Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio

Minor innovations make up most of a company's development portfolio, on average, but they never generate the growth companies seek. The solution, says Day--the Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor of Marketing and a codirector of the Mack Center for Technological Innovation at Wharton--is for companies to undertake a systematic, disciplined review of their innovation portfolios and increase the number of major innovations at an acceptable level of risk. Two tools can help them do this. The first, called the risk matrix, graphically reveals the distribution of risk across a company's entire innovation portfolio. The matrix allows companies to estimate each project's probability of success or failure, based on how big a stretch it is for the firm to undertake. The less familiar the product or technology and the intended market, the higher the risk. The second tool, dubbed the R-W-W (real-win-worth it) screen, allows companies to evaluate the risks and potential of individual projects by answering six fundamental questions about each one: Is the market real? Explores customers' needs, their willingness to buy, and the size of the potential market. Is the product real? Looks at the feasibility of producing the innovation. Can the product be competitive? and Can our company be competitive? Investigate how well suited the company's resources and management are to compete in the marketplace with the product. Will the product be profitable at an acceptable risk? Explores the financial analysis needed to assess an innovation's commercial viability. Last, Does launching the product make strategic sense? examines the project's fit with company strategy and whether management supports it.     

Is performance measurement and management fit for the future?

Performance measurement and management (PMM) is a management and research paradox. On one hand, it provides management with many critical, useful, and needed functions. Yet, there is evidence that it can adversely affect performance. This paper attempts to resolve this paradox by focusing on the issue of “fit”. That is, in today's dynamic and turbulent environment, changes in either the business environment or the business strategy can lead to the need for new or revised measures and metrics. Yet, if these measures and metrics are either not revised or incorrectly revised, then we can encounter situations where what the firm wants to achieve (as communicated by its strategy) and what the firm measures and rewards are not synchronised with each other (i.e., there is a lack of “fit”). This situation can adversely affect the ability of the firm to compete. The issue of fit is explored using a three phase Delphi approach. Initially intended to resolve this first paradox, the Delphi study identified another paradox – one in which the researchers found that in a dynamic environment, firms do revise their strategies, yet, often the PMM system is not changed. To resolve this second paradox, the paper proposes a new framework – one that shows that under certain conditions, the observed metrics “lag” is not only explainable but also desirable. The findings suggest a need to recast the accepted relationship between strategy and PMM system and the output included the Performance Alignment Matrix that had utility for managers.     

REAL OPTIONS AND CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT

By formulating an integrated strategy that combines the creation and exercise of real options together with other risk management techniques, management can reduce risk and thereby increase firm value. For example, a company that is in a position to delay investing without losing its competitive edge, to abandon a project that becomes unprofitable, or to adjust its operating strategy at low cost can avoid risks and exploit profitable opportunities. But, even when real options are used in this way to limit the risk profile of the firm, financial derivatives can help to hedge any residual risk that would otherwise affect the value of the real options and the overall firm.
An integrated risk management approach requires a careful process of diagnosing a company's risk exposure. First, management must decompose the company's risk exposure to understand the fundamental sources of risk. Second, the company's capacity to bear risk must be determined, which requires an understanding of why individual risks (if left unmanaged) would reduce the value of the firm. Third, different approaches for addressing risk should be explored, ranging from diversification to use of financial derivatives and other contracts to investing in (or exercising) a wide array of real options. Fourth, the firm must properly integrate the different risk management solutions to optimize its strategy.     

成长性、代理冲突与公司财务政策

本文基于成长性、代理冲突与公司财务政策之系统关联的多维视角分析,着眼于将成长性差异作为一个关键变量时,考察其是否可以成为影响公司代理冲突及其治理与公司财务政策选择的一个重要基础。本文理论分析表明:作为一种制度环境———尤其是作为新兴/转轨经济国家行业与公司的典型特征,成长性差异显著影响公司财务政策;公司治理与公司业绩的关系受制于成长性的高低,成长性通过投资决策、融资选择与股利政策等关键财务政策的中介作用影响公司治理与其价值的相关性;在财务政策中投资决策更具有基础性,融资政策与股利政策都基于提高投资效率而进行选择,将成长性差异影响与公司投资决策相结合、或在公司的投资等关键财务政策的研究和实践之中深入考量成长机会影响,将使得代理冲突及其公司治理更具有针对性和有效性;高成长性可以成为公司治理环境改善的一种有效基础,深入关注(高)成长性的显著"公司治理效应",可以为公司代理冲突及其治理、以及其投融资选择等关键财务政策提供更为清晰的决策信号。     

