個案總覽

Spinouts rarely take off; most, in fact, fall into one or more of four traps that doom them from the start. Some companies spin out ventures that are too close to the core of their businesses, in effect selling off their crown jewels. Sometimes, a parent company uses the spinout primarily to pawn off debt or expenses or to quickly raise external capital for itself. Other times, a company may try to spin out an area of its business that lacks one or more of the critical legs of a successful company--a coherent business model, say, or a solid financial base. And in many cases, parent companies can't bring themselves to sever their ownership ties and give up control of their spinouts. R.J. Reynolds, the tobacco giant, managed to avoid these traps when it successfully spun out a most unlikely venture--the pharmaceutical company Targacept. As the story illustrates, the problem with spinouts is similar to the problem of rich children. Their parents have the wherewithal to spoil them or shelter them or cling to them, but what they need is tough love and discipline--much the same discipline that characterizes successful start-ups. R.J. Reynolds recognized that it didn't know that much about the pharmaceutical business and couldn't merely try to spin out a small clone of itself. It had to treat the venture as if it were essentially starting from scratch, with a passionate entrepreneurial leader, a solid business plan, help from outside partners in the industry and, ultimately, substantial venture backing. That these lessons are less obvious to executives contemplating spinning out ventures closer to their core businesses may be why so many spinouts fail.

At the Star City Casino in Sydney, Australia, thousands of employees wear a huge variety of themed garments. The wardrobe department--which launders and reassembles each of those 80,000 outfits--may be the most prosaic of corporate functions, but it runs smoothly because of some very glitzy technology. It relies on radio frequency identification (RFID) chips--so-called smart tags--sewn into each garment. Tough enough to withstand repeated washing, the tags give each item an identity that can be tracked by wireless readers. The occasional gambler may still lose his shirt at Star City, but the employees don't. Object-to-object communication has become practical for a vast number of uses, enabling a "silent commerce" that requires no human interaction. Companies are rapidly adopting smart tags to reduce costs, enhance security, and help customers. But the technology is capable of even more: RFID tags working with sensors can report on whether products have been kept at a specified temperature, for example; as sensors improve, tags will be able to take action, such as triggering temperature controls. Object-to-object technology can have darker implications, primarily the potential compromise of privacy. When does helpfulness become obtrusiveness? For CEOs, the best response is first to consider the social environment in which the company is operating, then incorporate that sensitivity into the design and testing of new applications. As RFID systems advance, new business models, including entirely new ways of offering products and services, will emerge out of applications that, in simpler forms, are already in place. It's no exaggeration to say that a tiny tag may one day transform your own business. And that day may not be very far off.

Most businesses shower attention and rewards on potential recruits and current employees, but they ignore another key human asset: their ex-employees. That's a costly oversight, because a company's alumni can play many roles on its behalf.

Marketers have masterfully targeted the middle class and the very rich, but a breed of consumer is flying under their radar--those who aren't truly wealthy but still rank in the top 20% of earners. Three tactics can help companies reach the "almost rich."

What do your customers really think? Harvard Business School professor Gerald Zaltman discusses his novel market-research method for revealing consumers' unconscious thoughts about everything from fabric sprays to the Internet.

Anyone who argues that "green" business makes economic sense is bending the truth, says the director of environmental affairs at Aspen Skiing Co. Sustainable business can't occur without a company mandate springing from ethics, not economics.

You can choose from 4 key strategies to systematically create and master new markets. Path 1 is to start from a blank slate with unknown customers and unknown products. This is the most exciting path to take, but the most formidable and riskiest; Path 2 is to deliver new products to known customers; Path 3 takes known products to unknown customers; and Path 4 is building a new market with known customers and known products--usually results in product line extensions and runs the risk that you will become defined by your knowledge. The opportunity to create and dominate a new market offers the prospect of working without competition and with increased margins. However, the firm must choose the path that leverages its knowledge. It is important to remember that the product is not just the device or service, but also the delivery process, customer interfaces, and support systems. Examples from FedEx, AT&T, GlaxoSmithKline and other companies illustrate the pitfalls and advantages of each of the 4 paths to new market strategies.

Many managers have adopted a balanced scorecard approach to measuring performance. But "balance" implies that all measures are equally important in all settings. The authors endorse the multimeasure approach, but challenge the idea that all measures are equally important regardless of the product-market strategy adopted. Results of a survey of more than 200 businesses support this position. The most successful performers emphasized the measures and perspectives (customer, internal business, innovation and growth, financial) most appropriate to their strategy type (prospector, analyzer, low-cost defender, differentiated defender).

