Strategy

In global supply chains, managers have consistently struggled with sharing valuable knowledge with buyers and suppliers across borders. Increasingly, talk of the "dark side" of collaborative relationships has left managers wondering who benefits most from knowledge-sharing activities: their companies or their partners. In order to find the answers to these questions, the authors conducted an in-depth study of more than 100 cross-national supply chain partnerships in the industrial chemicals, consumer durables, industrial packaging, toy and apparel industries in multiple locations in 19 countries. Knowledge sharing encompasses the sharing of information, but it doesn't stop there. Much of the information that companies share -- data on inventory levels, sales, production schedules and prices -- is easy to codify and transmit. But other types of knowledge are more difficult to codify: know-how, managerial and communication skills, and organizational memory. Intercompany knowledge sharing is a joint activity between supply-chain partners; the parties share knowledge and then jointly interpret and integrate it into a relationship-domain-specific memory that influences relationship-specific behavior. The authors found three types of knowledge sharing within the supply chain, each offering distinct benefits to buyers and suppliers: information sharing, joint sense making and knowledge integration. They also found that no matter how "diverse" the home cultures of the buyer and supplier companies, these differences had no impact on the propensity to share knowledge. Drawing on examples from the auto (Toyota), aerospace (Boeing, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies) and toy industries, they examine how different types of knowledge sharing can benefit buyers or sellers individually, but more importantly, how it can enhance the performance of the partnership as a whole. They conclude that, while suppliers generally benefit more from knowledge-sharing activities, both buyers and suppliers profit; understanding the benefits of absolute versus relative gains is critical when building world-class global supply chains. Sharing knowledge effectively means understanding that a disparity in benefits is part of what it takes to build partnerships that last.

Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe are delivering strong revenue and profit growth.

Strategy is a mechanism through which a company makes sense of the world around it. It is a collection of ideas about how the company intends to win, the source code upon which everything else depends. Because strategy can only capture a company's best thinking at a given point in time, the author argues that strategy, much like a software program, needs to be updated and refined as people gain new experience and knowledge. With traditional approaches to strategy development, the author argues, planning is optimized for the original targets; it is difficult to change directions once implementation is under way. Adaptive processes, by contrast, help companies create and adapt strategy quickly and iteratively, so that people can effectively triage issues and allocate resources in changing environments; they are optimized to identify the best ideas and to ensure that individuals throughout the organization have access to the latest version so that everyday actions can be aligned with the most important strategic insights. Since people throughout the organization play roles in the company's strategic success, strategy development needs to tap into ideas from everywhere. This requires opening up the process to people throughout the organization, permitting extensive face-to-face collaboration, and arranging for individuals other than senior executives to facilitate important strategic discussions. Drawing extensive comparisons with software development and using examples from companies including Metrowerks and Shamrock Foods Co., the author focuses on three major themes: having an iterative, or "spiral," approach versus a linear approach; organizing the strategy-making process around people rather than processes; and the recognition that in strategy there is no such thing as a "silver bullet." Most managers operate in settings that are too dynamic and complex for simple success recipes. Instead of seeking long-term sustainable advantage, good managers need to create sustaining advantages on an ongoing basis.

The dangers associated with China’s ascendance are exaggerated.

Competing in China is the only option for multinationals that want to build or preserve their global position.

Does vertical integration make sense, particularly when an industry is moving offshore to regions of cheaper labor?

International arrangements require more formal mechanisms.

Higher quality and niche marketing are not always the answer.

There comes a time when corporate governance has little influence over performance, because competitive forces cut away at management fat.