A SENIOR MANAGER'S GUIDE TO INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT

This paper provides an overview of corporate risk management for senior managers. The author discusses the integrated risk management framework, emphasizing that a company can implement its risk management objectives in three fundamental ways: modifying its operations, using targeted financial instruments, or adjusting its capital structure. "Integration" refers both to the aggregation of all risks faced by the firm into a net exposure and to the coordinated use of these three risk management techniques. The author provides a functional analysis of integrated risk management using a wide-ranging set of case illustrations to show how the risk management process influences, and is influenced by, a company's overall strategy and business activities. Based on such analysis, the article concludes by sketching a framework intended to help managers design a value-maximizing, enterprise-wide corporate risk management system.     

董事会断裂带与企业薪酬差距

高管与普通员工之间的薪酬差距不仅影响着企业的激励效率与企业价值,还关系到社会的公平与稳定。断裂带是Lau and Murnighan(1998)提出的假想的分割线概念,即可以将团队划分为多个小团体。以2005—2019年中国A股上市公司为样本,本文从董事会断裂带这一视角探索董事会中小团体的差异性对于薪酬差距的影响和后果。本文研究发现:(1)董事会断裂带的存在加剧了企业高管与普通员工之间的薪酬差距;(2)分解董事会断裂带的类型后,由深层特征形成的断裂带对于薪酬差距的影响高于由表层特征形成的断裂带;(3)区分行业竞争的程度后,公司所在行业的激烈竞争有助于缓解董事会断裂带造成的薪酬差距扩大;(4)从经济后果来看,董事会断裂带造成的薪酬差距对企业绩效具有显著的负向影响。本文的研究有助于深入理解企业薪酬差距形成的机制及其后果,同时对于完善我国董事会的监督机制也有一定的现实启发。     

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.     

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.     

Putting leadership back into strategy

In recent decades an infusion of economics has lent the study of strategy much needed theory and empirical evidence. Strategy consultants, armed with frameworks and techniques, have stepped forward to help managers analyze their industries and position their companies for strategic advantage. Strategy has come to be seen as an analytical problem to be solved. But, says Montgomery, the Timken Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, the benefits of this rigorous approach have attendant costs: Strategy has become a competitive game plan, separate from the company's larger sense of purpose. The CEO's unique role as arbiter and steward of strategy has been eclipsed. And an overemphasis on sustainable competitive advantage has obscured the importance of making strategy a dynamic tool for guiding the company's development over time. For any company, intelligent guidance requires a clear sense of purpose, of what makes the organization truly distinctive. Purpose, Montgomery says, serves as both a constraint on activity and a guide to behavior. Creativity and insight are key to forging a compelling organizational purpose; analysis alone will never suffice. As the CEO--properly a company's chief strategist--translates purpose into practice, he or she must remain open to the possibility that the purpose itself may need to change. Lou Gerstner did this in the 1990s, when he decided that IBM would evolve to focus on applying technology rather than on inventing it. So did Steve Jobs, when he rescued Apple from a poorly performing strategy and expanded the company into attractive new businesses. Watching over strategy day in and day out is the CEO's greatest opportunity to shape the firm as well as outwit the competition.     

Corporate Focus and Stock Performance International Evidence from Listed Property Markets

Does corporate focus translate into superior stock performance? We use 17 years of international data on 275 property companies from the U.S., British, French, Dutch and Swedish listed property share markets to answer this question. After analyzing corporate structures, we document significant differences in corporate focus strategies both between nations and firms and over time. By linking these focus profiles to risk-adjusted performance measures, we show that companies with high levels of geographical focus perform significantly better than the overall market. With regard to industrial focus, our results are mixed but again imply a positive relationship between corporate focus and stock outperformance. At the same time, our results show that the firm-specific risk of a company increases with higher levels of corporate focus. Hence, our results imply that within the real estate sector a focused strategy mildly increases both a firm’s return and risk.     

Strategic renewal for business units

Over the past decade, business units have increasingly taken the role of strategy formulation away from corporate headquarters. The change makes sense: business units are closer to customers, competitors, and costs. Nevertheless, business units can fail, just as headquarters once did, by losing their focus on the organization's priorities and capabilities. John Whitney--turnaround expert and professor of management at Columbia University--offers a method for refocusing companies that he calls the strategic-renewal process. The principles behind the process are straightforward, but its execution demands extensive data, rigorous analysis, and the judgment of key decision makers. However, when applied with diligence, it can produce a strategy that yields both growth and profit. To carry out the process, managers must analyze, one by one or in logical groupings, the company's customers, the products it sells, and the services it offers in light of three criteria: strategic importance, significance, and profitability. Does a given customer, product, or service mesh with the organization's goals? Is it significant in terms of current and future revenues? And is it truly profitable when all costs are care fully considered? Customers, products, and services that do not measure up, says the author, must be weeded out relentlessly. Although the process is a painstaking one, the article offers clear thinking on why-and how-to go about it. A series of exhibits takes managers through the questions they need to raise, and two matrices offer Whitney's concentrated wisdom on when to cultivate--and when to prune.     

Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets

Measuring the value of intangible assets such as company culture, knowledge management systems, and employees' skills is the holy grail of accounting. Executives know that these intangibles, being hard to imitate, are powerful sources of sustainable competitive advantage. If managers could measure them, they could manage the company's competitive position more easily and accurately. In one sense, the challenge is impossible. Intangible assets are unlike financial and physical resources in that their value depends on how well they serve the organizations that own them. But while this prevents an independent valuation of intangible assets, it also points to an altogether different approach for assessing their worth. In this article, the creators of the Balanced Scorecard draw on its tools and framework--in particular, a tool called the strategy map--to present a step-by-step way to determine "strategic readiness," which refers to the alignment of an organization's human, information, and organization capital with its strategy. In the method the authors describe, the firm identifies the processes most critical to creating and delivering its value proposition and determines the human, information, and organization capital the processes require. Some managers shy away from measuring intangible assets because they seem so subjective. But by using the systematic approaches set out in this article, companies can now measure what they want, rather than wanting only what they can currently measure.     

The performance measurement manifesto

The leading indicators of business performance cannot be found in financial data alone. Quality, customer satisfaction, innovation, market share--metrics like these often reflect a company's economic condition and growth prospects better than its reported earnings do. Depending on an accounting department to reveal a company's future will leave it hopelessly mired in the past. More and more managers are changing their company's performance measurement systems to track nonfinancial measures and reinforce new competitive strategies. Five activities are essential: developing an information architecture; putting the technology in place to support this architecture; aligning bonuses and other incentives with the new system; drawing on outside resources; and designing an internal process to ensure the other four activities occur. New technologies and more sophisticated databases have made the change to nonfinancial performance measurement systems possible and economically feasible. Industry and trade associations, consulting firms, and public accounting firms that already have well-developed methods for assessing market share and other performance metrics can add to the revolution's momentum--as well as profit from the business opportunities it presents. Every company will have its own key measures and distinctive process for implementing the change. But making it happen will always require careful preparation, perseverance, and the conviction of the CEO that it must be carried through. When one leading company can demonstrate the long-term advantage of its superior performance on quality or innovation or any other nonfinancial measure, it will change the rules for all its rivals forever.     

What it means to work here

What distinguishes a company that has deeply engaged and committed employees from another one that doesn't? It's not a certain compensation scheme or talent-management practice. Instead, it's the ability to express to current and potential employees what makes the organization unique. Companies with highly engaged employees articulate their values and attributes through "signature experiences"--visible, distinctive elements of the work environment that send powerful messages about the organization's aspirations and about the skills, stamina, and commitment employees will need in order to succeed there. Whole Foods Market, for example, uses a team-based hiring and orientation process to convey to new employees the company's emphasis on collaboration and decentralization. At JetBlue, the reservation system is run by agents from their homes, a signature experience that boosts employees' satisfaction and productivity. Companies that successfully create and communicate signature experiences understand that not all workers want the same things. Indeed, employee preferences are an important but often overlooked factor in the war for talent. Firms that have engendered productive and engaged workforces address those preferences by following some general principles: They target potential employees as methodically as they target potential customers; they shape their signature experiences to address business needs; they identify and preserve their histories; they share stories--not just slogans--about life in the firm; they create processes consistent with their signature experiences; and they understand that they shouldn't try to be all things to all people. The best strategy for coming out ahead in the war for talent is not to scoop up everyone in sight but to attract the right people--those who are intrigued and excited by the environment the company offers and who will reward it with their loyalty.     

