Articles

Companies have much to gain by actively touting their human resources successes. So why don't they?

An overview of new research on innovators’ incentives and the innovation process.

Most suppliers lack sufficient customer knowledge to implement anything but the most sales-oriented growth strategies and tactics. If they wish to achieve profitable, sustainable growth and a larger share of their customers’ wallets, they need a fine-grained, disciplined approach to obtaining, leveraging and documenting customer knowledge. James C. Anderson of Northwestern’s Kellogg School and James A. Narus of Wake Forest University have been conducting management-practice research with companies that have superior knowledge of their customers and use it to devise and implement focused, inventive strategies that create profitable growth while increasing the value delivered. Using the examples of best-practice suppliers such as Bank of America, Seghers, Technische Unie, KLM Cargo and Telindus, the authors suggest a strategic framework to guide supplier managers in the selective pursuit of a greater share, predicated on estimating the current share of each customer’s business, selecting and pursuing appropriate and inventive opportunities to increase that share, and carefully documenting the profitability efforts. According to Anderson and Narus, building the scope of the market offering, broadening collaboration and using multiple single sourcing each represent ways of growing business share selectively with a customer while improving profitability for both the supplier and customer.

Intellectual property assets now account for 50% to 70% of the market value of all public companies, and corporate America is intensifying efforts to maximize the return on those assets. That explains why a small but growing number of Fortune 500 enterprises are moving away from a strict reliance on the “exclusivity value” of their patents and other intellectual property & #8212; that is, their power to exclude or hinder competitors & #8212; and are instead seeking to tap the often enormous financial and strategic value of their core technology assets by licensing them to other companies, including competitors. The practitioners of this strategic licensing, as it is called, are betting that any loss of market exclusivity that may result from making available their “crown jewel” technologies will be more than offset by the financial and strategic benefits gained. For this article, the author interviewed some of the pioneer practitioners of this emerging approach and got them to explain the nature and degree of the benefits their companies are now reaping. Although patent rights should always remain an important weapon in a company’s competitive arsenal, strategic & #8212; licensing initiatives are encouraging managers to rethink what it means to create and sustain competitive advantage in business.

Companies are increasingly rethinking the fundamental ways in which they generate ideas and bring them to market — harnessing external ideas while leveraging their in-house R&;D outside their current operations.

Research indicates that buyers are more likely to perceive value in global brands.

In the wake of corporate scandals and ensuing concerns about board oversight, various suggestions for reforming boards and redefining the role of directors have been put forward. The proposals have focused on issues such as board composition and ways to ensure board independence from management. Such recommendations, while useful, do not deal with the fact that directors, no matter how dedicated and diligent, cannot serve as adequate monitors of management without sufficient information and the means to analyze it. The author urges companies to provide directors with that information in the form of detailed discounted-cash-flow (DCF) valuation models & #8212; the tool that can help them understand how the company intends to create value over time. In conjunction with observed financial results, review of the evolution through time of the valuation models can give directors the critical information they need to discharge their duties to shareholders. The author stipulates that DCF models are not the silver bullet that will forever safeguard investors from management chicanery & #8212; the models can be manipulated. But a sequence of DCF models serves two important purposes. It forces management to translate its vision into specific numbers that show how shareholder value will be created, and it forces the board to continually monitor and evaluate those numbers in light of ongoing financial performance and stock market valuation.

Long-term focus, not cosmetic ethics initiatives, will regain the public trust.