全部版块 我的主页
论坛 新商科论坛 四区(原工商管理论坛) 商学院
2025 2
2009-02-19

294941.pdf
大小:(215.55 KB)

只需: 10 个论坛币  马上下载


Abstract

A firm that simultaneously engages in a high degree of both innovation and
efficiency follows an approach that is often referred to as an ambidextrous strategy.
Surprisingly, relatively few firms are able to balance these two emphases. Internal
battles for resources often tip the scales in favor of efficiency over innovation, or vice
versa. Management gurus frequently warn that simultaneously pursuing both can set
the firm up for mediocre performance, yet the turbulent nature of today’s markets
and cut-throat competition create a renewed need for firms to reconsider this dual
approach for longer-term success. Unfortunately, practical insights from empirical
studies regarding performance benefits and implementation issues are still scant.
Perhaps this is one reason why few firms are successful in both efficiency and
innovation. In this article, we provide evidence–—using a cross-industry survey of
senior marketing managers in publicly-traded U.S. firms–—that firms which successfully
employ an ambidextrous strategy outperform those which overemphasize either
efficiency or innovation. Furthermore, we highlight marketing’s role as an example of
the often overlooked need for successful functional implementation. Finally, we
provide useful methods for managers to answer three key questions: (1) Is my firm
ambidextrous?; (2) Should my firm be ambidextrous?; and, if so (3) How can my firm
become ambidextrous?
# 2008 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.

二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

全部回复
2009-11-14 16:54:19
连作者、期刊和时间都没有写。谁知道下了有没有用
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2009-11-14 17:06:06
Innovation vs. Efficiency
Business Week has an article that talks about A Struggle Between Efficiency And Creativity at 3M.  It's a classic problem: tighten down operations (fire 11% of your people, for example) and all the loosey-goosey stuff that happens around new product development can't happen.  A quote from the new CEO, George Buckley:

"Invention is by its very nature a disorderly process," says current CEO George Buckley, who has dialed back many of McNerney's initiatives. "You can't put a Six Sigma process into that area and say, well, I'm getting behind on invention, so I'm going to schedule myself for three good ideas on Wednesday and two on Friday. That's not how creativity works."

And some discussion of recent research that looks at Innovation vs. Efficiency:

There has been little formal research on whether the tension between Six Sigma and innovation is inevitable. But the most notable attempt yet, by Wharton School professor Mary Benner and Harvard Business School professor Michael L. Tushman, suggests that Six Sigma will lead to more incremental innovation at the expense of more blue-sky work. The two professors analyzed the types of patents granted to paint and photography companies over a 20-year period, before and after a quality improvement drive. Their work shows that, after the quality push, patents issued based primarily on prior work made up a dramatically larger share of the total, while those not based on prior work dwindled.

The innovation literature makes it clear that the job of innovation has to be allowed to be separate from the job of operations management.  They are just too incompatible to make them work together.  I've even heard Eli Goldratt differentiate between growing the business by creating a better service model and growing through new products.  Theory of Constraints, from my current understanding, really focuses on existing products and services.  New products have to come through another pathway -- one not managed by the same methods and thinking.

I love the paragraph near the end of this article which talks about required quotas of Six Sigma projects.  Isn't the whole idea of a quota antithetical to what really should happen with improvement projects.  And isn't the idea of a quota kills innovation, such as in the Buckley quote above?  You can focus research on specific areas; you can decide to fund or not fund the R&D department; or you can give people 15% of their time to come up with new ideas.  But none of this will guarantee that you get new ideas "right the first time."  They guarantee you will get new ideas - some of which might become salable products.

[I came across this article via Harold Jarche, who focused on the notion that Process improvement is bad for innovation.]
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

相关推荐
栏目导航
热门文章
推荐文章

说点什么

分享

扫码加好友,拉您进群
各岗位、行业、专业交流群