上市公司融资方式与公司绩效研究述评

无论西方早期的企业融资结构理论,还是现代上市公司融资方式理论,都证明上市公司融资方式的选择直接影响公司的融资结构,融资结构对公司的成本水平、市场价值表现,以及公司内部的法人治理结构有着至关重要的影响。因此,总结各家流派的理论观点,对我国上市公司通过融资结构的合理设计,从而优化公司治理结构,提高公司绩效具有重要现实意义。     

基于新闻文本共现性的银企关系分析——以房地产上市公司为例

本文首次提出基于新闻文本共现性衡量银企关系强度的指标。相比多数传统方法,该指标能够更为全面地反映银行和企业间的业务和非业务联系,并在数据可获得性上也具备优势。据此,本文对2009年至2014年间我国238家房地产上市公司与19家主要内资银行之间的银企关系强度进行了定量度量,并利用该指标对银企关系影响企业信贷融资能力的规律进行了实证分析。结果显示,良好的银企关系确实能显著提高企业的信贷可得性,但整体上对企业信贷融资成本的影响有限。同时,上述影响规律存在显著的企业间差异,对于规模小或盈利能力弱的企业,银企关系尤其能够帮助其提高信贷可得性或降低信贷融资成本。     

REINVENTING A CORPORATION: THE "SATELLITE" STRUCTURE OF THERMO ELECTRON

Thermo Electron has created a unique–and highly productive—corporate structure by selling to the public minority equity interests in 19 of its business units over the period 1983 to 1996. Since 1983, the company has achieved extraordinary gains for stockholders, both those of the parent company and those of most of its publicly traded subsidiaries.
The company's "satellite" structure is intended to preserve the benefits enjoyed by small entrepreneurial organizations without sacrificing many of the advantages enjoyed by larger firms. Although decentralization is a key element of the organizational design, another important feature of the Thermo Electron approach is that administrative activities unrelated to the focus of the unit's operations continue to be managed at the parent level. The combination of an entrepreneurial atmosphere with the financial and administrative support of a larger organization is used extensively by the company to attract and retain management and technical talent. In fact, the company made the remarkable claim in a 1995 Forbes article that "no developer or entrepreneur has ever left Thermo Electron."
Another major contributor to the company's entrepreneurial culture is an incentive structure that is tied directly to the equity performance of both the public units and the parent. Managers of the publicly traded units are granted significant amounts of stock options, but only 40% of those options are based on the performance of their subsidiary. Of the remaining 60%, 40% are granted in the stock of the parent and the other 20% are in stock of the other subsidiaries.     

Back where we belong

If you were the CEO of Pitney Bowes, the postage meter maker, how would you envision the future of the business? The company has an undeniable core competence in the solutions it provides to high-volume postal service users. But with snail mail on the decline, some would say that core has about as much future as the buggy whip. In this article, Pitney Bowes chairman and CEO Michael Critelli gives us a glimpse of how he leads his company's strategy development--and how that development has supported a counterintuitive return to the company's core after decades of diversification. He and others in the company begin the process by tapping into deeply knowledgeable people and organizations to understand key trends in the business and the rate at which change is occurring. Then, it's a question of the firm reshaping the environment in which it does business, whether through R&D investments or work with regulators and policy makers who influence market forces; this is especially important in emerging markets. Focusing on a core business area enables a company to find adjacent high-margin opportunities and to offer comprehensive solutions to customers. What stands out most sharply in this account, however, is the importance of having a strategist's mind-set. Whether Critelli is reading the day's news, visiting a key account, or spending an hour with his own people working in the context of a customer mail room, he is constantly extrapolating possible long-term competitive implications from the immediate facts. Often inspired by strategic thinkers, Critelli believes that the greatest thing he can do for his organization is to shift the terms of the debate. "Rarely am I credited with sterling words or bold, symbolic actions", he writes. "Instead, I help people to see the business we are in differently and to reach a shared vision as to where we want to end up. And, little by little, things move in the right direction".     

Organizational Levels and Perceived Importance of Attributes for Superior Audit Performance

This article examines the attributes considered to be important for superior performance as an auditor and the changing importance of these attributes at different levels of the firm. It also investigates whether auditors are aware of the relative importance of these attributes. Auditors from three Big Six firms provided responses on the relative importance of various attributes for superior performance. The results showed variations in the relative importance of these attributes across different organizational levels. In addition, the results suggest that auditors generally have low to moderate levels of awareness of the relative importance of these attributes.     

Explaining returns on venture capital backed companies: Evidence from Belgium

Using a unique database of 990 VC-backed Belgian firms, we study whether compatibility between corporate and environmental characteristics matters. We address two questions: (i) Does the interplay of company, industry, and product factors affect the expected returns of the VC-backed firms? (ii) Does the joint compatibility between these factors results in a non-linear increase in performance? Panel data analysis shows a significant influence of factor compatibility on returns. Quantile regression analysis indicates a non-linear relationship between the return and its determinants. Conjoint analysis identifies certain combinations of factors, which collapse into classifiable patterns described in the strategic management literature.