Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing

In the 1980s, competitive success came mostly from achieving cost and quality advantages over rivals in existing markets. In the 1990s, it will come from building and dominating fundamentally new markets. Core competencies are one prerequisite for creating new markets. Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing are the keys that unlock them. McKinsey Award winners Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad argue that corporate imagination quickens when companies escape the tyranny of their served markets. (Motorola, for example, sees itself as a leader in wireless communications, not just as a maker of beepers and mobile phones). Think about needs and functionalities instead of marketing's more conventional customer-product grid. Overturn traditional price/performance assumptions. (Fidelity Investments unlocked a vast new market by packaging sophisticated investment vehicles for middle-income investors.) And lead customers rather than simply follow them. Creating new markets is a risky business, however--a lot like shooting arrows into the mist. Imaginative companies minimize the risk not by being fast followers but through the process the authors call expeditionary marketing: low-cost, fast-paced market incursions designed to bring the target quickly into view. Toshiba introduced laptop computers to the market at such a blistering pace that it could explore every conceivable niche--and afford an occasional failure without compromising its credibility with customers. To stimulate corporate imagination, top management needs to redefine failure and develop new time- and risk-adjusted yardsticks for managerial performance. Managers must be encouraged to stretch their company's opportunity horizon well beyond the boundaries of its current businesses.     

Strategy as revolution

How often does the strategic-planning process start with senior executives asking what the rest of the organization can teach them about the future? Not often enough, argues Gary Hamel. In many companies, strategy making is an elitist procedure and ?strategy? consists of nothing more than following the industry's rules. But more and more companies, intent on overturning the industrial order, are rewriting those rules. What can industry incumbents do? Either surrender the future to revolutionary challengers or revolutionize the way their companies create strategy. What is needed is not a tweak to the traditional strategic-planning process, Hamel says, but a new philosophical foundation: strategy is revolution. Hamel offers ten principles to help a company think about the challenge of creating truly revolutionary strategies. Perhaps the most fundamental principle is that so-called strategic planning doesn't produce true strategic innovation. The traditional planning process is little more than a rote procedure in which deeply held assumptions and industry conventions are reinforced rather than challenged. Such a process harnesses only a tiny proportion of an organization's creative potential. If there is to be any hope of industry revolution, senior managers must give up their monopoly on the creation of strategy. They must embrace a truly democratic process that can give voice to the revolutionaries that exist in every company. If senior managers are unwilling to do this, employees must become strategy activists. The opportunities for industry revolution are mostly unexplored. One thing is certain: if you don't let the revolutionaries challenge you from within, they will eventually challenge you from without--in the marketplace.     

The why, what, and how of management innovation

For organizations like GE, P&G, and Visa, management innovation is the secret to success. But what is management innovation? Why is it so important? And how can other companies learn to become management innovators? This article from expert Gary Hamel answers those questions. A management breakthrough can deliver a strong advantage to the innovating company and produce a major shift in industry leadership. Few companies, however, have been able to come up with a formal process for fostering management innovation. The biggest challenge seems to be generating truly unique ideas. Four components can help: a big problem that demands fresh thinking, creative principles or paradigms that can reveal new approaches, an evaluation of the conventions that constrain novel thinking, and examples and analogies that help redefine what can be done. No doubt there are existing management processes in your organization that exacerbate the big problems you're hoping to solve. So how can you learn to identify them? Start by asking a series of questions for each one. For instance, Who owns the process? What are its objectives? What are the metrics for success? What are the decision-making criteria? How are decisions communicated, and to whom? After documenting these details, ask the people involved with the process to weigh in. This exploration may reveal opportunities to reinventyour management processes. A management innovation, the author says, creates long-lasting advantage when it meets at least one of three conditions: It is based on a novel principle that challenges the orthodoxy; it is systemic, involving a range of processes and methods; or it is part of a program of invention, where progress compounds over time. So far, management in this century isn't much different from management in the previous one, says Hamel. Therein lies the opportunity. You can wait for a competitor to come upon the next great management process and drive you out of business-or you can become a management innovator right now.     

