Search Results

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.

There is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging software -- which the author has dubbed, collectively, Enterprise 2.0 -- that allow for more spontaneous, knowledge-based collaboration. These new tools, the author contends, may well supplant other communication and knowledge management systems with their superior ability to capture tacit knowledge, best practices and relevant experiences from throughout a company and make them readily available to more users. This article offers a paradigm that highlights the salient characteristics of these new technologies, which the author refers to as SLATES (search, links, authoring, tags, extensions, signals). The resulting organizational communication patterns can lead to highly productive and highly collaborative environments by making both the practices of knowledge work and its outputs more visible. Drawing on case studies and survey data, the article offers managers a set of ground rules for implementing the new technologies. First, it is necessary to create a receptive culture in order to prepare the way for new practices. Second, a common platform must be created to allow for a collaboration infrastructure. Third, an informal rollout of the technologies may be preferred to a more formal procedural change. And fourth, managerial support and leadership is crucial. Even when implanted and implemented well, these new technologies will certainly bring with them new challenges. These tools may well reduce management's ability to exert unilateral control and to express some level of negativity. Whether a company's leaders really want this to happen and will be able to resist the temptation to silence dissent is an open question. Leaders will have to play a delicate role if they want Enterprise 2.0 technologies to succeed.

As companies use self-service technologies, responsibility for service quality shifts to customers.

Companies are incurring enormous losses from the misappropriation of their trade secrets. In a 2002 survey of more than 130 firms, 40% reported actual or suspected losses, and the data suggest the true figure might be significantly higher. The study also estimated that the companies represented by the survey participants -- the Fortune 1000 corporations and 600 additional small and medium-sized companies -- were likely to have experienced trade-secret and other intellectual-property losses of more than $50 billion during a one-year period. Research has shown that the biggest threat to a company's trade secrets comes not from spying competitors but from within: current and former employees. Consequently, the protection of trade secrets is largely a managerial issue, and firms need to take the appropriate measures to ensure that employees keep trade secrets from leaking. But many organizations make a number of crucial missteps, sometimes failing to implement the right precautions or relying on a well-intentioned but ineffective practice -- or worse, a wrongheaded policy that only leads to more information being divulged. The following are the most common mistakes: giving short shrift to new-employee orientations, not communicating regularly with employees, signaling to employees that they aren't trusted, punishing instead of helping employees, not practicing what is preached, forgetting to clarify who owns ideas, defining the scope of trade secrets too narrowly and failing to address the subject of departing employees. By avoiding such mistakes, companies can help ensure that their trade secrets indeed stay secret.