Search Results

The Fall 2011 issue of MIT Sloan Management Review delves into innovation, including the intriguing role of individual innovators.

Even good ideas can fail if the pilot lacks credibility, replicability and feasibility.

Companies experienced in analytics use are increasingly gaining competitive advantage.

"We're taking analytics from a planning perspective to a planning, execution and evolution perspective," says David Kreutter, at Pfizer Inc. As a result, analytics has become "much more operational than it's been in the past." The ways that Pfizer Inc., [link: http://www.pfizer.com/home/ ] the global pharmaceutical company, uses analytics is changing, in no small thanks to the pressure on physicians to prescribe generic rather than brandname drugs. David Kreutter, is accountable for Pfizer's U.S. commercial operations and analytics. He says that "in terms of customer analytics and commercial operating analytics, Pfizer U.S. has a strong legacy of management science in operations research support." With a team of 40-50 economists, statisticians, operations research colleagues and scientists, Kreutter says the group historically has focused on promotional tactics: understanding the effectiveness of strategies used in the field, in conversations with physicians and other players who influence whether a Pfizer drug is prescribed or not. Today, that's a little different. Today, Kreutter says his team closely track how sales representatives present material and how presentations are received. It's information, he says, that's critical. Kreutter spoke with David Kiron, executive editor at MIT Sloan Management Review, and Rebecca Shockley, the business analytics and optimization global lead for the IBM Institute for Business Value, about how the company is generating daily data reports, why precision is overvalued and what the coming generic version of the company's popular Lipitor drug has meant in terms of attention to analytics.

How are companies using analytics in their decision making? To what extent are managers able to access the data they need? What are the key challenges, and how have the main business objectives changed? MIT Sloan Management Review and the IBM Institute for Business Value teamed up to ask business executives, managers and analysts to reflect on the role data plays within their organizations, and received more than 4,000 responses, representing every major industry and every region of the world. Complete results of the second annual survey are scheduled for publication in the fall 2011 issue, but this article provides some preliminary findings. A few early results stand out: Only about four in 10 respondents have access to the information they want; almost one-fifth say they have limited or no access to the data they need to be successful. The three biggest challenges people cite in using analytics are the difficulties of "integrating internal data across silos," the time and cost of performing analytics and the lack of skills to interpret and leverage the data. While the top three business objectives organizations cite for using analytics have not changed since last year's survey, their order of importance has changed: Last year, respondents said the most important objective was "innovating to achieve competitive differentiation;" this year, the No. 1 priority is "growing revenue," followed by "reducing costs and increasing efficiencies." Innovating to achieve competitive differentiation fell to No. 3. All told, the 2011 survey contained 27 questions. The charts in this preview article represent the answers to just eight of those, presented as simple raw data, clean and uncut. In the complete report, the new information will be combined and refined and, in many cases, compared to last year's data to give readers a snapshot of what's changed since our initial survey and the opportunity to benchmark their organizations in relation to their peers.

This article assesses root causes of the highly publicized recalls of Toyota vehicles in the U.S.

From time to time a project truly stands out, creating exceptional value and having an impact on the industry.

The timeline of energy development projects now is largely driven by sustainability and social performance issues, says Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Company. That's prompting innovations in how the company involves external stakeholders, incentivizes employees and drives changes throughout the entire energy industry. "When I look at an investment proposal now," says Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Company, "it still covers the technical issues, of course. It certainly covers the financial issues. But fully half of that proposal deals with what I would call the non-technical risk: social performance and sustainability issues." Like other energy companies, Shell is in a classic "rock and a hard place" situation. The world wants what Shell provides, but it wants it when it wants it, at a price it likes to pay, and with positive or at least neutral environmental and social impact. That's forced the company to adapt its traditional innovation approach and even its overall organizational structure in some surprising ways. The need for those changes has also been heightened by the environmental damage and public relations disaster of the BP oil spill in 2010, Odum says. "What the Gulf of Mexico spill shows us is we are dependent on how the whole industry performs; it affects a part of our license to operate." This is true even though Shell enjoys a reputation for sustainability performance that is stronger than that of most other energy companies. Still, dealing with the broader public perception and wariness that greets energy companieshas become a major focus of the company. Today, managing the concerns of external stakeholders has prompted changes in management approaches and strategy internally, and sustainability issues have moved in Shell from being a company "priority" to a "core value." Odum's responsibilities at Shell Oil include exploration, new business development, and venture management as well as stakeholder management and sustainable development. He spoke with Michael S. Hopkins, editor-in-chief of MIT Sloan Management Review, about what a shift in "core values" really means for company operations and management.

MIT Sloan Management Review's second annual Sustainability & Innovation survey--exploring the current and projected sustainability-related practices of organizations and executives--was fielded during a year of bad public news for sustainability advocates. Between last year's much-publicized delay in reaching an international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen and the continuing economic malaise, it was hard to predict how sustainability would fare as a management priority. Would companies begin to scale back their efforts to adopt more efficient business practices and become less focused on sustainability-related issues? Would they put existing programs on hold? What assessments would they make about the implications for managers of the changing sustainability landscape, and how were their strategic plans for competing in the future being affected by sustainability concerns? This article is a first look at the results of the 2010 Sustainability & Innovation Executive Study--focusing especially on 12 top-line observations drawn from the survey data and separate in-depth executive interviews. The survey respondents included more than 3,107 managers and executives, representing every major industry and region of the world. This article offers answers to such questions as, Where does sustainability now fit on top management's agenda? Do top-performing companies see things differently? Who drives the agenda within companies? What does the C-suite think? And how do top managers go about making sustainability-related investment decisions when tangible information for weighing costs and benefits is often lacking?

Companies should organize their service innovation processes to be more open to external ideas.