Tax credit rating and corporate innovation decisions

The tax credit rating mechanism was formally implemented in 2014. As an important tax collection and management innovation, it has attracted the attention of regulatory authorities and scholars. Different from the literature that directly examines corporate tax compliance, we focus on the impact of tax credit rating implementation on corporate research and development (R&D) investment decisions. Using listed companies’ data from 2014 to 2019, we find that companies with higher tax credit ratings invest more in innovation, because the system helps managers identify R&D opportunities, alleviates corporate financing constraints and reduces agency costs. We confirm that tax credit ratings have manifold impacts on corporate information environments and business decisions, with better ratings positively affecting firms’ business decisions. This discovery can inform tax policy reform, encourage corporate innovation and construct social credit systems.     

外资银行进入能够促进企业创新吗？——基于跨国的经验证据

基于1995-2015年28个国家(地区)的8453家制造业上市公司数据,本文实证检验了外资银行进入对以研发投入度量的企业创新的影响。研究表明,外资银行进入能够显著提高东道国企业的研发投入。一系列稳健性检验结果表明上述结论依然成立。进一步研究发现,外资银行进入对企业创新的边际促进作用在金融发展水平较低、政府干预较多以及法治环境较差的国家(地区)中更加显著。本文从跨国视角考察了外资银行进入对东道国企业创新的影响,为理解外资银行进入与经济增长之间的关系提供来自企业创新活动层面的新经验证据,也为中国等发展中国家加快银行业对外开放提供可供借鉴的理论依据。     

Access to private equity and real firm activity: Evidence from PIPEs

We study how access to private equity financing affects real firm activities using a broad panel of publicly traded U.S. firms that raise external equity through private placements (PIPEs) between 1995 and 2008. The public firms relying on PIPEs are generally small, high-tech firms that cannot finance investment internally and likely face severe external financing constraints; PIPEs are by far the most important source of finance for these firms. We show that firms use PIPE inflows to maintain extremely high R&D investment ratios and to build substantial cash reserves. We also use GMM techniques that control for firm-specific effects and the endogeneity of the decision to raise private equity and find that PIPE funding has a substantial impact on corporate investment in cash reserves and R&D, and a smaller but significant impact on investment in non-cash working capital, but little impact on fixed investment or acquisitions. Our estimates indicate that R&D investment initially increases by $0.20–$0.25 for each dollar of private equity flowing into the firm, and that PIPE funds initially invested in cash ultimately go to R&D. These findings offer direct evidence that access to private equity finance has an important effect on the key input that drives innovation at the firm- and economy-wide levels.     

民营企业股权激励计划与研发投入关系分析

以2008~2011年民营上市公司为样本,使用3SLS回归分析以及DID模型,从外部环境以及内部环境两个方面分析了我国民营企业股权激励计划对于企业研发投入的影响。实证研究发现,民营企业实施股权激励能够促进企业的研发投入,而高科技行业的民营企业实施股权激励能够加强这种正向影响;对于股权激励具体方案的分析表明,激励计划的有效期与研发投入有弱相关关系,行权条件当中非财务指标的使用对于企业研发投入有正向影响,但是相对绩效指标的使用则对于研发投入有抑制作用。     

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.     

Corporate responsibility towards employees and innovation: Evidence from an emerging market

Against a background of rising labor costs and the need to build a harmonious labor–capital relationship in China, this paper focuses on non-pecuniary incentives for employees and discusses the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) towards employees on innovation performance. The empirical results show that CSR towards employees significantly promotes corporate innovation, and that this effect remains robust after accounting for alternative proxies and endogeneity issues. In addition, the positive effect of CSR towards employees on innovation is more significant for firms in high-tech industries, with high levels of R&D inputs and high valuation of employee collaboration. Further analysis indicates that CSR towards employees does not promote R&D investment, but does significantly improve innovation efficiency and the marginal output of R&D investment and reduces the turnover rate of management-level staff with production and R&D backgrounds, which is conducive to stability of the innovation team. In addition, this paper also finds that for companies with high R&D expenditures, CSR towards employees significantly eases the sensitivity between executive turnover and performance, which helps executives resist pressure arising from a decline in short-term performance. The findings of this paper have implications for improving labor–capital relations and enhancing firm innovation capabilities.     

