Articles

Companies' financial strength and market position depend on successful new product introductions, which, in turn, depend on successful product rollovers. Given the low success rate of product rollovers, companies need a formal process to plan and coordinate product rollovers and to reduce risk. This article presents a framework to help companies manage product rollovers, choose the best rollover strategy, and improve product rollovers. Companies need to plan their rollovers early, when they are planning the new product's introduction. First, they choose a primary rollover strategy, based in part on assessment of the uncertainties associated with the product's manufacturing, delivery, and market potential. Then they monitor product and market conditions. Finally, as product and market conditions change, they adopt a contingency strategy if necessary. Companies can consider two primary strategies for product rollovers. Solo-product roll, a high-risk, high-return strategy, aims to have all the old products sold out worldwide at the planned new product introduction date. The less risky dual-product roll plans to sell both old and new products simultaneously for a period of time and can be implemented in a variety of ways. If changed product and market conditions increase the product's risk, companies can choose from among four contingency strategies: making significant price markdowns, postponing the new product's introduction, introducing the new product earlier than planned, or combining two or more dual-product-roll strategies. Finally, while contingency strategies enable companies to modify their primary strategies if appropriate, companies can improve their product rollovers significantly by exploiting opportunities to reduce the product and market risks of each new product in the first place.

Are Japanese companies ending their practices of lifetime employment and seniority-based pay, as the popular press has reported? Data from published Japanese surveys offer insights into three key issues: Are Japanese employment practices changing? While changes are taking place, they are limited to seniority-based pay and promotion; lifetime employment remains intact in most large companies. The seniority system is gradually being replaced by a new job performance-based pay system that companies are using to raise white-collar productivity. Most companies plan to retain the lifetime employment system, the benefits of which outweigh the costs. Why are employment practices changing? In the 1980s and 1990s, internal and external factors placed pressure on large firms to change the seniority system. Internal factors include falling profit margins, decreases in white-collar productivity, an aging workforce, and changes in employee attitudes toward work and the seniority system. External factors include the maturing of the Japanese economy, a decline in large Japanese companies' international competitive position, and increasing internationalization of Japanese companies' operations. What are the implications of changes? Given the trends in Japanese employment practices, Western competitors should expect the following: a continuation of Japanese companies' market growth strategy with minor adjustments; innovative products and services as well as marketing and partnering strategies coming from Japanese companies; a resurgence in Japanese firms' competitiveness and productivity levels; increasing opportunities to enter into Japanese keiretsu networks as suppliers; and continued fierce competition in local Asian markets and lower prices from Japanese competitors in more mature product sectors as they move them increasingly to overseas production. The examples of Honda, Fujitsu, and Sony, three firms that revitalized themselves through use of performance-based pay systems, product innovation, and new partnering strategies rather than through layoffs of core employees, suggest that while change will be gradual, most large companies will eventually follow in the same direction.

Why do companies frequently make bad investment decisions and continue to blunder, even after the weaknesses in their capital budgeting analyses are evident? Because, according to the authors, they don’t integrate capital budgeting into their overall strategy. Boquist et al. offer a capital budgeting framework that has six key features: (1) it is dynamic, (2) it is integral to the firm’s strategy, (3) it recognizes sequences of options, (4) it is cross-functional, (5) it aligns employee compensation with capital allocation, and (6) it emphasizes performance-based training. The authors’ framework for dynamic capital budgeting has three simultaneous steps: 1. Identify a status quo strategy and how it must perform to maximize shareholder value. The strategy will help the company determine the trade-off in capital budgeting between cycle time and risk. The more time and resources it commits to collecting information about a project, the more it can learn about cash flows and the lower the risk. But it achieves this risk reduction at the expense of a longer cycle time. 2. Establish a system for evaluating projects and preparing capital allocation requests that is consistent with the strategy. The system has four phases & #8212; a new idea phase, preliminary evaluation phase, business evaluation phase, and go-ahead or reject phase & #8212; and three tollgates & #8212; strategic, preliminary, and business. For approval, a project must pass through all three tollgates. 3. Develop a culture consistent with the strategy and the evaluation system. The company’s long-term commitment to the strategy should be evident to employees. Employees from all functional areas should be trained in the system’s underpinnings. The employee compensation system should tie bonuses to performance measures that correlate with shareholder wealth. Only by implementing an integrated framework, say the authors, can a company make intelligent investment decisions with long-term strategy in mind.

