個案總覽

Harvard professor Henry Chesbrough takes a look at leading-edge companies' latest moves to harvest ideas from outside and to benefit from sharing their own R&D with others--even with competitors.

In his book and TV series Commanding Heights, Daniel Yergin traces the arc of globalization, illuminating the vitality of market capitalism and the unpredictability and fragility of markets. In this conversation, he considers where the growth will be in the next 20 years, what oil companies know about managing through uncertain times, and the unexpected course that globalization is currently taking.

The same question posed on the web and in print can yield very different answers, dramatically distorting survey results and misleading management. But, as psychologist Palmer Morrel-Samuels demonstrates, the problems are readily fixed.

New research from McKinsey suggests what the inevitable shakeout in the venture capital industry heralds for the broader business community.

For much of the 20th century, labor and capital fought bitterly for control of the industrialized economy. The titans of industry ultimately won a resounding victory over the unions, but the story doesn't end there. In today's economy, value is largely the product of knowledge and information. Companies cannot generate profits without the ideas, skills, and leadership capabilities of knowledge workers. It's these factors--not technologies, not factories, and certainly not capital--that give the most successful companies their unique advantages. As knowledge workers come to realize this, and see that the demand for their talent outstrips the supply, they are steadily wresting more and more of the profits from shareholders. This time the battle is between the sources of capital and the producers of value, and how it will end is far from clear. With this new battle, we're also witnessing a fundamental change in the political alignment of capital. The Left is now siding with "the common shareholder" against the well-compensated top tier of the labor pool. Shareholders seeing an unprecedented proportion of the return on their investments siphoned off to employees may well ask, Is there no end to it? The growing tensions between shareholders and managers cannot be ignored, and capitalism is at a crossroads--again.

When it comes to improving business performance, managers have no shortage of tools and techniques from which to choose. But what really works? What's critical, and what's optional? Two business professors and a former McKinsey consultant set out to answer those questions. In a groundbreaking, five-year study that involved more than 50 academics and consultants, the authors analyzed 200 management techniques employed by 160 companies over 10 years. Their findings at a high level? Business basics really matter. In this article, the authors outline the management practices that are imperative for sustained superior financial performance--their "4+2 formula" for business success. They provide examples of companies that achieved varying degrees of success depending on whether they applied the formula, and they suggest ways that other companies can achieve excellence. Without exception, the companies that outperformed their industry peers excelled in what the authors call the four primary management practices: strategy, execution, culture, and structure. And they supplemented their great skill in those areas with a mastery of any two of four secondary management practices: talent, leadership, innovation, and mergers and partnerships. A company that consistently follows this 4+2 formula has a better than 90% chance of sustaining superior performance, according to the authors.

The evidence is disturbingly clear: Most major business initiatives--mergers and acquisitions, capital investments, market entries--fail to pay off. Economists would argue that the low success rate reflects a rational assessment of risk, with the returns from a few successes outweighing the losses of many failures. But two distinguished scholars of decision making, Dan Lovallo of the University of New South Wales and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, provide a very different explanation. They show that a combination of cognitive biases (including anchoring and competitor neglect) and organizational pressures lead managers to make overly optimistic forecasts in analyzing proposals for major investments. By exaggerating the likely benefits of a project and ignoring the potential pitfalls, they lead their organizations into initiatives that are doomed to fall well short of expectations. The biases and pressures cannot be escaped, the authors argue, but they can be tempered by applying a very different method of forecasting--one that takes a much more objective "outside view" of an initiative's likely outcome. This outside view, also known as reference-class forecasting, completely ignores the details of the project at hand; instead, it encourages managers to examine the experiences of a class of similar projects, to lay out a rough distribution of outcomes for this reference class, and then to position the current project in that distribution.

Supply chain management is all about software and systems, right? Put in the best technology, sit back, and watch as your processes run smoothly and the savings roll in? Apparently not. When HBR convened a panel of leading thinkers in the field of supply chain management, technology was not top of mind. People and relationships were the dominant issues of the day. The opportunities and problems created by globalization, for example, are requiring companies to establish relationships with new types of suppliers. The ever-present pressure for speed and cost containment is making it even more important to break down stubbornly high internal barriers and establish more effective cross-functional relationships. The costs of failure have never been higher. The leading supply chain performers are applying new technology, new innovations, and process thinking to far greater advantage than the laggards, reaping tremendous gains in all the variables that affect shareholder value: cost, customer service, asset productivity, and revenue generation. And the gap between the leaders and the losers is growing in almost every industry. This roundtable gathered many of the leading thinkers and doers in the field of supply chain management, including practitioners Scott Beth of Intuit, Sandra Morris of Intel, and Chris Gopal of Unisys. David Burt of the University of San Diego and Stanford's Hau Lee bring the latest research from academia. Accenture's William Copacino and the Warren Co.'s Robert Porter Lynch offer the consultant's perspectives.

