple effects of the spend. It was a focused initiative with tangible results.

Now, I hope this is not akin to flogging a dead horse but in my view, the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) is the Olympics of our business community. I am chuffed that the Ministry for Industrialisation and Enterprise Development has revamped its site. But I would expect to see the focus on GES 2015 impact on local businesses front and centre.

I could be looking in all the wrong places but the lack of emphasis on how local non elite-owned businesses can participate is glaring. There is a reason why the government has economists on its payroll. Part of the planning process should be to evaluate the funds spent and relate that to the short, medium and long term gains on the country's economy.

I believe it is not too late for the impact analysis to be conducted. The reason this is important is because it allows brainstorming to happen, and where the gains are not commensurate country wide, encourage additional initiatives that can benefit the populace.

But with things are they are right now, I cannot help but wonder if back-room alliances and bona fide tenderpreneurs are the only ones that will have anything to show for such a momentous occasion. It is not just enough to declare that the two days in July will be the crux of the whole event.

What counts as much is what happens before and after, and are we left with real lasting gains.