This is an MIT Sloan Management Review Article. Emerging markets such as China and India have become the growth drivers of corporate research and development initiatives from all around the world. Although there is growing evidence that Chinese companies are shifting their innovation focus from cost saving to knowledge-based research, the view by many in the West remains that companies based in emerging markets are not ready to take over the role of leading innovators from their Western competitors. As a result, Chinese multinationals have been at a competitive disadvantage, particularly in strategic technology industries. What can Chinese multinationals do to overcome Western barriers to entry in strategically important technology industries in which "Made in China" or "Designed in China" are viewed as negatives? What dynamic innovation capabilities - or, put another way, what culturally specific processes - should companies focus on to gain acceptance in the competitive global marketplace? To answer these questions, the author studied Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., the Chinese telecommunications company that has recently made significant inroads in Europe's mature and strategically important telecommunications industry, making it a potential role model for companies in China and other parts of Asia hoping to make a similar transition. In Europe, the author notes, Huawei has typically relied on the same strategy it used to build its market position in China. It has (1) offered customized technologies that meet the practical needs and resource constraints of target customers; (2) built customer loyalty by enhancing practical innovation with longer-term joint innovation partnerships; and (3) enlisted the support of governments, universities, and other industry stakeholders by customizing further innovation investments to their priorities.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Companies that are able to radically change their entrenched ways of doing things and then reclaim leading positions in their industries are the exception rather than the rule. Even less common are companies able to anticipate a new set of requirements and mobilize the internal and external resources necessary to meet them. Few companies make the transformation from their old model to a new one willingly. Typically, they begin to search for a new way forward only when they are pushed. This raises two important questions for corporate managers: (1) Is decline inevitable? (2) Do companies really need a financial downturn to galvanize change, or can they adopt new ways of doing things when not under pressure? Management theorists have observed that decline, while perhaps not inevitable, is at least very likely after a period of time. For this reason, the authors argue, it's important for organizations to develop new dynamic capabilities deliberately rather than relying entirely on their historic capabilities. In their attempt to understand what makes for successful organizational transformations, the authors studied 215 of the United Kingdom's largest public companies. The article focuses on three companies that transformed themselves-Cadbury Schweppes in packaged goods, Tesco in grocery retail and Smith & Nephew in medical devices. It compares them with three other companies from similar industries that were also successful but hadn't been required to make a dramatic shift. The authors found that the companies that transformed themselves had three fundamental advantages over their peers. First, they were able to build alternative coalitions with management. Second, they were able to create a tradition of constructively challenging business as usual. And third, they were able to exploit "happy accidents"to make strategic changes. Together these advantages helped them establish a virtuous cycle of strategic transformation.