個案總覽

Web 2.0 technologies are now a staple of social collaboration on the internet. In 2006 Andrew McAfee, of the MIT Center for Digital Business, coined the term Enterprise 2.0 to describe how organizations use emergent social software platforms, or ESSPs, to pursue their goals. However, some organizations don't achieve the many collaboration-related benefits that internal ESSPs can offer. After studying both successful and unsuccessful E2.0 initiatives, McAfee attributes most of the failures to five misconceptions. The first two myths crop up before an E2.0 initiative is launched. One is that the risks of ESSPs, most notably from inappropriate use, will greatly outweigh the rewards. McAfee makes the case that those dangers rarely manifest in practice. The other pre-launch myth is that the ROI of an E2.0 initiative should be calculated in monetary terms. McAfee shows how Enterprise 2.0 can deliver valuable benefits in terms of developing human, organizational, and information capital - without a numerical ROI yield. The final three myths arise after an E2.0 project is deployed. One holds that people will flock to a collaboration platform once it is built. Success actually requires various types of top-down support, including active participation by senior leaders. Another is that E2.0's primary worth is in helping close colleagues work together better. In reality, the value extends to networks of expertise well beyond a user's inner circle. The importance of those far-reaching interpersonal connections also debunks the last myth: that E2.0 should be judged by the information it generates. Information is indeed useful, but E2.0's greatest advantage lies in transforming potential ties between people into actual ones.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Sustainability is garnering ever-greater public attention and debate. However, the business implications of sustainability merit greater scrutiny-and scrutiny of a different kind than the "green"-oriented focus that's most common. Will sustainability change the competitive landscape and reshape the opportunities and threats that companies face? If so, how? How worried are executives and other stakeholders about the impact of sustainability efforts on the corporate bottom line? What -if anything -are companies doing now to capitalize on sustainability-driven changes? And what strategies are they pursuing to position themselves competitively for the future? To begin answering those questions, MIT Sloan Management Review and collaborator The Boston Consulting Group conducted in-depth interviews with more than 50 global thought leaders, followed by the Business of Sustainability Survey of more than 1,500 worldwide executives and managers about their perspectives on the intersection of sustainability and business strategy, including their assessments of how their own companies are acting on sustainability threats or opportunities right now. The study identifies three major barriers that impede decisive corporate action: a lack of understanding of what sustainability is and means to an enterprise; difficulty modeling the business case; and flaws in execution, even after a plan has been developed. The study also reveals that while novice practitioners think of sustainability mostly in environmental and regulatory terms, with any benefits stemming chiefly from brand or image enhancement, practitioners with more knowledge tend to consider the economic, social and even personal impacts of sustainability-related changes in the business landscape.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. MIT Sloan Management Review's first annual Business of Sustainability survey revealed much about what executives are thinking and doing about sustainability-driven concerns right now -as well as what's impeding their attempts both to capture opportunities and defend against threats. The most widely credited leading thinkers at the sustainability and management intersection, though, wanted to explore something else: the ways that many fundamental management and strategy practices will be transformed by the pressures that sustainability issues are already bringing to bear. This article identifies eight significant ways that current management expectations and practices will be affected by growing societal and economic understanding about sustainability. Among them: how labor productivity can be dramatically increased by sustainably designed workplaces; how companies "bump into" sustainability-related choices, even when they don't look for them; how a company's sustainability profile will become a proxy for the organization's overall management quality; how innovation results are improved by pursuit of sustainability-related outcomes; how sustainability efforts within an organization lead to more productive collaboration across typical organizational silos; and how transparency and trustworthiness will become increasingly consequential to competitive success.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. MIT Sloan Management Review's Business of Sustainability survey and thought leaders interview project identified numerous management challenges presented by the new competitive landscape that sustainability pressures is creating. Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is how to build the "business case" for investing in a sustainability-related project -even when you believe that the project addresses a significant opportunity. What do executives need to know about sustainability as a business proposition? Interviewee Amory Lovins, co-founder of Rocky Mountain Institute, co-author of Natural Capitalism -Creating the Next Industrial Revolution and recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant," argues that executives labor under several pernicious misunderstandings about how sustainability affects business -the worst being that sustainability efforts have to cost a company, when in fact, says Lovins, they nearly always increase profits. How does one begin to build a persuasive business case for undertaking sustainability-related initiatives? Map your flows and costs of materials and energy, says Lovins; you will find fiscal "leaks" that can be fixed, with direct bottom-line benefits. He also points out numerous side benefits of sustainability-related efforts: gains in innovation, labor productivity and appeal as a collaboration partner. Those benefits, he argues, will exceed the direct ones.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. In 1994, when Interface Inc.'s founder and CEO Ray Anderson began to think about his legacy, it made him uneasy. Deep down, Anderson realized that the business model of the commercial carpet manufacturing company he had founded 20 years before was based on "digging up the earth and turning petroleum and other materials into polluting products that ended up in landfills"-not something he wanted his grandchildren and great-grandchildren to remember him by. So at age 60 Anderson broke with the old model and began anew. Standing up to naysayers (whose ranks included associates, suppliers and Wall Street analysts), he set out to transform Interface from a traditional business built on consumption and waste to one whose focus -that is, beyond profitable growth -would be zero waste and restoring the earth. Since the start of the journey, Anderson and his associates have confronted technical barriers that no one could have anticipated. But inch by inch, kilowatt-hour by kilowatt-hour, recycled pound of carpet by recycled pound of carpet, Anderson's vision has moved closer to reality. In addition to becoming increasingly efficient in its energy and materials usage -for example, 89% of Interface's global electricity and 28% of its total energy come from renewable sources -Interface prides itself on its ability to turn an increasingly large percentage of its carpet into new product. It is also proud of the influence its sustainability efforts are having on other companies. This article presents a timeline showing how Anderson's "mental model" changed and how he and his company moved along the road to sustainability.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Successful innovation -the kind that leads to customer engagement and profits -is rare and hard to achieve, or so one might conclude from observing the results of many companies'innovation efforts. Some have tried investing intensively in research and development. But the author recently studied public companies representing almost 60% of global R&D expenditures and found that above a certain minimal level, there is generally no correlation between R&D spending and financial metrics such as sales or profit growth. For many companies, developing new products is hit-or-miss. But according to the author's research, successful innovation is not magical. It comes from careful attention to a small number of important criteria. The key question isn't how much to spend, but how to spend. The author introduces a "return on innovation investment," or ROI2, methodology that correlates directly with organic growth and links innovation spending with financial performance in ways that can lead decision makers to generate higher, more reliable returns on innovation and R&D. The ROI2 approach is based on a series of innovation studies conducted during the past seven years with companies in the consumer products, health care and chemical industries. To become more effective, a company needs to diagnose its innovation practices and capabilities. The diagnosis can be quite different from one company to the next, and that is why adopting industry benchmarks doesn't work. The individual innovation profile represents the value and quality of a company's innovation portfolio and can be clearly expressed as an "innovation effectiveness curve." This curve lets companies plot annual spending on innovation projects against the financial returns from those projects -and "solve for growth."