Manage customer-centric innovation--systematically

No matter how hard companies try, their approaches to innovation often don't grow the top line in the sustained, profitable way investors expect. For many companies, there's a huge difference between what's in their business plans and the market's expectations for growth (as reflected in firms' share prices, market capitalizations, and P/E ratios). This growth gap springs from the fact that companies are pouring money into their insular R&D labs instead of working to understand what the customer wants and using that understanding to drive innovation. As a result, even companies that spend the most on R&D remain starved for both customer innovation and market-capitalization growth. In this article, the authors spell out a systematic approach to innovation that continuously fuels sustained, profitable growth. They call this approach customer-centric innovation, or CCI. At the heart of CCI is a rigorous customer R&D process that helps companies to continually improve their understanding of who their customers are and what they need. By so doing, they consistently create or improve their customer value proposition. Customer R&D also focuses on better ways of communicating value propositions and delivering the complete experience to real customers. Since so much of the learning about customers and so much of the experimentation with different segmentations, value propositions, and delivery mechanisms involve the people who regularly deal with customers, it is absolutely essential for frontline employees to be at the center of the CCI process. Simply put, customer R&D propels the innovation effort away from headquarters and the traditional R&D lab out to those closest to the customer. Using the example of the luggage manufacturer Tumi, the authors provide a step-by-step approach for achieving true customer-centric innovation.     

Can foreign suppliers act as “innovation springboards” for firms? Evidence from China

This study provides a new approach for measuring supplier characteristics by distinguishing the countries where they are located. Using data of Chinese listed companies, we explore how firms' R&D investment and innovation efficiency (patents and citations) are affected by having foreign suppliers in their top five suppliers. Our findings suggest that foreign suppliers acting as transmitters of international technology increase firms' innovation efficiency based on organizational learning theory. Moreover, a series of uncertainties caused by foreign suppliers encourages firms to invest more in R&D based on strategic growth option theory. Mechanism tests show that foreign suppliers from countries with high innovation capacity and a similar Eastern culture have a greater impact on corporate innovation. Firms conduct more R&D activities to mitigate the uncertainties caused by foreign suppliers when they have insufficient overseas channels to acquire international knowledge and a high degree of dependence on foreign suppliers. These results are consistent with a series of robustness tests after accounting for endogeneity.     

Corporate Innovations and Mergers and Acquisitions

Using a large and unique patent‐merger data set over the period 1984 to 2006, we show that companies with large patent portfolios and low R&D expenses are acquirers, while companies with high R&D expenses and slow growth in patent output are targets. Further, technological overlap between firm pairs has a positive effect on transaction incidence, and this effect is reduced for firm pairs that overlap in product markets. We also show that acquirers with prior technological linkage to their target firms produce more patents afterwards. We conclude that synergies obtained from combining innovation capabilities are important drivers of acquisitions.     

Using VoIP to compete

Internet telephony, or VoIP, is rapidly replacing the conventional kind. This year, for the first time, U.S. companies bought more new Internet-phone connections than standard lines. The major driver behind this change is cost. But VoIP isn't just a new technology for making old-fashioned calls cheaper, says consultant Kevin Werbach. It is fundamentally changing how companies use voice communications. What makes VoIP so powerful is that it turns voice into digital data packets that can be stored, copied, combined with other data, and distributed to virtually any device that connects to the Internet. And it makes it simple to provide all the functionality of a corporate phone-call features, directories, security-to anyone anywhere there's broadband access. That fosters new kinds of businesses such as virtual call centers, where widely dispersed agents work at all hours from their homes. The most successful early adopters, says Werbach, will focus more on achieving business objectives than on saving money. They will also consider how to push VoIP capabilities out to the extended organization, making use of everyone as a resource. Deployment may be incremental, but companies should be thinking about where VoIP could take them. Executives should ask what they could do if, on demand, they could bring all their employees, customers, suppliers, and partners together in a virtual room, with shared access to every modern communications and computing channel. They should take a fresh look at their business processes to find points at which richer and more customizable communications could eliminate bottlenecks and enhance quality. The important dividing line won't be between those who deploy Vol P and those who don't, or even between early adopters and laggards. It will be between those who see Vol P as just a new way to do the same old things and those who use itto rethink their entire businesses.     

