Articles

Many international business leaders consider a global mind-set desirable, but few know how to embed it companywide. A corporate global mind-set differs from having a few managers think globally. That comes first. But global thinking must be incorporated into an organization’s processes so that everyone knows how to handle the tug-of-war between local responsiveness and corporate efficiency. Two Northeastern University professors studied global companies and found that inculcating a corporate global mind-set lagged behind the will to do so. IBM made the most progress. Having originally overemphasized global consistency, it learned to embrace a more flexible approach, adopting global-policy-development teams, worldwide knowledge networks and appropriate performance measures. Unfortunately, many American executives regard globalization as pursuing standardized products through centralized decision making. In favoring global consistency, they often fail to secure local cooperation. Through a global mind-set, corporate-decision-making processes become more permeable to influences from beyond the home country. The authors show how managers can determine when an issue calls for a locally adaptive response, when it calls for a globally consistent response and when both elements are needed. The corporate global mind-set is a requirement for motivating a diverse and sprawling work force and giving it a common purpose.

In recent years, many companies have learned to use the Internet as a powerful platform for collaborating directly with customers on innovation. But direct interactions & #8212; facilitated by customer advisory panels, online communities and product-design tool kits & #8212; have limitations. They don’t always allow companies to reach the right customers at the right time and in the right context. Thus, to fully exploit the Internet as an enabler of innovation, companies need to complement their direct channels of customer interaction by using third parties that can help them bridge gaps in customer knowledge. The authors call this process of indirect, or mediated, innovation innomediation and the third-party actors at the center of it innomediaries. In their research, the authors identified three distinct types of innomediary and observed how each one can help companies acquire different forms of customer knowledge. Using case studies, they suggest ways in which companies can begin to think about exploiting the power of these emerging intermediaries. For businesses that learn to use customer knowledge from both direct and indirect sources, the Internet holds the key to a multichannel innovation strategy.

Most companies invest a significant amount of time and effort in a formal, annual strategic-planning process & #8212; but many executives see little benefit from the investment. In the course of the authors’ research, one manager compared his company’s process with a “primitive tribal ritual,” and another likened it to the Soviet system: “We pretend to make strategy and they pretend to follow it.” The authors found that, although few truly strategic decisions are made in the context of a formal process, formal planning can be a real source of competitive advantage when it is approached with the right goal in mind: as a learning tool to help companies create within their management teams “prepared minds” (to borrow from Louis Pasteur). The key is getting right a host of seemingly mundane but actually critical details concerning the annual meetings that are at the heart of all formal processes & #8212; including who should attend the meetings, where they should be held and what kind of preparation is necessary to make them effective. Following an analysis of those details, the authors offer several examples showing prepared minds in action, in which formal planning helped managers make solidly grounded, real-time strategic decisions in a world of turbulence and uncertainty.

Brands have become increasingly difficult to manage. As many brands become more global, for instance, they are expanding beyond relationships just between manufacturers and customers to relationships that include employees, the investment community, the media, suppliers, governments & #8212; even competitors. Thus, the meaning of a brand is not merely the result of a dialogue between buyer and seller; it instead arises from a multilogue. Indeed, brand management has become a complex undertaking, requiring new approaches and models. To that end, the authors have developed a theoretical framework that companies can use to manage their brands more effectively. Specifically, the authors propose the concept of a brand space, which is based on two dimensions: the degree of abstraction (whether the brand has become independent from its associated product) and the degree of enactment (whether the brand focuses more on the meaning of a product or its functionality). By understanding the various dynamics of the brand space, companies can make wiser branding decisions, particularly as they confront escalating competition and rapidly changing markets.

A framework for gaining a clearer understanding of customer preferences.

In recent years, large companies have invested a great deal of money & #8212; and faith & #8212; in process-enabling information technology, IT that facilitates the execution of entire business processes rather than individual tasks. But all too often, such investments fail to pay off: The new systems fail to live up to expectations, register a measurable financial impact, improve work processes or bring about organizational change. Technical snafus, a scarcity of good advice for managers and failure to follow such guidance are not the problems. The fundamental issue is that managers usually follow what amounts to a universal checklist, one that assumes that all implementations are basically alike. Taken as a whole, the list is merely a collection of undifferentiated findings and conclusions rather than a synthesis that would help with the particular implementation effort at hand. The executive in charge of the effort is left to discern which findings apply, under what circumstances and why. Instead of a longer or different list, this article offers a synthesis that highlights how big IT implementations differ from one another and how managers should handle the differences in order to realize the full promise of technological change.