Search Results

In 1994, when Interface Inc.’s founder and CEO Ray Anderson began to think about his legacy, it made him uneasy. Deep down, Anderson realized that the business model of the commercial carpet manufacturing company he had founded 20 years before was based on “digging up the earth and turning petroleum and other materials into polluting products that ended up in landfills” — not something he wanted his grandchildren and great-grandchildren to remember him by. So at age 60 Anderson broke with the old model and began anew. Standing up to naysayers (whose ranks included associates, suppliers and Wall Street analysts), he set out to transform Interface from a traditional business built on consumption and waste to one whose focus — that is, beyond profitable growth — would be zero waste and restoring the earth. Since the start of the journey, Anderson and his associates have confronted technical barriers that no one could have anticipated. But inch by inch, kilowatt-hour by kilowatt-hour, recycled pound of carpet by recycled pound of carpet, Anderson’s vision has moved closer to reality. In addition to becoming increasingly efficient in its energy and materials usage — for example, 89% of Interface’s global electricity and 28% of its total energy come from renewable sources — Interface prides itself on its ability to turn an increasingly large percentage of its carpet into new product. It is also proud of the influence its sustainability efforts are having on other companies. This article presents a timeline showing how Anderson’s “mental model” changed and how he and his company moved along the road to sustainability.

Companies need to help telecommuters overcome workplace isolation and limited visibility.

Sustainability is the buzzword du jour, but how do you actually go about achieving it? Well, it’s clear there isn’t a one-size-fits-all strategy. Look at five companies, and you will see five different paths, each particular to a specific company’s market and problems. Take Nike Inc., whose brand is synonymous with cutting-edge design. Redesigning the athletic shoe to cut down on material became a core element of its approach to reducing waste. But what works for Nike might not exactly work for a company like start-up electric vehicle supplier Better PLC, LLC, which is rolling out electric car recharging stations. How does it pursue sustainability? By identifying the countries most receptive to its cutting-edge idea. General Electric Co. takes yet another approach, seeing sustainability not only as a cost-savings measure within the company (cut energy use, and emissions and costs go down) but also as a solution to sell to other companies–hence, its $17 billion ecomagination unit. Mining giant Rio Tinto, in turn, looks at it through a social lens, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sees sustainability as a challenge to revamp the practices of its more than 100,000 suppliers. In short, sustainability is less a target than an approach, which is why it is continually being refined. As companies ramp up understanding, they also push the envelope of what can be accomplished. Though it takes investment and commitment, the rewards are seen in cost savings, new products, customer engagement and employee commitment. In this way, sustainability becomes a competitive advantage.

Successful innovation--the kind that leads to customer engagement and profits--is rare and hard to achieve, or so one might conclude from observing the results of many companies' innovation efforts. Some have tried investing intensively in research and development. But the author recently studied public companies representing almost 60% of global R&;D expenditures and found that above a certain minimal level, there is generally no correlation between R&;D spending and financial metrics such as sales or profit growth. For many companies, developing new products is hit-or-miss. But according to the author's research, successful innovation is not magical. It comes from careful attention to a small number of important criteria. The key question isn't how much to spend, but how to spend. The author introduces a "return on innovation investment," or ROI2, methodology that correlates directly with organic growth and links innovation spending with financial performance in ways that can lead decision makers to generate higher, more reliable returns on innovation and R&;D. The ROI2 approach is based on a series of innovation studies conducted during the past seven years with companies in the consumer products, health care and chemical industries. To become more effective, a company needs to diagnose its innovation practices and capabilities. The diagnosis can be quite different from one company to the next, and that is why adopting industry benchmarks doesn't work. The individual innovation profile represents the value and quality of a company's innovation portfolio and can be clearly expressed as an "innovation effectiveness curve." This curve lets companies plot annual spending on innovation projects against the financial returns from those projects--and "solve for growth."

Seven strategies that can make marketing both relevant and rigorous in today's world.

Many Western managers were introduced to lean production in 1990, with publication of The Machine That Changed the World, based on a five-year study of Toyota by MIT's International Motor Vehicle Program. Since then, thousands of managers have been drawn to the principles of lean management as a way to achieve faster cycle times, reduced defect rates and sharp gains in on-time deliveries. Lean management permits a marked reduction in inventory levels required across the supply chain. These changes should result in better financial performance, especially because companies achieve simultaneous declines in manufacturing and service costs. But, as the authors point out, the transition takes time, and it is full of obstacles. One of the biggest and most predictable hurdles is the crisis in confidence that occurs when management isn't able to improve financial performance quickly enough. Lean transformations generally have short-term adverse impacts on the company's bottom line (that is, things get worse before better). Management needs to anticipate these challenges and explain them clearly. To help managers overcome the financial hurdles on the path to lean, the authors offer new tools for anticipating the deterioration in financial performance that invariably occurs as a mass producer goes lean and for understanding the real performance improvements that take place during this period. Their approach, which they call "value-stream accounting," helps managers plan for the short-term financial impact, monitor progress, understand the operational improvements and develop strategies to maximize the longer-term benefit. Traditional accounting systems are not designed to show the causes of adverse impacts or reveal the future benefits that will accrue from improved operational processes. Managers need to understand that the "bad" news isn't really bad -- it's part of the necessary process of establishing a stronger, more productive organization. The authors' approach replaces the traditional cost-accounting system with a transparent accounting system that tracks the company's value streams, which incorporate all of the value-adding and non-value-adding activities required to bring a product or service from start to finish.

