Search Results

Personal investment puts management at risk.

Defining an innovation process increases companies' future value.

During the last few decades, companies have moved away from hierarchical, integrated supply chains in favor of fragmented networks of strategic partnerships with external entities. This change has caused ripples throughout the old supply network and raised questions about the future. The authors consider the impact of vertical disintegration in large-scale supply networks, particularly in the textile and electronics industries. They focus on supply chain strategies that have been adopted by network players in order to accommodate for the changing governance and ownership structures. Their broad hypothesis is that the process of disintegration in many industries is not sustainable from a coordination and control viewpoint, and therefore will be followed by eventual reintegration - although it may take different forms in different industries. They discuss the expanded role of the systems integrator, which, in many cases, goes beyond critical coordination services and extends into issues related to control and governance of portions of the supply network. They also explore the challenges that systems integrators are likely to face, and they contrast two different models of coordination and governance that could be adopted by such players.

Organizations need to know the details about their performance in all areas of operations—customer service, order fulfillment, inventory management, and procurement—yet surprisingly few companies know what to measure or how to measure it. Most companies’ efforts at operational performance management fail because of common human mistakes; understanding these Seven Deadly Sins of performance management is key to correcting them.

When conflicts aren't managed well, a company's ability to innovate may be at risk.

It can be good or bad, depending upon what kind it is and in what cultural context it occurs.

Since the 1980s, the percentage of obese Americans has risen from one-sixth of the population to nearly one-third -- and the problem is particularly acute among children and adolescents, where the obesity rate has tripled in 30 years. While this problem is certainly, in the first instance, one of personal responsibility and self-control, business leaders should be concerned, too -- for at least four reasons. The first reason is simple self-preservation: Food and beverage companies could find themselves in the trial lawyers' crosshairs. The second reason is closely related to the first: The food and beverage industry is the target of the public's increasing ire over portion sizes and unhealthy ingredients. Third, companies will not be able to function efficiently if a significant proportion of their current and future employees suffer from obesity. And finally, opportunity knocks: Companies have the chance to develop new products and create a positive brand image that will fatten the corporate bottom line while simultaneously helping obese Americans shed dangerous pounds. The authors explain how several companies are actively pursuing several strategies to help solve America's other "energy crisis" -- too much consumption and too little movement.

How leading companies use price, speed, quality and flexibility to drive innovation and shareholder value.

Coaching increases performance, productivity and job satisfaction at all levels.

Conventional wisdom has it that most innovations eventually become commodities, bought on the basis of price and nothing else. Citing a quotation by a Columbia Business School professor that epitomizes that point of view -- "In the long run, everything is a toaster" -- the author uses the technological history of toast to persuasively undermine that notion. Drawing on the wisdom of economists Ronald Coase, Paul Samuelson, John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith, he makes a historical case that commodity is not destiny, and uses brands such as Starbucks, Evian, Dasani, Scott Paper, Yahoo and Google, Hoover and Dyson to illustrate the point. The danger, he says, is that executives, entrepreneurs and investors may buy into the commodity designation far more often than they should, making the commodity ideology a self-fulfilling prophecy. Businesses that believe that today's breakthrough is tomorrow's toaster understandably fear rapidly diminishing returns from their innovation investments, and the economics of "good enough" innovation become good enough. The potential of ideas is inherently undervalued. Sustainable innovation opportunities are either missed or dismissed. Intense price competition, the author argues, may not signal the prolific presence of substitutable commodities but rather an arid absence of innovation. That signal, he says, should give a clear and present incentive for executives and entrepreneurs to innovate in order to differentiate; to identify hidden or untapped potential for new value creation.