Articles

To understand how breakthroughs in creativity occur, managers must understand how most collaborations work.

How can companies design products and product lines to maximize profits? Out of all the potential configurations available to them, how should they decide which ones to offer? The authors have developed a framework for balancing the costs of developing and offering a rich line of products and services against customer demand for additional choice. Their methodology helps managers make informed decisions about which features to include in the product; which variations to include in a product line; and how the offerings should evolve with technology and competition. Using examples from the music, software and media industries and citing companies including Apple, Dell, Microsoft, The New York Times, and ESPN, the authors describe five basic types of product offerings: the _ la carte offering, the specialization offering, the all-in-one offering, the basic/premium offering, and the have-it-your-way offering. By highlighting how costs influence product design, they depart from the standard product-success metrics, such as revenue and market share, which are the main focus of most of the work on product bundling. The authors note that the decision to offer a product and how it is designed generally affects both the fixed costs and the marginal costs. They argue that product architects need to expand their definition of fixed and marginal costs beyond those that they typically track and account for to cover costs across the entire supply chain. Although some of these costs may be hard to quantify, they are often too significant to ignore.

Recent evidence shows that some discounts and sales can be detrimental.

The expectations aren't being met.

How are companies approaching intellectual property strategy, and what are successful strategies for managing IP? To explore such questions, the author and his research team conducted a detailed survey of senior IP executives at 34 companies. The survey findings indicate that IP has become an area of focus for the executive committee and the board at many companies. What's more, the study found that top executives' involvement in IP strategy was correlated with better IP performance. Analysis of the survey data suggests another intriguing point: Some companies are now using an approach to IP strategy that the author calls "full-fledged IP protection." This "full-fledged IP protection" strategy includes seeking technical and nontechnical IP protection for even minor inventions, in an attempt to "pack" technology spaces with IP claims. This practice differs from a classic IP strategy of using IP to support core research and development. At least in some industries, this change in IP use may, the author suggests, be causing the nature of IP competition to shift from the world of "real" products to that of "potential" products. The study also found that, in the companies surveyed, IP-related tasks often entail cooperation among staff from different functional areas within a company, such as product designers and patent and trademark attorneys. Having clear-cut rules about IP at the functional level was associated with better IP performance in the companies surveyed, as was having corporate management devote time to listening to the company's most senior IP officers. On the other hand, failure to sell or license out IP when circumstances facilitated or necessitated such a trade was associated with significantly lower IP performance. In addition to the survey data, the author conducted interviews with senior executives from two of the participating companies: Lars Rebien Sorensen, the CEO of Novo Nordisk A/S, a healthcare company with a specialty in diabetes care; and Dr. Gottlieb Keller, a member of the corporate executive committee of the healthcare company F. Hoffmann- La Roche Ltd. In these interviews, Sorensen and Keller discussed the role of corporate leaders in IP strategy at their respective companies.

A new planning process, tested at established companies, puts e-business into perspective and helps make it manageable.

Should executives make decisions based on what their "gut" tells them? Lately that idea has lost some favor, as technology's ability to accumulate and analyze data has rapidly increased -- supplanting, according to some accounts, the high-level manager's need to draw heavily on intuition. But intuition needs some rescuing from its detractors, and the place to start is by clarifying what it really is, and how it should be developed. Intuition is not a magical sixth sense or a paranormal process; nor does it signify the opposite of reason or random and whimsical decision making. Rather, intuition is a highly complex and highly developed form of reasoning that is based on years of experience and learning, and on facts, patterns, concepts, procedures and abstractions stored in one's head. In this article, the authors draw on examples from the worlds of chess, neuroscience and business -- especially Austria's KTM Sportmotorcycle AG -- to show that intuitive decision making should not be prematurely buried. They point out that although the study of intuition has not been extensively explored as a part of management science, studies reveal that several ingredients are critical to intuition's development: years of domain-specific experience; the cultivation of personal and professional networks; the development of emotional intelligence; a tolerance for mistakes; a healthy sense of curiosity; and a sense of intuition's limits. Companies should, of course, continue to exploit their abilities to mine data as a means of obtaining a competitive edge. But they shouldn't overlook the continuing value of experienced executives who can draw on their intuition to make decisions when the numbers yield a question rather than an answer: Now what do we do?

Solid principles for navigating the 21st century.

Organizations can teach themselves to grow.

In the past, emerging countries like India and China relied on cheap labor to compete at the bottom of the pyramid. Not any longer. Their competitiveness is already reaching the high end, including knowledge-intensive sectors like biotechnology and information sciences. As a result, U.S. and Western European companies are finding it increasingly difficult to attract the best global talent, especially at the senior-executive level. Nevertheless, the author contends that organizations can improve their ability to hire and retain top global talent by doing three fundamental things. First, they need to adopt a new mindset. Specifically, they need to be aware of the realities of the hottest emerging markets and the aggressive talent practices that are already taking place there. For example, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in India has begun to make blanket offers to every individual in the graduating class of certain colleges. Second, companies need to cut the red tape. In the old world of low hiring needs and abundant candidates, businesses used to focus almost exclusively on making sure that they would not hire the wrong person. Now, because the best candidates are in very low supply and the demand for them is extremely high, they need to expedite their hiring processes. Third, companies need to implement best practices, particularly in the area of recruiting. Unfortunately, making people decisions is still one of the weakest of all key organizational processes. Already, a number of multinational corporations like SAP and Nokia have begun to make the transition to competing for talent on a global basis. Given the numerous challenges, the edge will go to those companies that are proactive in mastering their people decisions so they can hire, develop and deploy the best talent on a worldwide basis. In the future, such organizations will be able to adapt faster and not only survive but prosper in this new environment of increased globalization.