個案總覽

Analytics are a competitive necessity nowadays, but hiring "quants" who can manipulate big data successfully is not enough. Tom Davenport shows you how to become an intelligent consumer of analytics so that you can make effective data-driven decisions for your organization. Learning basic statistical principles and methods is essential, but you don't need a PhD in the stuff. The "quants" have the detailed know-how, and working closely with the right ones is key. You also should expect them to communicate their work effectively--and to truly comprehend it yourself before you relay it to others. It's also vital to recognize which parts of the decision-making process are your sweet spots--namely, identifying the central problem or question and presenting and acting on the results. The intermediate phases, where the quants excel, are when you should ask lots of questions to keep efforts focused and to deepen your understanding. As you lead, avoid creating a climate of advocacy in which hired hands merely hunt for evidence to fit your preconceived notions. Instead, establish a culture of inquiry that focuses on learning the real truth behind the numbers. That's how companies like Merck, TD Bank, and Caesars Entertainment make it all add up to something useful.

Russell Simmons, the founder of the Def Jam record label, talks about the diversity of his businesses, mentoring musicians and executives, making decisions on instinct, and more.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Recent technology advances in mobile computing and augmented reality are blurring the boundaries between traditional and Internet retailing, enabling retailers to interact with consumers through multiple touch points and expose them to a rich blend of offline sensory information and online content. In the past, brick-and-mortar retail stores were unique in allowing consumers to touch and feel merchandise and provide instant gratification; Internet retailers, meantime, tried to woo shoppers with wide product selection, low prices and content such as product reviews and ratings. But as the retailing industry evolves toward a seamless "omnichannel retailing"experience, the distinctions between physical and online will vanish, the authors suggest, turning the world into a showroom without walls. This will push retailers and their supply-chain partners in other industries to rethink their competitive strategies The growing prevalence of location-based applications on mobile devices is a critical enabler. Mobile technology is well on its way to changing consumer behavior and expectations, the authors argue. By giving consumers more accurate information about product availability in local stores, retailers can draw people into stores who might otherwise have only looked for products online. The enhanced search capability is especially helpful with niche products, which are not always available in local stores. The availability of product price and availability information, the ability of consumers to shop online and pick up products in local stores, and the aggregation of offline information and online content have combined to make the retailing landscape increasingly competitive. Retailers used to rely on barriers such as geography and customer ignorance to advance their positions in traditional markets. However, technology is removing these barriers.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Just as sports teams have increasingly relied on rigorous quantitative analyses, so have many businesses. In particular, a growing number of service organizations have been investigating the use of a sophisticated linear programming technique called DEA, or data envelopment analysis. (In this article, the authors use the term "balanced benchmarking"to denote DEA.) The technique enables companies to benchmark and locate best practices that are not visible through other commonly used management methodologies. Today, balanced benchmarking can be used by anyone with Microsoft Excel, but it was not always so easy. When it was first introduced in the 1980s, balanced benchmarking was an academic tool for measuring and managing relative efficiency of peer organizations. Balanced benchmarking simultaneously considers the multiple resources used to generate multiple services, along with the quality of the services provided. It also provides managers with a sophisticated mechanism to assess the performance of different service providers -comparing, for example, the London and Tokyo offices of a global advertising agency -by going well beyond crude metrics and ratios such as profitability and account billings per employee. A company can identify its least efficient offices or business units, and it can assess the magnitude of the inefficiency and investigate potential paths for improvement. Moreover, executives can study the top-performing units, identify the best practices and transfer that valuable knowledge throughout the organization. Lastly, balanced benchmarking enables companies to test their assumptions, particularly before implementing initiatives that might inadvertently be counterproductive.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. In today's fast-paced business world, leaders know that their organization's success is tightly linked to its ability to change again and again. Yet many change initiatives fail. One reason, the authors say, is that leaders often underestimate the impact of the politics and emotions of change. The authors suggest a five-step process for leading a major change initiative: Step 1: Map the political landscape. Map the key external and internal, formal and informal stakeholders who will be affected by the change. Step 2: Identify the key influencers within each stakeholder group. Once the key stakeholder groups are mapped, leaders should identify the key influencers within each group. Key influencers are those individuals who might be able to marshal resources, enroll others, build legitimacy and momentum, and provide ideas crucial to driving the change. Step 3: Assess influencers'receptiveness to change. People have different levels of receptiveness to a given change. Both supporters and skeptics must be engaged. Step 4: Mobilize influential sponsors and promoters. Sponsors have access to financial and human resources. Promoters, on the other hand, can be extremely useful in igniting the enthusiasm that can draw fence-sitters into the process and propel change forward. Step 5: Engage influential positive and negative skeptics. Skeptics can either make a change process more effective or turn a minor hurdle into a major roadblock. Positive skeptics may offer important perspectives and insights about the vulnerabilities of proposed changes. Influential negative skeptics are also important to work with.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Social technologies are becoming more important to business, according to a survey conducted by MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte. However, the adoption of social technologies often means changing the way people work, and that means executives need to invest time and effort in explaining the purpose and value of using the new tools, as well as providing the necessary financial and organizational supports to sustain these work flow changes over time. The authors'research is based on two surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012, as well as dozens of interviews with executives and social business thought leaders. The 2012 survey had more than 2,500 respondents from 25 industries and 99 countries. According to its findings, 52% of managers say their companies are at an early stage of developing social capabilities. For these managers, the top barriers to using social business are a lack of strategy, no business case and a lack of management understanding. The authors explain the importance of three types of senior leadership support for initiatives that rely on social technologies: (1) support for these initiatives over time, not just when they are launched, (2) executives'own use of social technologies as a signal of their importance, and (3) a pragmatic attitude about what to measure and when to measure results from these initiatives. As marketers capitalize on social tools, the relationship between CMOs and CIOs can change, and some organizations are hiring chief digital officers, the authors note. They observe that successful social business initiatives can produce changes in the way executives work together.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. In industries where innovation is highly distributed, companies often attempt to gain market advantages by coordinating their product introductions with those of other companies in hopes of generating increased sales and customer satisfaction. Synchronization can take a number of forms, and the implementation costs vary widely. Moreover, keeping part of a company's operations synchronized with those of another can present substantial challenges involving control. The challenges are magnified when capturing the benefits of synchrony depends on many other players in the industry network. Understanding what it takes to coordinate critical activities across industry networks can be extremely helpful, particularly in technology-intensive industries, where innovation is distributed and companies are strategically interdependent. Sony and Microsoft, leading manufacturers of video game consoles, for example, often try to coordinate product releases with game manufacturers such as Electronic Arts. The network of relationships among companies within an industry plays a key role in producing synchronization. Such relationships can range from intense collaborations to arm's-length alliances involving less interaction. Enterprises synchronize their product development work in three different ways: by planning the synchrony proactively with a few other partner organizations; by reacting to signals by other companies; or by combining these two approaches to create a hybrid approach. In industries that produce highly complex products, industry leaders can overcome the weaknesses of planned and reactive synchronization by blending the two approaches. This involves proactively engaging with the company or companies they absolutely must coordinate with and "signaling"their intentions to a selected group of other companies in hopes that the broader network of companies will respond.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. At some point in their careers, most executives -even the most talented -will face a power deficit. Regardless of their titles and nominal responsibilities, they will confront situations in which they have insufficient influence and authority to get their job done effectively. Fortunately, two strategies can almost always help the sidelined executive capture more clout and build an enduring power base. A variety of situations can lead a manager into a power deficit. Demographics (race, ethnicity, gender or age) can contribute to the power-deficient executive's predicament, as can inexperience, poor reputation, personality, background, training or outlook. It can happen to people with high potential. It can even happen to executives who are already high performers. Typically, an executive winds up with a power deficit because he or she lacks one or more of the following power sources: legitimacy, critical resources or networks. The high level of interaction between these three sources of power means that a shortage in one can easily produce shortages in the other two. The authors argue that, generally, executives who have a power deficit can solve the problem in one of two ways: they must either play the game more effectively or change the game by, for instance, reshaping their role in the organization. The authors offer examples and recommendations and provide a short questionnaire to help managers identify potential power deficits. The good news is that the odds of success are good. The authors report that in their coaching work with 179 executives who wrestled with power deficits, only four failed to improve the situation.

