個案總覽

Strategy making forces executives to confront a future they can only guess at. It's not surprising, then, that they try to make the task less daunting by preparing a comprehensive plan for how the company will achieve its goal. But good strategy is not the product of endless research and modeling; it's the result of a simple process of thinking through how to hit a target and whether it's realistic to try. Discomfort is part of the process. If you are entirely comfortable, you're probably stuck in one or more of the following traps. (1) Strategic planning. Planning arguably makes for more thorough budgets, but it must not be confused with strategy. (2) Cost-based thinking. Costs lend themselves wonderfully to planning, because the company controls them. But for revenue, customers are in charge. Planning can't make revenue magically appear. (3) Self-referential strategy frameworks. Even managers who avoid the first two traps may end up using a framework that leads them to design a strategy entirely around what the company controls. A company can avoid those traps by focusing on customers, recognizing that strategy is about making bets, and articulating the logic behind strategic choices.

The search for new business ideas--and models--is hit-or-miss at most firms. Tackling the problem systematically, of course, will improve your odds of success. Traditional ways of framing this search examine competencies, customer needs, and shifts in the landscape. This article proposes adding a new IT-based framework. It involves asking, How can data and analytic tools be used to create new value? The authors have explored that question with many clients. In their work, they've seen IT create new value in five patterns: using data from sensors in objects to improve offerings (think smart energy meters); digitizing physical assets (such as health records); combining data within and across industries (to, say, coordinate supply chains); trading data (as mobile providers do with information on users' whereabouts); and codifying best-in-class capabilities (such as online expense management) as services. Drawing on examples from their own experience and their clients', the authors walk readers through each of the five patterns and how to apply them. They also provide advice and questions that will help executives get started on their own searches.

Traditional methods of managing supply chain risk require estimations of how likely a disruption is to occur. For fairly common risks--poor supplier performance, forecast errors, transportation breakdowns--the traditional methods work quite well. But it's a different story for rare, high-impact events such as megadisasters, pandemics, and political upheavals. These risks are hard to quantify using traditional models, and as a result, many companies do not adequately prepare for them, which can have calamitous consequences when catastrophes do strike. A new model allows managers to quantify the "impact" of a supply chain disruption on a company's operational and financial performance, rather than focusing on the "cause" or "likelihood" of the disruption. This type of analysis obviates the need to determine the probability of any specific risk's occurring--a valid approach since the mitigation strategies are equally effective regardless of what caused the disruption. In this article, the authors describe how companies can use the model to reduce their exposure to all types of supply chain risk.

Until 2008 going global seemed to make sense for just about every company in the world. Since then, we've entered a different phase, one of "guarded globalization." Governments of developing nations have become wary of opening more industries to multinational companies. They are defining national security more broadly and perceiving more and more sectors to be of strategic importance, taking active steps to deter foreign companies from entering them and promoting domestic, often state-owned enterprises. Indeed, the rise of state capitalism in some of the world's most important emerging markets has altered the playing field. To factor globalization's new risks into strategy, executives must consider their industry's strategic importance to the host government and their home government. They can then choose among various approaches: strike alliances with local players, look for new ways to add value abroad, enter multiple sectors, or stay home.

Feedback is crucial--but almost everyone, from new hires to C-suite executives, struggles with receiving it. The authors, who have spent 20 years working with managers on difficult conversations, outline six steps that can help you turn feedback into an important, and unthreatening, tool. (1) Know your tendencies. Look for patterns in how you respond. (Do you defend yourself? Do you lash out?) Once you understand your standard operating procedure, you can make better choices about where to go from there. (2) Separate the "what" from the "who." Your feelings about the messenger might be short-circuiting your ability to learn from the message. (3) Sort toward coaching. Work to hear feedback as well-meant advice, not as an indictment. (4) Unpack the feedback. Resist snap judgments; explore where suggestions are coming from and where they're going. (5) Request and direct feedback. Don't wait for a formal review; ask for bite-size pieces of coaching. (6) Experiment. Try following a piece of advice and seeing what happens. Criticism is never easy to take--but learning to pull value from it is essential to your development and success.

