Articles

Many firms know about their customers, but few know the customers themselves or how to get new ones. Leaders in customer-knowledge management go beyond transaction data, using a mix of techniques, and they aren't afraid to tackle difficult problems. Davenport, director of the Institute for Strategic Change, Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting) and coauthors Harris, also from Accenture, and Kohli, professor of marketing at Emory University, report results from interviews with 24 leading firms and describe seven practices that the leaders share. The companies interviewed -- including Harley-Davidson, Procter & ; Gamble, and Wachovia Bank -- have undertaken specific and successful initiatives centered around the management of customer knowledge. Within the seven practices, two results stand out: First, firms are beginning to rely more on data from actual interactions, such as sales and service. They are learning that customers are more than transactions, and they are seeking creative ways to turn data from these interactions -- human data -- into knowledge. Second, even the most ambitious firms are keeping data from different approaches separate. They are not accepting the notion of an integrated data repository. Focus on the most valued customers. Know which customers are worth the organization's resources. Prioritize objectives. Successful firms begin all customer-knowledge management initiatives by prioritizing business strategies and customer-relationship objectives. They know which customers to focus on and what new behaviors the customers should exhibit. Aim for the optimal knowledge mix. There's no single solution to knowledge management. Use a variety of approaches. Don't use one repository for all data. The fully integrated customer-knowledge environment seems more an intriguing idea than a practical reality. Diverse forms of information are difficult to combine in one set of database records, and firms risk having a departing employee walk away with highly developed knowledge. Consequently, customer data is fragmented across multiple systems and locations. No one has been able to combine hard (transaction-based) and soft knowledge in one customer database. Think creatively about human knowledge. This is the main practice that separates the leaders from the laggards. We saw many creative solutions to managing both explicit (documented and accessible) and tacit (understood but undocumented and not accessible) knowledge. Look at the broader context. Customer-knowledge initiatives do not exist in a vacuum. Their success depends on the organization's roles and responsibilities, the workplace culture, and the organizational structure. Establish a process and tools. Many firms seem to stop working when they've selected a management strategy -- avoiding the planning that is critical to implementation. The leading firms work hard to deliberately manage customer knowledge, using a defined process and creating tools as needed.

In many ways, the industrial age has been an era of harvesting natural and social capital in order to create financial and productive capital. So far, the New Economy looks more like the next wave of the industrial era than a truly postindustrial one. Why should we care? Because, say the authors, the basic development patterns of the industrial era are not sustainable. In the face of this challenge, organizational-learning expert Peter Senge and former Volvo and IKEA senior executive Goran Carstedt hail the emergence of a new environmentalism driven by innovation, not regulation & #8212; radical new technologies, products, processes and business models. They describe how more and more companies are recognizing the business opportunities that a focus on sustainability creates. Such a shift in thinking is already evident in many companies and industries. Xerox employed “zero-waste-to-landfill” engineering to develop its 90% remanufacturable Document Centre 265 copier. Interface Inc. is no longer just a maker of commercial carpet tiles, but now & #8212; as a provider of “floor-covering services” & #8212; leases products and later recycles them completely. Such companies are applying learning-organization principles to create sustainable business models. Simultaneously, they become inspirational, energetic places to work, where even relationships with customers and suppliers improve. Nonetheless, ecoefficiency alone will not create a truly postindustrial age. Ecoefficiency gains are laudable but dangerously incomplete, say the authors, as is any strategy that fails to consider how the economic system affects the larger ecological and social systems within which it resides. Only a more integrated view will enable companies to innovate for long-term profitability and sustainability. Industrial-age systems follow a linear flow of extract, produce, sell, use, discard: the “take-make-waste” approach to economic growth. A systemic approach would reduce all sources of waste: from production, use and disposal. How can managers adapt? In stark contrast to industrial-age, command-and-control management methods are the three core competencies that learning organizations must master to profit from sustainability. First, they must encourage systemic thinking so that they can sense the emerging future. Second, they must convene strategic conversations with investors, customers, suppliers and even competitors to build the trust needed to change outmoded mental models about what business success is. Finally, they must take the lead in reshaping economic, political and societal forces that stymie change. True learning organizations stand out by championing business models that foster sustainable growth. According to Senge and Carstedt, no time in history has afforded greater possibilities for a collective change in direction.

Warren Bennis and a panel of experts in leadership development discuss the “legitimization of doubt.”

