個案總覽

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. A new global study finds several new categories of human jobs emerging. These roles are not replacing old ones. They are brand-new positions that complement the tasks performed by AI machines and will require skills and training that have never before been needed.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Thanks to emerging technologies like 3-D printing, manufacturers can offer consumers customized products and do so with unprecedented speed. Intrigued by a new product you saw in a YouTube video? Well, someday soon you may be able to personalize it, order it via the company's website, and have it in your hands in a matter of days. But to enable this phenomenon at scale, an entirely new model of supply chain is required.

As companies attempt to diversify into portfolios of business models that achieve higher performance than other configurations, they need to match their own resources and capabilities to the external opportunities they face. In this article, the authors argue that executives need to assess whether there is fit not only between the activities underpinning the business models they use but also across multiple business models. How can companies assess whether there are advantages to using multiple business models? And when might it make sense to focus on fewer business models rather than more? To develop their understanding of business models, the authors studied the Formula One auto racing industry, the various businesses operated by Amazon.com Inc., and nearly 50 other companies. This article addresses three core questions: What should you consider when thinking about business model diversification? In deciding to add a new business model to your portfolio, how can you assess and optimize its value? How should you modify your business model portfolio over time? Like other forms of corporate diversification, the authors say, business model diversification does not always generate superior performance. In settings where a business model isn't generating the synergies that were envisioned, managers shouldn't be afraid to streamline, improve, or divest from some business models in the portfolio to focus on and bolster the activities that are strategically optimal.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. As organizations search for better solutions to their everyday problems, many are encouraging employees to use their experiences to develop new ideas and play a more active role in the innovation process. Companies including AT&T Inc., Google Inc., and Deutsche Telekom AG have turned to what's known as internal crowdsourcing. Although external crowdsourcing, which solicits ideas from consumers, suppliers, and anyone who wants to participate, has been widely studied, internal crowdsourcing, which seeks to channel the ideas and expertise of the company's own employees, is less well-understood. However, as the authors point out, harnessing the cognitive diversity within organizations can open up rich new sources of innovation while at the same time engaging younger employees and people working on the front lines. In this article, the authors examine the benefits of internal crowdsourcing and the common roadblocks to participation, collaboration, and implementation; they draw on their research at a number of companies, including a health care company, a telecommunications company, and fashion and retail company Li & Fung Ltd. The authors present a set of action steps to help executives make their internal crowdsourcing efforts more effective. Those steps include: (1) keeping the focus broadly on long-term innovation rather than short-term problem-solving; (2) giving employees slack time to participate; (3) allowing for anonymous participation; and (4) making sure experts within the company don't exert too much influence. The authors also recommend that companies encourage collaboration, use technology platforms that connect individuals with ideas from other participants, and have well-defined procedures for how ideas will be handled after the crowdsourcing event.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. New research finds that stories about consumers'positive experiences with a brand significantly increase users'engagement with brand websites, and stories originating from consumers are especially powerful in shaping brand attitudes in social media. Indeed, companies that aren't offering experiences that leverage consumer input in brand-related narratives are missing out on important opportunities to connect in a meaningful way with potential buyers.

The authors argue that executives need to better support emergent innovation to supplement planned new product or service development activities. Successful service, product, or process innovations within large, complex organizations are, the authors contend, very much a social phenomenon. This is why organizations that are routinely innovative are intentional about enabling individuals to engage and connect in ways that trigger and expand ideas. How can organizations best connect employees in ways that more systematically unleash emergent innovation? The authors'research suggests that part of the answer lies in the power of network structures and the ability of organizations to create what the authors call adaptive space. They define adaptive space as the network and organizational context that allows people, ideas, information, and resources to flow across the organization and spur successful emergent innovation. Adaptive space works by enabling ideas generated in entrepreneurial pockets of an organization to flow into the operational system to generate innovations that lead to growth. Adaptive space within organizations is fluid and can shift based on need. Companies create adaptive space through environments that open up information flows and enrich idea discovery, development, and amplification. That can be done in a number of ways. For example, the nonprofit research corporation Noblis created adaptive space through an internal crowdsourcing initiative, while General Motors has generated adaptive space through events that bring together people from different parts of the organization. Using network analysis and data collected from more than 400 interviews, the authors found that innovation leaders within an organization engaged with experts, influencers, and decision-makers through different phases of an innovation's journey, and in the process managed to substantially expand the impact of their innovation and streamline its acceptance as it moved from