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. During the last decade, virtual work -professionals working remotely from home, from client locations or simply from the road -has become increasingly prevalent. Some Fortune 500 companies, including Procter & Gamble, IBM, Accenture and AT&T, have already partially or fully eliminated traditional offices. As much as 10% of today's work force telecommutes from home -more than triple the level of 2000. This trend will accelerate in the coming decades in response to the ongoing globalization of work, ever-increasing customer demands and the cost and time of commuting. However, remote employees as well as managers are becoming increasingly aware of the challenges associated with virtual work as they relate to internal communication, social interaction and employee satisfaction and commitment. The article focuses on four critical challenges involving remote work that require management attention: (1) finding the right work-life balance, (2) overcoming workplace isolation, (3) compensating for the lack of face-to-face communication and (4) compensating for the lack of visibility. For each issue, the authors offer a set of management coping strategies drawn from interviews with managers and remote workers. Successful companies will find ways to adjust to the differences and provide specialized training, mentoring and broad opportunities for social and business interactions with both traditional and remote employees.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. While the protection of intellectual property, or IP, seems to be at odds with a company's pursuit of open innovation, or OI -the selective use of research carried out elsewhere -businesses in the know can align these two approaches. An appropriate IP strategy can actually be an enabler of OI activities. In fact, an increasing number of companies, such as International Business Machines Corp., are involved in interconnected "ecosystems"-critically dependent on cooperating with other parties to generate innovations and profits. The authors'research has found that the enabling function of IP depends on the specific circumstances under which companies engage in OI. Two variables in particular have emerged as critical determinants: the technological environment in which the business is active, and the knowledge distribution among potential collaborators. Each variable is presented as having two possible values. The technological environment, for instance, is either calm or turbulent. Concerning the nature of innovative knowledge distribution, external knowledge can be thought of as residing either with the few (in puddles) or with the many (in oceans). By combining these two dimension sets, and thus creating four possible scenarios, we provide a better sense of a firm's most appropriate IP/IO strategy. Depending on the category into which the company falls, IP plays a different role as an enabler of OI.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. The recent economic downturn has left many organizations in a quandary. Just several years ago, the major issue was winning the so-called "war for talent": how to attract, motivate and retain the best and the brightest. But then the current recession turned that thinking upside down. Now, many organizations are scrambling to figure out how best to restructure and cut costs without jeopardizing the valuable human capital that they built during the prior period of growth. To help such companies, the authors have developed a framework that integrates the seemingly paradoxical practices of talent management and downsizing. The framework looks at two important dimensions. The first is the type of downsizing, either reactive or proactive. The second dimension of the framework is the approach to managing employees, either control-oriented or commitment-oriented. Those two dimensions -type of downsizing and approach to talent management -can be combined to form a two-by-two matrix consisting of four quadrants. Each quadrant represents a different strategy, with a distinct philosophy, focus and key HR and downsizing best practices. The authors contend that there is no "one size fits all" approach to downsizing and that managers need to devise the approach that makes the best sense for their particular company, depending on its position in the matrix's quadrants.