Capital Allocation: Evidence,Analytical Methods,and Assessment Guidance

Capital allocation is one of top management's primary responsibilities. Although always important, it is critical today because corporate operating returns on invested capital are at an all‐time high, while recent growth and investment have been modest, and corporate balance sheets in the U.S. have substantial cash. Yet few senior executives are sufficiently well‐versed in finance theory and methods to allocate capital as effectively as possible. Further, incentive programs that focus on meeting earnings per share often encourage behavior that is not in the best interests of long‐term shareholders. In this report, the authors begin with the premise that the goal of corporate capital allocation is to build long‐term value per share; and with that view in mind, they examine the main sources and uses of capital by the largest 1,500 U.S. companies during the last 30 years. More specifically, the authors identify the amounts of capital allocated to each of seven important alternatives, including major uses of capital such as M&Amp;A, capital expenditures, R&D, and distributions of capital to investors such as dividends and stock repurchases. And after reviewing the past allocations of capital to each of these alternatives, the authors summarize the academic research on the effects on corporate values of each of these uses of capital. The authors report that U.S. corporations fund most of their investments internally, and that M&Amp;A and capital expenditures have long been, and continue to be, the largest operating uses of capital, though both capital expenditures and growth in assets have fallen in recent years. At the same time, both corporate cash holdings and distributions to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks are at record levels. But even with such high payouts, R&D spending as a percentage of revenue by U.S. companies has remained high, and actually increased during the past decade. Finally, the authors provide a framework that can be used either internally or by outsiders to evaluate the capital allocation practices and effectiveness of a management team. This framework asks management to assess its past performance, provide realistic projections of future returns on invested capital, and evaluate their own incentive programs—all while renewing their commitment to the five principles of thoughtful capital allocation: (1) zero‐based capital allocation; (2) funding of strategies, not projects; (3) no capital rationing; (4) zero tolerance for bad growth; and (5) continuous monitoring of the value of all assets and business, and willingness to take action if and when such values are larger outside than inside the firm.     

Smart Growth—Creating Real Long-term Value

Most U.S. business leaders appear to believe that all businesses either “grow or die”—and many act as if they believed that all growth is good, and that public companies should grow in a linear, continuous manner as reflected in ever-increasing quarterly earnings. But if these tenets of “the U.S. Growth Model” inform the short-term business view that prevails in many C-suites and boardrooms, there has been surprisingly little analysis of the extent to which the pursuit of continuous growth translates into longer-run success. In this article, the author reports finding no theoretical or empirical support in the fields of economics, finance, strategy, organizational design (or biology) for the idea that continuous growth is either a realistic possibility or a useful corporate objective. In business organizations, the pursuit of continuous growth can drive bad corporate behavior and inhibit real growth and innovation. Based on extensive research, the author suggests a new model of “smart growth”—one in which companies grow successfully by building internal comprehensive systems designed to encourage growth through specific kinds of culture, leadership, and processes. Smart-growth companies use experimental learning processes designed to test growth ideas and build diversified “growth portfolios” while also attempting to limit the risks associated with the pursuit of growth.     

Breaking out of the innovation box

In most companies, investments in innovation follow a boom-bust cycle. For a time, the cash flows. Then, as the economy sours or companies rethink their priorities, the taps go dry. But when research budgets are slashed, the strong projects are often abandoned along with the weak ones. Promising initiatives are cut off just when they are about to bear fruit. Expensive labs are closed; partnership agreements costing millions in legal fees are thrown away. When disruptive changes in the competitive landscape come, companies are caught flat-footed. Sustainable innovation requires a new approach: Instead of being largely isolated projects, innovation initiatives need to gain access to the insights and capabilities of other companies. To be protected from the ax of short-term cost reductions and the faddishness born of easy money, the initiatives must become part of the ongoing commerce that takes place among companies. But how can businesses traffic in such sensitive information without giving their competitors an advantage? The answer, the author contends, lies in a practice that's been common since the Middle Ages: the use of independent intermediaries to facilitate the exchange of sensitive information among companies without revealing the principals' identities or motives and without otherwise compromising their interests. Executive search firms, for example, allow job seekers to remain anonymous during the early stages of a search, and they protect businesses from disclosing their hiring plans to rivals. A network of innovation intermediaries would be in a unique position to visualize new opportunities synthesized from insights and technologies provided by several companies--ideas that might never occur to businesses working on their own.     

