個案總覽

Employee overload is costly for organizations and individuals alike. But dual-agenda work redesign - which helps people work more effectively and in ways they can sustain - can reduce burnout, deterioration in performance, employee turnover, and other problems associated with overload, delivering benefits to both companies and their workers.

Transformative digital technologies are changing leadership standards along with every other aspect of business. To succeed, leaders will need to respond in five key ways: championing inclusivity, learning fast and wide, collaborating more intensely, nurturing creativity, and acting as digital guardians.

Ill-advised social media posts and lax company oversight can cause serious damage to an organization's reputation, trigger regulatory investigations, harm long-term relationships, and introduce cyberthreats. Companies can try to be selective about the disclosures they make on social media, but sitting back and hoping for the best is not enough. Responsible managers and auditors need to make sure they understand the dangers and how to protect themselves.

Digital initiatives often suffer from poor governance when it comes to providing structure and governance to digital transformation projects, from finding alignment between business processes to assigning ownership for change efforts. Executives need to rethink their governance approach for digital transformation in a way that prioritizes active enablement over control. Seven key governing principles linked to successful digital business transformation can help.

Bringing together the formal rationality of AI and the substantive rationality of humans can help companies meet their goals and optimize the chances of success. However, before designing AI systems, managers need to assess the openness of the decision-making process and the level of risk. These assessments will help managers figure out the right teaming options for implementing their AI systems.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) may save money and improve the efficiency of business processes, but these technologies can also destroy business value, sometimes with grave consequences. The inability to identify and manage that risk can lead some managers to delay the adoption of these technologies and thus prevent them from realizing their potential. This article proposes a new framework by which to map the components of an AI solution and to identify and manage the value-destruction potential of AI and ML for businesses. We show how the defining characteristics of AI and ML can threaten the integrity of the AI system's inputs, processes, and outcomes. We then draw from the concepts of value-creation content and value-creation process to show how these risks may hinder value creation or even result in value destruction. Finally, we illustrate the application of our framework with an example of the deployment of an AI-powered chatbot in customer service, and we discuss how to remedy the problems that arise.

Artificial intelligence applications in cognitive computing systems can be found in organizations across every market, including chatbots that help customers navigate websites, predictive analytics systems used for fraud detection, and augmented decision-support systems for knowledge workers. In this article, we share reflections and insights from our experience with AI projects in the public sector that can add value to any organization. We organized our findings into four thematic domains-(1) data, (2) technology, (3) organizational, and (4) environmental-and examine them relative to the phases of AI. We conclude with best practices for capturing value with cognitive computing systems.

Why are companies still so vulnerable to disruptive threats? The problem isn't that they don't have the right playbook. It's that well-intentioned leaders often downplay disruptive threats or overestimate the difficulty of response. In simple terms, they lie to themselves. This means dealing with disruption is not just an innovation challenge; it is a leadership challenge. Here's how to avoid the delusions about disruption and self-sabotage.

When faced with deep uncertainty, organizations often develop a habit of controlling for internal, known variables and fail to track external factors as potential disrupters. This practice lures decision-makers into a false sense of security, and it forces a narrow framing of the future. As a result, even the most successful businesses become vulnerable to disruptive forces that appear to come out of nowhere.

Technology innovation has created a new ethical paradigm. As companies specialize in delivering single components of complex systems, value chains are being reshaped across industries. Product interfaces are becoming standardized, and companies are profiting by perfecting narrow slices of the value chain. This rapid modularization has magnified the ethical implications of every business decision. As businesses work to delight consumers, they must also protect the public trust.

Finding the best people and paying more for them is, paradoxically, the most cost-effective way to optimize IT output. By adopting a new approach to assessing IT competence, companies can nurture engineering talent, boost productivity, and reduce costs.

Collisions between innovators and established players are forcing leaders of existing companies to reexamine how they do business in settings where new players follow radically different rules. For many, making small or incremental changes won't be enough. They will need to fundamentally alter their operating models, including how they gather and respond to information and how they interact with their customers.

We're seeing a new species of disrupter emerging in our economy: experience disrupters. These organizations have great products but offer even better experiences, and they're successfully outmaneuvering their competition by excelling at this. In a nutshell, how they sell is why they win.

In 2019, the chief executive officer of Carefirst Seniors & Community Services Association (Carefirst) was sitting in her modest office near Toronto, Ontario, Canada, looking back on 22 years of providing health care services to seniors and other clients in the Toronto area. Demand for its services had been growing steadily, as Canada's aging population continued to increase in numbers. The 2016 census reported that seniors outnumbered children for the first time in the survey's history. One in six Canadians was age 65 or older, and this age group was growing four times faster than the overall population. In addition, more than one in five Canadians lived with a chronic disease. With increasing financial difficulties for the Canadian government to meet the needs of its aging citizens, and with a diverse population reflecting Canada's comparatively open immigration policy, Carefirst was experiencing a changing external environment that demanded a swift pre-emptive response. A recent change in the provincial government had also led to a restructuring of the Ontario health care system. What would be its next strategic move, to ensure that it was better positioned for imminent changes?

Despite the wealth of research on effective teams â€" and regardless of individual effort and good intentions â€" organizations still struggle to deploy teams that achieve their potential. Our research suggests that mutually-reinforcing functional and cultural change processes, and the way in which these processes are combined, are critical for team-building success.

To disrupt, or not to disrupt? That is a very important question. Rather than single-mindedly heading down the path of would-be disrupter, new entrepreneurial companies can and should evaluate the trade-offs between disruption and other strategies. Doing so allows them to choose a strategy that is right for that startup, in that market, at that time, and to learn as the company commercializes its idea.

Clayton Christensen's Theory of Disruptive Innovation presciently explained that fast-moving disrupters entering the market with cheap, low-quality goods could undermine companies wed to prevailing beliefs about competitive advantage. In the last decade, however, disrupters have changed dramatically. They now enter the market with products and services that are every bit as good as those offered by legacy companies and make it harder than ever for traditional businesses to compete.

Tinder's gamelike user experience enticed overlooked users, led to rapid segment growth, and ultimately displaced industry incumbents.

Set in October 2019, this case presents the remarkable growth journey of Nium, a Singapore-headquartered fintech start-up in digital remittance. The founders are on a mission to disrupt the traditional remittance industry ridden with inefficiency and an opaque pricing structure, and are confident that offering low transaction fees, high transparency and quick transfers would give the incumbent players a run for their money. Since starting out in 2015, Nium had successfully secured US$59.5 million in three rounds of equity funding. By 2019, it was the leading digital remittance operator in Southeast Asia. With a presence in eight markets across North America, Europe and Asia Pacific regions, the value proposition of the fintech start-up was sufficiently compelling to win over investors and customers who had been at the mercy of large financial establishments charging exorbitant fees at unfavourable foreign exchange rates. Looking poised to continue its high growth trajectory, Nium had embarked on a new chapter of market and service expansion. It made inroads into Japan and Indonesia while launching new service platforms that included card-issuing as well as payment collection services for SMEs all over the world. As Nium marks its fifth anniversary of founding, the founders contemplate how the start-up might evolve. Should they pursue an IPO as planned in 2022-23, raise the next round of equity funding, or step into the digital banking arena?

Innovation and transaction platforms have enabled nearly every type of exchange and activity imaginable in today’s world, earning some of the companies that own them valuations in excess of $1 trillion. But while successful platforms yield a powerful competitive advantage with financial results to match, the nature of platforms is changing, as are the ecosystems and technologies that drive them and the challenges and rules associated with managing them.