Search Results

The technical, organizational and strategic challenges of the shift to on-demand computing power.

As China prepared to enter the World Trade Organization in 2001, many multinationals planned to invest new billions in operations there. But their ambitious growth plans must be viewed with caution. Experienced multinationals have long been aware of the challenges, summed up by the adage that in China "everything is possible, but nothing is easy." But few predicted the most formidable obstacle to success: the emergence of tough competition from local Chinese players. The authors' research over the past five years reveals that while market dominance by local champions is not universal, it's becoming more frequent. Multinationals must face the fact that the competitive edge that is potentially available to them from superior technologies, products and systems will be blunted unless they build stronger local competencies. Specifically, they explain that multinationals must show a new determination to master the complexities of distribution, sales and service in China's secondary cities and rural heartland, and to learn how to more sensitively adapt products, processes and marketing messages to the peculiarities of the Chinese market.

A corporate sphere of influence is not just a platform for a company’s offensive or defensive initiatives. It is the basis upon which the company builds market power over rivals so it can maneuver freely without fear of retaliation.

Many companies keep their suppliers and partners at arm's length, zealously guarding internal knowledge. Toyota Motor Corp., however, embraces its suppliers and encourages knowledge sharing through established networks. Toyota has developed interorganizational processes that facilitate the transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge. The three key processes revolve around supplier associations (for general sharing of information), consulting groups (for workshops, seminars and on-site assistance from Toyota) and learning teams (for on-site sharing of know-how within small groups). With Toyota's help, suppliers have fine-tuned their operations until, compared with their work for Toyota's rivals, they have 14% higher output per worker, 25% lower inventories and 50% fewer defects. Quality improvements enable Toyota to charge price premiums for its products. Toyota's experience suggests that competitive advantages can be created and sustained through superior knowledge-sharing processes within a supplier network. The authors believe those principles have applicability in other types of alliances, too, including joint ventures. In fact, they contend that establishing effective interorganizational knowledge-sharing processes with suppliers and partners can be crucial for any company. The authors claim that knowledge sharing with suppliers is the reason for Toyota's dynamic learning capability and might be the company's one truly sustainable competitive advantage.

For decades, companies relied on push marketing to sell their products and services. Then, in the 1990s, the emphasis shifted to relationship marketing, as slogans such as "delight your customers" became the mantra of many marketers. But those tactics have been losing their effectiveness, particularly as the power of customers continues to grow. Thanks to digital technologies like the Internet, today's increasingly educated consumers expect companies to do more than just delight them. In response, innovative companies are now trying a different approach: They are providing customers with open, honest and complete information, and then finding the best products for them -- even if those offerings are from competitors. In short, they are truly representing their customers' best interests, essentially becoming advocates for them. The strategy is this: If a company advocates for its customers, they will reciprocate with their trust, loyalty and purchases -- either now or in the future. The firm might then command higher prices for its products and services, as many customers will be willing to pay for the extra value. And when people trust a company, they will often tell others about it, helping to reduce the organization's costs for acquiring new customers.

Brands may be less vulnerable to the vagaries of extension than is commonly feared.

Some observers see outsourcing as a key trend (perhaps even the key trend) shaping the future of human resources (HR). They envision HR departments focused entirely on strategic activities, leaving all the transactional and administrative activities to vendors. But, the author cautions that outsourcing any business activity creates potential risks as well as benefits: Companies can find themselves overly dependent on suppliers, and they can lose strength in strategically core competencies. Given the importance of the outsourcing decision and the amount of academic and practitioner literature on it, there is surprisingly little consensus about the topic, says the author, probably because of the multiplicity and complexity of the factors involved. The author synthesizes the strongest of the available research and identifies the six key factors that companies should consider when making important outsourcing decisions. The framework, which helps assess the pros and cons of outsourcing, can be applied specifically to HR functions. In particular, it can help explicate the managerial issues of outsourcing agreements such as the recent landmark deal between BP and Exult Inc. That $600 million, seven-year arrangement provides a window into the many opportunities -- and complexities -- of HR outsourcing.

Much of the recent research on mergers and acquisitions (M&;A) seeks to link the market valuations of individual companies, as well as overall stock market levels, with merger activity and performance. In their review of work conducted in this field, the authors present a primer on ways to measure whether M&;A actually creates value and then offer an overview of the "winners" and "losers." But the long-held observation that stock prices affect merger activity was confirmed in 2001, they say, by work that revealed a correlation between high merger activity and high market valuations. Several other studies have shown that acquirers who pay with stock underperform their peers in the long run, whereas acquirers who pay cash outperform their peers. Another line of inquiry, according to the authors, finds that the level of the stock market when an acquisition is announced affects short-term and long-term merger performance. The short-term effects are positive for acquisitions announced in high-valuation markets and negative for those undertaken in low-valuation markets. Supporting evidence is provided in other recent work too: Acquisitions that take place during periods of below-average economic growth create more shareholder value than strong-economy acquisitions. The strong performance of low-valuation acquirers and weak-economy acquirers suggests that they are not distracted by short-run market reactions, but instead focus on business fundamentals and true potential synergies. Two articles published in 2002, suggesting that the root cause of such links between valuation and performance may be incorrect valuation by the market, are empirically supported by current work that Bouwman et al. also describe. The conclusion of these various research streams is that stock prices matter, say the authors. The key implication for managers: Be wary of acquisitions made when market or firm valuations are high, and be optimistic about acquisitions when valuations are low. This review includes a comprehensive sidebar of all referenced and relevant research.

Overreacting to corporate scandal will hobble risk taking, innovation and growth

During the late 1990s stock market boom, many large companies established corporate-venturing units, seeking to develop innovative new businesses and spur growth. However, with the downturn of the economy, many of these units ceased operations -- while others managed to survive and a few even thrived. What went wrong with failing companies, and how do those that still have corporate-venturing units manage to succeed? The authors studied nearly 100 venturing units, proposing that failures often occurred because such groups lacked clarity -- both in their objectives and in their business models. Using the example of successful venturing units, such as Intel Capital, Mustang Ventures at Siemens, Lucent New Venture Group and GE Equity, the authors outline four common types of venturing scenarios that, by using a careful, steady approach, companies can execute well: ecosystem venturing, innovation venturing, harvest venturing and private-equity venturing. They discuss the characteristics and benefits of each and how successful companies avoid the pitfalls that snare others. In the end, the authors conclude, there are many ways to do corporate venturing. But to succeed, companies must define their goals clearly and narrowly, understand the differences among the various types, and use the appropriate type for the appropriate activity. The ultimate key to accomplishing that, say the authors, lies in effectively employing the differences to their advantage.