An interview with the pathbreaking online educator Salman Khan.

Peter Drucker once said that the most effective executives disregard conventional wisdom about reaching consensus and instead work to create disagreement and dissention. As Drucker hints, opposing models are only a problem if we choose to treat them as such. The authors describe the four phases of Integrative Thinking, an approach to model creation developed at the Rotman School of Management that has evolved through research and practice. Even once you reach your 'integrative solution', the authors note that the challenge isn't over: all solutions will eventually be made obsolete, and as a result, integrative thinkers treat their solutions as 'provisional': as new information emerges in opposition to the 'solution', the process begins anew. However, when applied thoughtfully, they show that integrative thinking can give executives a fighting chance at tackling the wicked problems they face.

When most people think of the word, 'creativity', their mind immediately leaps to artistic endeavours like sculpture, drawing or music. You may believe that architects and designers are paid to be creative, but CEOs, lawyers and doctors are not. The authors-brothers who have worked for 30 years at the forefront of innovation at IDEO-call this misconception 'the creativity myth.' They describe two strategies (there are six more in their latest book) to help you get from 'blank page' to insight, and show that by embracing this challenge yourself, you will influence those around you to do the same. The article is excerpted from Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All (Crown Business, 2013) by Tom Kelley and David Kelley.

Have you been 'nudged' recently, to behave in a more environmentally or economically-sustainable way? While you might not know it, chances are, you have. A nudge is any aspect of the 'choice architecture' that alters people's behaviour in a predictable way, without removing any options or changing economic consequences. The authors complement the existing literature on Nudging-based on seminal research by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein-by providing practitioners with several guidelines for developing nudges of their own. They describe 12 possible types of nudges-a 'taxonomy' of nudging-and show that developing nudges is an interdisciplinary process that is project-based and experimental in nature. As they indicate, nudging is a powerful approach that is now being applied effectively in both for-profit and individual welfare domains.

In an excerpt from their book, Thinking in New Boxes: A New Paradigm for Business Creativity (Random House, 2013), the authors describe the power of embracing doubt to move beyond the status quo to value-added solutions. Both leaders at the Boston Consulting Group, they describe a process for innovation that begins with questioning your 'boxes'-the mental models you are currently operating with. In the end, they show that embracing doubt is a critical element of a new paradigm for creativity that recognizes that no idea is good forever. In the end, surviving success can be just as challenging as succeeding in the first place.

No matter what your circumstances or goals, the authors assure us of one thing: we will be better off if we are skilled thinkers. Critical thinking, they say, is the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are capable of in any set of circumstances; but to maximize the quality of your thinking, you have to make learning about thinking a priority. They present four recommendations which, when applied, result in a mind practicing skilled thinking. These include 'clarify your thinking' and 'question questions'. In the end, they say the best thinkers are those who understand the development of thinking as a process occurring throughout many years of practice.

Mental models-beliefs about causality and what is true-are passed down to each and every one of us through education, work and family life. Some of them seep deep into our core to become an established foundation for our thinking. The author argues that we spend too much of our lives asking finalistic questions -what is right and wrong, what is true? It is time to ask different questions, she says: knowing that truth is an elusive destination, how can we be effective? How can we build ever better models without getting overly attached - even when one seems just right? In the end, she shows that we're stuck with the incomplete mental models we learned through education and experience - unless we keep testing the models we're using and exploring alternatives.

Based on their research on information-sharing processes at 20 multinational firms from a broad range of sectors, the authors describe some of the hidden barriers to innovation. These fall under three headings, they argue: knowing what's going on in the market; understanding the market; and using market information. Along the way, they propose some practical ideas for managers to innovate more successfully.

If you spend some time studying the kinds of decisions people make and the outcomes of those decisions, you'll find that humanity does not have a particularly impressive track record. In an excerpt from their book, Decisive, the authors describe four 'villains' of good decision making, including 'narrow framing' and 'overconfidence'; then then provide a four-step model for overcoming these biases and making better decisions.

