Search results

This paper aims to propose a novel epigenetic learning (EpiLearn) algorithm, which is designed specifically for a decentralised multi-agent system such as swarm robotics.

First, this paper begins with overview of swarm robotics and the challenges in designing swarm behaviour automatically. This should indicate the direction of improvements required to enhance an automatic swarm design. Second, the evolutionary learning (EpiLearn) algorithm for a swarm system using an epigenetic layer is formulated and discussed. The algorithm is then tested through various test functions to investigate its performance. Finally, the results are discussed along with possible future research directions.

Through various test functions, the algorithm can solve non-local and many local minima problems. This article also shows that by using a reward system, the algorithm can handle the deceptive problem which often occurs in dynamic problems. Moreover, utilization of rewards from the environment in the form of a methylation process on the epigenetic layer improves the performance of traditional evolutionary algorithms applied to automatic swarm design. Finally, this article shows that a regeneration process that embeds an epigenetic layer in the inheritance process performs better than a traditional crossover operator in a swarm system.

This paper proposes a novel method for automatic swarm design by taking into account the importance of multi-agent settings and environmental characteristics surrounding the swarm. The novel evolutionary learning (EpiLearn) algorithm using an epigenetic layer gives the swarm the ability to perform co-evolution and co-learning.

The purpose of this paper is to review the current state of proceedings in the research area of automatic swarm design and discusses possible solutions to advance swarm robotics research.

First, this paper begins by reviewing the current state of proceedings in the field of automatic swarm design to provide a basic understanding of the field. This should lead to the identification of which issues need to be resolved in order to move forward swarm robotics research. Then, some possible solutions to the challenges are discussed to identify future directions and how the proposed idea of incorporating learning mechanism could benefit swarm robotics design. Lastly, a novel evolutionary-learning framework for swarms based on epigenetic function is proposed with a discussion of its merits and suggestions for future research directions.

The discussion shows that main challenge which is needed to be resolved is the presence of dynamic environment which is mainly caused by agent-to-agent and agent-to-environment interactions. A possible solution to tackle the challenge is by incorporating learning capability to the swarm to tackle dynamic environment.

This paper gives a new perspective on how to improve automatic swarm design in order to move forward swarm robotics research. Along with the discussion, this paper also proposes a novel framework to incorporate learning mechanism into evolutionary swarm using epigenetic function.

The purpose of this paper is to identify specific drivers of value creation in secondary buyouts. While this type of private equity deal has risen in importance in recent years, it is not yet well understood. Through an in-depth analysis of the acquisition of Brenntag by BC Partners, we develop propositions on the value creation profile of secondary buyouts.

We use a single case study design to explore the information-rich context of a secondary buyout. The Brenntag case epitomizes the development of a company from forming part of a large conglomerate to being private-equity owned after the primary and secondary buyout, to its final disposition of public listing. Our analysis is based on ten semi-structured interviews with key protagonists and observers, as well as analysis of primary company data and additional secondary data sources.

We propose that even if the investment management and monitoring skills of the primary and secondary private equity group are similar, there is still potential to realize operational improvements in a secondary buyout, due to either early exit of the primary private equity group or measures that further enhance management incentives. In addition, the Brenntag case shows that low information asymmetries can lead to higher leverage and that opportunities for multiple expansions are limited in secondary buyouts.

While a secondary buyout has become a common exit route in recent years, we are the first to undertake an in-depth case analysis of a secondary buyout. Our study helps researchers and practitioners enhance their understanding of drivers behind the value creation profile of secondary buyouts.

The analysis discovered three principles that could lift a retailer's success in doubling the industry's overall average. It found that those retailers who repeatedly attempted moves had a better track record than the rest.

Bain & Company analyzed nearly 300 attempts by more than 60 US retailers to enter adjacent businesses during the period between 1989 and 2004.

The analysis discovered three principles that could lift a retailer's success in doubling the industry's overall average. It found that those retailers who repeatedly attempted moves had a better track record than the rest.

Success (growing profitably at more than 5 percent a year) was achieved by retailers that repeated a certain type of adjacency maneuver. They won 23 percent of the time, while novices managed only 5 percent.

Finding that success rates for adjacency moves rise sharply for those that involve few variants in the company's current cost structures, target consumers or capabilities.

Over the last two decades, Under Armour (UA) has emerged from being the “underdog” in the sports apparel and footwear industry to being a leader in the industry, with a fierce attention to performance and great skill at picking up-and-coming athletes who emerge as superstars. This case underscores its administrative heritage, competitive strategy, and growth potential as a global player in a highly competitive industry. It addresses the tension between being a performance brand while launching lines for women vs technology applications and conflicts between its growth strategy and macro-economic forces. It highlights areas in which it has succeeded against macro-economic forces and where it has not.

The research relies primarily on secondary sources and countless studies of UA and its major competitors. Primary research is based on databases, videos of UA’s Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and articles from Bloomberg to The Baltimore Sun (UA’s headquarters) on the history, growth and future of UA. It also includes observations and site visits to one of its signature brand house stores as well as intensive research and directed studies with students in the USA and China.

The case can be applied to undergraduate, graduate or executive business classes in: business policy and strategy; general management; (sports) marketing; leadership or organisational behaviour classes.

