Making business sense of the Internet

For managers in large, well-established businesses, the Internet is a tough nut to crack. It is very simple to set up a Web presence and very difficult to create a Web-based business model. Established businesses that over decades have carefully built brands and physical distribution relationships risk damaging all they have created when they pursue commerce through the Net. Still, managers can't avoid the impact of electronic commerce on their businesses. They need to understand the opportunities available to them and recognize how their companies may be vulnerable if rivals seize those opportunities first. Broadly speaking, the Internet presents four distinct types of opportunities. First, it links companies directly to customers, suppliers, and other interested parties. Second, it lets companies bypass other players in an industry's value chain. Third, it is a tool for developing and delivering new products and services to new customers. Fourth, it will enable certain companies to dominate the electronic channel of an entire industry or segment, control access to customers, and set business rules. As he elaborates on these four points, the author gives established companies a systematic way to sort through the risks and rewards of doing business in cyberspace.     

The triple-A supply chain

Building a strong supply chain is essential for business success. But when it comes to improving their supply chains, few companies take the right approach. Many businesses work to make their chains faster or more cost-effective, assuming that those steps are the keys to competitive advantage. To the contrary: Supply chains that focus on speed and costs tend to deteriorate over time. The author has spent 15 years studying more than 60 companies to gain insight into this and other supply chain dilemmas. His conclusion: Only companies that build supply chains that are agile, adaptable, and aligned get ahead of their rivals. All three components are essential; without any one of them, supply chains break down. Great companies create supply chains that respond to abrupt changes in markets. Agility is critical because in most industries, both demand and supply fluctuate rapidly and widely. Supply chains typically cope by playing speed against costs, but agile ones respond both quickly and cost-efficiently. Great companies also adapt their supply networks when markets or strategies change. The best supply chains allow managers to identify structural shifts early by recording the latest data, filtering out noise, and tracking key patterns. Finally, great companies align the interests of the partners in their supply chains with their own. That's important because every firm is concerned solely with its own interests. If its goals are out of alignment with those of other partners in the supply chain, performance will suffer. When companies hear about the triple-A supply chain, they assume that building one will require increased technology and investment. But most firms already have the infrastructure in place to create one. A fresh attitude alone can go a long way toward making it happen.     

Welcome to the experience economy

First there was agriculture, then manufactured goods, and eventually services. Each change represented a step up in economic value--a way for producers to distinguish their products from increasingly undifferentiated competitive offerings. Now, as services are in their turn becoming commoditized, companies are looking for the next higher value in an economic offering. Leading-edge companies are finding that it lies in staging experiences. To reach this higher level of competition, companies will have to learn how to design, sell, and deliver experiences that customers will readily pay for. An experience occurs when a company uses services as the stage--and goods as props--for engaging individuals in a way that creates a memorable event. And while experiences have always been at the heart of the entertainment business, any company stages an experience when it engages customers in a personal, memorable way. The lessons of pioneering experience providers, including the Walt Disney Company, can help companies learn how to compete in the experience economy. The authors offer five design principles that drive the creation of memorable experiences. First, create a consistent theme, one that resonates throughout the entire experience. Second, layer the theme with positive cues--for example, easy-to-follow signs. Third, eliminate negative cues, those visual or aural messages that distract or contradict the theme. Fourth, offer memorabilia that commemorate the experience for the user. Finally, engage all five senses--through sights, sounds, and so on--to heighten the experience and thus make it more memorable.     

