個案總覽

Strategy and entrepreneurship are often seen as polar opposites. Strategy means rigorously defining and pursuing one clear path, while entrepreneurship involves continually changing direction to take advantage of new opportunities. Yet the two desperately need each other: Strategy without entrepreneurship is central planning; entrepreneurship without strategy leads to chaos. There is a way to reconcile the two, through the "lean strategy process." It ensures that start-ups innovate in a disciplined fashion so that they make the most of their limited resources. Lean strategy helps company builders choose viable opportunities, stay focused, and align the entire organization. The process begins with setting the venture's vision, or ultimate purpose--perhaps the only aspect of strategy that should be permanent. To deliver on it, senior executives agree on a deliberate strategy, defining the firm's objective (the near-term goal that describes success), scope (what the firm will and will not do), and competitive advantage (how it will win). The deliberate strategy sets the bounds within which experiments will take place and guides daily decisions. But the results of those experiments and decisions lead to learning that reshapes the strategy. Though priorities evolve, at each point in time it's clear to everyone in the firm which ones take precedence.

Most successful new companies eventually face a predictable crisis that the authors call "stall-out"--a sudden large drop in revenue and profit growth or a collapse of once high shareholder returns to well below the cost of capital. Stall-out occurs when the growth engine that powered companies to success stops working. This rarely happens because the business model has suddenly become obsolete--a common misconception. Rather, research by Zook and Allen shows that the business has almost always become too complex, most often owing to bureaucracy that slows the company's metabolism, or internal dysfunction that distorts information and hampers managers' ability to make rapid decisions and take swift action on them. But stall-out can be overcome. The authors find that most companies that achieve sustainable growth share attitudes and behaviors: (1) They view themselves as business insurgents, fighting in behalf of underserved customers; (2) They have an obsession with the front line, where the business meets the customer; and (3) They foster a mindset that includes a deep sense of responsibility for how resources are used and for long-term results. Those qualities can help any company restart its growth engine by removing gunk and complexity that have built up over the years, inhibiting the clean execution of strategy.

Most managers are well versed in the defensive playbook for confronting disruptive innovation. Most commonly, they either acquire the new entrants or "disrupt themselves" by setting up autonomous units charged with developing their own new technology that can be rolled into their principal operations once the disruptive innovation begins to dominate the industry. But quite often, adopting a new technology requires companies to fundamentally change their mainstream operations--the way they manufacture and distribute their products. In these cases where the organizational model changes along with customer expectations and preferences, the playbook often falls short. In this article Joshua Gans of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management identifies three prescriptions for surviving "supply side" disruption: Companies must have an integrated organizational model, ownership of a product feature important to the end customer, and a broad and flexible sense of corporate identity. Though less commonly understood, supply-side disruption is arguably more dangerous than the kind described by Clayton Christensen in his book "The Innovator's Dilemma"; indeed, disruption of a product's architecture threatens a company's very survival in a way that changes in customer demands do not.

Fresh, innovative thinking is essential for business growth, and most people--not just a few gifted "visionaries"--are capable of it. So says the Wharton School's Adam Grant, whose research shows that you can develop this skill in your organization by creating a culture of nonconformity. Start by giving employees license to let their imaginations run wild: A large quantity of diverse ideas will ultimately yield the highest-quality ones. To help people dream up a multitude of new products, strategies, or solutions, encourage them to adopt the mindset of a competitor, for example, and have them generate ideas privately (group brainstorming tends to conform to the majority's taste). Once lots of ideas are in, get feedback on which one to pursue from the right people: other innovators with a track record of spotting winners. You might even stage a contest to find the best ideas, and have peer judges and other subject-matter experts vet the submissions and suggest improvements. Sustaining a culture of originality is as important as building it. So focus, too, on balancing cultural cohesion (which can improve decision making) with creative dissent (which prevents a strong culture from becoming a cult). Long-term, it's the combination of the two that brings great ideas to the table.

The ever-increasing pace of change in today's organizations requires that executives understand and then quickly respond to constant shifts in how their businesses operate and how work must get done. That means you must resist your innate biases against doing new things in new ways, scan the horizon for growth opportunities, and push yourself to acquire drastically different capabilities--while still doing your existing job. To succeed, you must be willing to experiment and become a novice over and over again, which for most of us is an extremely discomforting proposition. Over decades of work with managers, the author has found that people who do succeed at this kind of learning have four well-developed attributes: aspiration, self-awareness, curiosity, and vulnerability. They have a deep desire to understand and master new skills; they see themselves very clearly; they're constantly thinking of and asking good questions; and they tolerate their own mistakes as they move up the curve. Andersen has identified some fairly simple mental strategies that anyone can use to boost these attributes.

The actor, producer, and director on moving from stage to screen twice over.

Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries like Poland face a threat to future prosperity — brain drain, especially in the area of logistics and supply chains, one of the key drivers of economic development in the region. As supply chains increasingly span the globe and compete on a greater scale, many firms have taken advantage of CEE supply markets. Global companies like Volkswagen and Amazon have established facilities in Poland, leveraging proximity to economic networks and highly skilled, cost-efficient labour. This trend has necessitated improvements in infrastructure over the last decade, yet significant improvements in business education and management research have not materialized. Simply put, the ties between higher-education institutions and the private sector in CEE nations must be strengthened. <br><br> Industrial firms, retailers, and third-party logistics providers — along with supply chain consultancies, after-sales service providers and IT solution providers — all benefit from the availability of professionals equipped with the latest knowledge, methods, and tools. But while these things are taught in logistics and supply chain management (SCM) courses at top universities elsewhere, there is much to be desired in management education in CEE nations. Investors and researchers from the international business community should be aware of the region’s growing market for logistics and SCM. Private-sector firms should consider making investments in thought leadership when outsourcing to CEE countries. Ensuring that the region’s next generations of researchers can work at home instead of having to spend their whole careers abroad would go a long way toward sustaining economic growth.

This introduction to the special issue on crowdfunding begins by providing some information about the history and nature of the phenomenon. It then summarizes some of the key advantages and disadvantages of crowdfunding for entrepreneurs and for investors, introducing the various articles in the issue that explore these topics in greater depth. It concludes with some speculations regarding the possible future of the industry and its effects on entrepreneurship, innovation, and inequality.

The expansion of crowdfunding raises two related questions: what type of platform suits each project and how should existing platforms expand? The answer lies in analyzing the field of crowdfunding as a solution to four specific problems: gatekeeping, coordination, inexperience, and patronage. Using an inductive analysis of the largest U.S. sites, this article identifies the range of problems crowdfunding addresses and their performance to date. Crowdfunding succeeds in raising money within and across networks, but efforts to use crowdfunding to educate or to generate recurring revenue are less successful.

While the crowdfunding phenomenon has attracted considerable practitioner and scholarly attention, existing research predominantly reflects a U.S.-centric perspective. This article examines crowdfunding platform creation in 15 European countries. Despite the omnipresent reach of the internet, national boundaries shape the evolution of the European crowdfunding industry. Specifically, crowdfunding platform creation varies across countries and distinct national patterns emerge for crowdfunding activity in general. Moreover, econometric analyses suggest that country-level factors influence platform creation in European countries, with interesting variations across four crowdfunding models: Donation, Reward, Lending, and Equity.

This article focuses on how crowdfunding might democratize the commercialization of innovation as well as financing. First, it examines how crowdfunders decide what effort to support and asks how do crowd and expert decisions differ? Second, it investigates whether crowdfunding democratizes access to capital by asking whether groups that have historically been underrepresented in capital markets gain additional access to capital markets through crowdfunding. Finally, it investigates whether crowdfunding leads to the growth of new firms in the same way that traditional funding does. Taken together, these questions point at a potentially vast alternative infrastructure for developing, funding, and commercializing innovation.

In crowdfunding, rewards can make or break success. Yet reward design, choice, and planning still occur based on availability rather than strategy. To address this challenge, this article provides an empirically derived crowdfunding reward toolbox offering guidance in strategically selecting rewards. Based on a large-scale analysis of successful and unsuccessful Kickstarter projects, this article classifies rewards that are currently offered along eight dimensions. It identifies emerging patterns and derives five strategic core tools and two add-on tools. Finally, it delivers exploratory insights into the relative effectiveness of different tools that can facilitate decision making and strategic planning for entrepreneurs and individuals who plan to launch a crowdfunding project and who seek ways to reward their supporters

Information asymmetry presents a challenge to equity crowdfunding just as in other markets for equity capital. Investors are less likely to finance startups when it is difficult to assess quality. Syndicates reduce market failures caused by information asymmetry by shifting the focal investment activities of the crowd from startups to lead investors. Syndicates align the incentives of issuers, lead investors, and follow-on investors by providing incentives for lead investors to conduct due diligence, monitor progress, and exploit their reputation. Preliminary evidence foreshadows a meaningful role for syndicates in the allocation of capital to early-stage ventures.

A group of experts discuss their thoughts about the current state of crowdfunding, its future, important emerging trends in the field, and the opportunities and challenges facing investors and entrepreneurs in the space. Across the board, these experts highlight the importance of crowdfunding as a means for mobilizing resources. They also maintain that crowdfunding has already emerged as an important force in global finance, one which appears here to stay, but one where we have only begun to see the ways in which it will transform the financial sector.

If you think you know your customers well enough, think again. Every organization, regardless of its earnings and marketing sophistication, can benefit from a better understanding of its customers. Indeed, figuring out how to dramatically improve your customer experience is something to think about right now, if you want your organization to have a future. Coming waves of disruption threaten every established business on the planet. Since these waves are driven by a shift toward consumers, as well as a number of low-cost new technologies, they are unstoppable. Companies like Uber and Airbnb haven’t spent much money on marketing, but are taking over by word of mouth and by creating value through servicing customers in better ways. Established players should learn how to proactively raise the customer service bar and offer a “lights out” experience that can’t be beat. If leaders don’t focus on what it takes to get customers to stick with them, then the cost of customer acquisition becomes forbiddingly expensive. <br><br> Deploying analytics alone can no longer be relied upon as a source of competitive advantage because most analytics strategies are easily replicated. Companies must investigate what customers want before they want it. Knowing where customers want you to take them before they realize it (or someone else takes them there) involves creativity and design thinking. It requires understanding how generational thinking can bias your product or service development. It also requires getting outside of your industry and understanding how the ideal customer experience changes. Don’t be fooled by good surveys, reviews, sales, or market share data. They won’t tell you what’s coming or what weaknesses expose you to eager competitors with a better emotional connection to your market.