To remain competitive, manufacturers increasingly need a support system of transportation, telecommunications, services, and knowledge centers. In the United States, some cities and government agencies are building individual components of a supporting infrastructure. But a strategic approach in which public and private sectors cooperate to create a business environment that enhances manufacturing agility is needed. An example of such a system is the Global TransPark in North Carolina, which has fully integrated air, rail, highway, and sea transportation systems, as well as telecommunication and state-of-the-art electronic data interchange technologies to support manufacturers' logistical requirements. It contains the four elements that the authors say are necessary to agile manufacturers: 1. A seamless transportation network, with traffic management, vehicle control and safety systems, electronic toll payment, and emergency management systems. The network integrates air, sea, and land transportation through materials handling systems that accommodate various industries. 2. Telecommunications networks that provide information on markets and orders, track and manage material flows, and pool R&;D information. 3. Access to financial institutions, marketing and sales agents and consultants, legal services, exposition centers, and foreign trade zones. Agile manufacturers need commercial and service support, along with community amenities like good schools and cultural facilities. 4. A source of scientists, engineers, and managers. Such knowledge centers provide access to R&;D labs, colleges and universities, and a trained workforce. What is needed, according to Kasarda and Rondinelli, is a cooperative approach to create an environment that fills all these requirements. Such an approach needs government and industry to work together to integrate infrastructure components.

Commitment and competence are embedded in how each employee thinks about and does his or her work and in how a company organizes to get work done. It is, according to Dave Ulrich, a firm's only appreciable asset. As the need for intellectual capital increases, companies must find ways to ensure that it develops and grows. There are five tools for increasing competence in a firm, site, business, and plant. 1. Buy. The company goes outside to hire new talent. 2. Build. Managers invests in employee learning and training. 3. Borrow. A company hires consultants and forms partnerships with suppliers, customers, and vendors to share knowledge, create new knowledge, and bring in new ways to work. 4. Bounce. The company removes those employees who fail to change, learn, and adapt. 5. Bind. The firm finds ways to keep those workers it finds most valuable. Companies also need to foster employees who are not only competent but committed. Employees with too many demands and not enough resources to cope with those demands quickly burn out, become depressed, and lack commitment. A company can build commitment in three ways: 1. Reduce demand on employees by prioritizing work, focusing only on critical activities, and streamlining work processes. 2. Increase resources by giving employees control over their own work, establishing a vision for the company that creates excitement about work, providing ways for employees to work in teams, creating a culture of fun, compensating workers fairly, sharing information on the company's long-range strategy, helping employees cope with the demands on their time, providing new technologies, and training workers to use it. 3. Turn demands into resources by exploring how company policies may erode commitment, ensuring that new managers and workers are clear about expectations, understanding family commitments, and having employees participate in decision making. Only by fostering competence and commitment together can a company ensure the growth of intellectual capital, says the author.

With the increasing number of mergers and acquisitions, particularly across national borders, the importance of knowing how to approach delicate negotiations has grown. In this case study and interview, James Sebenius traces an Italian copper-products company's negotiations to provide important lessons for anyone involved in cross-border transactions. Sebenius interviewed Sergio Ceccuzzi, management board member of KM Europa Metal AG and chairman of its subsidiary, Europa Metalli SpA. Together they discuss the growth of the holding company, SMI (Societa Metallurgica Italiana SpA). In 1965, SMI was one of many small and medium-sized copper transformation companies in Italy. Over the years, it developed a strategy of growth by acquisition, but only in areas that amplified its line of business. It first acquired Finmeccanica, a state-owned competitor, at a time when privatization in Italy was anathema. Next, through skillful negotiations, it acquired its major French competitor, Tr_fim_taux, also a state-owned firm. And, in its most difficult transaction, it overcame formidable obstacles to acquire Kabel-metal AG, a German competitor. Throughout his conversation with Ceccuzzi, the author indicates specific lessons to be learned from each deal. In summary, he encapsulates the lessons into twelve major points, among them: be willing to wait, sometimes for years, for the right circumstances to culminate the deal; establish good personal relationships; map out the likely players in the deal and assess their interests, not yours; figure out how to deal with potential deal blockers; and, perhaps most important, remember that, even after the deal is done, negotiation does not stop.

