個案總覽

Describes Autodesk's engagement in Integrated Project Delivery-a new model of risk management, inter-firm teamwork, and multi-objective (aesthetic, cost, and sustainability) optimization in building projects. In 2008, Autodesk, Inc. the world's largest design software company, decided to engage in Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) for the design and construction of its new Architecture, Engineering and Construction Solutions (AECS) Group headquarters, near Boston. Under IPD, the project's architect, builder, and client (Autodesk) entered a contractual agreement to share all project risks and profits. During the project, however, Autodesk was unsatisfied with the design progress, and asked the project team to introduce a three-story atrium in the headquarters' design. Logistically, it was not a good time to make changes as the team had already made significant design progress. The team was also working under a tight budget and delivery deadline. However, the aesthetics would appear to be greatly improved by changing the design. The project's architect and builder had to decide whether accommodating the atrium into the current schedule and work sequencing was an acceptable risk.

Describes Autodesk's engagement in Integrated Project Delivery-a new model of risk management, inter-firm teamwork, and multi-objective (aesthetic, cost, and sustainability) optimization in building projects. In 2008, Autodesk, Inc. the world's largest design software company, decided to engage in Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) for the design and construction of its new Architecture, Engineering and Construction Solutions (AECS) Group headquarters, near Boston. Under IPD, the project's architect, builder, and client (Autodesk) entered a contractual agreement to share all project risks and profits. During the project, however, Autodesk was unsatisfied with the design progress, and asked the project team to introduce a three-story atrium in the headquarters' design. Logistically, it was not a good time to make changes as the team had already made significant design progress. The team was also working under a tight budget and delivery deadline. However, the aesthetics would appear to be greatly improved by changing the design. The project's architect and builder had to decide whether accommodating the atrium into the current schedule and work sequencing was an acceptable risk.

Describes Autodesk's engagement in Integrated Project Delivery-a new model of risk management, inter-firm teamwork, and multi-objective (aesthetic, cost, and sustainability) optimization in building projects. In 2008, Autodesk, Inc. the world's largest design software company, decided to engage in Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) for the design and construction of its new Architecture, Engineering and Construction Solutions (AECS) Group headquarters, near Boston. Under IPD, the project's architect, builder, and client (Autodesk) entered a contractual agreement to share all project risks and profits. During the project, however, Autodesk was unsatisfied with the design progress, and asked the project team to introduce a three-story atrium in the headquarters' design. Logistically, it was not a good time to make changes as the team had already made significant design progress. The team was also working under a tight budget and delivery deadline. However, the aesthetics would appear to be greatly improved by changing the design. The project's architect and builder had to decide whether accommodating the atrium into the current schedule and work sequencing was an acceptable risk.

When interpersonal risks loom large in the moment, human beings often fail to act in their own or in their organization's best interest. When uncertainty clouds peoples' tentative thoughts and views - views that may be at odds with those of others' - they often take the path of 'reduced interpersonal resistance' to avoid conflict and confrontation. This can happen when a lot is at stake (a patient's health, an aircraft's safety, a costly takeover) and when not much is at stake (a small improvement idea is not communicated to the individual who could act on it). Either way, the silence, along with the incomplete thoughts that lie behind it, inhibits team learning in organizations that depend upon such learning for their ongoing viability. As a result, in virtually every organization, failed collaboration occurs countless times throughout the day, usually without much conscious attention. Diversity of three particular types exacerbates these tendencies. The authors explain how 'psychological safety' can enable team diversity to be better and leveraged, allowing a team to reap the benefits associated with diverse sets of skills, experience, knowledge and backgrounds in ways that would not be possible if team members were unwilling to take the risks associated with speaking up.

The case describes an organization's use of the science of improvement to transform their process quality from below average to the top 10% in their industry. The case outlines the protagonist's strategy of developing internal experts who are trained in a common methodology for making improvement and spreading these ideas in their work units.

