The strife between Israel and the Palestinians is largely viewed as a political problem requiring a political solution. But it's also economic, says this researcher, who asserts that Japan's role in the development of South Korea can inform economic relations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Avion is interested in a new valve to manage the highly volatile phenol in its production process. Avion and Orion strike a deal for Orion to try to produce these valves. There are time, engineering, and software constraints that make the valve-redesign project a risky endeavor. The A case uses the basic decision tree that has been used in an introductory case in decision analysis to the core material for an exam. The A case is a rewrite of two earlier cases (QA-0480 and QA-0481). In those cases, the key issues were scheduling of the projects, and in this case, the scheduling is fixed and the issues are less calculation-intensive and more interesting. Also in the A case, there are two options: one the students usually see and one they don't. This case also has a real option embedded in the problem around which an entire class can be built. Followed by the B case, QA-0603.
Avion is interested in a new valve to manage the highly volatile phenol in its production process. Avion and Orion strike a deal for Orion to try to produce these valves. There are time, engineering, and software constraints that make the valve-redesign project a risky endeavor. The A case (UVA-QA-0602) consists of a basic decision tree that has been used as an introductory case in decision analysis and in the core material for an exam. The A case is a rewrite of two earlier cases (QA-0480 and QA-0481). In those cases, the key issues surround the scheduling of the projects, leading to insights about which to schedule first. Here, the scheduling is fixed and the issues are less calculation-intensive and more interesting. In the A case, there are two options: one the students usually see and one they don't. The B case consists of a quick series of changes in the situation that leads to a totally different decision structure and requirement for simulation modeling (or some other technique to handle the introduction of continuous uncertainties). This case also has a wonderful real option embedded in the problem around which an entire class can be built. Because the estimate is continuous, the option problem becomes one of finding the optimal estimated-performance value at which one aborts the software redesign.
Jeremy Hicks, Zagante Systems' lead programmer, walks into the office at eight o'clock on a Sunday night and does a double take when he spots his boss, Melanie. She's equally surprised to find she isn't alone. Before leaving for the evening, Melanie pays Jeremy a visit, only to discover that he isn't hard at work on Zagante's new product--he's programming a game for another company. The next day over lunch, Melanie confronts Jeremy and lets him know that he needs to stay focused on Zagante's new software. Jeremy insists that he's fully engaged in it. So Melanie agrees to keep the moonlighting under wraps so long as it doesn't interfere with Jeremy's job. Frustrated with Jeremy, yet anxious to keep such a talented employee, Melanie turns to Jill Darby, Zagante's HR director, for guidance. Jill has both good and bad news. The bad news is that the company has no moonlighting policy. The good news is that Jill can arrange for Jeremy to receive a low-interest loan. But when Melanie tells Jeremy about the loan, he doesn't go for it. He's not just freelancing for the money, it turns out; he's downright enjoying the work and doesn't appreciate his boss butting in to his private business. How should Melanie handle this moonlighting issue? In R0211A and R0211Z, commentators Bill Jensen, author of Work 2.0: Rewriting the Contract; attorney Barry LePatner; economics professors Jean Kimmel and Karen Conway; and HR director Sandra Davis offer advice in this fictional case study.
Recognizing and anticipating change in industry patterns is a core competence for companies today, allowing managers to capitalize on opportunities before they are apparent to others. Yet, companies are far from mastering how to recognize such patterns, especially at the strategic level, where information is usually less profuse and much less precise. Pattern recognition is not a new skill, though, at least not to people outside the business world. Since antiquity, naturalists have relied on their ability to spot patterns to make sense of their surroundings. Surprisingly, there is much businesspeople can learn from bird watching in terms of the cognitive demands pattern recognition requires. To learn more, HBR spoke with David Sibley, perhaps the nation's foremost bird watcher and illustrator, and Julia Yoshida, a birder since 1965 and a physician at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts. Sibley explains how expert birders draw on a wealth of tacit knowledge built up over the years to make identifications in a matter of seconds: "Once you've mastered common patterns, the real trick is to educate yourself about where discrepancies are most likely to appear--and to concentrate your attention on those areas." Although so fast as to be almost unconscious, the process he describes seems to be as methodical as one of Yoshida's medical diagnoses. According to Yoshida, "I don't think it's a eureka moment at all. It's a methodical process."