Networked incubators. Hothouses of the new economy

Business incubators such as Hotbank, CMGI, and Idealab! are a booming industry. Offering office space, funding, and basic services to start-ups, these organizations have become the hottest way to nurture and grow fledgling businesses. But are incubators a fleeting phenomenon born of an overheated stock market, or are they an important and lasting way of creating value and wealth in the new economy? The authors argue that one type of incubator, called a networked incubator, represents a fundamentally new and enduring organizational model uniquely suited to growing businesses in the Internet economy. It shares certain features with other incubators--mainly, it fosters a spirit of entrepreneurship and offers economies of scale. But its key distinguishing feature is its ability to give start-ups preferential access to a network of potential partners. Such incubators institutionalize their networking--they have systems in place to encourage networking, helping start-ups, for example, to meet with potential business allies. That doesn't mean incubatees get preferential treatment; it means only that they have built-in access to partnerships that might not have existed without the incubator. Even with this advantage, however, networked incubators can easily follow the road to ruin. To avoid failure, they must create a portfolio of companies and advisers that their incubatees can leverage. That can be done by strategically investing in portfolio firms and by enlisting a large set of business allies. It can also be done by establishing connections and relationships that are anchored more to the incubator than to particular individuals.     

Creating corporate advantage

What differentiates truly great corporate strategies from the merely adequate? How can executives at the corporate level create tangible advantage for their businesses that makes the whole more than the sum of the parts? This article presents a comprehensive framework for value creation in the multibusiness company. It addresses the most fundamental questions of corporate strategy: What businesses should a company be in? How should it coordinate activities across businesses? What role should the corporate office play? How should the corporation measure and control performance? Through detailed case studies of Tyco International, Sharp, the Newell Company, and Saatchi and Saatchi, the authors demonstrate that the answers to all those questions are driven largely by the nature of a company's special resources--its assets, skills, and capabilities. These range along a continuum from the highly specialized at one end to the very general at the other. A corporation's location on the continuum constrains the set of businesses it should compete in and limits its choices about the design of its organization. Applying the framework, the authors point out the common mistakes that result from misaligned corporate strategies. Companies mistakenly enter businesses based on similarities in products rather than the resources that contribute to competitive advantage in each business. Instead of tailoring organizational structures and systems to the needs of a particular strategy, they create plain-vanilla corporate offices and infrastructures. The company examples demonstrate that one size does not fit all. One can find great corporate strategies all along the continuum.     

Divestiture: strategy's missing link

Although most companies dedicate considerable time and attention to acquiring and creating businesses, few devote much effort to divestitures. But regularly divesting businesses--even good, healthy ones--ensures that remaining units reach their potential and that the overall company grows stronger. Drawing on extensive research into corporate performance over the last decade, McKinsey consultants Lee Dranikoff, Tim Koller, and Antoon Schneider show that an active divestiture strategy is essential to a corporation's long-term health and profitability. In particular, they say that companies that actively manage their businesses through acquisitions and divestitures create substantially more shareholder value than those that passively hold on to their businesses. Therefore, companies should avoid making divestitures only in response to pressure and instead make them part of a well-thought-out strategy. This article presents a five-step process for doing just that: prepare the organization, identify the best candidates for divestiture, execute the best deal, communicate the decision, and create new businesses. As the fifth step suggests, divestiture is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to a larger end: building a company that can grow and prosper over the long haul. Wise executives divest so that they can create new businesses and expand existing ones. All of the funds, management time, and support-function capacity that a divestiture frees up should therefore be reinvested in creating shareholder value. In some cases, this will mean returning money to shareholders. But more likely than not, it will mean investing in attractive growth opportunities. In companies as in the marketplace, creation and destruction go hand in hand; neither flourishes without the other.     

Match your sales force structure to your business life cycle

Although companies devote considerable time and money to managing their sales forces, few focus much thought on how the structure of the sales force needs to change over the life cycle of a product or a business. However, the organization and goals of a sales operation have to evolve as businesses start up, grow, mature, and decline if a company wants to keep winning the race for customers. Specifically, firms must consider and alter four factors over time: the differing roles that internal salespeople and external selling partners should play, the size of the sales force, its degree of specialization, and how salespeople apportion their efforts among different customers, products, and activities. These variables are critical because they determine how quickly sales forces respond to market opportunities, they influence sales reps' performance, and they affect companies' revenues, costs, and profitability. In this article, the authors use timeseries data and cases to explain how, at each stage, firms can best tackle the relevant issues and get the most out of their sales forces. During start-up, smart companies focus on how big their sales staff should be and on whether they can depend upon selling partners. In the growth phase, they concentrate on getting the sales force's degree of specialization and size right. When businesses hit maturity, companies should better allocate existing resources and hire more general-purpose salespeople. Finally, as organizations go into decline, wise sales leaders reduce sales force size and use partners to keep the business afloat for as long as possible.     

