個案總覽

In the early 1980s, visitors on an hour-long tour of a factory headed by Eugene Goodson reported surprisingly accurate details about the plant, its technology, and even its cost of sales. Meanwhile, the author's managers took part in short tours of a competitor's plants and learned next to nothing. With that, Goodson resolved to do better and, over time, developed a tool to assess a plant's strengths and weaknesses. The tool, the Rapid Plant Assessment (RPA) process, allows small tour teams to gauge factory's leanness accurately solely from visual cues and conversations with employees. Since 1998, Goodson, his colleagues, and his students have used the tool hundreds of times to evaluate their own plants, their competitors', and those of possible acquisition targets. At the heart of the RPA process are two assessment tools: the rating sheet and the questionnaire. The first contains 11 categories--including safety, scheduling, inventory, teamwork, and supply chain--that determine a plant's leanness. The second features 20 yes-or-no questions that focus thinking within the categories. The article explains how to rate a plant's practices in each category and how to choose team members. It also outlines how to use the tool to assess cost of sales. Even with varying levels of manufacturing experience, different teams touring the same plants have produced consistent results with this tool. It's easy to learn, quick to put into practice, and it produces results in a day or less.

Just a few years ago, becoming an entrepreneur was pretty simple. All you needed was some idea--any idea--a little experience, and venture capital funds to get you going. Many young people started to believe that entrepreneurship was a viable, even safe, career choice. Older folks, too, underestimated the risks of financing start-ups, and, as a result, they ended up throwing millions of dollars into doomed ventures. The economic downturn has laid waste to those illusions. So now is a good time to ask potential entrepreneurs and their financial backers the hard questions unheeded in the days of the Internet boom: What makes an entrepreneur? What characteristics set successful entrepreneurs apart, enabling them to keep their companies alive even when the going gets tough? This article addresses those questions, reminding us that becoming a successful entrepreneur is decidedly not a squeaky-clean affair; you may end up making powerful enemies, risking your own financial security, or even, in extreme cases, looking at jail time. Specifically, the article explores the key qualities that make someone a successful entrepreneur. Walter Kuemmerle has distilled these characteristics into a kind of litmus test of the following five straight-forward, albeit disquieting, questions you should ask yourself if you are considering starting your own venture: Are you comfortable stretching the rules? Are you prepared to make powerful enemies? Do you have the patience to start small? Are you willing to shift strategies quickly? Are you a closer? Answering these questions honestly will help you decide whether you have what it takes to become an entrepreneur.

We've all heard, or perhaps even told, the "organizational lie": We're customer centric; everyone's performance is above average; we're the darling of our industry, coming up with one innovation after another. That last one was true of Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (ACS) in the past, but not when Ginger Graham took over as CEO. From that first moment in 1993, Graham chose to tell the truth about ACS's situation--that R&D was practically at war with product development, yields were down, and customers were disgruntled. And ever since, she's seen the benefits of exploding organizational lies. Truth telling is something that's hard to argue with but difficult to do. And, indeed, ACS instituted some radical practices to create its culture of honesty. Every senior manager was assigned a coach from the ranks who regularly solicited feedback from everyone, high and low, about the executive's performance. To get the truth, though, ACS executives learned that they had to offer it up themselves--the whole truth about the company's financial state, its problems, and its triumphs. In return, they could ask their employees for help in solving the problems; passive complainers became active partners in the company's fortunes. ACS management spreads the word about the virtues of honesty through vivid stories of corporate history and quirky rituals. Every quarter, it holds companywide meetings in which the faults of top managers are examined--to keep them honest and tough enough to go on telling the truth. In fact, in the process of openly owning up to problems and jointly fixing them with employees, the entire company grew more powerful, nimble, and tough-minded, able to respond quickly to change, both internal and external.

Business has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years. So has warfare. Every executive knows firsthand the daunting challenges of the 21st century business environment: disruptive change, fleeting opportunities, an overall sense of uncertainty and disorder. Although military commanders have long faced such challenges on the battlefield, meeting them has become more difficult in today's world of electronic weaponry, blurred battle lines, and amorphous enemies. In this article, Eric Clemons and Jason Santamaria lay out the concept of maneuver warfare--a philosophy tailor-made for today's uncertain combat environment--and analyze its applicability to business. Maneuver warfare isn't designed to destroy an adversary. Rather, it's used to render an enemy unable to fight as an effective, coordinated whole. This approach recognizes that it is impossible to control disorder and uncertainty; thus, the only viable option is to use those forces against your opponent. The authors have distilled seven guiding elements of maneuver warfare: targeting critical vulnerabilities, boldness, surprise, focus, decentralized decision making, rapid tempo, and combined arms. They illustrate each element with examples from both the military and corporate arenas. Although warfare often seems a facile metaphor for business, the authors argue that the principles of maneuver warfare are relevant to business strategy because they have been developed to address conditions that mirror those facing today's executives. Furthermore, the approach--with its focus not on overpowering a rival but on outflanking him, targeting his weaknesses, and rendering him unable to analyze the situation--can help achieve a decisive advantage with a minimal deployment of resources.

