Articles

Forget capital; it’s relatively easy to obtain nowadays. Today’s scarce, sought-after strategic resource is expertise, which comes in the form of employees. Although organizations have changed mightily from the days of hierarchical, top-down management, they still have a long way to go. In addition to issues of company structure and who should be involved in strategic decision making, there are questions of how the value that companies create should be distributed, now that employees, as well as shareholders, control a scarce resource. And then there are the intangible yet crucial changes that must occur in senior managers’ ways of thinking & #8212; and in the atmosphere and culture of the company. Reorienting old-school senior managers away from capital and toward knowledgeable employees will be difficult, but Christopher Bartlett of Harvard Business School and Sumantra Ghoshal of London Business School have several recommendations for human-resource professionals, who, Bartlett and Ghoshal maintain, will be key players in the design, development and delivery of strategy. Their task is threefold. First, they must build up the company by acquiring and retaining highly skilled employees. Second, they must find a way to embed individual-based knowledge in the company, making it accessible and useful not just to one unit or one function, but to the entire organization. That is the linking task. Finally, there is the bonding task: HR managers must create an engaging, motivating and bonding culture that will attract and keep talented employees. With people in ascendancy over capital, say the authors, it is time to recall what a company actually is: a social institution designed to engage people in the achievement of a valuable and meaningful purpose.

In theory, trade promotions should benefit everyone involved. In practice, however, manufacturers and retailers often use trade promotions as weapons in a zero-sum game, and consumers are sometimes left out altogether. It need not be that way. Over the past three years, David Bell, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and Xavier Dr_ze, a visiting assistant professor of marketing at UCLA’s Anderson School, have examined the theoretical and practical problems associated with trade promotions, and they explain how the right kind of deal can be created & #8212; a transparent system that generates mutual trust and provides benefits to both manufacturers and retailers. The key is proper implementation of what is thus far a little understood tool: the pay-for-performance trade promotion, in which retailers get rewarded according to how much they sell, not how much they buy. The authors explain how the most accepted way of doing promotions today & #8212; which rewards retailers for effective buying rather than effective marketing & #8212; creates a variety of inefficiencies that drain resources from their intended purpose. Using a hypothetical case involving much-simplified mathematics, they go on to demonstrate how manufacturers can design pay-for-performance options that retailers can embrace. They also illustrate how one national beverage company made pay-for-performance deals work in practice. Finally, they offer practical advice to help senior managers rethink the elements of organizational culture that stand in the way of a more effective approach to trade promotions & #8212; and, by extension, block better, more profitable relationships all along the channel.

What shapes strategy today and how has it changed? While many executives were focused on the implications of the Internet, a more powerful force was at work, contends Stanford University professor Kathleen M. Eisenhardt: globalization. Globalization has quietly transformed the economic playing field. The traditional strategic paradigms (positioning, core competence and the like) are not dead, but they are less germane than they were. Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” and similar economic views are coming into their own. The new economics is more entrepreneurial. It centers on disequilibrium, fleeting opportunities to capture competitive advantage, and the creation and destruction of wealth. Successful strategy in today’s world is simple; it uses a few clear guidelines and allows for flexibility. It is supported by organizational design; it is not handed down from on high. And timing is everything. Eisenhardt cites Colgate’s use of simplicity in a key strategic process, global product management. Colgate has found success through allowing product managers considerable freedom within a couple of simple guidelines (Maintain the Brand; Keep Relative Product Positioning Stable). That thinking also has been a boon to Ispat International, which uses uncomplicated rules for choosing and integrating acquisitions and has thus become one of the world’s fastest-growing steel companies. In contrast, Intel and SAP stumbled with their joint venture for e-commerce services, Pandesic. Although the companies had ample resources and a clear vision of their desired strategic position, their plan’s complexity kept them from adjusting as the market unfolded. Eisenhardt explains how managers can refocus their strategy on key processes and simple rules, mapping their individual businesses to market opportunities and employing an evolutionary form of timing to move from one competitive advantage to the next.

Project managers can't predict the future, but accurately gauging the degree of uncertainty inherent in their projects can help them quickly adapt to it.

Diversifying can be the best way for companies to match their capabilities to the marketplace.

The quality initiative Six Sigma is sweeping the United States. Is it good for whatever ails your company? Consultant Michael Hammer thinks not. He warns that many business leaders, in their quest for operations-performance improvement, fail to distinguish its strengths from its weaknesses. Hammer presents a strategic, holistic approach & #8212; business-process management & #8212; in which Six Sigma is only one of many useful initiatives. If a business process, such as billing customers, is fundamentally defective, why use Six Sigma to improve the performance of it? Companies that Hammer calls process enterprises (Caterpillar, Johnson & ; Johnson, Merck, Progressive Casualty Insurance, Bombardier and IBM) have found more success redesigning whole processes. Certainly, Six Sigma’s ability to unearth root causes of problems is outstanding for narrow cost-saving improvements. But it deploys statistical analytic tools to uncover flaws in the execution of an existing process without asking whether the process itself is flawed. Six Sigma assumes that the existing design is fundamentally sound & #8212; a dangerous assumption. For peak performance, companies should position Six Sigma in the context of process management and assign process owners. When a problem is amenable to a Six-Sigma solution, the process owner convenes a project team. If deeper change is needed, then a process-redesign team is organized. Process owners ensure that all performance initiatives (Six Sigma, enterprise resource planning, balanced scorecard, customer-relationship management and so on) are integrated to support strategic goals. Fitting Six Sigma into the process-management framework allows organizations to enjoy Six Sigma’s benefits while keeping it away from areas where it doesn’t belong. Process enterprises already are reaping cost savings, accelerated new-product introduction, improvements in customer satisfaction and increases in profitability.