In an excerpt from his book of the same title, the author urges readers to address the problematic tendencies of a happy brain, which include many automatic reactions and biases that do little to spur effective action. Elevating our awareness of these reactions and biases, he argues, is the key to more productive behaviour. Pointing to findings from Cognitive Science and Neuroscience, he presents 15 rules of thumb gleaned from that can help us think in more productive ways.

We increasingly hear the alarm siren signaling that organizations can no longer survive - much less thrive - by continuing to use frameworks developed during the Industrial Revolution. In recent years, one framework that has emerged to illuminate how networked systems function optimally centers on ecological thinking and its application to organizations. The implication is that an 'organizational ecosystem' functions much as a biological ecosystem does, exhibiting both desirable and undesirable properties that are similar to what we see in nature. The authors discuss four meaningful similarities and four fundamental between organizational and biological ecosystems and in so doing, deconstruct this popular metaphor.

In this interview the renowned psychologist and Emotional Intelligence (EI) pioneer describes the importance of focus for leadership excellence. He explains in detail the three types of focus that leaders must possess to perform optimally: self-awareness, awareness of others and outer focus. Focus, he argues, is a pre-requisite for Emotional Intelligence.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Effective collaboration on logistics can move mountains -and reduce emissions.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. The surge of interest in big data has led to growing demand for analytics teams. Assembling such teams, however, is difficult. For one thing, many companies lack the in-house knowledge and experience needed to put together a world-class analytics team. What's more, the labor market for analytics professionals has grown increasingly tight. The shortage of analysts -particularly those capable of developing and leading world-class teams that can enable a company to create a competitive advantage from its data and analytics -is driving organizations to consider outsourcing their analytics activities. Analytics is the latest in a string of activities companies are outsourcing to business process organizations (BPOs). It draws heavily on mathematics and statistics knowledge, and many analytics-oriented BPOs have operations in India. Although some companies have world-class analytics capabilities in-house, the authors posed the question: Can an analytically naäve company "buy"world-class analytics functions by hiring outside experts? The authors studied both four multinational companies that used one or more offshore analytics BPOs and four analytics BPOs. Two of the client companies had skills that were judged to be "analytically superior"; the other two were judged to be "analytically challenged."The analytically challenged companies saw analytics BPOs as a way to obtain the resources and training needed to manage and execute their analytics and to gain quick access to important insights. By contrast, the analytically superior companies wanted to expand their internal analytic capabilities, in part because they wanted to preserve their ability to develop and protect intellectual property; they tended to use offshore BPOs to perform low-level analytics.

More than half of this year's survey respondents strongly agree that their organization needs to step up the use of analytics to make better business decisions -and that percentage rises to 87% if respondents who agree "somewhat"are included. This finding -that a majority of survey respondents agree strongly about the need to step up analytics use -holds true across a range of industries. Several forces, the authors argue, are helping spur managers'interest in analytics, including increased market complexity (for example, omnichannel retailing that encompasses both digital and brick-and-mortar channels) and the availability of better analytics tools and data. The authors report that some companies are sharing their data and analytics with business partners in order to meet strategic business objectives. For example, WellPoint, a U.S. health insurer based in Indianapolis, Indiana, is using analytics to help forge a payment model with physicians that rewards providers when they reduce overall health-care costs and enhance quality and health outcomes. Specifically, WellPoint is converting administrative claims and authorization data into useful information about populations of patients and sharing that information with physicians and their care teams. The survey data suggests that companies for which analytics has improved the ability to innovate are more likely to share data with partners and suppliers. Half of this year's survey respondents somewhat or strongly agree that analytics is helping their organization innovate -and 16% believe that strongly. Those survey respondents who strongly agree that analytics is helping their organization innovate are much more likely to say they collaborate with partners and suppliers through the use of analytics than respondents who don't think that analytics is helping their company innovate.