When it comes to having a high-powered career and a family, the painful truth is that women in the United States don't "have it all." At midlife, in fact, at least a third of the country's high-achieving women--a category that includes high wage earners across a variety of professions--do not have children. For many, this wasn't a conscious choice: Indeed, most yearn for motherhood. So finds economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, who recently fielded a nationwide survey to explore the professional and private lives of highly educated and high-earning women. Other findings are similarly disturbing. Many of these women who are raising children have suffered insurmountable career setbacks. In general, Hewlett's data show that, for too many women, the demands of ambitious careers, the asymmetries of male-female relationships, and the difficulties of conceiving later in life undermine the possibility of combining high-level work with family. By contrast, Hewlett's research reveals that high-achieving men continue to "have it all." Of the men she surveyed, 79% report wanting children, and 75% have them. Indeed, the more successful the man, the more likely he is to have a spouse and children. The opposite holds true for women. Hewlett urges lawmakers and corporations to establish policies that support working parents. But recognizing that changes won't happen overnight, she exhorts young women to be more deliberate about their career and family choices.

Product R&D at many companies is a major bottleneck. The difficulty is that fully understanding the needs of just a single customer can be an inexact and costly process--to say nothing of the needs of all customers or even groups of them. In the course of studying product innovation across many industries, authors Stefan Thomke and Eric von Hippel found several companies that have adopted a completely new, seemingly counterintuitive, approach to product R&D: they have abandoned their efforts to understand exactly what products their customers want; instead, they equip customers with tool kits to design and develop their own products. Doing so can create tremendous value, but capturing that value is hardly a simple or straightforward process. Not only must a company develop the right tool kit, but it must also revamp its business models and management mind-set. When companies relinquish a fundamental task--such as designing a new product--to customers, the two parties must redefine their relationship, and this change can be risky. With customers taking over more of the design, companies must now focus more on providing the best custom manufacturing. In other words, the location where value is created and is captured changes, and companies must reconfigure their business models accordingly. This article offers basic principles and lessons for industries undergoing such transformations.

All of us struggle from time to time with the question of personal meaning: "Am I living the way I want to live?" This type of questioning is healthy; business leaders need to go through it every few years to replenish their energy, creativity, and commitment--and their passion for work. In this article, the authors describe the signals that it's time to reevaluate your choices and illuminate strategies for responding to those signals. Such wake-up calls come in various forms. Some people feel trapped or bored and may realize that they have adjusted to the frustrations of their work to such an extent that they barely recognize themselves. For others, the signal comes when they are faced with an ethical challenge or suddenly discover their true calling. Once you have realized that it's time to take stock of your life, there are strategies to help you consider where you are, where you're headed, and where you want to be. Many people find that calling a time-out--either in the form of an intense, soul-searching exercise or a break from corporate life--is the best way to reconnect with their dreams. People no longer expect their leaders to have all the answers, but they do expect them to try to keep their own passion alive and to support employees through that process.

On July 30, 1981, Frank Batten, the chairman of Landmark Communications, proclaimed that in less than a year, his company would launch a new concept in cable television: the nation's first all-weather programming, the Weather Channel. He didn't anticipate the sneers and derision that would greet his announcement. Fast forward 20 years. Today, the Weather Channel ranks as one of the most powerful and trusted media brands in the world. Millions of people tune in daily for local and national weather information, and its web site logs more than 3 billion page views per year. The Weather Channel proved its skeptics wrong by challenging some popular misconceptions about corporate entrepreneurship. One such misconception is that great entrepreneurship always springs from a great idea. Yes, ideas are crucial, but so are pools of managerial and technical expertise, patient capital, and a reputation for honesty and straight shooting. Another misconception is that two guys in a garage will always beat out a corporate behemoth. Not so. In fact, the right kinds of corporate support can be a great idea's best friend. Batten faced many setbacks in the course of turning the Weather Channel into a reality. Technological and financial issues threatened to sink the channel before it transmitted its first forecast. But inspired engineering and a last-minute rescue from cable operators gave the enterprise a chance to build a following. Corporate support can't smooth out the inevitable rough spots of entrepreneurship, as the author points out. But a parent company with the right attitude and the right resources--capital, management talent, and experience in related fields--can spell the difference between a bright idea and a powerful business.

Companies often undermine their intellectual capital through faulty or incomplete patent filings. A little-known device called the "continuation patent" can retroactively change a patent's language and keep competitors from exploiting patent loopholes.

Conventional wisdom says that layoffs are a necessary evil during economic downturns, but new research shows that shareholders tend to punish companies that invoke layoffs solely to cut costs.

U.S. businesses face many dangers in the global marketplace these days, from threats of political violence to shifting investment risks in emerging markets. Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, the former chair of the National Commission on Terrorism, discusses ways to mitigate these threats.

Many commodities sellers resort to price cuts to attract customers; they fail to realize that their customers will pay premium prices for the right deals. The secret lies in reducing customers' risks.