The discussion of competitive strategy in recent years has turned to exploring the differences between emerging market (EM) companies and traditional companies from the US, Europe and Japan. In particular the question has been: do we need a new theory of EM companies, or can existing theory be applied, perhaps with adaptations? The authors intent in this paper is to show what features enable EM firms to succeed in domestic competition, where institutional settings are different from those in Triad countries. The authors do not explore the issue of EM companies competing internationally.

The authors argue that competitive advantages (Porter) or resources (Barney; Wernerfelt) offer a solid base on which to build an understanding of successful domestic strategies of firms in EMs, also recognizing that the specific advantages differ somewhat in EMs, due to institutional differences (Peng). The authors explore characteristics of the 250 largest publicly-traded South African firms which enable them to compete successfully (incl: company size, brand value, company age, international sales and family ownership). The authors conclude that existing theories do indeed serve in this context, but that they need to be adjusted for the different institutional environments in EMs.

Factors that contribute to performance include: company size(+),brand value(+), company age (+), international sales(+) and family ownership(−). The literature that has developed on EM companies competing internationally fails to recognize that most of the features identified exist for all companies in a given country – so they do not explain domestic performance. Of course, even in the domestic context some companies will be better able to take advantage of institutional capabilities such as dealing with the government and with volatile economic conditions than other companies.

The study results come from only one EM, so there may be limits on generalizing to others. If China is excepted, the results here are broadly applicable to medium-sized and larger EMs today, with idiosyncrasies remaining for individual countries (such as natural resources, location, etc.)

EM companies to succeed in their domestic markets should look to build size/scale, to develop their brands and to expand internationally. They should also expand ownership to non-family investors. These factors were significantly correlated with superior performance of listed companies in South Africa and have been shown to apply elsewhere as well.

Also, most analyses of EM companies focus on their distinctive institutional capabilities for competing with firms from Triad countries. The study analysis focuses on domestic competition rather than on going abroad.

In this paper aims to interview Walter Kiechel III about his book, The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World, and the lessons it offers for today's managers.

In this interview, Strategy & Leadership asked Walter Kiechel III about his book, The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World (Harvard Business Press. 2010), and the lessons it offered for today's managers. First as a Fortune writer, then as its editor and finally as editorial director of Harvard Business Publishing, Kiechel has interviewed originators of the core ideas behind strategy and, to a lesser extent, strategic management and executives at the large companies where it was first practiced.

Kiechel chronicles the rise and stumbles of a number of leading consultancies – primarily Boston Consulting Group, Bain and McKinsey – as they, Professor Michael Porter and a few others “invent” the concept of strategy over the course of about six decades.

Kiechel highlights the lasting accomplishments of the pioneering consultants he calls the Lords of Strategy and the tools they developed like the experience curve and the BCG matrix. He concludes that Greater Taylorism, the application of analytics to virtually every aspect of what a company does, is as important a product of the strategy revolution as strategy itself.

Senior managers will find his combination intellectual and business history engrossing and they should learn many lessons from it. For example: the development of strategic thinking has caused a genuine revolution in the way business is done; strategy is now the dominant framework by which companies understand what they are doing and want to do; and the intellectual models of innovative consulting firms have played a key role in figuring out competitive advantage.

The purpose of this paper is to present a discussion with Joan Magretta about her new book, Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy with two veteran S&L contributing editors.

Based on her long editorial relationship with Porter while she was strategy editor of the Harvard Business Review, she suggests some key lessons about applying his concepts that practitioners should take to heart.

The paper reveals that Magretta believes that too many managers get their Porter second hand and what they usually end up getting is both inadequate and inaccurate. She seeks to rectify the most common misconceptions about strategy and Porter's work.

Some key practical lessons are: keep a direct line of sight between your strategy and your financial performance – if strategy is to have any meaning at all, it must link directly to a company's results; a distinctive value proposition is essential for strategy, but don't confuse strategy with marketing (the demand side); the supply side must be linked; meaningful strategy makes it clear what the organization will not do – making trade‐offs is the linchpin that makes competitive advantage possible and sustainable; do not feel you have to “delight” every possible customer. The sign of a good strategy is that it deliberately makes some customers unhappy.

Magretta, who gained front‐line experience as a consultant at Bain, reviews Porter's groundbreaking strategy work and makes it relevant to today's managers

The article seeks to show that companies should and can build winning cultures.

A total of 365 companies in Europe, Asia and North America were surveyed for links between financial out‐performance and winning culture. Three dozen high performers were analyzed in in‐depth case studies; one from each region that has transformed its culture is presented.

Findings were that building a winning culture – which fewer than 10 per cent of companies succeed in doing, despite broad recognition that culture provides the greatest source of competitive advantage – requires five key steps: setting expectations, aligning leaders, accountability for delivery, organization‐wide consistency and communication/celebration. Winning cultures tend to display six key behaviours: high aspirations, external focus (customers and competitors), attitude of ownership, bias to action, valuing collaboration and striving for the exceptional. These can be measured through the daily performance of the company's front line.

By definition, out‐performance is rare, but further insights into winning cultures may result when the survey of companies is extended to new regions, such as Latin America.

Practical implications are the winning culture key behaviours, key building steps and performance measurement identified. The article also shows that challenges and even crisis can help, rather than hinder, the transformation of a corporate culture into a winning one.

The article will help focus company leaders on the opportunity and challenges in building a winning culture. It identifies the key behaviours of winning cultures, key steps in building them, and how to measure their progress. It should be of value to all management levels from the chief executive to front‐line staff.