The U.S. Social Security system is in deep trouble--and that's not just bad news for your friends and family. It's also bad news for your company. Unless the Social Security system is changed, by 2041 the system will be utterly insolvent. In the next decade, the very prospect of the rising deficit will mean serious pressure on recent tax cuts, higher long-term interest rates, increased pension-funding costs, and other punishing conditions for U.S. businesses. Executives need to participate in the growing debate about Social Security reform, says Robert Pozen, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School who served on the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. In this article, he urges business leaders to take a stance on how the system should be reformed, suggesting they work with interest groups to make their voices heard. Pozen outlines the three main alternatives executives might choose to support: increasing contributions to Social Security, decreasing the growth of benefits for more affluent workers, and increasing investment returns on Social Security assets. What's needed to fix the current system, he contends, is a careful balance of all three.
Industry leaders frequently worry that their companies will fall victim to some revolutionary business model or disruptive technology. But new research shows that it's strategically better for incumbents to counter a revolution than to ignore or fully embrace it. Successful incumbents rely on one or more of five approaches to restrain, modify or, if necessary, neutralize a revolutionary threat. A company that perceives a revolution in its earliest stages can use containment strategies. By throwing up roadblocks, an incumbent can often limit the degree to which customers and competitors accept a nascent insurgency. And, sometimes, revolutions die there. If not, early containment buys a company some time to shape the revolution so that it complements, rather than supersedes, the incumbent's strengths. And even if shaping efforts fail, they can give an industry leader more time to work out how to absorb the threat by bringing the new competencies or technologies inside the firm in such a way that they don't destroy its existing strengths and capabilities. When revolutions have progressed too far to slow them down, incumbents must take a more aggressive tack. Neutralizing strategies meet a revolution head-on and terminate it--by, say, temporarily giving away the benefits offered by the challenger for free. Annulment strategies allow the market leader to leapfrog over or sidestep the threat. These five strategic approaches need not be used in isolation.
Senior managers often feel frustration--even exasperation--toward information technology and their IT departments. The managers complain that they don't see much business value from the high-priced systems they install, but they don't understand the technology well enough to manage it in detail. So they often leave IT people to make, by default, choices that affect the company's business strategy. The frequent result? Too many projects, a demoralized IT unit, and disappointing returns on IT investments. What distinguishes companies that generate substantial value from their IT investments from those that don't? The leadership of senior managers in making six key IT decisions. The first three relate to strategy: How much should we spend on IT? Which business processes should receive our IT dollars? Which IT capabilities need to be companywide? The second three relate to execution: How good do our IT services really need to be? Which security and privacy risks will we accept? Whom do we blame if an IT initiative fails?
On July 30, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act addressing corporate accountability. A response to recent financial scandals, the law tightened federal controls over the accounting industry and imposed tough new criminal penalties for fraud. The president proclaimed, "The era of low standards and false profits is over." If only it were that easy. The authors don't think corruption is the main cause of bad audits. Rather, they claim, the problem is unconscious bias. Without knowing it, we all tend to discount facts that contradict the conclusions we want to reach, and we uncritically embrace evidence that supports our positions. The corporate-auditing arena is particularly fertile ground for self-serving biases. Because of the often subjective nature of accounting and the close relationships between accounting firms and their corporate clients, even the most honest and meticulous of auditors can unintentionally massage the numbers in ways that mask a company's true financial status. Solving this problem will require far more aggressive action than the U.S. government has taken thus far. What's needed are practices and regulations that recognize the existence of bias and moderate its effects. True auditor independence will entail fundamental changes to the way the accounting industry operates, including full divestiture of consulting and tax services, rotation of auditing firms, and fixed-term contracts that prohibit client companies from firing their auditors. Less tangibly, auditors must come to appreciate the profound impact of self-serving biases on their judgment.
Large, tradition-bound organizations can make space for radical, low-cost (and therefore low-risk) innovations. Just ask executives at the World Bank. The story of this best practice begins in 1998, when a young new-products group at the international funding agency proposed holding an Innovation Marketplace to capture novel ideas within the bank for alleviating poverty. The forum, which eventually was opened to external participants, let people informally present their antipoverty ideas to potential funding sources. Funders could move among hundreds of booths and evaluate proposals. The marketplace concept met with some skepticism at the beginning. However, the marketplace team believed an open process for allocating grants would produce more breakthrough ideas in the long run than a centralized one. In this article, the authors describe how the new-products team brainstormed to create a market for ideas, how it got senior management's support, and how it has expanded on the original concept for these innovation marketplaces.
