Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006 Byline: Yves L. Doz, Mikko Kosonen Abstract: Strategic discontinuities and disruptions usually call for changes in business models. But, over time, efficient firms naturally evolve business models of increasing stability - and therefore rigidity. Resolving this contradiction can be made easier by developing three core meta-capabilities to make an organization more agile: strategic sensitivity, leadership unity and resource fluidity. This article reviews the underlying determinants of these capabilities, based on detailed research undertaken in a dozen companies who were re-conceiving their business models - among others, Nokia, easyGroup, HP, SAP and Kone are used as examples. We propose a repertoire of concrete leadership actions enabling the meta-capabilities needed to accelerate the renewal and transformation of business models. To organize our argument we borrow the three main dimensions of the strategic agility framework presented in our earlier work, and develop corresponding vectors of leadership actions, each of which can enhance a firm's ability to renew its business models.

Strategic business alliances can be of great importance to companies attempting to gain world recognition in globalized environment. Alliances allow a company to establish nodal positions for establishing new markets. Other benefits are the consolidation of skills and resources, and the acquisition of new capabilities at a faster rate. Alliances also transform possible competitors into partners.

More and more companies recognize that their dispersed, global operations are a treasure trove of ideas and capabilities for innovation. But it’s proving harder than expected to unearth those ideas or exploit those capabilities. Part of the problem is that companies manage global innovation the same way they manage traditional, single-location projects. Single-location projects draw on a large reservoir of tacit knowledge, shared context, and trust that global projects lack. The management challenge, therefore, is to replicate the positive aspects of colocation while harnessing the opportunities of dispersion. In this article, Insead’s Wilson and Doz draw on research into global strategy and innovation to present a set of guidelines for setting up and managing global innovation. They explore in detail the challenges that make global projects inherently different and show how these can be overcome by applying superior project management skills across teams, fostering a strong collaborative culture, and using a robust array of communications tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaboration between competitors is in fashion. General Motors and Toyota assemble automobiles, Siemens and Philips develop semiconductors, and Canon supplies photocopiers to Kodak. But the rise of competitive collaboration has triggered unease about its long-term effects. In particular, alliances between Asian companies and their Western rivals seem to work against the Western partner. Cooperation leads to competitive surrender. Many Western companies do give away more than they gain--but that's because they enter partnerships without knowing what it takes to win. Companies that benefit most from competitive collaboration adhere to a set of simple but powerful principles. Collaboration is competition in a different form. Successful companies never forget that their partners may be out to disarm them. They understand how their partners' objectives compare with their own. Harmony is not the most important measure of success. Indeed, occasional conflict may be the best evidence of mutually beneficial collaboration. Few alliances remain win-win undertakings forever. Partners must defend against competitive compromise. What information gets traded is determined daily, often by junior engineers and operating managers. Successful companies inform employees at all levels about what skills and technologies are off-limits to the partner. Learning from partners is paramount. Successful companies view each alliance as a window on their partners' broad capabilities. They use the alliance to build skills in areas outside the formal agreement and to diffuse acquired knowledge throughout their organizations. INSETS: About our research;Competition for Competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the early 1970s, host governments have intervened more and more in the affairs of multinational corporations. Today they regularly establish rather demanding conditions for MNCs wanting to do business in their countries. What kinds of conditions are these? What type of threat, if any, do they pose to the normal operation of corporate decision making or to the strategic autonomy of corporate managers? Most important, how should the managers of multinationals respond to them? And according to what criteria should they calculate their responses? In this article, the authors--themselves engaged in a long research project on MNCs--seek to provide answers to these questions. Fiist, they show that both host government restrictions and MNC responses can be readily classified. Next, they provide guidance for the necessary but difficult act of matching that managers must attempt between various categories of government demand and corporate reaction. Finally, they suggest some of the implications of achieving a proper balance for the organizational structures of multinationals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addresses the role of chief information officers (CIO) in developing access to, mobilizing and leveraging the untapped areas of knowledge to be able to expand business globally. Forces driving dispersion of technological knowledge; Information technology strategies needed in order to access and mobilize knowledge from around the world; Challenge facing CIO in the knowledge economy. INSET: THE 90-DAY PLAN.