Articles

Managers don’t have to be told that to innovate they need to embrace drastically different practices from the ones they use for routine work. So why don’t they do it? According to Robert I. Sutton, co-director of Stanford University’s Center for Work, Technology and Innovation, when business leaders see what innovation actually requires, they often recoil. The right practices seem strange, even wrongheaded. Understandably, it’s hard for any executive to take action that will lose money today in order to test ideas that might never make money & #8212; in hopes one idea will make money tomorrow. Nevertheless, Sutton contends, that is just what cutting-edge companies do, bravely tackling ideas that at first blush seemed weird. From his research on such organizations, Sutton has developed eight techniques to move teams and companies from working by rote to innovating. The first two techniques are designed to provoke emotions that interrupt mindless action (provoke unpleasant emotions in others; make yourself uncomfortable). The second two are for smashing mindsets (treat everything like a temporary condition; ignore the experts). The third two help people identify and reject their dearest beliefs (plan to do something ridiculous; hold a sacred “cow” workshop). The last two are for exploding the composition of organizations and teams (bring in some slow learners; keep changing the composition of teams). Sutton cautions, however, that the exact methods a company uses to spark novel ideas and actions should differ depending on the situation. He recommends giving people freedom to play around with a wide variety of offbeat notions until bringing in new knowledge and helping people see old things in new ways finally enables the company to break from the past.

Partnering with outsiders to speed innovation is increasingly the norm among high-tech companies. Then why are so many organizations still struggling to make such efforts work? The answer, say MIT Sloan School professor of management Edward B. Roberts and management consultant Wenyun Kathy Liu, is that all too often companies choose collaborative strategies without first considering what stage in the technology life cycle a given technology has entered & #8212; and which type of partnership is suited best to that stage. There are four phases in the life cycle of a technology (the fluid, the transitional, the mature and the discontinuities phases), and depending on where a particular technology is at the moment, only certain external partnerships will facilitate speedy development. That reality presents a challenge for managers: Each product a company is juggling may be in a different phase, and because the partnerships developed for one phase of one technology could eventually serve a different purpose in another phase of another technology, all partnerships must be handled with care. A decision to ally or acquire depends not only on company-specific competencies and needs, but also on overall market development and the company’s position relative to its competitors. Industry structure and critical success factors change as the underlying technology evolves and as competitive pressures vary. Companies are more inclined to form alliances as the technology becomes better defined and as competitive pressure increases. In the discontinuities phase, consolidation increases and the number of alliances declines. As for mergers and acquisitions, they often happen more frequently during the transition stage because established companies acquire startups to enhance their technology portfolio. In broadening past research (on the technology life cycle’s effect on internal product development) to encompass the externally focused technology life cycle, the authors also have underscored the growing complexity of achieving business success. The implication for management in high-tech industries is that leaders need to excel at multitasking, thinking laterally, thinking creatively and networking with individuals in various related industries. But all that starts with understanding the technology life cycle and what it means for outsourcing innovation.

During the 1980s, everybody marveled at Benetton, the Italian casual-wear company with a penchant for provocative advertising. The archetypal network organization, it used subcontractors and independent agents for production processes, distribution and retail. But recognizing that times change, Benetton decided on a new approach & #8212; in advance of external pressures. Without giving up the strongest aspects of its networked model, it is integrating and centralizing, instituting direct control over key processes throughout the supply chain. The company also is diversifying into sportswear, sports equipment and communications. Vertical integration has meant establishing state-of-the-art production poles in Benetton’s foreign locations. The Castrette pole, near its headquarters, decides what each of the foreign poles should produce (on the basis of the skills and experience of the local population), and the foreign poles contract out production tasks. Benetton also has increased its upstream vertical integration to exercise greater control over its supply of textiles and thread. At the retail end, the company is supplementing its network of small, independently owned shops with large, directly controlled megastores. To stay ahead of fashion’s ever-changing whims, Benetton is streamlining its brands and collections, supplementing two basic collections with smaller, flash collections. In its recently acquired sports businesses, Benetton has invested in high-tech systems for designing sports equipment and has brought together designers from around the world for creative cross-fertilization. It has also reorganized its production processes and improved its retail network by establishing Benetton “corners” in the large sports shops of major distribution chains. In the field of communications, Benetton’s Fabrica workshop has produced award-winning films, and its new company, United Web, hopes to take advantage of the possibilities of e-commerce. Benetton knows that innovative businesses must pay attention to how knowledge is divided among producers, suppliers and retailers. Its new directions represent a major discontinuity from its past and divergence from industry practices.