JIT, TQM, reengineering, lean manufacturing, supply chain management, and ERP are just some of the major programs that have been adopted by many companies and then abandoned without achieving the expected results. Why are programs that receive accolades at some companies trashed at others? Sustained effort is often the difference. If programs are to endure the test of time, they must be given the chance to do so. Managers must be willing to learn from difficulties encountered early during implementation and adapt the program for the firm's own unique situation. Here we share the lessons learned by a manufacturer that successfully implemented a new process improvement program. Key to its success was monitoring organizational and operational indicators over time with good measures that reflect program actions. New programs do not improve bottom-line results right away. Patience is well served if valid measures show that relevant effects in processes are in a favorable transition mode. If those effects are not realized when expected, adaptation of the program to the firm's unique context might be what is needed and worth exploring.

The net is a powerful medium for reaching and servicing customers around the world. However, companies are learning that cross-national differences in infrastructure, regulation, language, buyer demographics and behavior, payment methods, and currencies pose formidable challenges to the simple global model of international operations. The author examines not only the opportunities for global integration but also the needs for local responsiveness, showing how firms operating across borders can use the net effectively as a marketing tool. Books, music, wines, industrial components, information, and financial services serve to illustrate the potential and pitfalls of net-based selling across borders.

Surveying contented customers just once can increase profitability over the course of a year, surprising new research finds. That may be tempting news to marketers, but beware: Surveying unhappy customers could have the opposite effect.

Understand how your industry relates to overall stock-market cycles, and you'll have a powerful tool for shaping strategy.

NASA chief Daniel Goldin made enemies during his controversial tenure, but even critics agree that his aggressive, no-nonsense tactics transformed the moribund agency into a lean and innovative operation. He talks candidly about what he learned and what he would have done differently.

Alfred Sloan wrote the book on hierarchical management. Turns out, though, he didn't practice what he preached, a fact that has new relevance as businesses look to the past for guidance on the future.

Why do some people bounce back from life's hardships while others despair? HBR senior editor Diane Coutu looks at the nature of individual and organizational resilience, issues that have gained special urgency in light of the recent terrorist attacks, war, and recession. In the business arena, resilience has found its way onto the list of qualities sought in employees. As one of Coutu's interviewees puts it, "More than education, more than experience, more than training, a person's level of resilience will determine who succeeds and who fails." Theories abound about what produces resilience, but three fundamental characteristics seem to set resilient people and companies apart from others. The first characteristic is the capacity to accept and face down reality. In looking hard at reality, we prepare ourselves to act in ways that allow us to endure and survive hardships. Second, resilient people and organizations possess an ability to find meaning in some aspects of life. And values are just as important as meaning; value systems at resilient companies change very little over the long haul and are used as scaffolding in times of trouble. The third building block of resilience is the ability to improvise. Within an arena of personal capabilities or company rules, the ability to solve problems without the usual or obvious tools is a great strength.

No matter how we rail against the status quo, most of us are reluctant to take action in the workplace. Faced with choosing between our values and jobs, most of us either resign ourselves to the situation or leave. Yet, society's tempered radicals--individuals who create large-scale change in subtle, incremental ways--have learned that you can rock the boat without falling out of it. Award-winning director Robert Redford has been described as the quintessential tempered radical. His Sundance Institute, tucked away in the Utah mountains, was conceived as a haven for writers and directors with promising ideas but little more than lint in their pockets. Sundance has proven such a successful incubator of independent films that, perhaps ironically, it has become one of the most influential forces in Hollywood. In this article, Redford talks about how to change an industry--specifically, how he and Sundance have influenced the movie business. Based on his sometimes harsh experiences as an environmental activist and a film actor--he was burned in effigy by demonstrators and figuratively by film distributors who deemed Downhill Racer too uncommercial--Redford concluded that "if you want to crack the system, you can't hit it directly; you have to work behind the scenes." Over the past 20 years, he has experimented again and again with grassroots projects--pieces of which he incorporated into Sundance. Redford's multifaceted approach to change includes earning credibility and then leveraging his successes; practicing the arts of compromise and persuasion to get projects completed; gathering support along the way; and, most important, persisting--tactics that a patient manager in any industry can apply.