Over the last seven years, the Stanford Project on Emerging Companies has tracked a large sample of high-technology start-ups in California's Silicon Valley. The project has examined how the founders of those enterprises approached key organizational and human resources challenges in the early days of building their companies and how it affected the evolution and performance of their ventures. This article summarizes the main findings of this research program. It describes five distinctive HR "blueprints" that high-tech founders embraced in launching their new firms. Those initial blueprints have had important impacts on a wide range of organizational outcomes, including growth in administrative overhead, labor turnover, and bottom-line performance. Moreover, companies that changed their HR blueprints have paid a heavy price in terms of higher turnover and diminished organizational performance. The results suggest that organization-building and high-commitment HR management "pay" and that changes in HR models are extremely destabilizing, even in the turbulent "built to flip" environment of Silicon Valley.

Although popular brands and unique capabilities help sustain a company's competitive advantage, they cannot be built by imitation. Managers have been able to develop sustainable capabilities not by emulating others, but by using their organizational designs and processes to identify, build on, and leverage their "asymmetries"--their evolving unique experiences, contacts, or assets. Such asymmetries may occur even in the simplest organizations. Unfortunately, they frequently are concealed, of little apparent use, and unconnected to value creation. Thus, they require new strategy making and organizational approaches for their discovery, development, and application. Based on lessons from a two-year study of a diverse sample of companies, this article shows how managers can grow capabilities that sustain competitive advantage by constantly identifying and growing asymmetries, embedding and empowering them within an organizational design, and shaping market focus to exploit them.

In the wake of corporate acquisitions, mergers, and spin-offs, considerable senior management attention has been devoted to corporate identity and its communication to key stakeholder groups. This article provides a framework to help management achieve a clearer understanding and better management of their corporation's identities. Many firms operate with a belief in a single monolithic corporate identity. Our research leads to a different view: Organizations have multiple identities. We delineate five kinds of identity within a framework termed the AC2ID TestTM (ACCID), namely, the actual, communicated, conceived, ideal, and desired identities. These reflect respectively: the current, distinct attributes of the organization; what the organization communicates about itself; the perceptions of the corporation by stakeholders; the optimum positioning for the organization; and the corporate vision from the perspective of the CEO or management board. Not only should management understand its multiple identities, it also should be alert to critical misalignments among them, as these can seriously weaken a company.

Customer relationship management (CRM) is premised on the belief that developing a relationship with customers is the best way to gain their loyalty. It is argued that loyal customers are more profitable than nonloyal customers. Recently, academic researchers have questioned some of the key premises that are used to support CRM in general and relationship marketing and customer loyalty programs in particular. This article critically examines the assumptions that underpin CRM and presents the results of research that is skeptical of its value. CRM should be adopted only after a careful appraisal of its cost effectiveness.

Today's supply chain managers have been bombarded with a wide variety of the so-called leading-edge supply chain strategies. New terminologies and initiatives are being developed constantly. However, not all of these initiatives or strategies are appropriate for all firms. Companies need first to understand the uncertainties facing the demand and supply of its products and then try to match these uncertainties with the right supply chain strategies. Based on an analysis of the uncertainties of supply and demand facing the firm, this article develops a framework that can assist managers in developing the right supply chain strategy for their products.

William Drayton founded Ashoka in 1980 to use a venture capital model to support social entrepreneurs, namely, practical visionaries who are committed to social change. The primary objective of Ashoka is to identify social entrepreneurs around the globe, who then receive Ashoka Fellowships that provide both financial and professional support. To be chosen, each prospective fellow goes through a rigorous search and selection process. Fellows receive a living stipend (typically for 3 years) and they join the Global Fellowship--a worldwide network of social entrepreneurs. Since 1982, over 1,100 Ashoka Fellows have been selected in 41 countries. Ashoka Fellows work in 6 areas: learning/education, environment, health, human rights, civic participation, and economic development.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Many companies proudly think of themselves as innovative. The great majority of them, however, are adept at producing only sustaining innovations--products or services that meet the demands of existing customers in established markets. Few companies have introduced genuinely disruptive innovations, the kind that result in the creation of entirely new markets and business models. And, yet, the motivation to pursue such innovations should be urgent. In almost any industry, the most dramatic stories of growth and success were launched from a platform of disruptive innovation. Clayton M. Christensen of Harvard Business School, Mark W. Johnson of Innosight in Woburn, Massachusetts, and Darrell K. Rigby of Bain & Co. are close observers of innovation successes and failures at large and small companies. Drawing on a decade's worth of research, they offer two sets of litmus tests that senior managers can use to shape business plans to improve their chances of success. Following a detailed exploration of the litmus tests, they try out their ideas in a hypothetical example that asks whether Xerox could disrupt Hewlett-Packard's ink-jet printer business. They conclude by outlining the process any company needs to institute if it wants to create an engine capable of building new disruptive businesses over and over again. If senior managers pursue the path outlined here--and if the growth businesses they start or acquire are truly disruptive in character--it will be less difficult and risky than many have supposed to create wave after wave of new corporate growth.