Articles

Although the Internet has become an indispensable tool for 21st-century organizations, a 2005 report of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee bluntly states that the information technology infrastructure of the United States is highly vulnerable to terrorist or criminal attacks. In a brief overview of this sobering situation, MIT applied mathematics professor and Akamai Technologies chief scientist Tom Leighton, who served on PITAC and chaired its cyber-security subcommittee, describes two of today's big Internet security threats: denial of service attacks and "pharming" -- both of which could be used to disable individual companies or critical infrastructure, such as the nation's utilities. At the present time, little is being done to fix these problems, says Leighton, though the advisory committee recommended that the U.S. government lead the way by funding long-term, fundamental research on cyber-security issues. Doing so, would promote wider adoption of improved Internet protocols, and that, he says, would lead to a more secure, reliable Internet infrastructure.

Even the most seasoned executives may have strongly opposing views about the wisest course of action for an organization, particularly given their diverse personal backgrounds or previous immersion in other corporate cultures. But such differences in approach don't necessarily lead to conflicts that are unproductive and damaging to an organization. To investigate such issues, the authors conducted a study of the organizational values of the top management teams in 31 companies. (As defined by the authors, organizational values are the objectives that an individual or group believes are important in running a business, such as industry leadership, employee welfare, and profit maximization.) The authors investigated two specific types of team conflict: task and relationship. Task conflict is characterized by substantive, issue-related differences in opinion. This type of disagreement can be beneficial when it ensures that a greater number of possible solutions are explored and that ideas are battle-tested within the group before significant resources are deployed. In contrast, relationship conflict -- characterized by disagreements over personalized, individually oriented matters -- is generally detrimental. It corrodes trust, hinders communication, slows the acceptance of ideas and leads to isolation and politicization among group members. When it comes to both task and relationship conflicts, the study results showed that behavior is driven by perception rather than reality. Specifically, the greater the perceived difference in organizational values among members of a top management team and their CEO the greater the conflict. Interestingly, any actual dissimilarity was not a factor. Thus, the bottom line is that many top management teams are unnecessarily encountering difficulties because of members' faulty assumptions. To lessen this tendency, the authors advise companies to consider the following: establish an appropriate atmosphere for the team; because perceptions become reality, understand and manage them; investigate the gaps between perceptions and reality; and act decisively to correct gross misperceptions.

IBM discovered decades ago that adding programmers to a software project that was late did not help. Indeed, progress slowed even more. The "resource-driven mindset," sometimes known as "throw more money at the problem," is limited, the authors argue. Yet this mindset has so dominated the research agenda that it has clouded our consideration of many situations in which scarce resources (precisely because they are scarce) are desirable, potentially leading to breakthrough performance. Resource constraints fuel innovation in two ways: through entrepreneurial, social-network approaches to securing the missing funds or the required personnel, and because teams often produce better results as a direct result of the constraints. The human mind is most productive when restricted, the authors maintain. Limited -- or better focused -- by specific rules and constraints, we are more likely to recognize an unexpected idea. Witness the outcome of a Cold War-era race between General Electric and BMW teams to design adequately cooled jet engines. The U.S. team had a virtual blank check, used the most advanced materials and spent nearly twice as much as the Manhattan Project did. The German team, which had significantly less funding at its disposal, came up with a simple yet elegant design principle that remains in use to this day.

What is the optimum growth rate to maximize total return to shareholders? This is a critical question facing both managers and investors. An answer is found in the concept of a company's growth corridor, which is set by the upper bounds of a financially sustainable growth rate and the lower bounds of the competitive growth rate. Using data from Fortune Global 500 companies, the authors find that those companies that grow within their respective growth corridor create above average total shareholder returns. Drawing examples from companies such as AES, BMW, Marks & ; Spencer, Nestle, and Wal-Mart, they show how managers can identify their growth corridors, and how they can restore healthy and smart growth.

Personal investment puts management at risk.

Faster time to market and shorter product life cycles are pushing companies to introduce new products more frequently. While new products can offer tremendous value, product introductions and transitions pose enormous challenges to managers. In studying product introductions, the authors found that a common handicap was the lack of a formal process to guide managerial decisions. Drawing from research at Intel and examples from General Motors and Cisco Systems, the article develops a process to facilitate decision making during new product transitions. The proposed process analyzes the risks impacting a transition, identifies a set of factors across departments tracking those risks, monitors the evolution of these factors over time, and develops playbook mapping scenarios of risks and responses. The process helps level expectations across the organization, lessens the chance and impact of unanticipated outcomes, and helps synchronize responses among different departments. It assists managers in designing and implementing appropriate policies to ramp up sales for new products and ramp down sales for existing products, balancing the supply and the demand for both so that combined sales can grow smoothly.

Defining an innovation process increases companies' future value.

During the last few decades, companies have moved away from hierarchical, integrated supply chains in favor of fragmented networks of strategic partnerships with external entities. This change has caused ripples throughout the old supply network and raised questions about the future. The authors consider the impact of vertical disintegration in large-scale supply networks, particularly in the textile and electronics industries. They focus on supply chain strategies that have been adopted by network players in order to accommodate for the changing governance and ownership structures. Their broad hypothesis is that the process of disintegration in many industries is not sustainable from a coordination and control viewpoint, and therefore will be followed by eventual reintegration - although it may take different forms in different industries. They discuss the expanded role of the systems integrator, which, in many cases, goes beyond critical coordination services and extends into issues related to control and governance of portions of the supply network. They also explore the challenges that systems integrators are likely to face, and they contrast two different models of coordination and governance that could be adopted by such players.

In every large company, groups of creative individuals self-organize to explore and develop ideas that they care deeply about. These collaborative networks often include customers and others outside the company’s boundaries. Take, for instance, the automaker BMW, which posts numerous engineering challenges on its Web site, enabling customers and company designers to network and collaborate on developing various features of future cars. Now collaborative innovation is being extended from the realm of idea generation and product development to the very essence of doing business. In fact, some companies have based their entire business models on collaborative networks. The classic example is Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that relies on a swarm of people to write, edit and fact check the information listed in its entries. According to the authors, these “swarm businesses” pick up where the e-business craze stopped, with one crucial difference: e-businesses were primarily concerned with eyeballs (getting as many people as possible to visit a particular Web site), whereas swarm businesses strive mainly to create real value for the swarm. As companies like BMW, IBM, Novartis and others are discovering, swarm businesses require a completely new corporate mindset. Specifically, to reap the benefits of swarm innovation, companies must (1) gain power by giving it away, (2) share with the swarm and (3) concentrate on the swarm, not on making money. Although these principles differ from the traditional ways of doing business in a number of fundamental ways, they are crucial for companies to succeed in this emerging era of increased collaboration among innovators both inside and outside the organization.

Some weaknesses can be addressed with proper effort and resources, while others simply cannot be changed.