News | BRYM - Latest Updates on Focus Training & Neurofeedback

January 27, 2025

Former Volvo Group VP of Strategy Joins BRYM Board: A Conversation on Manufacturing, Innovation, and the Future of Human Performance

Per Utterbäck, former Vice President of Group Strategy at Volvo Group, joins BRYM's Board of Directors. In this exclusive interview, he shares insights on strategic shifts in manufacturing, the role of innovation in large organizations, and why focus training addresses a critical need in modern production.

Hi Per, could you start by describing your professional history briefly. What were your duties and key areas of responsibility in your lengthy career within Manufacturing and Strategy?

I started in the field of Communications and went on to Strategy, Organization, Business Development – from early on in leadership positions. I have worked both in-house and as a management consultant. I started with the Mercedes and Nissan brands but have been with Volvo twice and Scania once. The automotive industry and transport have been a red thread throughout the years, as well as a strong focus on building strong, resilient teams, strategies and stories.

Per Utterbäck, former Vice President of Group Strategy at Volvo Group

As the former Vice President of Group Strategy at Volvo Group, what would you consider to be the two or three most significant strategic shifts the manufacturing sector—particularly automotive—has had to navigate over the past decade?

Sustainability – when I started it was "Made in". Later it was "Made by", like Apple. The next step is "Made how" and "Made why". Given the geopolitical issues – the focus on regionalization and resilience are the two main focuses right now. Front-runners are also implementing AI-solutions and other innovative tools, like BRYM's focus training, to make production & supply chains more effective and efficient.

"Sustainability – when I started it was "Made in". Later it was "Made by", like Apple. The next step is "Made how" and "Made why"."

In a massive, established organization, the decision to invest in a disruptive technology is complex. What framework or philosophy did you use to evaluate new solutions, and what makes a technology truly 'strategy-worthy' from a corporate investment perspective?

Most big corporations fail to scale new businesses based on innovation. They are focused on preserving the business they have. Those who succeed have a few things in common:

Safeguard innovation is free from the current governance model.
Make sure freedom includes space, supply chain, ideas, experimentation etc.
Set clear targets, but not the same targets as for the existing business.
Stay close to your core skills, customers and or values.

Volvo Group is deeply rooted in Scandinavian values. How did these values—such as a focus on quality, practical innovation, and safety—influence the long-term strategy and cultural approach to efficiency and production? And what would you say is the key differentiator when comparing this to the quickly growing Asian manufacturers?

Sweden is unique with its many big corps. Safety, Quality and Environmental care is deeply rooted at Volvo. The starting point is a focus on humans. I think that comes across in everything the company does – also in production and all other parts of both value-chain and support functions. One must not underestimate the competence of the Chinese manufacturers. In cars – they are now technically ahead – the question is if I am right about the trend, going from Made in to Made how and Made why? Time will tell.

In the media, we constantly see headlines about how automation is taking over the manufacturing sector as we know it. Yet, when visiting any OEM or sub-supplier it's still people at the centre of it. What is your futuristic view on how production will evolve over the coming decade? Will the human factory operator slowly grow obsolete or are some of the tasks too complex to fully automate?

The question is not about automation to start with. The question to start with is: Do we have an optimal process that we can improve on? Once you have that, you ask, What part of this can we automate? For the sake of profitability or for the sake of people? You can hopefully take out parts of the job that is bad for the human body (or brain). I don't believe in fully automatic manufacturing – there are areas where humans always will outperform machines.

"I don't believe in fully automatic manufacturing – there are areas where humans always will outperform machines."

On the topic of people: beyond the direct costs of paying salaries etc, what would you say are the hidden, systemic costs of human involvement in a modern manufacturing environment? (e.g., people tend to make mistakes when performing repetitive tasks, they call in sick, etc, etc) What strategic initiatives are considered to mitigate these risks?

I don't think it works like that anymore. The human factor is a risk in all parts of a company's operation. More often by accident. Sometimes at will. The biggest risk area in that sense has become cyber security. Independent of where you are in the value chain or in support functions – culture, training and continuous improvements are some of the most important tools leadership has at its disposal. A risk conscious culture is key. Of course you should monitor, but that will not solve your problems.

Continuous Improvement (e.g., Lean, Kaizen) is a core philosophy in manufacturing. In your experience, what is the greatest bottleneck or challenge in achieving sustained, measurable improvement when the solution requires a change in human behavior and cognitive habits?

I'm not sure if I have experienced good examples of that kind of failure in manufacturing lately. The key to success is to co-create the change with your colleagues!

Given the industry challenges you've described, what convinced you that BRYM, with its emphasis on 'Reversing The Focus Crisis' through neurotech, is addressing a critical problem within manufacturing at the moment?

I think this is a question for all parts of society. Dual screens, increasing information flows, faster pace, more complexity, to mention a few challenges most humans face. The idea of allowing people to improve focus can be beneficial in many sectors and more importantly for the human being.

The thing with manufacturing is that they already monitor errors caused by human behaviour in many cases, which means that they immediately can put an economic value on better focused colleagues.

You'd have the same effect in accounting or programming or Formula 1 driving, but more difficulty in putting an economic value on improvement as you don't measure human errors in the same way. Well maybe in F1 it would work too.

"The idea of allowing people to improve focus can be beneficial in many sectors and more importantly for the human being. You'd have the same effect in accounting or programming or Formula 1 driving but more difficulty in putting an economic value on improvement as you don't measure human errors in the same way. Well maybe in F1 it would work too."

Having now joined BRYM's Board of Directors, what do you believe is the single most crucial outcome BRYM must deliver to the manufacturing industry to validate its unique approach of using brain training to improve performance and lower human errors?

I am convinced by the pilots Brym has done. What is needed for success is a committed factory management and a bit of perseverance. Then results will come, just as with Lean.