Search results

In life, some would say, compromises are inevitable. As consumers, for instance, either we pay top dollar for a tailor‐made suit or we buy off‐the‐rack; either we limit our choices to the particular cars on a dealer's lot or wait for weeks in order to get exactly the model and color we want; either we purchase the flexibility of full‐fare tickets or accept restrictions in order to get a bargain fare.

Introduces the cash curve, a tool for monitoring the payback on innovation that has proved helpful in decision‐making, planning, analysis, and communication. The cash curve graphically plots cumulative cash flow over time.

Describes the four “S” factors that have a direct impact on cash payback of innovation: start‐up costs or pre‐launch investment, also called start‐up or sunk costs; speed, or time to market; scale, or time to volume and support costs

The cash curve clarifies many of the managerial challenges, assumptions and trade‐offs that often get hidden when looking at spreadsheets of annual cash flows and projections.

Shows managers how to use the cash curve to monitor what the payback will be if the assumptions they have made are right. This allows them to make a plan based on those assumptions, understand the impact of each assumption, determine which ones are most critical, test the ones with the biggest impact. With this perspective, the process can be managed, not simply reacted to.

Demonstrates how to use the cash curve to address the fundamental challenge of innovation – to achieve the required cash payback by managing the overall process with the understanding that payback can come quite directly and quickly, but also that it may take longer, be much less certain, or come back to the company only indirectly, via other products and services.

The paper aims to herald a new phase of worldwide trade and economic development which the authors call “globality.” Increasingly, companies from every part of the world will be competing – for customers, resources, talent and intellectual capital – with each other in every one of the world's markets.

The paper produces evidence that incumbent global leaders will increasingly be forced to defend turf they thought they had won and secured long ago; and their expansion into emerging markets will be challenged as never before.

The paper finds that the challenger companies have grown from local to global, but instead of squelching local differences, they encouraged them. They retained their bias toward a decentralized management style, which allows them to leverage each new viewpoint as a new source of expertise, market knowledge, and best practice. They have mastered synthesizing many points of view.

Challengers view the world as a collection of diverse regions, each requiring strong local leadership with autonomy to act knowledgably, quickly, and decisively. To compete, incumbents must recognize that the era of globality is here now; learn from challengers; and adapt.

The study found that the challengers companies are able to devolve control, without descending into chaos, a huge competitive advantage. And they are innovating new centers of executive influence and new governance structures that support multiple independent centers of activity, while still leveraging global scale.

Supply chains can improve their performance by developing competitive priorities in a specified sequence: quality, reliability, flexibility, agility, and finally, cost efficiency. This paper extends Ferdows and De Meyer's (1990) sand cone model and Vokurka and Fliedner's (1998) sand cone model extension incorporating agility to supply chain management priorities. This work provides a framework for a cumulative and sustainable improvement process by which supply chains can build a strategic competitive advantage.

To examine the nature and extent of commitment to supply chain collaboration. Also, to explore the state of supply chain governance structures.

A multi‐method survey and in‐depth interview methodology was employed to gather data. Content analysis was then used to identify the types and extent of managerial support for supply chain initiatives.

Four types of managerial support are needed to achieve the highest levels of supply chain success: top management support, broad‐based functional support, channel support, and infrastructural/governance support. None of the interview companies have put all four types of support in place. Leading‐edge governance relies on cross‐functional/inter‐organizational teams, executive governance councils, customer advisory boards, supplier advisory councils and a modified reporting structure that overseas all value‐added activities from product conceptualization to customer relationship management. Again, none of the interview companies have established all aspects of an effective supply chain governance structure.

Much has been written on the need to focus on supply chains and create more cooperative and integrative relationships with key organizations in the supply chain; however, little has been written concerning the commitment levels among those involved in the supply chain or the types of governance structures that should be utilized within a given organization or along the supply chain. This paper bridges this gap, providing a benchmark for managerial commitment and presenting a composite governance structure based on observed best practices. Both academics and practitioners can use the insights provided to work toward a better understanding of supply chain commitment and governance.