管理决断权、财务柔性与企业技术创新

本文以2010-2018年沪深A股上市公司为研究对象,通过构建中介效应模型和有调节的中介效应模型,实证研究管理决断权对企业创新绩效的影响路径,以及CEO变更对管理决断权、财务柔性与企业创新绩效之间关系的调节效应。研究结果表明,提升管理层的管理决断权有助于促进创新绩效,而且财务柔性在管理决断权影响创新绩效过程中起不完全中介作用,存在"管理决断权水平高-→财务柔性水平高-→企业创新绩效高"的传导路径;CEO变更会正向调节财务柔性在管理决断权正向影响创新绩效中的中介效应,即存在有调节的中介效应。本文深化了管理决断权影响企业创新绩效的研究,对企业在CEO变更条件下建立和推动创新导向、增加研发投资以提升创新绩效具有重要的现实意义。     

Wie man durch Moral ins „Geschäft“ kommt: Ein ordonomischer Beitrag zum betrieblichen Risikomanagement

Through an analysis of Alfred Krupp’s 19th-century social welfare program, this paper develops an ordonomic contribution to corporate risk management. The paper argues that companies can employ ‘morality as a factor of production’ by a differentiated business strategy of moral commitments. In this way, companies can not only considerably reduce their exposure to the undesirable risks of losing core business relationships with important stakeholders. But at the same time, businesses may increase their readiness to take desirable innovation risks that are pivotal for long-term value creation. Ultimately, the paper develops an argument for how companies can better live up to the role of being an agent of societal value creation, often articulated by concepts such as “corporate social responsibility” or “corporate citizenship”.     

Strategic sourcing: from periphery to the core

As globalization changes the basis of competition, sourcing is moving from the periphery of corporate functions to the core. Always important in terms of costs, sourcing is becoming a strategic opportunity. But few companies are ready for this shift. Outsourcing has grown so sophisticated that even critical functions like engineering, R&D, manufacturing, and marketing can-and often should-be moved outside. And that, in turn, is changing the way companies think about their organizations, their value chains, and their competitive positions. Already, a handful of vanguard companies are transforming what used to be purely internal corporate functions into entirely new industries. Companies like UPS, Solectron, and Hewitt have created new business models by concentrating scale and skill within a single function. As these and other function-based companies grow, so does the potential value of outsourcing to all companies. Migrating from a vertically integrated company to a specialized provider of a single function is not a winning strategy for everyone. But all companies need to rigorously reassess each of their functions as possible outsourcing candidates. Presented in this article is a simple three-step process to identify which functions your company needs to own and protect, which can be best performed by what kinds of partners, and which could be turned into new business opportunities. The result of such an analysis will be a comprehensive capabilities-sourcing strategy. As a detailed examination of 7-Eleven's experience shows, the success of the strategy often hinges on the creativity with which partnerships are organized and managed. But only by first taking a broad, strategic view of capabilities sourcing can your company gain the greatest benefit from all of its sourcing choices.     

Government R&D spending,fiscal instruments and corporate technological innovation

Using panel data from 242 cities in China, we examine the impact of government research and development (R&D) spending on corporate technological innovation. We find that listed firms located in cities with higher government R&D expenditures are more innovative than firms in other cities. Further, the positive effect of government R&D spending depends on fiscal instruments and factor allocation. Through subsidies and tax incentives, government R&D spending enhances firm innovation by alleviating financing constraints, improving employee creativity and ensuring efficient operations. We demonstrate that subsidies are more effective than taxes in spurring corporate technological innovation. We also show that the impact of government R&D spending is stronger for state-owned and high-tech enterprises than for other enterprises. Overall, our findings suggest that government R&D spending can substantially improve corporate technological innovation through fiscal instruments.