Search Results

You must tell your strategy story to reach four different audiences.

When employees leave an organization, they depart with more than what they know; they also leave with critical knowledge about who they know. Thus, the departure of key people can significantly affect the relationship structure and consequent functioning of an organization. In particular, companies should be aware of the unique knowledge held by three important types of employees: "central connectors" (those who are regularly asked for help, typically because they have a high level of expertise in one or more areas), "brokers" (those who act as bridges across subgroups) and "peripheral players" (those who reside on the boundaries of a network but could still possess valuable niche expertise and outside knowledge). Departure of an employee who filled any one of these roles presents knowledge-loss risks that need to be addressed. The departure of a handful of key brokers, for example, could fracture the social network of an organization into isolated subgroups. Thus companies need to take various measures to (1) identify key knowledge vulnerabilities by virtue of both what a person knows and how that individual's departure will affect a network and (2) address specific knowledge-loss issues based on the different roles that employees play in the network.

Checks and balances, competitive elections and term limits could improve corporate oversight.

With real wages stagnating and job security elusive for many U.S. workers, the American dream of an improved standard of living for each generation is in jeopardy. The author argues that, although many companies seek to become competitive primarily by reducing costs such as labor, there is another option. A substantial body of research, he reports, indicates that companies that invest in their workforces to build knowledge-based organizations can achieve a return on their investment through higher productivity and profitability. The author cites the example of Continental Airlines Inc., which after an era under Frank Lorenzo that was marked by wage cuts and bankruptcy, experienced improved performance and reputation under a new leadership team with a more collaborative management approach. Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. are also examples of airlines that pursue a high-trust, knowledge-based strategy, while Toyota Motor Corp. and Kaiser Permanente are examples from other industries. Executives interested in building knowledge-based organizations can create momentum for their initiatives in several ways: by carefully documenting the gains from knowledge-based strategies, by encouraging employee representation in corporate governance matters, and by working with other leaders to approach problems that no single company can solve alone.

Many manufacturers already have established product development activities in different countries around the world. As a rule, the current approach includes colocation of cross-functional teams to foster close collaboration among engineering, marketing, manufacturing and supply-chain functions. The results to date -- better product designs, faster time to market and lower-cost production -- have been satisfactory. However, growth and innovation can now be much more effective if manufacturers tie their decentralized development organizations into a cohesive, unified global product development operation. In this article, the authors introduce new empirical frameworks to guide managers toward such practices. Citing exemplars such as Hewlett-Packard, Eastman Kodak, Hyundai Motors, Haier, Alcatel and Cummins, the authors explain why GPD has come of age and demonstrate a three-stage approach that puts product development in the context of a company's relationships with outside partners. The article draws from extensive interviews with engineering managers at more than 100 companies in 15 countries in North America, Europe and Asia. Additional data are from a recently completed study on GPD that PTC has conducted with BusinessWeek Research Services, interviewing and surveying more than 1,100 engineering managers worldwide.

Netflix’s allocation policy is part of a growing trend.

More experience generally means better productivity, except in high tech, where the answer is unclear.

Research and development projects fail more often than they succeed. In fact, out of every 10 R&;D projects, five are flops, three are abandoned and only two ultimately become commercially successful. A principal problem is that many companies don't know how best to organize their labs to conduct R&;D work. A classic hierarchical structure, for instance, tends to impede the rapid spread of knowledge. Matrix organizations, on the other hand, can lead to information logjams, confusion and conflict among employees. To investigate how companies can best manage their efforts to innovate, the author conducted an in-depth study of six R&;D projects at the laboratory of a Fortune 500 corporation. She found that highly successful R&;D projects have four crucial factors that reinforce each other. The first is strong and sustained corporate support. The second is the presence of open communication patterns and a low degree of formal reporting. Beyond this, R&;D teams must be organized in specific ways so that informal social networks are reinforced -- not thwarted -- by the formal organizational structures. This leads to other crucial factors: third, R&;D projects must include a person who is central to the "technical-advice network" (a "technical star"); and fourth, they must include someone key to the "organizational-advice network" (a "managerial star"). An understanding of the interplay between informal social networks and formal organizational structures can help companies design and maintain learning organizations in which employees exchange pertinent knowledge efficiently and willingly, leading to more successful R&;D efforts.

For both manufacturing companies and service firms, the basis of competition is shifting fast. Manufacturers are finding they must compete by selling services; service firms now have to provide products as well as services. The emerging battleground is known as "integrated solutions," and it is where leading companies such as IBM, General Electric, Rolls-Royce and EDS already compete aggressively. Rolls-Royce provides airlines with "power by the hour," selling engines along with the services to maintain and upgrade them over many years. Services provider EDS now manages and integrates different suppliers' technologies and products as part of its business outsourcing solutions. However, the integrated solutions approach is not simply a matter of blending products and services. Customers are buying guaranteed solutions for trouble-free operations. So the key is to develop and deploy the right capabilities -- and to structure the organization so these capabilities match customers' needs. This article offers a blueprint for implementing integrated solutions, drawing on extensive research with such companies as Alstom Transport, Cable & Wireless, Thales, Ericsson and Atkins. The article highlights the importance of four prerequisite capabilities and shows the organization structures necessary for success -- structures that are no longer bounded by product, service or geographic lines. The article then lays out three levels of organizational capability to chart the journey that integrated-solutions providers must take.

INTELLIGENCE: RESEARCH BRIEF: Assessing the role of electronic product-recommendation systems.