The growth crisis--and how to escape it

At a time when companies are poised to seize the growth opportunities of a rebounding economy, many of them, whether they know it or not, face a growth crisis. Even during the boom years of the past decade, only a small fraction of companies enjoyed consistent double-digit revenue growth. And those that did often achieved it through short-term measures--such as mergers and inflated price increases--that don't provide the foundation for growth over the long term. But there is a way out of this predicament. The authors claim that companies can achieve sustained growth by leveraging their "hidden assets," a wide array of underused, intangible capabilities and advantages that most established companies already hold. To date, much of the research on intangible assets has centered on intellectual property and brand recognition. But in this article, the authors uncover a host of other assets that can help spark growth. They identify four major categories of hidden assets: customer relationships, strategic real estate, networks, and information. And they illustrate each with an example of a company that has creatively used its hidden assets to produce new sources of revenue. Executives have spent years learning to create growth using products, facilities, and working capital. But they should really focus on mobilizing their hidden assets to serve their customers' higher-order needs--in other words, create offerings that make customers' lives easier, better, or less expensive. Making that shift in mind-set isn't easy, admit the authors, but companies that do it may not only create meaningful new value for their customers but also produce double-digit revenue and earnings growth for investors.     

Gurus in the garage

Before the days of the Internet, it was primarily venture capitalists who coached young entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Today, because of the phenomenal number of new companies, venture capitalists are just too busy. The largest firms still take on a few carefully selected, highly promising zero-stage start-ups, but they simply can't spend the time on ones that aren't going to grow huge quickly. To fill the void, a new breed of adviser has stepped in to coach entrepreneurs. Called mentor capitalists, they help entrepreneurs with everything from recruiting top talent to attracting their first million in seed money. The mentor capitalists in Silicon Valley are cashed-out, highly successful business architects who no longer want to start businesses but who love the thrill of the entrepreneurial game. They spend hours and hours with first-time entrepreneurs, guiding them as they create and refine a business model, test their ideas in the marketplace, build business processes, raise money, and find talent. The authors of this article found through dozens of extensive interviews with entrepreneurs and their coaches that mentor capitalists play many roles: sculptor, psychologist, diplomat, kingmaker, talent magnet, process engineer, and rainmaker. In exchange for small equity stakes, the mentor capitalists wear these different hats, doling out expertise just in time, as situations arise, and in doses appropriate to the situation. Mentor capitalists seed Silicon Valley with expertise and knowledge, augmenting or even substituting for classes in entrepreneurship at local universities. But, as the authors note, the role of the mentor capitalist is essential to any start-up, anywhere.     

Strategy as ecology

Microsoft's and Wal-Mart's preeminence in modern business has been attributed to any number of factors--from the vision and drive of their founders to the companies' aggressive competitive practices. But the authors maintain that the success realized by these two very different companies is due only partly to the organizations themselves; a bigger factor is the success of the networks of companies with which Microsoft and Wal-Mart do business. Most companies today inhabit ecosystems--loose networks of suppliers, distributors, and outsourcers; makers of related products or services; providers of relevant technology; and other organizations that affect, and are affected by, the creation and delivery of a company's own offering. Despite being increasingly central to modern business, ecosystems are still poorly understood and even more poorly managed. The analogy between business networks and biological ecosystems can aid this understanding by vividly highlighting certain pivotal concepts. The moves that a company makes will, to varying degrees, affect the health of its business network, which in turn will ultimately affect the organization's performance--for ill as well as for good. Because a company, like an individual species in a biological ecosystem, ultimately shares its fate with the network as a whole, smart firms pursue strategies that will benefit everyone. So how can you promote the health and the stability of your own ecosystem, determine your place in it, and develop a strategy to match your role, thereby helping to ensure your company's well-being? It depends on your role--current and potential--within the network. Is your company a niche player, a keystone, or a dominator? The answer to this question may be different for different parts of your business. It may also change as your ecosystem changes. Knowing what to do requires understanding the ecosystem and your organization's role in it.     