Scenario planning came to prominence following World War II and gained recognition in the corporate world in the late 1960s and early 1970s. While several different approaches to scenario planning have emerged since then, this article focuses specifically on the Oxford scenario planning approach. Rather than taking a probabilistic stance (that is, making predictions in percentage terms or as best-case/worst-case scenarios) or a normative stance (that is, envisioning what a future should look like), the Oxford scenario methodology is based on plausibility. By recognizing the part of uncertainty that is unpredictable and by actively exploring the sources of the turbulence and uncertainty, the goal is to iteratively and interactively generate new knowledge and insights to help organizations reperceive their circumstances. During periods of turbulence, unpredictable uncertainty, novelty, and ambiguity (what the authors refer to as TUNA conditions), organizations frequently experience serious challenges that threaten existing value chains, communities, and even whole fields of endeavor. Such conditions can be unsettling and destabilizing on many different levels. A core feature in the Oxford scenario planning approach is making a distinction between the immediate business environment an organization inhabits (where business transactions take place) and the broader environment, or context, in which it operates. Different organizations go about scenario planning in different ways -there is no cookie-cutter methodology, the authors write. This article examines two cases. The first case involves Rolls-Royce plc, a leading supplier of power systems for aircraft and the marine and energy markets; the second case looks at the Royal Society of Chemistry, a London, U.K.-based international organization involved in advancing the field of chemical sciences.

In a global survey of 2,000 C-suite executives in more than 60 countries, McKinsey & Co. found that few companies are responding appropriately to digital disruption. While 90% of companies indicated that they are engaged in some form of digitization, only 16% said their companies have responded with a bold strategy and at scale; only 30% of companies are focusing on new ways to bundle demand or resegment their market. Based on these numbers, some leaders might assume that they have plenty of time to get their digital acts together. But the authors argue that this would be a dangerous assumption because new digital entrants are seizing a significant share of revenue across regions and industries. The authors highlight three bold tactics companies can use: 1. Develop new customer segments. Rather than just defending existing business lines through cost cutting, automation, or service improvements for existing customers, companies should focus on developing new customer segments. Medialaan NV, a leading free-to-air video broadcaster in Belgium, spotted young customers moving to platforms such as Netflix or YouTube. In response, it bought a mobile virtual operator with attractive data plans, thus becoming one of the few traditional broadcast companies to grow its TV audience in the youth segment. 2. Introduce new business models. Innovative companies are experimenting with business models intended to disrupt their own legacy strategies. When Schibsted Media Group of Oslo, Norway, saw that its print classified advertising was drying up, it moved the classified business to a free online marketplace. Today, more than 80% of the group's earnings come from commissions on sales from its consumer e-commerce platform. 3. Redefine the value chain. When digital entrants threatened its payment services business, Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) chose to confront the disrupters head-on with a new open payments platform that hosts an ecosystem of applications and

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. In the final report of our 8-year study of how corporations address sustainability, MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group examine the crossroads at which sustainability now finds itself. Despite sociopolitical upheaval that threatens to reverse key gains, our research has shown that companies can develop workable -and profitable -sustainability strategies to reduce their impact on the global environment by incorporating 8 key lessons.

