Search results

The article offers an answer to the question, “When companies are caught between recessionary financial constraints and epic market discontinuity, what approaches actually deliver innovation efficiently and effectively?”

The article offers guidelines for enterprises seeking to implement a form of open innovation with external product development firms that offers the prospect of being more nimble than internally-managed R&D and less expensive, risky and complex than outright merger and acquisition activity.

Pick the right challenges to “outsource collaboratively” to external innovation partners. One rule of thumb: partner externally when the defined challenge is something your team cannot effectively tackle–for example, new spaces, channels, materials, processes or supply chain. Outsourcing to experienced innovators can reduce internal competition, accelerate organizational learning and counteract internal turf battles. 10;

Experienced innovators seek authorization to manage their initiative as a portfolio of projects: instead of isolated stabs at innovation, they create a diversified array of programs, with different risk/reward ratios and different foci.

The author has extensive experience working as a a corporate sponsor of open innovation projects and as a contract R&D innovation manager and his teams have had to deal with programs that meander and drift because corporate politics shift, decisions are opaque and strategic communication breaks down. The guidelines offered are designed to prevent such breakdowns.

Selective Insurance, a mid‐sized regional property and casualty insurance firm, first mounted a classic strategy‐development effort and then implemented a reengineering effort focused on the core processes that drove their business.

Though your action team may be composed of your company's executive tigers, don't try to run it with a whip and a chair. As 3M found, it takes a non‐traditional management approach to make teamwork work.

The authors call attention to the rising customer dissatisfaction with the strategic‐business‐advice industry. Looking at each segment they find that some aspect of its business model has broken down. .

A business model describes how a firm delivers customer value. While this definition usually applies to a firm and its strategic business units, it can be applied to an industry or segment. Thus, we could ask, “What is the extant business model for management education in the US?”

Academic researchers, seeking professional advancement, put methodological rigor and peer approval ahead of creating value for business leaders and organizations. B‐schools reward research that peer reviewers assert is scientifically rigorous and that other specialists often cite –without measuring its usefulness to managers or organizations. Academic research is usually communicated exclusively to its own constituency – instead of to the world of business. Consultants, though they clearly have a stake in the welfare and success of their clients, seldom face up to their inherent conflict of interest.

Some specific recommendations for each segment of the strategic‐business‐advice industry: Business schools. Collaborate with corporations to identify critical issues and priorities as a guide for faculty research. Consultants. Become more client‐centered and less sales‐oriented, focusing on what the client really needs and how that differs from what the consultant has to sell. Corporations. Collaborate actively with business schools in the design of curricula and the establishment of research priorities. Journal publishers. Accelerate the review process; slash the cycle time and get their information out quickly.

The article examines the strategic‐business‐advice industry as a set of business models that need rethinking and it suggests astute solutions..

Process improvements like benchmarking and reengineering are side‐shows, not the main event, says internationally known pundit, Gary Hamel. Innovation is the real engine that powers corporate growth—and management should stay focused on fostering creativity.

Family businesses are a powerhouse of the US economy. Some of the largest businesses in and outside the US are family controlled. Family businesses significantly out perform non‐family businesses. So how to learn from their strengths? Paradoxically, many of their outstanding strengths are also their profound weaknesses. This article examines the virtues and vices of family businesses, explains how to leverage their strengths and diminish the vices, and offers recommendations for a strategic approach for management.

The author argues that the causes of this current epidemic of bad leadership include the leaders' personality disorders, akrasia (weakness of will), flawed values, and avoidance of reality. The complicity of followers also contributes.

The author offers a twin‐scenario model. In one case stressed leaders become pragmatists. In the other they act out this alternative: The would‐be visionary, seduced by power and a growing sense of certitude, first becomes isolated and then gets lost. When plans fail to deliver wins, the leader grows tyrannical, wields power wrongly, and devolves into a fallen star and self‐serving “decider,” often surrounded by fawning acolytes.

The subsequent emergence of bad leadership can be averted if leaders will pay attention to the welfare of stakeholders, listen to alternative points of view and perspectives, rely on their team for support, foster a culture of integrity, and cultivate personal awareness. Followers must give honest feedback and develop coalitions to foster a balance of power within the organization. If all else fails, externally‐imposed regulation may be necessary.