关于集合资金信托成为信托业主流业务的探讨

按照现行规定,信托业目前可以开办信托业务、投资基金业务、投资银行业务、中间业务和其他业务,但最有条件成为信托业未来主流业务的当属集合资金信托业务.要完成这一使命,首先必须客观分析集合资金信托业务在与基金管理公司、商业银行开办的雷同业务竞争中所具有的优势与劣势,然后及时解决业务开展过程中所存在的各种不利于其快速健康发展的政策难题、技术难题.     

Cracking the code of change

Today's fast-paced economy demands that businesses change or die. But few companies manage corporate transformations as well as they would like. The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail. In this article, authors Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria describe two archetypes--or theories--of corporate transformation that may help executives crack the code of change. Theory E is change based on economic value: shareholder value is the only legitimate measure of success, and change often involves heavy use of economic incentives, layoffs, downsizing, and restructuring. Theory O is change based on organizational capability: the goal is to build and strengthen corporate culture. Most companies focus purely on one theory or the other, or haphazardly use a mix of both, the authors say. Combining E and O is directionally correct, they contend, but it requires a careful, conscious integration plan. Beer and Nohria present the examples of two companies, Scott Paper and Champion International, that used a purely E or purely O strategy to create change--and met with limited levels of success. They contrast those corporate transformations with that of UK-based retailer ASDA, which has successfully embraced the paradox between the opposing theories of change and integrated E and O. The lesson from ASDA? To thrive and adapt in the new economy, companies must make sure the E and O theories of business change are in sync at their own organizations.     

Wellness strategies for smaller businesses

While innovative smaller companies are implementing employee wellness programs, many smaller firms may point to a lack of resources, such as staffing and financial resources, to establish and sustain a wellness program. The uncertain economy and rising health care costs have caused many smaller businesses to focus on core business strategies to keep the doors open and the business going. However, innovative companies realize that building a culture of health is a long-term business strategy directly related to improving the bottom line. This article highlights one company's approach to wellness and the results of the company's programs. It also outlines the components of a successful wellness program and suggests practical implementation steps for smaller businesses.     

论非寿险投资型产品的性质、风险与监管

保险公司的主营业务特性不同,其盈利模式和所面对的风险状况也就存在着较大的差异性,进而也决定着保险监管和风险管理措施的差异性。本文首先从保险公司经营业务的重新认识开始,明确了非寿险投资型产品的业务性质,进而通过比较传统产险业务和非寿险投资型产品的盈利模式和风险,指出非寿险投资型产品的双重业务性质所决定的双重风险,并针对性地提出了非寿险投资型产品的监管建议。     

后危机时代：建立企业和社会之间的新契约

金融危机是当前世界面临的重要挑战,在危机中,我们发现,注重可持续性的企业往往更容易走出低谷,渡过难关。事实上,在人类发展的整个历史当中,经济都是有起起伏伏变化的,未来还会有金融危机的事情发生。那么,在后危机时代,企业的中心任务是什么？应该如何做好应对下一次危机的准备呢？为此,《国际融资》杂志记者采访了美国商务社会责任国际协会（BSR）总裁兼首席执行官阿伦·克拉默（AronCramer）先生。     

