Articles

When people think of services, they often think about offerings that are neutral or routine. These tend to be services they use regularly -- for example, dry cleaning, haircutting or gardening. However, there is a third type of service that is not often considered or well understood. The authors refer to these as "negative" services because they are related to events most people hope they will not have to deal with: toothaches, leaky roofs or collision repairs, for example. Because the events that trigger the need for negative services are not everyday occurrences, many people are not equipped to diagnose the needs or to make informed judgments about the solutions required; furthermore, even after the service has been provided, most people are in a poor position to judge its quality or the price they paid for it. Negative services are offered by many kinds of companies in many industries, including health care, insurance, household repair, pest control, ambulance use and so on. Companies discussed in the article include Laidlaw International, Multiasistencia Group, American Home Shield, Terminix, Fresenius Medical Care AG, Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Sears. Sears HomeCentral, for example, is an attempt to turn negative services for homeowners into a profitable segment of Sears' overall business. Even companies that are not primarily negative-service providers have negative-service aspects to their offerings. For example, product companies often provide warranties as a means of staying competitive. Companies hoping to build positions in negative services face two major challenges: (1) how to access inexperienced customers who are not in a strong position to evaluate the service being provided and may have a poor idea of its cost and (2) how to organize and deploy their services to meet customer needs when demand is unpredictable.

Schools have to emphasize information, innovation and integration.

As companies use self-service technologies, responsibility for service quality shifts to customers.

Companies are incurring enormous losses from the misappropriation of their trade secrets. In a 2002 survey of more than 130 firms, 40% reported actual or suspected losses, and the data suggest the true figure might be significantly higher. The study also estimated that the companies represented by the survey participants -- the Fortune 1000 corporations and 600 additional small and medium-sized companies -- were likely to have experienced trade-secret and other intellectual-property losses of more than $50 billion during a one-year period. Research has shown that the biggest threat to a company's trade secrets comes not from spying competitors but from within: current and former employees. Consequently, the protection of trade secrets is largely a managerial issue, and firms need to take the appropriate measures to ensure that employees keep trade secrets from leaking. But many organizations make a number of crucial missteps, sometimes failing to implement the right precautions or relying on a well-intentioned but ineffective practice -- or worse, a wrongheaded policy that only leads to more information being divulged. The following are the most common mistakes: giving short shrift to new-employee orientations, not communicating regularly with employees, signaling to employees that they aren't trusted, punishing instead of helping employees, not practicing what is preached, forgetting to clarify who owns ideas, defining the scope of trade secrets too narrowly and failing to address the subject of departing employees. By avoiding such mistakes, companies can help ensure that their trade secrets indeed stay secret.

Fifteen best practices can accelerate learning and make outsourcing worthwhile.

To find out how well you are serving your customers, ask your employees.

AåÊframework called the "innovation radar" can help companiesåÊidentify opportunities for innovation.

The author examines the questions of why individuals behave the way they do and if there is a natural impulse to do good. This article discusses such issues as whether an individual, pursuing his or her own self-interest, can improve the general welfare and whether people have an innate intuition that leads them to do good. In coming to the conclusion that the pursuit of self-interest can produce a lot of good if it is balanced with a bit of societal guidance, the author brings to light issues of corporate governance, performance pay, legal and monetary incentives, and other forms of regulation. It is in these arenas, the author points out, that intuition, rather than a more empirical approach, can best be put to good use. He argues that intuition has been lacking from the more utilitarian view of economics and management and that, generally speaking, a blend of both approaches is optimal.

When targeted promotions appeal to non-targeted customers.