Addleshaw-Goddard (AG), the 15th largest law firm in the U.K., is seeking ways to serve larger clients on more important legal matters. Part of this strategy involves its "Client Development Centre (CDC)," an innovative idea and set of services launched by Dr. Jim Hever who holds a Ph.D. in Strategic Leadership Development. The mission of the CDC is to improve the capabilities of clients' in-house legal departments, such as by making them better partners with the business units and improving their leadership skills. The CDC has adopted an innovative pricing structure. Rather than charging direct fees for these consulting services, it proposed to the client that it contract with the firm for five times this amount in legal fees that might otherwise have gone to another law firm. It is in this way that AG hopes to increase its position in its larger clients. AG has also developed a very systematic program for identifying and serving its key clients, developed in collaboration with Cranfield School of Management. It is these clients that will be the focus of the efforts for the CDC. In addition, the firm has co-developed a training program with Cranfield to improve the skills of its own partners. The case explores whether these initiatives will lead to a long-term competitive advantage. The firm believes what really will produce competitive advantage is its "Me-To-You-Mindset" initiative that encourages partners to look at the world through their clients' eyes. At the end of the case Hever is reflecting on a proposal he submitted for providing CDC services to one of the largest U.K. companies. The general counsel wants to pay for these services in cash should he decide to accept the proposal, rather than hiring AG for more legal work. Hever is wondering if this is a good way to take advantage of recent reforms allowing law firms to provide other professional services, like consulting, or if this is "off-strategy" for the mission of the CDC.

Describes an architecture firm founded and run by a husband and wife team, Sharukh and Renu Mistry, that emphasizes "green" building. The firm presents an unusual mix of projects - spanning the spectrum from larger corporate projects to small private homes. The mix also includes more profitable work and projects deliberately selected for social good, including the design of orphanage communities for SOS Childrens International and other non-profit organizations. The mix engages teams of young architects in different kinds of learning opportunities, and allows them to manage these projects with an unusually high level of independence. The firm's founders are dedicated to being both very client-oriented and environmentally responsible. This can lead to some difficult choices and the case illustrates one example. The firm has been commissioned by SOS to design homes for some villages destroyed in the December 24, 2004 tsunami. The preferred design is thatch roofs which is in keeping with the local environment. However, the villagers want a more functional (and more expensive) reinforced cement concrete roof. Sharukh must decide which of his principles is to dominate in this situation. A (B) case presents and explains the decision. A (C) case discusses future plans for the firm.

This case is a follow-up of Mistry Architects: Innovating for Sustainability (A) (Case 609-044). In Case (A) Sharukh and Renu Mistry found and run an architectural firm dedicated to being both client-oriented and environmentally responsible. The case uses a difficult design decision in a tsunami rehabilitation project to illustrate the challenges faced by professional services firms, and the role of innovation in meeting the needs of multiple stakeholders. The specific design decision is to make a choice between thatch roofs which are environmentally friendly, versus reinforced cement concrete roofs that the villagers desire for its functionality. Case (B) reveals and explains the firm's choice, while describing how the community rebuilds itself after the tsunami, as well as how the firms evolves. A (C) case discusses the future plans of the firm including growth and succession issues.

This case is a follow-up of "Mistry Architects: Innovating for Sustainability" (A) (Case 609-044) and (B) (Case 609-086). In Case (A) Sharukh and Renu Mistry founded and run an architectural firm dedicated to being both client-oriented and environmentally responsible. The case uses a difficult design decision in a tsunami rehabilitation project to illustrate the challenges faced by professional services firms, and the role of innovation in meeting the needs of multiple stakeholders. The specific design decision is to make a choice between thatch roofs which are environmentally friendly, versus reinforced cement concrete roofs that the villagers desire for their functionality. Case (B) reveals and explains the firm's choice, while describing how the community rebuilds itself after the tsunami, as well as how the firms evolves. The (C) case discusses the future plans of the firm including growth and succession issues.

The purpose of this exercise is to explore the challenges of information collection and analysis. Students will, experientially, gain insights into how information is used, and be exposed to a framework for identifying and evaluating information. In addition, the exercise will enable students to explore the processes and dynamics of teamwork in decision-making, the challenges of group decision-making, and the strategies for engaging team learning skills and attitudes to improve both the quality of and commitment to group decisions.

Most executives believe that relentless execution-efficient, timely, consistent production and delivery of goods or services-is the surefire path to customer satisfaction and positive financial results. But this is a myth in the knowledge economy, argues Edmondson, a Harvard Business School professor. She points to General Motors, which for years has remained wedded to a well-developed competency in centralized controls and efficient execution but has steadily lost ground, posting a record $38.7 billion loss in 2007. Such an execution-as-efficiency model results in employees who are exceedingly reluctant to offer ideas or voice questions and concerns. Placing value only on getting things right the first time, organizations are unable to take the risks necessary to improve and evolve. By contrast, firms that put a premium on what Edmondson calls execution-as-learning focus not so much on how a process should be carried out as on how it should evolve. Since 1980 General Electric, for instance, has continued to reinvent itself in every field from wind energy to medical diagnostics; and it enjoyed a $22.5 billion profit in 2007. Organizations that foster execution-as-learning provide employees with psychological safety. No one is penalized for asking for help or making a mistake. These companies also employ four distinct approaches to day-to-day work: They use the best available knowledge (which is understood to be a moving target) to inform the design of specific process guidelines. They encourage employee collaboration by making information available when and where it's needed. They routinely capture data on processes to discover how work really happens. Finally, they study these data in an effort to find ways to improve execution. Taken together, these practices form the basis of a learning infrastructure that makes continual learning part of business as usual.