You call a meeting to try to convince your boss that your company needs to make an important move. Your argument is impassioned, your logic unassailable, your data bulletproof. Two weeks later, though, you learn that your brilliant proposal has been tabled. What went wrong? It's likely the proposal wasn't appropriately geared toward your boss's decision-making style, say consultants Gary Williams and Robert Miller. Over the course of several years' research, the authors have found that executives have a default style of decision making developed early in their careers. That style is reinforced through repeated successes or changed after several failures. Typically, the authors say, executives fall into one of five categories of decision-making styles: Charismatics are intrigued by new ideas, but experience has taught them to make decisions based on balanced information, not just on emotions. Thinkers are risk-averse and need as much data as possible before coming to decisions. Skeptics are suspicious of data that don't fit their worldview and, thus, make decisions based on their gut feelings. Followers make decisions based on how other trusted executives, or they themselves, have made similar decisions in the past. And controllers focus on the facts and analytics of decisions because of their own fears and uncertainties. But most business presentations aren't designed to acknowledge these different styles--to their detriment. In this article, the authors describe the various subtleties of the five decision-making styles and how best to persuade executives from each group. Knowing executives' preferences for hearing or seeing certain types of information at specific stages in their decision-making process can substantially improve your ability to tip the outcome in your favor, the authors conclude.

Although most companies dedicate considerable time and attention to acquiring and creating businesses, few devote much effort to divestitures. But regularly divesting businesses--even good, healthy ones--ensures that remaining units reach their potential and that the overall company grows stronger. Drawing on extensive research into corporate performance over the last decade, McKinsey consultants Lee Dranikoff, Tim Koller, and Antoon Schneider show that an active divestiture strategy is essential to a corporation's long-term health and profitability. In particular, they say that companies that actively manage their businesses through acquisitions and divestitures create substantially more shareholder value than those that passively hold on to their businesses. Therefore, companies should avoid making divestitures only in response to pressure and instead make them part of a well-thought-out strategy. This article presents a five-step process for doing just that: prepare the organization, identify the best candidates for divestiture, execute the best deal, communicate the decision, and create new businesses. As the fifth step suggests, divestiture is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to a larger end: building a company that can grow and prosper over the long haul.

"Business model" was one of the great buzzwords of the Internet boom. A company didn't need a strategy, a special competence, or even any customers--all it needed was a web-based business model that promised wild profits in some distant, ill-defined future. Many people--investors, entrepreneurs, and executives alike--fell for the fantasy and got burned. And as the inevitable counterreaction played out, the concept of the business model fell out of fashion nearly as quickly as the .com appendage itself. That's a shame. As Joan Magretta explains, a good business model remains essential to every successful organization, whether it's a new venture or an established player. To help managers apply the concept successfully, she defines what a business model is and how it complements a smart competitive strategy. Business models are, at heart, stories that explain how enterprises work. Like a good story, a robust business model contains precisely delineated characters, plausible motivations, and a plot that turns on an insight about value. It answers certain questions: Who is the customer? How do we make money? What underlying economic logic explains how we can deliver value to customers at an appropriate cost? Every viable organization is built on a sound business model, but a business model isn't a strategy, even though many people use the terms interchangeably. Business models describe, as a system, how the pieces of a business fit together. But they don't factor in one critical dimension of performance: competition. That's the job of strategy. Illustrated with examples from companies like American Express, EuroDisney, Wal-Mart, and Dell Computer, this article clarifies the concepts of business models and strategy, which are fundamental to every company's performance.

When a company faces a major disruption in its markets, managers' perceptions of the disruption influence how they respond to it. If, for instance, they view the disruption as a threat to their core business, managers tend to overreact, committing too many resources too quickly. But if they see it as an opportunity, they're likely to commit insufficient resources to its development. Clark Gilbert and Joseph Bower explain why thinking in such stark terms--threat or opportunity--is dangerous. It's possible, they argue, to arrive at an organizational framing that makes good use of the adrenaline a threat creates as well as of the creativity an opportunity affords. The authors claim that the most successful companies frame the challenge differently at different times: When resources are being allocated, managers see the disruptive innovation as a threat. But when the hard strategic work of discovering and responding to new markets begins, the disruptive innovation is treated as an opportunity. The ability to reframe the disruptive technology as circumstances evolve is not an easy skill to master, the authors admit. In fact, it might not be possible without adjusting the organizational structure and the processes governing new business funding. Successful companies, the authors have determined, tend to do certain things: They establish a new venture separate from the core business; they fund the venture in stages as markets emerge; they don't rely on employees from the core organization to staff the new business; and they appoint an active integrator to manage the tensions between the two organizations, to name a few. This article will help executives frame innovations in more balanced ways--allowing them to recognize threats but also to seize opportunities.