Search Results

Corporate leaders should put environmental, social, and governance issues at the center of the quarterly earnings call.

To prevent email from feeling like a burden, teams should develop shared practices to enable it to help — not harm — employee productivity. This begins by developing an understanding of the relative effects of congruent vs. incongruent messages.

Coca-Cola uses forward-looking analytics to understand its customer base and international distribution network.

How companies can find their most influential online customers and enlist them to help promote their brands.

Dell computer company developed compostable packaging materials made from bamboo and mushrooms.

There are three important ways in which customer relationship management (CRM) practices often fail.

The way we think about strategy is woefully incomplete, the authors contend. The traditional idea of focusing on the positioning of products (or services) underplays much of what most would agree makes a company truly competitive. Not only does it give short shrift to what a company knows, it ignores completely the fact that in today’s dynamic economy, organizations have to continually reinvent who they are and what they do in large and small ways. And one important means of doing so is through innovation. An effective strategy, then, is comprised of three key components: product/market, knowledge and innovation positions. But even if a company masters the three strategic positions of product/market, knowledge and innovation independently, it is still at risk. Only when all three positions are aligned and mutually reinforcing can a strategy succeed. In adopting the notion of alignment, organizations need to view each position & #8212; product/market, knowledge and innovation & #8212; as aspects of an organization’s overall strategy. Creating an integrated strategy thus requires focusing not on each position separately, but rather on all three positions simultaneously. The authors introduce the notion of competing based not only on what an organization makes or the service it provides, but on what it knows and how it innovates. Each aspect represents a competitive position that must be evaluated relative to the capabilities of the organization and to others in the marketplace battling for the same space. And each component must not only be aligned with the other two, but it needs to be adjusted as circumstances warrant. When done correctly, organizations & #8212; such as Buckman Laboratories, which is profiled here & #8212; thrive. When done badly, the company can suffer, and perhaps fatally so, as the history of Polaroid points out.

Many complicated, proprietary systems attract a community of underground innovators who explore and alter them -- and not always in ways that manufacturers appreciate. These individuals have little regard for the business models that companies have carefully devised to profit from those systems. Instead, they are driven by utility, curiosity and occasionally even anger, bypassing technical and legal safeguards in their drive to explore. Called by different names -- hackers, phreakers, crackers and modders, among them -- these underground innovators have complex and often antagonistic relationships with the companies whose products they modify. Indeed, in many cases the underground innovation triggers a war between the community and the company. But if handled properly, it also can lead to cooperation between the two parties, potentially resulting in new business models and novel products. To achieve that, though, companies first need to understand how underground communities operate. Underground groups typically contain two distinct classes: elites and kiddies. "Elite" is a term reserved for those who truly innovate -- the wizards who understand the inner workings of a proprietary system and are able to make it do things never intended by its developers. "Kiddie" is short for "script kiddie," signifying someone who does not truly understand a system but merely uses tools created by the elites to exploit the system in some way. Most companies make the mistake of treating elites and kiddies the same way, often alienating those who might make positive contributions. A more effective approach is to nurture the constructive elites, rewarding and even supplying them with tools to encourage their efforts, all while deploying more aggressive means to thwart the destructive kiddies.

Given the increasing complexity of the technological infrastructure, there is a critical need to build effective working relationships between line managers and information systems managers. This paper explores the concept of building partnerships as a management strategy. Using interviews with executives, the author focuses both on external partnerships (relationships between managers in separate organizations) and on internal partnerships (relationships between line managers and information systems managers in the same organization) to create a descriptive model.