Search results

A conversation with Hubert Saint‐Onge, senior vice‐president for Strategic Capabilities at Clarica Life Insurance Company focusing on knowledge strategy and its implementation at Clarica, a large, knowledge‐driven financial services organization, where intangible assets are the most valuable assets. Saint‐Onge discusses how he reformulated the traditional human resources function into the new configuration called strategic capabilities which links strategy and performance. This new mandate takes into account both the greater importance of intangible assets and the principles related to leveraging organizational learning and knowledge. Saint‐Onge discusses how the strategic capabilities approach reframes the roles of people, technology, values, leadership and measurement in creating an evolving “sense and respond” organization. He emphasizes continuing the shifting of Clarica’s member workforce from a dependency to a self‐initiating orientation as a key requirement for ongoing success in this knowledge‐driven transformation.

In an environment of shortened business cycles and rapid technological change, the intellectual capital framework represents the primary value‐creation dynamics of the firm. It is this focus on the intellectual that has dubbed our times “the knowledge era.” At the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), we have been working for a number of years to understand the concept of intellectual capital. Our work has led us to a definition of intellectual capital, the exploration of the roles of both explicit and tacit knowledge in the three constituent elements of intellectual capital, and, finally, to the development of ways of encouraging value creation in these elements in support of our business strategies.

This paper introduces some of the elements of Knowledge Management and outlines the approaches RM Consulting ‐ the internal consultancy of the Royal Mail and the Post Office ‐ is taking to support the development of knowledge enablers within the organization. A Knowledge Management approach is described which focuses on people (including the organizational structure), processes and technology. The initial Knowledge Management focus of the organization is aimed principally on explicit knowledge, and the establishment of tools which help to capture internal information. The long‐term challenge is to capture the knowledge of the organization in such a way that all of its employees can maximize the value they provide to the organization’s stakeholders.

In 1996 Hubert Saint‐Onge and Smith published an article (“The evolutionary organization: avoiding a Titanic fate”, in The Learning Organization, Vol. 3 No. 4), based on their experience at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC). It was established at CIBC that change could be successfully facilitated through blended application of theory such as system dynamics, and the then emerging notions of “chaos and complexity”. The resulting enterprise was termed an evolutionary organization (EVO), and CIBC has continued since to re‐invent itself with great success. Although the all‐embracing nature of chaos and complexity was understood, in retrospect the impact of non‐rational people‐factors, e.g. emotion, trust, openness, spirituality were underestimated. Introduces the six papers included in this special issue, which illustrate how much more sophisticated chaos and complexity have become in the decade since Hubert Saint‐Onge and Smith first began to apply the notions at CIBC. However, although the papers in this issue present some evidence of managerial “take‐up” of chaos and complexity, whether “take‐off” will ever ensue is questionable. It is proposed that, just as in the 1990s, if there is one thing that more than any other stands in the way of exploration and adoption of these ideas, it is management mindsets.

Analyses three appointments in different countries by three organizations — Skandia, Dow Chemical Co., and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce's Leadership Centre. Looks at the way the appointee's (Leif Edvinsson, Gordon Petrash and Hubert Saint‐Onge) have applied their thinking.

The collapse of Enron was almost entirely unexpected and shockingly rapid. While the major cause of this and other mega meltdowns has been determined to be financial manipulation and questionable accounting practices, the fall of these organizations has also raised questions about whether, and to what extent, their intellectual capital/intangible asset intensive business models contributed to their failure. This paper examines three core issues affecting the role of intellectual capital that have been highlighted by Enron's business failure: the linked issues of the effect of moving from a more traditional trading model to an intangible intensive trading model and the requirements for a viable intellectual capital/intangibles business model; changes in the accounting framework to ensure the integrity of an intellectual capital/intangibles‐based organization; and the implications of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) mandated changes in measuring and managing for goodwill and intangibles

Asserts that in dealing with change the mindsets of an enterprise’s managers are key to its viability. States that by developing a learning organization an enterprise attempts to avoid the mindset problem by fostering a climate of learning; however, claims that over the last decade such development has not in general been successful and contends that this has been largely because of impractical implementation approaches. Based on the author’s practice, maintains that the learning organization is indeed a useful metaphor for successfully dealing with change. Describes the author’s implementation approach which is based on two simple notions: first, that the best way to deal with mindsets is to keep them from hardening; second, that by changing activities and tools one can change habits of thinking and learning. Illustrates the approach by detailing a long‐term case study involving a large and very successful financial services enterprise which has successfully adopted learning organization principles.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how the goal of quantum leap breakthrough performance in acquisitions is to enable readers to achieve an unprecedented leap in performance as a result of major acquisitions.

This requires first, establishing acquisition readiness by developing a core set of capabilities and second, using a breakthrough approach that fuses both growth and expense cutting synergies to accomplish the quantum leap performance gains, especially during the integration stages. These capabilities enable the successful integration of the acquired organization and the emergence of the new entity.

The paper finds that those organizations that are going to win at this game are the ones that have the best capabilities for effecting the right acquisition and who can implement the best integration. Those capabilities are the name of the game.

The focus on capabilities is the prime distinguishing feature of quantum leap breakthrough performance in acquisitions. This is based on an organization developing the capabilities for core integration. Whether you are an integrator or a target, it is essential to have these capabilities.

If an organization wants to excel at developing, acquiring and integration, it needs have the following core set of capabilities: strategic agility, market agility, organization building, people management, project and process management and knowledge management, learning and innovation. When these capabilities interact with a set of six catalyzing springboards (i.e. customer strategy, organization strategy, integrating culture and leadership principles, a people strategy, integrating knowledge systems, and information technology architecture) the organization can achieve an extraordinary quantum leap in value.

States that change is a topic of crucial concern to all organizations in these turbulent business times. Its impact increasingly leads to business demise, in spite of the wealth of information purporting to help managers solve change‐related problems. Contends that, in dealing with change, and ultimately in ensuring business survival, the mindsets of the organization’s managers are the most critical factor. Approaches influencing management thinking positively based on two simple notions: first, that the best way to deal with mindsets is to keep them from hardening; second, that by changing activities and tools we can change habits of thinking and learning. Calls an organization operating according to these principles an evolutionary organization (EVO). Illustrates that the EVO flourishes in the region of disequilibrium between an organization’s formative and normative operating modes. The key to maintaining this balance in the EVO is the judicious exercise of leadership and strategy. Explores literature relevant to the EVO and describes systemic initiatives designed to renew mindsets and confer high potential for business competitiveness. Illustrates the approach by detailing the case of a major financial service organization.