Just a few years ago, the U.S. stock market was the envy of the world. Thanks to new technology, friendly regulation, and the innovativeness of the financial services industries, it was open to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Americans poured into the market by the millions, and the more they invested, the more liquid, accessible, and attractive the markets became. The world is much less jealous today. Belatedly, investors have come to recognize that the vaunted business models of the new economy were more effective at consuming capital than generating it. The recent stock market and corporate governance failures, the authors argue, are rooted in regulatory and market changes introduced 20 years ago. These were intended to reduce the cost of financial information and increase liquidity--enhancements that the regulators believed would improve both investor access to the market and efficiency in pricing. The goal of liquidity was achieved, but the changes also triggered a race for the bottom in the auditing profession, destroyed the economics of investment analysis, and discouraged professional investors from relying on their own rational judgment. In this article, the authors explore what went wrong and outline their ideas for radical reform. They propose putting the country's stock exchanges in charge of the audit process; creating a new Investors Union modeled on the highly successful Consumers Union; and introducing a graduated tax on trading in pension savings.

At the core of your company, there is a group of people who seem to call the shots--or, rather, all the shots seem to be called for their benefit. This core group can't be found on any organization chart. It exists in people's hearts and minds. It comprises the people whose perceived interests and needs are taken into account as decisions are made throughout the organization. In the best organizations, the core group can be a resource: Members represent the unique values and knowledge that distinguish their companies. When core groups display independence, creativity, and power, the rest of the company follows. Such behavior on the part of the company, in turn, creates value for shareholders, especially over the long term. But because of the core group's enormous power, members need to make themselves aware of the signals they send, both intended and unintended. For better and for worse, the core group reinforces whatever it pays attention to. If you do not know who constitutes the core group in your organization, or what the members stand for, you may find that leading will be extremely difficult--even if you are ostensibly the person in charge.

Most companies make charitable donations, but few approach their contributions with an eye toward enhancing their brands. Those that do take such an approach commit talent and know-how, not just dollars, to a pressing but carefully chosen social need and then tell the world about the cause and their service to it. Through the association, both the business and the cause benefit in ways they could not otherwise. Organizations such as Avon, ConAgra Foods, and Chevrolet have recognized that a sustained cause-branding program can improve their reputations, boost their employees' morale, strengthen relations with business partners, and drive sales. And the targeted causes receive far more money than they could have from direct corporate gifts alone. The authors examine these best practices and offer four principles for building successful cause-branding programs. First, they say, a company should select a cause that advances its corporate goals. Second, a business should commit to a cause before picking its charitable partners. Third, a company should put all its assets to work, especially its employees. And fourth, a company should promote its philanthropic initiatives through every possible channel.

Stress is rampant, stress is growing, and stress hurts the bottom line. A 1999 study of 46,000 workers revealed that health care costs are 147% higher for those who are stressed or depressed, independent of other health issues. But what exactly is stress? It usually refers to our internal reaction to negative, threatening, or worrisome situations--a looming performance report, say, or interactions with a dismissive colleague. Accumulated over time, negative stress can depress you, burn you out, make you sick, or even kill you--because it's both an emotional and a physiological habit. Of course, many companies understand the negative impact of cumulative stress and offer programs to help employees counteract it. The problem is that employees in the greatest need of help often don't seek it. Since 1991, the authors have studied the physiological impact of stress on performance, at both the individual and organizational levels. Their goal largely has been to decode the underlying mechanics of stress. After working with more than 50,000 workers and managers in more than 100 organizations, the authors have found that learning to manage stress is easier than most people think. They have devised a scientifically based system of tools, techniques, and technologies that organizations can use to reduce employee stress and boost overall health and performance.