After hearing from friends that SoulCycle's very first studio was different from other cycling studios, Whelan decided to give it a try. One visit was all it took for her to appreciate the full sensory experience, the charismatic instructor, and the passion of the client community. A few years later she joined the company, which today operates 74 studios. SoulCycle doesn't view itself as a fitness company--it's a "player in the broader experiential economy." That's why it takes a different approach to recruiting and training instructors, with the aim of making them inspirational coaches who empower riders in their lives as well as on their bikes. It doesn't charge monthly fees, but each class costs $30 to $35, and riders must book bikes in advance, on the theory that the pay-per-class model elicits greater energy and commitment. Choosing the location for a new studio involves a year of research to understand the lifestyle of future customers. Amenities such as iPhone chargers in the lockers have improved studio design. Next-generation bikes are coming in 2017, and the company's apparel line is expanding. Because SoulCycle has friendships and community at its core, Whelan writes, the brand will endure.

Many executives feel overwhelmed by meetings, and no wonder: On average, they spend nearly 23 hours a week in them, up from less than 10 hours in the 1960s. What's more, the meetings are often poorly timed, badly run, or both. We can all joke about how painful they are, say the authors, but that pain has real consequences for teams and organizations. Every minute spent in a wasteful meeting eats into solo work that's essential for creativity and efficiency. Chopped-up schedules interrupt deep thinking, so people come to work early, stay late, or use weekends for quiet time to concentrate. And dysfunctional meeting behaviors are associated with lower levels of market share, innovation, and employment stability. The authors have found that real improvement requires systemic change, not discrete fixes. They describe a five-step process for that--along with the diagnostic work you'll need to do in advance.

When misunderstandings arise among members of global teams, it's often because managers conflate attitudes toward authority and attitudes toward decision making. However, the two are different dimensions of leadership culture, says the author, who has extensive research and consulting experience with global companies. Attitudes toward authority range from strongly hierarchical to strongly egalitarian. Approaches to decision making vary from top-down to consensual. The author explores both dimensions and classifies selected countries according to their position on both scales. The Japanese, for example, are hierarchical in their views toward authority--deferential to the boss and accustomed to waiting for instructions rather than taking the initiative--but they are consensual decision makers who get buy-in before they set a course of action. The author describes the four cultural types--consensual and egalitarian; consensual and hierarchical; top-down and hierarchical; and top-down and egalitarian--and the corresponding expectations about leadership in each environment. If you keep those in mind, you'll be more successful in your cross-cultural interactions.

Each year most public companies issue reports describing the pay packages of their CEOs. In them compensation committees attempt to explain the rationale behind the pay figures to the shareholders, who often must vote to approve them. The issue is, in their reports many committees adjust performance numbers in obscure and inappropriate ways that lead to overly generous CEO pay. And they do so using nonstandard criteria that are difficult for even sophisticated institutional investors to decode. In this article, the former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management and an MIT professor of accounting and finance sort through the reports' fine print and expose practices that stack the deck in CEOs' favor: Adjusting earnings to be 100% higher than GAAP income. Paying out 80% of an incentive award for bottom-quartile performance. Choosing "peer companies" that are not comparable in size or in industry. And more. Shareholders should be more skeptical, say the authors, and comp reports must start providing much clearer explanations. But what's needed most are new standards for compensation design and reporting.

Whether you make cars or mattresses, operate a hospital or a grocery store, or are in some other business, successful innovation depends on understanding what's driving the technological changes in your industry and anticipating what product and service features consumers will value in the future. In this article, the author describes her proven system for gaining those vital insights. The first step is to look back at the evolution of your business's technology and identify three to six dimensions where advances have significantly furthered its development--"big picture" dimensions such as cost, comfort, and safety. Next, plot the utility curve for each dimension (to see how progress on that dimension correlates with customer appreciation) and pinpoint the technology's current position on the curve. Third, decide where to focus your innovation efforts--a task made easier by using the author's matrix for scoring each dimension according to its importance to customers, its potential for improvement, and the ease with which improvements can be made. By following this three-step approach, a host of diverse companies are already creating promising new products.