Where value lives in a networked world

While many management thinkers proclaim an era of radical uncertainty, authors Sawhney and Parikh assert that the seemingly endless upheavals of the digital age are more predictable than that: today's changes have a common root, and that root lies in the nature of intelligence in networks. Understanding the patterns of intelligence migration can help companies decipher and plan for the inevitable disruptions in today's business environment. Two patterns in network intelligence are reshaping industries and organizations. First, intelligence is decoupling--that is, modern high-speed networks are pushing back-end intelligence and front-end intelligence toward opposite ends of the network, making the ends the two major sources of potential profits. Second, intelligence is becoming more fluid and modular. Small units of intelligence now float freely like molecules in the ether, coalescing into temporary bundles whenever and wherever necessary to solve problems. The authors present four strategies that companies can use to profit from these patterns: arbitrage allows companies to move intelligence to new regions or countries where the cost of maintaining intelligence is lower; aggregation combines formerly isolated pieces of infrastructure intelligence into a large pool of shared infrastructure provided over a network; rewiring allows companies to connect islands of intelligence by creating common information backbones; and reassembly allows businesses to reorganize pieces of intelligence into coherent, personalized packages for customers. By being aware of patterns in network intelligence and by acting rather than reacting, companies can turn chaos into opportunity, say the authors.     

Strategy and the new economics of information

We are in the midst of a fundamental shift in the economics of information--a shift that will precipitate changes in the structure of entire industries and in the ways companies compete. This shift is made possible by the widespread adoption of Internet technologies, but it is less about technology than about the fact that a new behavior is reaching critical mass. Millions of people are communicating at home and at work in an explosion of connectivity that threatens to undermine the established value chains for businesses in many sectors of the economy. What will happen, for instance, to dominant retailers such as Toys "R" Us and Home Depot when a search through the Internet gives consumers more choice than any store? What will be the point of cultivating a long-standing supplier relationship with General Electric when it posts its purchasing requirements on an Internet bulletin board and entertains bids from anybody inclined to respond? The authors present a conceptual framework for approaching such questions--for understanding the relationship of information to the physical components of the value chain and how the Internet's ability to separate the two will lead to the reconfiguration of the value proposition in many industries. In any business where the physical value chain has been compromised for the sake of delivering information, there will be an opportunity to create a separate information business and a need to streamline the physical one. Executives must mentally deconstruct their businesses to see the real value of what they have. If they don't, the authors warn, someone else will.     

Promoting business ethics through annual reports

Growth in socially responsible investing among consumers should encourage them to seek information on business ethics activities during investment decisions. A content analysis of corporate annual reports shows differences in promotion of business ethics activities between 2010 and 2012, across products and on United States (US) Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) inclusion. Greater discussion in 2012 than 2010 was found for compliance in general and ethical treatment of employees and risk-reduction activities among DJSI-listed consumer goods providers, potentially reflecting increased interest in these activities. Results also showed that DJSI-listed companies are missing an opportunity to promote their ethical activities and the DJSI’s third-party verification of their ethical commitment to interested investors. Besides not optimizing their appeal to investors wishing to support ethical businesses, public companies inadequately use annual reports to demonstrate their commitment to ethics to other potential stakeholders such as activists, regulators, competitors, suppliers or the media.     

Do Trading and Power Operations Mix?

The author uses the case of Constellation Energy to show the challenges, and pitfalls, of running an energy and power trading unit as a profit center within a large power company. Sophisticated trading and risk management operations do play important supporting roles in power companies that face competitive wholesale markets. The complicated dynamics of power prices and the complex operations of generation assets and supply obligations require careful assessment of risks and returns. Trading operations can help extract more value from physical assets and supply obligations. But problems are bound to arise when companies attempt to manage the trading function as a stand‐alone profit center. Determining the amount of capital required for proprietary trading portfolios and other elements of trading businesses is complicated. It is easy to underestimate the capital required and so exaggerate the profitability of trading. When profit center trading operations share a balance sheet with other business units—especially units with physical assets like generation—the natural tendency is for the trading operation to piggyback on the capital of the other units. The actual amount of capital consumed becomes apparent only in times of crisis. We have seen this mistake made repeatedly in the short history of trading operations in U.S. power companies. Only truly independent trading operations, with their own balance sheets, can be evaluated clearly and held accountable.