Executives overestimate the relevance of individuals to collective behavior. Agent-level changes won't help you meet system-level goals - and they're likely to yield unintended consequences.

Big companies used to take a big reputational hit over layoffs. That's no longer the case, according to a recent study.

Organizations are tapping people's mental and physical energy on the sly and using it to power lights, digitize books, and do other work. Are they simply putting "wasted" energy to good use or extracting value they should be paying for?

Asked to take a basic financial literacy exam, a representative sample of U.S. managers scored an average of only 38%, which doesn't bode well for either the individuals or their organizations.

Tempstaff's founder, a pioneering Japanese entrepreneur, wondered whether she would go to jail for launching her business.

The companies that consistently generate revenues through innovation - GE, P&G, Nestle, and others - are highly selective about the projects they pursue.

Research shows that even a few minutes of sleep can improve memory and problem-solving skills. In light of the potential benefits to productivity and performance, you may want to encourage your employees to catch a few winks during the day.

If you're an innovation manager struggling to assess your pipeline and assemble a balanced portfolio of growth initiatives, you may find inspiration in Major League Baseball's general managers. They, like you, are constantly shifting their lineups under high degrees of uncertainty while trying to balance stakeholders' demands for immediate results against history's likely judgment of their own choices. Here are some ways to adapt the solutions they've found. Before the sabermetrics revolution in baseball, managers generally dismissed minor league statistics - which turned out to be highly useful predictors of success. Business innovators who likewise learn to analyze information more insightfully can devise better tactics and make investment and personnel decisions more wisely. A ball club's depth chart, illustrating the bench strength for every position, signals strategic priorities. Companies can think the same way about their innovation portfolios to balance offensive and defensive strategies, explore new channels or geographies, and significantly alter platform or marketing approaches. Baseball's farm system allows teams to identify and coach promising players in lower-pressure environments. Innovation executives can similarly organize testmarket research and regional rollouts to expose new offerings to steadily increasing levels of scrutiny from prospective customers. Procter & Gamble has been a leader on this front with its Swash fabric-care products and Tide-branded dry cleaners.

Five experts gathered recently to discuss the future of enterprise risk management: Kaplan, the Baker Foundation Professor at Harvard Business School, who with his colleague David Norton developed the balanced scorecard; Mikes, an assistant professor at HBS who studies the evolution of risk management and the role of the chief risk officer; Simons, the Charles M. Williams Professor of Business Administration at HBS; Tufano, the Sylvan C . Coleman Professor of Financial Management at HBS; and Hofmann, the chief risk officer at Koch Industries. The panel was moderated by HBR senior editor David Champion. Among the questions they addressed were: How predictable was the financial meltdown of 2008-2009? Did new tools for assessing risk give a false sense of security? How do the challenges facing industrial companies differ from those facing the financial sector? Is outsourcing an effective risk-management tool? Have capital structures become a bit too efficient in many companies? What makes a good chief risk officer?

Risk managers should plot their organizations' fraud threats on a heat map. They'll want to look carefully at the upper-left quadrant, where unlikely - but potentially devastating - risks lurk.