Five of the 10 most valuable companies in the world today--Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft--derive much of their worth from their multisided platforms, which facilitate interactions or transactions between parties. Many MSPs are more valuable than companies in the same industries that provide only products or services: For instance, Airbnb is now worth more than Marriott, the world's largest hotel chain. However, companies that weren't born as platform businesses rarely realize that they can--at least partially--turn their offerings into one, say the authors. And even if they do realize it, they often wander in the dark searching for a strategy to achieve this transformation. In this article, Hagiu and Altman provide a framework for doing so. They lay out four specific ways in which products and services can be turned into platforms and examine the strategic advantages and pitfalls of each: (1) opening the door to third parties; (2) connecting customers; (3) connecting products to connect customers; and (4) becoming a supplier to a multisided platform. These ideas can be used by physical as well as online businesses.

The U.S. Navy operates on the front lines of climate change. It manages tens of billions of dollars of assets on every continent and on every ocean, which take many years to design and build and then have decades of useful life. This means that it needs to understand now what sorts of missions it may be required to perform in 10, 20, or 30 years and what assets and infrastructure it will need to carry them out. Put another way, it needs to plan for the world that will exist at that time. The navy is clear-eyed about the challenges climate change poses. It knows that the effects of a warmer world will expand the geographic scope of its mission and increase demand for its military and humanitarian services. Climate change will also decrease its capacity to deliver those services, as the risk of damage to its bases and ports increases. This article examines the navy's approach to climate change and reflects on the implications for business.

Business leaders are scrambling to adjust to a world few imagined possible just a year ago. The myth of a borderless world has come crashing down. Traditional pillars of open markets--the United States and the UK--are wobbling, and China is positioning itself as globalization's staunchest defender. Countries throughout North America and Europe have experienced waves of anti-globalization sentiment. In the face of such uncertainty, leaders of multinationals wonder whether they should retreat, change strategy, or stay the course. In making that decision, they need to understand two things. First, the world is less globalized than even experienced executives realize. Second, history tells us that even in the face of a trade war, international trade and investment would still be too large for strategists to ignore. Today's turmoil calls not for a mass retreat from globalization but for a more subtle reworking of multinationals' strategies. This article examines common misperceptions about what is--and isn't--changing about globalization and offers guidelines to help leaders decide where and how to compete in a complex world.

Ginni Rometty has spent 36 years at IBM, where she now serves as president, CEO, and chairman of the board. She is on a protracted mission to reinvent the company as a cloud-based "solutions" business. That transformation involves moving into areas that have higher value and shedding ones that don't. IBM's new businesses around cloud, data, and security account for almost $34 billion in revenue. They're growing by more than 13% a year and constitute 42% of the company. In this interview Rometty says that IBM is trying to "unlock" the 80% of data behind the firewalls of client companies so that those organizations can use it to make better decisions, adding, "There's a $2 trillion market around better decision making." She talks about why IBM's earnings have declined for 20 consecutive quarters, what kinds of employees the company's new course demands, gender-related challenges in her career, and more.

The ability to deliver an energizing pep talk is a prerequisite for any business leader. But few managers receive formal training in how to give one. Instead, they learn mostly by emulating inspirational bosses, coaches, or even fictional characters. However, research shows there is a science to psyching people up for better performance. According to motivating language theory, most winning formulas include three key elements: direction giving, or describing precisely how to do the task at hand; expressions of empathy, or concern for the performer; and meaning-making language, which explains why the task is important. All the evidence suggests that, once leaders understand these three elements, they can learn to use them more skillfully.

A summer intern isn't sure how to respond to a request that she misrepresent herself in collecting competitive intelligence for her company. One of her primary duties is to assist with market research by calling direct competitors and asking for sensitive information. Her manager wants her to tell these contacts that she's a student working on a project. She needs the internship and the money, but she also doesn't want to start her career in this industry by deceiving people. Should she push back on her manager? Or perhaps ask to do the project another way? This fictional case study written by Sandra Sucher and Matthew Preble features expert commentary by Josh Bersin and Ruwan Weerasekera.