Today’s official interest rates are unprecedented, thanks to the spread of negative interest rate policy around the world. Negative interest rate policy is not an academic abstraction to be ignored by the corporate world. Indeed, negative rates come with negative implications for running a business. Until recently, zero was the lower bound on policy rates. But lately, various central banks representing about 25 per cent of global GDP have gone negative. Negative policy interest rates were even discussed in Canada last year by the Bank of Canada’s governor. The goal of negative rates is to make not using money costly for banks and to get them to lend it out, thereby stoking economic growth, job creation, consumption, investment, exports, a lower currency value, and inflation. <br><br> If the Bank of Canada looks like it might be headed negative on its policy rate, this means it is very worried about the macroeconomic conditions that make or break businesses. It also means the Bank of Canada may not be confident that politically motivated fiscal policies involving deficits, government spending and taxation will support economic growth. As a result, executives should be prepared to consider comprehensive reviews of important aspects of their businesses, including working capital, capital spending, financing, acquisitions, product pricing, compensation, and long-term contracting. Negative policy rates are very tough on bank margins and profitability, and weakened banks are no help in a stagnant economy; they encourage people to do unusual things with their money like storing it in a safe or hiding it. Finally, negative policy rates turn time-honoured accounts receivable and accounts payable policies upside down such that you may now want to receive money as late as possible and pay it out as soon as possible.

Anyone looking at stock charts these days has good reason to feel like cutting their losses. Despite the partial recovery after the Global Financial Crisis, sovereign and consumer debt levels have only increased while commodity prices have plummeted along with China’s economic growth levels, so thinking about rebalancing investment portfolios is clearly a good idea. When thinking about rebalancing investments, it is unwise to let stock charts alone convince you to sell or buy. Stock charts are widely used to help professional and retail investors make decisions regarding when to buy or sell equities. But research shows that stock charts display information in a way that leads to irrational decision making. The problem with using stock graphs to decide whether or not it is time to sell a company’s shares has to do with the importance that people place on observations. Simply put, the most recent past is frequently seen as more diagnostic than the distant past and so lines on a graph can be misleading. Furthermore, research has found that feeling isolated or ostracized causes consumers to pursue riskier financial opportunities.

Consumer transactions will eventually go digital, but retailers and consumers alike need to learn how to make this work. Unlike most Millennials, most Boomers and Gen-Xers had to be coerced into switching to digital music. According to a recent consumer sentiment study on mobile usage, more coercion will be required before digital commerce reaches its potential. While more than 60 per cent of Americans have a smartphone, only 14 per cent surveyed prefer shopping online, and privacy concerns of customers limit the appeal of firms going digital. Such firms must make serious financial commitments, not to mention decisions about what platforms to bet the budget on. There is also a significant outlay of resources needed to train employees on how to use and maintain new systems and equipment. Much of the push to get retailers to invest in digital offerings has hinged on the value associated with compiling customer spending data, yet most retailers don’t know what to do with this data once it is collected. Businesses need to take advantage of the relatively slow adoption of digital transactions to first learn the new technology that they are deploying, and then use this expertise to serve their customers by helping them learn how to use their devices in new ways — while gaining more trust in their transactions rather than increased frustrations.

Enabled by enterprise social software (ESS), online corporate communities are shaking up the management world by revolutionizing many core organizational activities. By creating new channels of interaction among employees, customers and managerial echelons, ESS solutions are democratizing the decision-making process. Many prominent companies see this favourably, which is why they actively use ESS platforms such as Yammer — a private social network that helps employees collaborate across departments, locations and business apps — to transform innovation, talent management, marketing and CSR practices. But democracy in business is a double-edged sword. And when it comes to empowering the corporate masses to heavily influence the decision-making process via ESS, it remains unclear when the C-suite benefits and when it doesn’t. <br><br> This article aims to raise awareness of the perils associated with decision democratization and help managers identify the conditions in which ESS platforms complement the decision-making process and those conditions in which online communities fall short in making a true contribution. We provide a framework to discuss the optimum role of ESS platform functionality for three different types of decision making: operational, tactical and strategic. Our research indicates that there is no question that ESS should indeed be exploited for some intra-firm decision making, but that companies need to be very wary of democratizing the strategic decision-making process.

Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are an important tool for improving a firm's competitive positioning and performance. Despite M&As' promise, however, they often fail to meet performance goals. Challenges often arise when managers try to integrate two companies' information technology (IT) systems, and the difficulties encountered often create both short- and long-term performance problems for companies. To help address these challenges, we highlight important issues that managers involved in M&As must consider. We also present some best practices that managers should follow to improve the odds of successful IT integration.