Suspending Group Debate and Developing Concepts

The ability of new product development (NPD) teams to generate ideas and develop high‐quality concepts for new products is a crucial determinant of NPD success. Although prior research in this area has developed various interventions to enhance the ability of teams to generate ideas, such interventions have limited impact on innovation management theory and practice. Partly, this is because of practical reasons: The interventions are often costly and impractical. However, there are also more fundamental, theoretical issues regarding these interventions: Knowledge of which interventions are effective in what situations is lacking. Even more importantly, there is no theory (or empirical evidence) about the effects of these interventions on the success of developing initial ideas into concepts. Together, this has caused the usefulness of these interventions for NPD teams to be uncertain at best. To remedy this situation, this study focuses on a costless and easy‐to‐implement intervention: suspending group debate. Suspending group debate refers to a team idea generation and concept development process in which groups debate a problem, ideas for solutions are generated individually, and these ideas are debated and developed into concepts collectively. The authors developed a new theory about the impact of suspending group debate on idea generation and on further concept development. Specifically, they argue that suspending group debate causes groups to generate a higher number of ideas, a higher number of original ideas, and a more diverse set of ideas, but that only the number of original ideas and the diversity of the set of ideas will translate into higher concept quality. The authors also developed new theory about when suspending group debate is especially effective. Specifically, they argue that suspending group debate is especially effective when at least one group member is low on extraversion. This theory is tested using an experimental design in which groups generated ideas and developed concepts for a specific organizational problem. Some groups suspend group debate, while others do not. Results show that suspending group debate indeed causes groups to generate a higher number of ideas, a higher number of original ideas, and a more diverse set of ideas. Importantly, results demonstrate that the effects of suspending group debate are more pronounced for groups with one or more group members that are low on extraversion. Furthermore, suspending group debate also affects concept quality, mediated by the number of original ideas and the diversity of ideas that groups generate (and thus not by the sheer number of ideas generated). Specifically, results show that both the diversity of the idea set as well as the number of original ideas positively influence the innovativeness of the final concept, while only the diversity of the idea set influences the comprehensiveness of the final concept.     

Curbing Agricultural Exceptionalism: The EU's Response to External Challenge

From 1948 to 1994, the agricultural sector was afforded special treatment in the GATT. We analyse the extent to which this agricultural exceptionalism was curbed as a result of the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, discuss why it was curbed and finally explore the implication of this for EU policy making. We argue that, in particular, two major changes in GATT institutions brought about restrictions on agricultural exceptionalism. First, the Uruguay Round was a ‘single undertaking’ in which progress on other dossiers was contingent upon an outcome on agriculture. The EU had keenly supported this new decision rule in the GATT. Within the EU this led to the MacSharry reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1992, paving the way for a trade agreement on agriculture within the GATT. Second, under the new quasi‐judicial dispute settlement procedure, countries are expected to bring their policies into conformity with WTO rules or face retaliatory trade sanctions. This has brought about a greater willingness on the part of the EU to submit its farm policy to WTO disciplines.     

Spin‐offs: Tackling the Conglomerate Discount

Spin‐offs and other restructuring actions have risen sharply in 2011, driven by the need to streamline business models and increase corporate values. These transactions can be an effective tool for addressing the conglomerate valuation discount that has been a pervasive phenomenon over the past decade, affecting conglomerates in most regions across the world. In particular, North American and Western European conglomerates trade at valuation multiples that are roughly 10% lower than those of their pure‐play peers. A conglomerate discount also prevails in some of the emerging markets, including CEEMEA and Asia. Nevertheless, in some regions, notably Japan and Latin America, conglomerates typically trade at a premium. Although the average conglomerate discount narrowed during the financial crisis due to the perceived benefits of diversification during downturns, almost half of the conglomerates globally trade at a discount, and almost a third of all conglomerates have persistently traded at a discount during the past five years. For such companies, fixing the discount requires a simplification of the business model. The authors show that recent announcements of spin‐offs have led to significant share price outperformance by the parent company in both the short and the longterm, highlighting their effectiveness as a tool to enhance valuation. Spin‐offs can be particularly attractive for those conglomerates that operate unrelated business segments since these firms trade at a sharper discount than diversified firms operating in related businesses. The authors discuss how management should think about the financial implications of spin‐offs, including capital structure considerations, dividend policy, and turnover in the shareholder base.     

Reform des IWF

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Der Ausbau der Hochschulen muss zügig kommen

Die Bedeutung des Humankapitals für das künftige Wirtschaftswachstum ist allgemein anerkannt. Gleichzeitig sto?en steigende Studienanf?ngerzahlen auf knappe Bildungsbudgets in den Bundesl?ndern. Wie wird sich die Zahl der Studienanf?nger bis 2020 entwickeln? Wird es eine entsprechende Nachfrage nach Hochschulabsolventen geben? Welcher Kapazit?tsaufbau ist an den Hochschulen erforderlich und was wird er kosten?