Yet despite these reform efforts, corporate trust violations continue. In fact, some of the most insidious practices from the Enron era (notably, disguising financial weakness with offbalance-sheet debt) were front and center again during the global financial crisis of 2008. Why do trust failures continue to occur with such frequency, and how can they be reliably prevented? The authors found that building and sustaining organizational trust is different from building and sustaining interpersonal trust, and that major organizational trust violations are almost never the result of "bad apples"or "rogue employees."Rather, these violations are predictable in organizations that allow dysfunctional, conflicting or incongruent elements to take root. Trust betrayals occur, the authors note, when the organization actively caters to a group (or groups) at the expense of and even causing harm to another group. Given the global prevalence of social media, online global forums and 24-hour news cycles, a breach of trust with any one stakeholder group can rapidly undermine an organization's reputation for trust in its broader stakeholder community. Ironically, the authors note, trust failures can act as catalysts for creating a high-trust organization. Much can be learned about how to establish and sustain organizational trustworthiness by examining how organizations successfully restore trust after a major violation. In analyzing cases of companies that have attempted to repair trust, the authors identified three critical stages: investigation, organizational reform and evaluation. Reforms must be evaluated to ensure they are working as intended, and shortfalls must be addressed. Successful trust repair requires taking a systems perspective to accurately diagnose and reform the true faults in the organizational system.

Companies are increasingly turning to online video advertising, which costs a small fraction of what traditional ads and paid media typically cost and which can create much greater engagement among viewers. Do-it-yourself strategies and outside talent can be used to create content, to distribute it, or both.

