What's it worth? A general manager's guide to valuation

Behind every major resource-allocation decision a company makes lies some calculation of what that move is worth. So it is not surprising that valuation is the financial analytical skill general managers want to learn more than any other. Managers whose formal training is more than a few years old, however, are likely to have learned approaches that are becoming obsolete. What do generalists need in an updated valuation tool kit? In the 1970s, discounted-cash-flow analysis (DCF) emerged as best practice for valuing corporate assets. And one version of DCF-using the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC)-became the standard. Over the years, WACC has been used by most companies as a one-size-fits-all valuation tool. Today the WACC standard is insufficient. Improvements in computers and new theoretical insights have given rise to tools that outperform WACC in the three basic types of valuation problems managers face. Timothy Luehrman presents an overview of the three tools, explaining how they work and when to use them. For valuing operations, the DCF methodology of adjusted present value allows managers to break a problem into pieces that make managerial sense. For valuing opportunities, option pricing captures the contingent nature of investments in areas such as R&D and marketing. And for valuing ownership claims, the tool of equity cash flows helps managers value their company's stake in a joint venture, a strategic alliance, or an investment that uses project financing.     

The Genesis Enterprise: creating peak-to-peak performance

Peak performance is often the beginning of failure. The process of continuously creating peak-to-peak performance defines the Genesis Enterprise. There will always be more problems than there are solutions. We need to install a process that anticipates and solves problems before they are problems and to continuously transform our organization into a championship organization that is nevertheless the underdog.     

A preliminary evaluation of the new RIDP and its impact on regional development in South Africa

The debate on regional political autonomy makes regional economic development a subject of central importance. Current policy is embodied in the Regional Industrial Development Programme (RIDP), as revised in May 1991. Regional industrial policy in South Africa originated in 1956 with the Border Industry Programme, whose objective was to create economically independent sovereign states, Subsequent shifts of emphasis from socio‐political objectives towards a predominantly economic orientation in the 1991 RIDP were expected to concentrate the allocation of resources to industry at locations with greater natural potential for industrial development.

An evaluation of the preliminary results of the 1991 RIDP confirms these expectations in that, as far as capital investment is concerned, a certain degree of concentration is already discernible especially in metropolitan areas and secondary cities. However, it seems there are a number of factors present in the market‐place that are still inhibiting the full realisation of the objective of concentrated industrial development at locations with a natural potential for industrial development. The existing institutional development framework, the availability of relatively cheap excess infrastructure in certain locations and the spatial application of the new RIDP are some of the factors that could possibly have influenced locational decision making during the last 20 months.

Therefore, although the new RIDP is more market orientated than its predecessor and certainly much more economically sustainable, a number of issues still need attention, and further adjustments to the programme should be made if the various regions are to be developed optimally and scarce economic resources utilised effectively.     

Disposable versus reusable linen: back to the future

Decisions regarding health care practices and technology are never static. As new information becomes available, and internal and external forces shift, new decisions may have to be made. Such is the decision regarding reusable versus disposable linen. Until very recently, reusable linens were not comparable with disposable linen in the quality characteristics that directly impact patient and staff safety and health. Given the current test results on the latest generation of reusable fabrics, it is time to go back to reconsider this decision for the future.