For many teenagers and young adults, cell phones, personal digital assistants and other handheld devices have become a necessity of everyday life. That fact has not escaped the attention of companies that have had great difficulty reaching young consumers through traditional marketing approaches. In theory, the mobile platform provides the perfect mechanism for reaching young consumers. A large retailer might, for example, send a group of teenagers who are at a shopping mall various electronic coupons on their phones to promote special discounts. Many global corporations, including Burger King, MTV, Procter & Gamble and Ford, have initiated programs that enable consumers to search for the nearest restaurant location using their cell phones, receive electronic coupons or participate in other mobile marketing activities. Such campaigns have generated click-through rates up to 10 times those of traditional Internet banner ads, and recent forecasts for global mobile marketing spending range from $9 billion to $19 billion by 2011. That said, several brands, including Budweiser, ESPN, Sprite and adidas, have launched mobile marketing efforts only to see some successes amidst an equal number of disappointments. To investigate what truly influences whether young consumers will participate in mobile marketing activities, the authors recently conducted a survey in the United States and Pakistan. The study looked at the relative importance of a number of factors, including consumers' personal attachment to their cell phones, their concerns for privacy and their willingness to "opt in" and accept permission-based marketing. An analysis of the results uncovered important insights in consumer behavior. For instance, people who are personally attached to their cell phones are neither more nor less inclined to participate in mobile marketing activities. And the data also revealed differences between markets: In general, young Pakistanis are more amenable to receiving -- and even may desire -- mobile marketing communications, whereas their American counterparts' willingness depends on a greater number of factors. Such results hold a number of important implications for companies developing mobile advertising campaigns across global markets.

In recent years, researchers and consultants have advanced a number of customer metrics to explain the connections between customer behavior and growth. But these efforts have generated more smoke than heat. Despite claims to the contrary, the authors argue that the most popular metrics have shown only modest correlations to growth. None of them have shown themselves to be universally effective across all competitive environments. Early customer metrics tried to explain why people buy. To many companies, it came down to marketing. Yet, as the authors explain, the issues that affect customer loyalty are complex and go beyond standard marketing. This gave rise to a new category of metrics aimed at understanding the customer experience. Although managers have learned a lot about the components of service quality (including reliability, responsiveness and empathy), the approach doesn't point managers to specific actions they can take. Beginning in the 1990s, many managers began paying closer attention to customer retention -- in particular, understanding what makes for dissatisfaction and satisfaction. But as the authors note, the linkages among satisfaction, customer behavior and positive financial outcomes have been modest. Today's most popular metric, the Net Promoter Score, focuses on how customer word of mouth -- both negative and positive -- can advance growth. Developed by Bain & Company Inc. consultant Fred Reichheld, it claims the ability to predict future growth from customer replies to one question: "How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend or colleague?" The authors found that the linkage between the Net Promoter Score and subsequent customer behavior was modest at best; models based on multiple variables consistently outperformed models based on Net Performer. The authors are skeptical that there can be a single metric that reduces complex, multifaceted constructs to one or two dimensions; if there is, they write, "there's a good chance it will ignore one or more important aspects of the equation."

Eager to grow through innovation, companies are looking to customers to guide them toward unmet needs. But these entities often end up with vague, unusable -- or even misleading -- customer input. Why? The authors studied 10,000 customer need statements from many industries and discovered that companies have not even established a definition of what a customer need is or how user input should be standardized in terms of structure and format. Too often, companies ask customers to react to potential solutions, rather than zeroing in on their expertise: the "job" they need to accomplish with the product or service, and at which steps that experience could use improvement. By deconstructing the job, companies can identify opportunities that are universal and long-standing. In addition, the authors say, companies can collect data that fits their innovation strategy. What the authors propose is a disciplined process for gathering customer requirements that will then be addressed by innovative ideas. They outline the six characteristics that a useful customer statement must possess, including measuring value strictly from a user's perspective -- and not from the factors the company believes should form the basis for the customer's evaluation. The most helpful statements also prompt a clear course of action, specifying what dimensions of the "job" need improvement, such as its sluggish pace or inconsistent quality. The authors set forth six rules for eliciting feedback that will yield the right raw data to craft customer statements that resonate across company functions, so that departments can unite around a single growth strategy. Finally, they define the two broad categories of customer requirements -- job statements and desired-outcome statements -- and link which type works best for different innovation strategies. For CEOs, the authors' message is forthright: Successful innovation is about process, not just the result of brainstorming good ideas.

Innovation is the mandate of the day, and it has companies increasingly looking outside of their own organizations for new ways to grow. At the same time, shrinking federal research budgets are forcing universities to find alternate sources of funding for their research efforts. Consequently, just as companies are searching for new capabilities, sources of knowledge and means of growth, universities are feeling the urge to come down from the ivory tower to do business with corporations in order to keep their labs open. The convergence of these circumstances results in an unprecedented opportunity for successful partnerships between universities and corporations, and universities are making this easier every day. Recent years have seen a steep increase in the number of university-sponsored industrial or corporate liaison programs aimed at increasing university funding from private sources. But, given their differing needs, universities and corporations approach collaboration from different perspectives. How can managers reconcile the various needs of the two types of institutions? Drawing upon 20 years of experience as a corporate liaison officer, the author examines how best to manage relationships between companies and universities. He suggests that one point of common ground in corporate and academic partnerships is mutual respect for the use of the scientific method to solve problems. In such a context, academics feel more comfortable entering into dialogue with corporations without fear of "selling out," and corporate interests shed their aversion to so-called "pure" research. This allows both parties to follow the author's advice of shifting from a transactional approach to a relational approach. He examines three case studies and identifies three key factors in their success: The relationships moved beyond short-term vendor relationships to become lasting partnerships that built new capabilities for the companies; senior management was highly involved; and the companies involved the university in their strategy, not merely in technical tasks or isolated business problems.