The author offers practical advice to both leaders and followers to enable them to avoid the perils of the bad leadership.

By identifying the causes and likely cures for bad leadership and bad followership the author makes it easier for stakeholders to address the problem and take action and for boards to select the right candidates for leadership roles, a critical board responsibility.

Strategic planning remains the top‐ranked management tool, across continents, sectors, and firm sizes. Yet many firms fail to adequately prepare a strategic databank to help optimize the planning process: senior managers suffer from too little formal data, too much, or unbalanced input that neglects critical market, industry, firm, and stakeholder inputs. This article outlines the key classes of information, recommends a process, and provides examples of specific information and formats that are useful in creating an informed, strategic context for making decisions about strategy and resource allocation.

Good strategy development hinges on good data about competitive position, industry structure, market forces/trends, and internal performance trends/conditions. The practical strategic databank described balances an external perspective with an internal one; it comprises inputs from standard sources (financial statements) and less common ones (stakeholder audits, benchmarking, and other analyses designed to highlight opportunities, obstacles, and levers for enhanced performance). The approach described also stresses management and staff engagement in assembling, assessing, and presenting the data, because the process itself can serve to enhance strategic thinking and commitment to implementation. Hundreds of firms across a wide array of industries have used the methodology, which derives from two decades of strategy consulting and senior operating experience.

A balanced, comprehensive databank enables more robust and rational decision‐making about future strategy. A focused process can help engage managers and stakeholders, enhancing buy‐in and implementation. Simplicity, a common language, and uniform formatting help cross‐functional managers gain insights into strategic condition (both form and content are important). By developing a small set of analytic/performance ratios, managers can also sharpen their abilities to monitor implementation performance.

The guidelines and logic are universal, but some of the parameters described may need to be adapted to fit the planning cycle, technology, and data constraints of each firm, and refined over time, as more and better data are cultivated.

Firms can enhance the strategy development process immeasurably by honing the strategic databank – in terms of both content and format. Sharper analytic tools and an insistence on translating data into accessible information will better prepare managers from all backgrounds to make rational decisions about priorities, metrics, and strategic investment. A transparent and inclusive process will increase the likelihood of buy‐in, and signal senior management's commitment to a balanced and thorough assessment of issues.

The rational, practical approach described offers strategic managers a toolkit for developing a succinct strategic databank – for bridging the gap between dry numbers and eye‐opening discussion about how to play the game better. It outlines a straightforward process, providing hands‐on guidelines for optimizing performance, and galvanizing the management team.

Most strategies stumble in the implementation phase. This article outlines a market‐validated process, and practical guidelines, for optimizing implementation. The primary audience is mid‐level and senior executives charged with the responsibility for implementing strategy.

This implementation process focuses on the critical timeframe immediately following formal strategy selection, when broad objectives need to be translated into specific actions, schedules, budgets, and metrics. The approach is to capture the key decisions in an accessible, common format, and to deploy this tool consistently throughout the organization to monitor and guide implementation. Dozens of firms across a wide array of industries have used the methodology, which derives from two decades of senior operating and strategy consulting experience.

Strategy development receives significant attention and resources, but implementation is often neglected, with disastrous consequences. Using a straightforward approach, format, and process, managers can bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality; they can succeed in accomplishing what they set out to do, and think and act strategically.

The approach and logic described are universal, but the actual format may need to be adapted to fit the planning cycle and technology of each firm, and refined over time to dovetail with the firm's budgetary process.

Strategy programs need to be expanded to focus on the implementation process. More attention should be given to breaking down lofty statements into practical, actionable, measurable activities. The language and methods used to implement need to be simplified, and consistently deployed. Success in implementation is critical to validating the investment in strategy in the first place.

The rational, practical approach described offers middle and senior managers a toolkit for bringing strategies to life – for bridging the gap between aspirations and real performance. It outlines a practical process, providing hands‐on guidelines for optimizing performance, and galvanizing the management team.