Hans Henrik Jørgensen, Lawrence Owen and Andreas Neus
A major IBM consulting survey finds that most CEOs consider themselves and their organizations to be executing change poorly. In contrast, there are a few out‐performers (top 20…
Abstract
Purpose
A major IBM consulting survey finds that most CEOs consider themselves and their organizations to be executing change poorly. In contrast, there are a few out‐performers (top 20 percent) who are the change masters. The paper seeks to analyze why most companies are managing change poorly while those few are doing it well.
Design/methodology/approach
The IBM Global Making Change Work Study explored differences in how change was implemented by over 1,500 practitioners worldwide. IBM conducted surveys and face‐to‐face interviews with project leaders, sponsors, project managers and change managers from many of the world's leading organizations.
Findings
The study finds that change management is at a turning point: from an art to a professional discussion; from improvisation to a richer, more systematic approach, based on clear empirical perspectives on what works and what does not.
Practical implications
Although many practical insights – about closing the “change gap” – were identified, the real message is that companies can no longer justify or afford an improvised approach to change management.
Originality/value
The Making Change Work study shows that executing change well remains the exception, though it is certainly an achievable goal. The research with practitioners revealed practical insights about closing the change gap – including the insight that “soft,” people‐related factors typically present greater challenges than hard, technology‐related factors that are generally easier to identify and measure.
Details
Keywords
Saul J. Berman, Steven Abraham, Bill Battino, Louisa Shipnuck and Andreas Neus
The authors perform market trend analysis and to examine the clash between new and traditional media and explore future industry competitive scenarios.
Abstract
Purpose
The authors perform market trend analysis and to examine the clash between new and traditional media and explore future industry competitive scenarios.
Design/methodology/approach
IBM conducted a comprehensive study that included interviews with leaders of media companies and an in‐depth analysis of the factors that are shaping the industry outlook. IBM conducted in‐person interviews with more than 75 senior media executives, industry analysts, economists and technology visionaries and also worked with the Economist Intelligence Unit to survey another 125 industry executives.
Findings
IBM sees four primary business models emerging – traditional media, walled communities, content hyper‐syndication and new platform aggregation. The research also found evidence of another developing conflict that it calls the media divide. It could pit partner against partner in a struggle for growth.
Practical implications
IBM proposes seven industry‐specific recommendations for incumbent media companies as they face the immediate threat from new entrants and eventual collisions with traditional partners: Deliver experiences, not just content. Leverage virtual worlds. Innovate business models. Invest in interactive, measurable advertising services and platforms. Redefine partnerships, while mitigating fallout. Shift investment from traditional business to new models. Create a flexible business design.
Originality/value
The article offers a combination of market evolution analysis, future market scenarios and recommendations for gaining first mover advantage.