We've all heard the stories about corporate giants who ignored disruptive innovations and paid a steep price. Most of the nascent technologies that typically bombard executives will not amount to competitive threats and deserve to be ignored. As a result, disruptions are usually not taken seriously until they become obvious--when it's often too late. A disruptive innovation is a technology, product, or process that creeps up from below an existing business and threatens to displace it. Gradually, it improves to the point where it displaces the incumbent. But, the authors argue, disruption isn't inevitable. They have developed a tool that can help companies detect potential disruptive innovations while management still has time to respond effectively. The tool's decision-making methodology harnesses the organization's collective wisdom to determine how likely it is that a particular innovation will seriously damage an incumbent's business. The methodology has two components: an analytical instrument and an organizational process. And the tool's rigorous approach can spell the difference between flailing around and acting effectively in the face of a serious competitive threat.
Jeremy Hicks, Zagante Systems' lead programmer, walks into the office at eight o'clock on a Sunday night and does a double take when he spots his boss, Melanie. She's equally surprised to find she isn't alone. Before leaving for the evening, Melanie pays Jeremy a visit, only to discover that he isn't hard at work on Zagante's new product--he's programming a game for another company. The next day over lunch, Melanie confronts Jeremy and lets him know that he needs to stay focused on Zagante's new software. Jeremy insists that he's fully engaged in it. So Melanie agrees to keep the moonlighting under wraps so long as it doesn't interfere with Jeremy's job. Frustrated with Jeremy, yet anxious to keep such a talented employee, Melanie turns to Jill Darby, Zagante's HR director, for guidance. Jill has both good and bad news. The bad news is that the company has no moonlighting policy. The good news is that Jill can arrange for Jeremy to receive a low-interest loan. But when Melanie tells Jeremy about the loan, he doesn't go for it. He's not just freelancing for the money, it turns out; he's downright enjoying the work and doesn't appreciate his boss butting in to his private business. How should Melanie handle this moonlighting issue? In R0211A and R0211Z, commentators Bill Jensen, author of Work 2.0: Rewriting the Contract; attorney Barry LePatner; economics professors Jean Kimmel and Karen Conway; and HR director Sandra Davis offer advice on this fictional case study.
Jeremy Hicks, Zagante Systems' lead programmer, walks into the office at eight o'clock on a Sunday night and does a double take when he spots his boss, Melanie. She's equally surprised to find she isn't alone. Before leaving for the evening, Melanie pays Jeremy a visit, only to discover that he isn't hard at work on Zagante's new product--he's programming a game for another company. The next day over lunch, Melanie confronts Jeremy and lets him know that he needs to stay focused on Zagante's new software. Jeremy insists that he's fully engaged in it. So Melanie agrees to keep the moonlighting under wraps so long as it doesn't interfere with Jeremy's job. Frustrated with Jeremy, yet anxious to keep such a talented employee, Melanie turns to Jill Darby, Zagante's HR director, for guidance. Jill has both good and bad news. The bad news is that the company has no moonlighting policy. The good news is that Jill can arrange for Jeremy to receive a low-interest loan. But when Melanie tells Jeremy about the loan, he doesn't go for it. He's not just freelancing for the money, it turns out; he's downright enjoying the work and doesn't appreciate his boss butting in to his private business. How should Melanie handle this moonlighting issue? In R0211A and R0211Z, commentators Bill Jensen, author of Work 2.0: Rewriting the Contract; attorney Barry LePatner; economics professors Jean Kimmel and Karen Conway; and HR director Sandra Davis offer advice on this fictional case study.
MontGras, a medium-sized Chilean winery, has to formulate an export strategy. It has to decide whether to emphasize the U.S. or U.K. markets, which also offer different positioning and pricing proposals. It has twice failed to penetrate the U.S. market because distributor relationships fell through and is deciding between two new potential partners. In the United Kingdom, it is offered participation in a supermarket promotion that will boost volumes, but at the expense of price maintenance. Includes color exhibits.
It's easy for white managers to assume that their colleagues of color face the same basic challenges they do. On one level, that's true--the work itself is the same. But on another level, African-American managers often contend with an atmosphere of tension, instability, and distrust that can be so frustrating they lose the desire to contribute fully. Their white bosses and coworkers are simply unaware of the "miasma" and are often puzzled when African-Americans quit apparently for no reason or seemingly overreact to a minor incident. This portrayal of what it's like to be different in the workplace takes the form of a fictional letter from a black manager to a white boss. The letter, based on interviews and surveys the authors conducted with hundreds of mid- to senior-level African-American managers, is not about the lack of role models or mentors of color or any of the other barriers that limit opportunities for blacks in corporate America. Instead, the letter sheds light on the realities that lurk below the surface for black managers--the feeling that they leave some part of their identities at home and the sometimes subtle and often systemic racial biases that inhibit and alienate African-Americans. It should be required reading for all white executives who don't want talent to slip through their fingers.