Despite lip service paid to the idea that employees are a company’s greatest asset, too often they are sacrificed in the name of cutting costs and boosting efficiency. But that does not have to be the case. Intensive research by Boston Consulting Group’s Morten Hansen and Michael Deimler reveals that the Internet technology that brought us B2B and B2C is now bringing us B2E: business-to-employee management. By cultivating employees the way it cultivates customers, a company can develop a more satisfied, more productive work force, achieve greater productivity, cut costs and beat its competitors. Hansen and Deimler identify three components in a comprehensive B2E program: online business processes, online people management and online services to the company community. The mode of delivery is the integrated enterprise portal, which provides employees with the tools they need to access information and services at a single location. When business processes are moved online, both the company and its employees gain benefits springing from reduced interaction efforts. Flight crew at Delta Air Lines, for example, bid for shifts and receive their schedules online, which saves the company time and is more convenient for the employees. Online people management is driven by self-service and mass customization: Employees can manage their own training, tailor their own health-care packages and take care of introductory human-resources formalities online. Online community services are driven by the somewhat counterintuitive notion that allowing employees to accomplish certain personal business online at work will make them more productive. The online marketplace offered by Coca-Cola Co. is popular with employees and management alike. To design a successful enterprise portal, companies should follow the model of the online store: Supply features that customers (in this case, employees) want first, and then add features that the company wants the employees to use. Building a portal can be expensive, and it requires a high level of expertise, but the results can transform the company.

In trying to bring about e-business transformation, companies have paid too much attention to technology & #8212; as if adding the right software or hardware could, on its own, bring about miracles. But systems do not work in a vacuum, and senior managers would do well to recognize the complementary nature of technology, business processes and e-business readiness throughout the value chain, from their suppliers to their customers. By taking a more holistic view, executives can turn these facets of a company’s operations into the drivers of e-business excellence. To help company leaders see the bigger picture, authors Anitesh Barua, Prabhudev Konana, Andrew B. Whinston and Fang Yin of the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business developed a research-backed model of e-business value creation. The model’s premise is deceptively simple: that proper development of e-business drivers will lead to operational excellence, which will, in turn, generate improved financial performance. The authors explain that if managers are to lead a successful digital transformation, they must carefully track such e-business operational measures as the percentage of goods purchased online from suppliers and the percentage of customer-service requests handled through the Web site. Companies that scored high on those (and other) measures in the authors’ study also enjoyed significant increases in revenue per employee, gross profit margin, return on assets and return on investments. Once managers understand their company’s relative degree of e-business operational excellence, they can develop the drivers that will raise those scores. The authors guide readers through the eight drivers their research uncovered, from mastering supplier-related processes to optimizing IT applications aimed at customers.

Companies that heavily invested in Internet technologies are having second thoughts. They are realizing that the IT structure must mesh with business goals and be flexible enough to launch applications in months, sometimes weeks. Traditional IT models that emphasize back-office functions, yearlong development cycles and a separation of tasks are outmoded. Michael Earl and Bushra Khan of the London School of Business surveyed 24 companies engaged in e-commerce in the United States and United Kingdom and found that IT perceptions and practices are evolving rapidly. They also discovered marked differences in the way established brick-and-mortar companies, dot-com startups, and e-commerce boutique companies and spinoffs see the IT function. Today, companies recognize that IT can make or break the business. The separation between IT and “the business” is disappearing. Past IT models that focused on engineering, best practices and disciplined processes have given way to an enhanced spirit of freedom. Another shift relates to cost. Companies that once installed detailed IT cost metrics now perceive time, not cost, as the currency. The speed of decision making, applications development, design changes, implementation and technology adoption drives today’s IT function. Those changing perceptions manifest themselves in new practices. Short-term, rolling plans are replacing long-term strategies. Uniform technology platforms are ceding place to three-tier architecture: two tiers connected by middleware (for translating data messages between the two layers, for storing processing logic and data-handling subroutines, and for establishing a gateway between ephemeral systems and more-permanent ones). A new-venture outlook is widespread & #8212; and an aggressive use of short time spans. Some companies reported that they would not undertake any project likely to last more than three months. Also, companies are simplifying project management & #8212; even eliminating the use of project managers. Of those practices, rolling plans, new-venture development, three-tier architecture and multidisciplinary teams are key: the first two addressing faster development; the second two, the tensions between technological excellence and business value.