Most corporate executives are by now convinced that the scale and pervasiveness of technological change requires a fundamental review of business strategy. Web-based technology is creating opportunities to rethink business models, processes and relationships along the whole length of the supply chain. Successful e-strategies translate established strategic concepts into contexts in which they previously were not economically viable. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s IBM won the loyalty of major corporate customers through highly paid account executives who provided so-called relationship management. Today that same concept -- now technologically based -- is being deployed to tailor support to individual consumers. But there is still enormous uncertainty within the business community about the future shape of e-business -- as evidenced by the mood swings of the financial markets and the faltering fortunes of even the icons of the New Economy. The sheer scope of potential change presents some challenges: How can executives make sense of the burgeoning e-business ideas, and where does strategic analysis begin? Behind the new e-business language, how new are the strategic concepts? And what form will a company's strategic e-opportunity take? As a platform for answering those questions and exploring the new strategic landscape, author David Feeny constructs a coherent map of the e-opportunity. He identifies three layers of e-opportunity, or domains, that exist within operations, marketing and customer service. In each domain, technology may enable a radical new vision of what a business can accomplish. Although every business should be considering opportunities across all three domains, the potential significance of each domain and of individual ideas within it will vary widely across industry sectors and businesses.

Because software is an increasingly pervasive part of the New Economy, delegating decisions about its development to technical staff can be risky for executives. Today's general manager needs to have a good grasp of the most effective methods for developing and deploying software products and services throughout the organization. So what is the best approach to software development? Recent research from Harvard Business School professor Alan MacCormack and colleagues proves a theory about software development that has been gaining adherents for some time: The best process is an evolutionary one. Focusing on the area of Internet-software development, the researchers uncovered four practices that lead to success: an early release of the evolving product design to customers, daily incorporation of new software code and rapid feedback on design changes, a team with broad-based experience of shipping multiple projects, and major investments in the design of the product architecture. Among the development projects cited are Linux, the poster child of the open-source movement, and Internet Explorer 3.0. Commenting on the latter, a project in which Microsoft came from behind with a product equal to Netscape's, a team member declared, "If someone asked what the most successful aspect of [Internet Explorer 3.0] was, I would say it was the job we did in componentizing the product." The new research supports componentizing. Getting a low-functionality version of the product into customers' hands at the earliest opportunity was shown to improve quality dramatically. The research also demonstrates that although age doesn't count, experience still does. The more projects shipped, the more capable a programmer becomes. But in environments with rapidly changing markets and technologies, the usefulness of the evolutionary model extends beyond developing software. By dividing tasks into microprojects, a company can tailor the model to reflect any context. Traditional market research has limited value in the uncertain context of the Internet-software industry, and short microprojects are called for, with an early working version for feedback on the product concept. In more-mature environments, however, companies can specify more of the product design upfront, use longer microprojects and develop greater functionality before feedback is needed. Flexibility is key. Thus, an evolutionary-delivery model represents a transcendent process for managing the development of all types of software, with the details tailored to reflect each project's unique challenges.

The purchasing function is caught in a gap between strategic intentions and tactical realities.

The quest for competitive advantage often inspires executives to imitate the strategies of the most successful companies. Interestingly, however, precisely opposite factors are considered sources of competitive advantage at different points in time. Henry Ford's emphasis on focus has been touted as the key to success right alongside General Motors' product-line breadth. IBM's vertical integration was considered an unassailable source of competitive advantage a generation ago; today, everyone admires the outsourcing flexibility inherent in the nonintegrated business models of Cisco Systems and Dell Computer. But strategists whose anecdotal understanding of competitive advantage runs only as deep as "If it's good for Cisco, it must be good for everybody" are likely to succeed only in building yesterday's competitive advantages. If history is any guide, the practices and business models that constitute advantages for today's most successful companies confer those advantages only because of particular factors at work under particular conditions at the particular time. Harvard Business School's Clayton Christensen, a leading thinker on disruptive technologies, alerts managers to the imperative of understanding the context that supports a particular competitive advantage. He explains why, for example, pharmaceutical companies' current focus on ever larger mergers is moving them in exactly the wrong direction at exactly the wrong time. He blames their strategists (and investment bankers) for not thinking deeply about cause and effect in competitive advantage. He also notes that the very existence of competitive advantage sets in motion creative innovations that, as competitors strive to level the playing field, cause the advantage to dissipate. That does not mean the search for competitive advantage is futile. Rather, it suggests that successful strategists need to cultivate a deep understanding of the processes of competition and progress and of the factors that undergird each advantage. Only then will they be able to see when old advantages are poised to disappear and how new advantages can be built in their stead.

When a CEO departs, choosing the best successor depends on why the incumbent left.