Sherron Watkins, who was selected as one of Time magazine's "Person of the Year" for her role as the whistleblower in the Enron scandal, presents her personal opinions on what went wrong at Enron as well as what is wrong with the whole system that this country's equity market relies on to function properly. Not only did Enron's management and consultants fail the company's shareholders and employees, but the market and watchdog agencies also failed to protect shareholder interests as well. The successful functioning of the capitalist system requires the exercise of moral as well as economic and political responsibility.

Organizational culture can be a powerful force that clarifies what's important and coordinates the work of employees without the costs and inefficiencies of close supervision. Culture also identifies an organization's distinctive competence to external constituencies. To employ culture effectively as a leadership tool, managers must recruit and select employees who fit the firm's culture, socialize and train employees to share the firm's values, and reward employees whose efforts reflect and reinforce the firm's culture. In addition, managers must both act and be perceived as acting in ways that are consistent with the values they want employees to share.

Value is often viewed in either economic or social terms. The Blended Value Proposition asserts that true value is nondivisible, consisting of a blend of economic, social, and environmental components. This perspective requires us to re-examine our understanding of the nature of capital, the methodology for calculating rates of real return to investors, and the role of for-profit and nonprofit organizations in the value creation process.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not a new idea. However, CSR has never been more prominent on the corporate agenda than it is today. Examines the pressure for increased corporate attention to CSR and whether it is warranted and likely to be sustained. Differentiates between the business case for CSR and the normative case and concludes that individual firms must assess the extent to which the general business case for CSR applies to their specific circumstances. For some firms, CSR may be a major influence on corporate strategy.

Most companies believe that successful entry into lower income, emerging markets requires price slashing by subtracting product features. Moreover, companies generally believe that it is appropriate to appeal to potential customers strictly as consumers who want their needs satisfied. Demonstrates that companies can appeal to customers as productive agents who want to build and transform their lives. Offering customers productivity-enhancing systems coupled with culturally appropriate offerings allows companies to charge appropriately and succeed in lower income, emerging markets. Provides examples of such successful competitive differentiation in the global marketplace.

The vast majority of companies today use fixed performance contracts to drive performance improvement. The core elements of this contract are fixed annual targets reinforced by financial incentives. It is the intense pressure placed on meeting these contracts that leads to "gaming the numbers," as managers at every level of the firm fight tooth and nail to meet their targets and earn their bonuses. Not only is this process often stressful, but it can also lead to actions that destroy value for the firm. There are, however, a number of companies that have broken free from reliance on contracts and incentives. They have typically changed their evaluation and rewards processes from fixed to relative measures. Explores the problems of fixed contracts and how alternative rewards programs can be used to avoid gaming and provide managers with more honest numbers.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. As competition intensifies and profit margins shrink, managers are under overwhelming pressure to create value. Traditional prescriptions such as cost reduction, reengineering, and outsourcing, although critically important, cannot solve the problem. The need to innovate is greater than ever, but the focus of innovation must change, say the authors. By synthesizing societal trends and early experimentation in companies such as General Motors, LEGO, and Medtronic, the authors paint a picture of the "next practices" of innovation in which the locus of value creation will inevitably shift from products and services to "experience environments." The intent of experience innovation is not to improve a product or service, per se, but to enable the co-creation of an environment in which personalized, evolvable experiences are the goal, and products and services are a means to that end. Profitable company growth results from individual consumers co-creating their own unique value, supported by a network of companies and consumer communities. From that perspective, say the authors, managers must learn to view existing and emerging technologies not as enhancers of products, features, and functions, but as facilitators of experiences. They offer examples of how technological capabilities such as miniaturization, networked communication, and adaptive learning are fostering experience innovation at companies such as Sony, Apple, Microsoft, and TiVo, illustrating their contention that technology will be the key facilitator of the nascent trend toward experience innovation.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Established businesses usually consider innovation as an attack to be met with defensive measures. And, indeed, disruptive technologies and business models have toppled many established industry leaders and will likely continue to do so. The real story behind disruptive innovation, however, is not one of destruction, but its opposite: In every industry changed by disruption, the net effect has been total market growth. Moreover, disruption can be a powerful avenue for growth through new market discovery for incumbents as well as for upstarts. There are several keys to the successful navigation of this growth path: to recognize that disruption is not an immediate phenomenon--it can take years and even decades before the upstart business encroaches heavily on the established market; to find new customers who are eager to be served by the disruption; and to build an organization that is capable of serving the new customers. The author explains each aspect in detail, drawing on extensive research involving online newspapers, minicomputers, cardiology, and semiconductors.