An organization with a strong learning culture faces the unpredictable deftly. However, a concrete method for understanding precisely how an institution learns and for identifying specific steps to help it learn better has remained elusive. A new survey instrument from professors Garvin and Edmondson of Harvard Business School and assistant professor Gino of Carnegie Mellon University allows you to ground your efforts in becoming a learning organization. The tool's conceptual foundation is what the authors call the three building blocks of a learning organization. The first, a supportive learning environment, comprises psychological safety, appreciation of differences, openness to new ideas, and time for reflection. The second, concrete learning processes and practices, includes experimentation, information collection and analysis, and education and training. These two complementary elements are fortified by the final building block: leadership that reinforces learning. The survey instrument enables a granular examination of all these particulars, scores each of them, and provides a framework for detailed, comparative analysis. You can make comparisons within and among your institution's functional areas, between your organization and others, and against benchmarks that the authors have derived from their surveys of hundreds of executives in many industries. After discussing how to use their tool, the authors share the insights they acquired as they developed it. Above all, they emphasize the importance of dialogue and diagnosis as you nurture your company and its processes with the aim of becoming a learning organization. The authors' goal--and the purpose of their tool--is to help you paint an honest picture of your firm's learning culture and of the leaders who set its tone.

This case explores French consumer goods company Danone's novel approach to knowledge management. In 2007, Human Resource Chief (Executive Vice President) Franck Mougin assesses the company's knowledge-sharing tools and considers his options going Forward. Through informal knowledge marketplaces and sharing networks, Danone had helped managers connect with each other and share good practices peer-to-peer, rather than relying on traditional hierarchical lines of communication or IT repositories. From 2004 to 2007, Mougin and his team had found that 5,000 Danone managers around the world--the company conducted business in 120 countries--had shared about 640 now-documented good practices. In 2007, the strategic importance of saving time in a decentralized organization through adoption of colleagues' good practices was put to a test. Should the knowledge management tools be extended to include all employees and external partners on a regular basis? And on top of sharing good practices, could it be extended to include the creation of new solutions and processes? Would this require more formalization of processes and more tracking of results? The case illustrates Mougin's options on taking knowledge management into the future of Danone.

Explores the numerous initiatives Children's Hospital and Clinics has undertaken to improve patient safety since the late 1990s--from the perspective of 2007. The case thus updates the A case by revisiting the hospital to find out what happened as a result of the ambitious change program launched over eight years earlier. It elaborates the ways in which Children's COO Julie Morath seeks to continue to improve hospital operations by involving nurses, physicians and even patients' families in an ongoing organizational learning process. The 2-case series is particularly distinctive in tracking an organizational change initiative for almost a decade and, as such, uncovers and promotes discussion of the important, granular details of change leadership in a messy, knowledge-based organization.

An abstract is not available for this product.

An abstract is not available for this product.

An abstract is not available for this product.

Investigates the challenges that Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer confronted in seeking to create organizational change at the largest integrated health care system in North America, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Kizer was appointed as the Under Secretary of Health, to oversee the VHA, in 1994. Upon Kizer's arrival, it was immediately apparent that the management style that pervaded the VHA was ineffective and out of date. At the same time, the VHA faced inefficient health care delivery systems coupled with a steadily increasing number of patients. Kizer started to make plans to change the VHA into a modern, responsive, efficient, and effective health care organization. However, success in executing on his plans would require challenging a bureaucratic system with a long history. Documents progress, including organizational efficiencies gained that include consolidation of health care facilities, and illuminates leadership actions that facilitate this progress. Clearly, many challenges still lie ahead. Near the end of the case, Dr. Kizer awaits news from Congress on his reappointment for another four-year term.

Cleveland Clinic is consistently ranked among the nation's most eminent hospitals, and for decades has been a leader in pioneering cardiac care. Explores the methods, processes, and personnel that the hospital has cultivated over the years in order to develop its track record of excellence. In light of this, three expansion opportunities are explored and the operational fit of each is investigated.

In a word--self-preservation. And they're just as afraid to share innovative ideas as to blow the whistle.