Search Results

The rules of nature can help you succeed in adversity, but they can also steer you wrong.

Many firms know about their customers, but few know the customers themselves or how to get new ones. Leaders in customer-knowledge management go beyond transaction data, using a mix of techniques, and they aren't afraid to tackle difficult problems. Davenport, director of the Institute for Strategic Change, Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting) and coauthors Harris, also from Accenture, and Kohli, professor of marketing at Emory University, report results from interviews with 24 leading firms and describe seven practices that the leaders share. The companies interviewed -- including Harley-Davidson, Procter & ; Gamble, and Wachovia Bank -- have undertaken specific and successful initiatives centered around the management of customer knowledge. Within the seven practices, two results stand out: First, firms are beginning to rely more on data from actual interactions, such as sales and service. They are learning that customers are more than transactions, and they are seeking creative ways to turn data from these interactions -- human data -- into knowledge. Second, even the most ambitious firms are keeping data from different approaches separate. They are not accepting the notion of an integrated data repository. Focus on the most valued customers. Know which customers are worth the organization's resources. Prioritize objectives. Successful firms begin all customer-knowledge management initiatives by prioritizing business strategies and customer-relationship objectives. They know which customers to focus on and what new behaviors the customers should exhibit. Aim for the optimal knowledge mix. There's no single solution to knowledge management. Use a variety of approaches. Don't use one repository for all data. The fully integrated customer-knowledge environment seems more an intriguing idea than a practical reality. Diverse forms of information are difficult to combine in one set of database records, and firms risk having a departing employee walk away with highly developed knowledge. Consequently, customer data is fragmented across multiple systems and locations. No one has been able to combine hard (transaction-based) and soft knowledge in one customer database. Think creatively about human knowledge. This is the main practice that separates the leaders from the laggards. We saw many creative solutions to managing both explicit (documented and accessible) and tacit (understood but undocumented and not accessible) knowledge. Look at the broader context. Customer-knowledge initiatives do not exist in a vacuum. Their success depends on the organization's roles and responsibilities, the workplace culture, and the organizational structure. Establish a process and tools. Many firms seem to stop working when they've selected a management strategy -- avoiding the planning that is critical to implementation. The leading firms work hard to deliberately manage customer knowledge, using a defined process and creating tools as needed.

Non-profits have the know-how to tackle global malnutrition, says Valid Nutrition CEO Paul Murphy.

When a crisis strikes, brands can avert backlash from consumers -- and even strengthen the brand -- with well-considered and thoughtfully deployed communication. Based on scientific research on persuasion, the authors present a comprehensive crisis communication framework to help restore consumer trust, illustrating these recommendations using cases of both successful and unsuccessful recovery from brand crises. The authors draw heavily on Toyota's recent experience in responding to the unintended acceleration of some of its vehicles. Toyota's responses provide examples both of what to do, and what not to do, when a company is accused of wrongdoing. The authors contend that there is no one best communications path to follow when a company is in crisis. Rather, they say, the best approach will depend on the answers to three central questions: Is the accusation prompting the crisis true? Is the crisis severe? Has the company established its brand as something that customers closely identify with? Taking these factors into account, a company might best be served by some combination of seven communications strategies. These strategies range from admitting error and apologizing on the one extreme to defiantly denying and wrongdoing and even attacking the accuser on the other. In addition to describing these seven communications strategies, the authors also lay out four lessons on corporate crisis communications that emerge from the Toyota debacle. One, in the Internet age, speed of response is imperative. Second (and a corollary to the need for speed), companies need to be ready for a crisis at all times, and have at hand a step-by-step protocol to follow when bad things happen. Third, it is essential that in a time of crisis, the CEO him or herself -- not lower level management--needs to step forward and publicly articulate the company's responses. And fourth, companies must not delude themselves that they can skate by while ignoring a crisis. Response is essential.

A computer simulation of high-frequency trading behavior yields new insights into market volatility.

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.

Many managers in traditional product-oriented organizations are struggling to turn their companies into solutions-oriented businesses, widely considered the route to success in the 21st century. A good shortcut may be to establish corporate consultancies & #8212; consulting units that offer customers solutions based on the traditional business’s products or expertise. Thus computer companies such as IBM are moving toward integrated information-technology solutions, and telecom-equipment manufacturers such as Nokia are providing turnkey network solutions. Changing from a product-oriented manufacturer to a customer-focused solutions provider can be rewarding, but because it involves a sweeping reorientation of the organization, it is also difficult. That’s why the less radical approach of a consultative component often works best. But even that strategy has its challenges, with success depending on determined managers who know what the pitfalls are and how to avoid them. Without firm management, the consultancy may be swept away by forces that draw it too far into the product business or too far away from it. By thinking through the mission, identity and structure challenges and choosing the right strategy for handling them, leaders can both manage the consultative component and attain synergies between the product-centric business and the corporate consultancy’s customer solutions.

Are Japanese companies ending their practices of lifetime employment and seniority-based pay, as the popular press has reported? Data from published Japanese surveys offer insights into three key issues: Are Japanese employment practices changing? While changes are taking place, they are limited to seniority-based pay and promotion; lifetime employment remains intact in most large companies. The seniority system is gradually being replaced by a new job performance-based pay system that companies are using to raise white-collar productivity. Most companies plan to retain the lifetime employment system, the benefits of which outweigh the costs. Why are employment practices changing? In the 1980s and 1990s, internal and external factors placed pressure on large firms to change the seniority system. Internal factors include falling profit margins, decreases in white-collar productivity, an aging workforce, and changes in employee attitudes toward work and the seniority system. External factors include the maturing of the Japanese economy, a decline in large Japanese companies' international competitive position, and increasing internationalization of Japanese companies' operations. What are the implications of changes? Given the trends in Japanese employment practices, Western competitors should expect the following: a continuation of Japanese companies' market growth strategy with minor adjustments; innovative products and services as well as marketing and partnering strategies coming from Japanese companies; a resurgence in Japanese firms' competitiveness and productivity levels; increasing opportunities to enter into Japanese keiretsu networks as suppliers; and continued fierce competition in local Asian markets and lower prices from Japanese competitors in more mature product sectors as they move them increasingly to overseas production. The examples of Honda, Fujitsu, and Sony, three firms that revitalized themselves through use of performance-based pay systems, product innovation, and new partnering strategies rather than through layoffs of core employees, suggest that while change will be gradual, most large companies will eventually follow in the same direction.

How business leaders can grow profits and competitive advantage by doing the right thing.

Corporate America has spent the last few years in restructuring mode, drastically reorganizing processes in order to wring profits from a battered economy. However beneficial these efforts may be to the bottom line, say the authors, a reliance on restructuring has had unintended negative side effects, as hierarchies that once controlled the direction of many companies become less relevant, and loyal employees become increasingly disheartened by disruptive -- and often short-sighted -- strategies. In response, companies resort to even more restructuring, frequently with less than optimal results.The authors recommend that companies shift away from knee-jerk responses such as restructuring and hierarchy building toward a transformation of established corporate structures, a wider distribution of knowledge, and the use of modern performance-measurement systems and technologies. Citing examples at BP, North Carolina's Duke Power and W.L. Gore, the authors claim that only companies developing their advantage upon the agility and flexibility of their processes, people and technologies can build lasting value for their company, customers and employees.