People have trouble understanding probability, yet it's crucial to all sorts of decision making, from choosing whether to buy new equipment to putting together an investment portfolio. Graphic representations and computer simulations can present information in ways decision makers can easily grasp--of critical importance in the era of Big Data.

Whether you're at the hub of a network of suppliers and other partners or part of a web of interconnected allies makes a big difference to your ability to innovate and to whether you're likely to get help in a crisis. There are advantages to both structures, and companies should make sure their network suits their strategy, position, and business environment.

Many people feel disconnected from the individuals they'll become in the future, perceiving their older self as "someone else." Because of this, they often make decisions that are not in their best long-term interests. But when people view images of themselves that have been digitally aged, their perspective changes, and their judgment improves.

The general secretary of Rotary International and the Rotary Foundation describes his organization's success--in partnership with WHO, UNICEF, and the CDC--at eradicating polio worldwide over the past 25 years, and shares some managerial lessons learned in the process.

Graduates of Harvard Business School overwhelmingly favor foreign over U.S. locations for new investment. Data from the International Finance Corporation show that the ease of doing business in the U.S. has declined. According to the Fraser Institute, the quality of both the legal system and property rights has fallen sharply in the U.S. since 2000. Has bureaucracy become the chief business of the American people?

E-mail management company Mimecast shares the results of a 2012 survey of 2,600 workers in the U.S., UK, and South Africa who use e-mail every day.

When Cote arrived at Honeywell, in 2002, the company had gone through three CEOs in four years. It had repeatedly missed earnings, and it had environmental liabilities that had never been dealt with. Virtually no pipeline of new products existed, because managers had been disinvesting to boost profits. Over the next five years he worked to fix many of those problems, and by the end of 2007 the company's credibility had been reestablished with investors and its share price had more than doubled. Then the recession hit. Cote's view was that any restructuring Honeywell did in response should be what was best for business efficiency and profitability over the long term--not solely a reaction to the recession--and should have no impact on the company's ability to outperform in recovery. The leadership team settled on furloughs, and this is the story of how they worked.

For most of the 20th century, the relationship between employers and employees in the developed world was all about stability and lifetime loyalty. That has recently changed, giving way to a transactional, laissez-faire approach that serves neither party well. A new arrangement is needed, the authors argue--one built on alliance (usually temporary) and reciprocity. The high-tech start-up community of Silicon Valley is pointing the way--and companies that wish to be similarly agile and entrepreneurial can learn valuable lessons from its example. Under the new compact, both employer and employee seek to add value to each other. Employees invest in the company's adaptability; the company invests in employees' employability. Hoffman (a cofounder of LinkedIn), Casnocha (a technology entrepreneur), and Yeh (an entrepreneur and angel investor) outline three simple, straightforward ways in which companies can make the new compact tangible and workable. These are (1) hiring employees for explicit "tours of duty," (2) encouraging, even subsidizing, employees' efforts to build networks outside the organization, and (3) establishing active alumni networks that will enable career-long relationships with employees after they've moved on. In the war for talent, such a compact can be a secret weapon that helps you fill your ranks with the creative, adaptive superstars who fuel entrepreneurial success.

For decades, the business world has been fixated on achieving sustainable competitive advantage, a position within an industry that allows a company to best its rivals over the long term. Though we can all point to organizations that have succeeded with this approach--think GE and Unilever--in today's world, the edge of most companies doesn't last long. The forces at work here are familiar: the digital revolution, disappearing barriers to entry, globalization. In a turbulent environment, businesses can't afford to spend months crafting a single long-term strategy. They need a portfolio of multiple transient advantages that can be built quickly and abandoned just as rapidly. Transient advantages call for a whole new playbook, says Columbia Business School's McGrath. It involves a view of strategy that is less industry-bound and more customer-centric. Executives who grasp this shift don't rely solely on analysis to develop strategy; they use tools like advanced pattern recognition and observation to set broad strategic themes and then let people experiment within them. They also adopt decision metrics that support entrepreneurship, replacing the net present value rule, for instance, with the logic of real options. And, knowing that product features can be copied instantly, they focus on providing experiences and solutions to problems to customers, and turn relationships into competitive barriers.

Asked to define strategy, most executives would probably come up with something like this: Strategy involves discovering and targeting attractive markets and then crafting positions that deliver sustained competitive advantage there. This view of strategy as position remains central in business school curricula around the globe. Unfortunately, writes the author, investors don't reward senior managers for simply occupying and defending market positions. Equity markets are full of companies with powerful positions and sluggish stock prices. Merely sustaining prior financial returns, even if they are outstanding, does not significantly increase a share price; tomorrow's positive surprises must be worth more than yesterday's. Zenger argues that managers' most vexing strategic challenge is not how to win or sustain competitive advantage but, rather, how to keep creating value. He offers what he calls the corporate theory, which reveals how a given company can do just that. Drawing on the history of Disney and Apple, he describes what makes a corporate theory strong, shows how it informs strategic choices, and warns what can happen when a company loses sight of its theory.