As companies continue to downsize, they need to consider how to maintain their employees' morale in order to realize gains such as higher productivity and more flexibility. Those who survive layoffs and the managers who must implement those layoffs frequently exhibit reduced commitment. Their trust in the company may be destroyed and they may feel powerless in the wake of top management's actions. Mishra et al. propose a four-stage approach to downsizing, gleaned from interviews and surveys, that will retain workers' trust and sense of empowerment. First, the company should consider its decision to downsize only as a last resort, not to be taken lightly. Downsizing should be part of a clearly defined, long-term vision that fits into the company's overall strategic plan. Second, the company should consider all stakeholders' needs -- survivors, laid-off employees, the community, local and national press, and any affected government agencies. The company should form a cross-functional team to represent all stakeholders' interests, hire outside experts for outplacement and counseling, ensure that managers know how to deal with all questions, and give employees full information on the company's finances. Third, at the announcement stage, senior managers should explain why the downsizing is necessary and how it will help the firm in the long term. The fourth stage, implementation, is the most important. Management should communicate frequently and be open and honest. The company should do its best to ensure that laid-off employees are employed elsewhere and offer them generous benefits packages. It should seek remaining employees' ideas about restructuring work processes and provide training, particularly in new technologies, to work in the new environment. According to the authors, each stage, if well executed, will mitigate workers' mistrust and disempowerment and will help build a better company.

The authoråÊdiscusses how to improve strategy making.

Eight key factors can help a company create, share, and use knowledge effectively.

Indirect purchases represent a large part of a company’s costs, yet many companies have neglected such expenditures, sheltering them from rigorous competitive scrutiny in favor of supplier partnerships. The authors suggest that companies should examine their indirect purchases more closely. First they delineate indirect purchases & #8212; those not directly associated with end products or services & #8212; into five major expense clusters: advertising and marketing, technology, overhead, human resources, and those specific to the business such as store fixtures or collection agencies. Three problems prevent most companies from managing these purchases effectively: (1) inadequate information & #8212; companies have confusing, inaccurate data about indirect purchases; (2) insufficient resources & #8212; the people negotiating purchases lack skill or have other incentives in making purchasing decisions; (3) improper techniques & #8212; few companies gather sufficient information or solicit competitive proposals. Kapoor and Gupta propose five approaches for improving purchasing programs that are rooted in a competitive, free-market view: 1. Measure pragmatically. Managers should be extremely selective and focused when defining pricing data for purchasing. 2. Assign resources selectively. Companies should increase the resources assigned to indirect purchasing and clearly define the roles of people assigned to administer supplier relationships. 3. Demystify business requirements. Companies must establish precise quality requirements for indirect purchases. 4. Clarify the pricing basis. Lax pricing practices work to the buyer’s disadvantage. In order to compare prices, the buyer must establish discipline in pricing by creating and enforcing a standard vocabulary. 5. Leverage the free market. Buyers must be willing to use free-market competition to reduce costs and must take business away from suppliers if necessary. The five approaches run counter to the prevailing “partnership” purchasing model, according to the authors. In a supplier partnership, they suggest, companies give up their right to investigate alternative sources by making a commitment to work with a partner through good and bad. Such partnerships may be appropriate when there are few viable alternatives or when changing suppliers would be difficult. Otherwise, they say, companies should establish free-market competition as their standard operating procedure and form partnerships only on an exception basis.