Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mrittika Shil

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15

The first tannery in Bangladesh territory was set up at Narayanganj by RP Saha sometime in the 1940s. It was later shifted to Hazaribag area of Dhaka, which turned into a location that now accommodates a large number of tannery units. Leather Industry developed in Bangladesh on a large-scale basis from the 1970s. About 95% of leather and leather products of Bangladesh are marketed abroad, mostly in the form of crushed leather, finished leather, leather garments, and footwear. Most leather and leather goods go to Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Spain, Russia, Brazil, Japan, China, Singapore and Taiwan. Value addition in these exports averages 85% local and 15% foreign. More than 100 modern tannery units are now in operation in the industry. These are located mostly in the Hazaribagh area of Dhaka city. In 1998, the sector exported 178 million sq ft of leather and earned $160 million.

The country is endowed with luxurious vegetation encouraging a large livestock population. The quality of the raw hide and skin is relatively good, as barbed wire fencing that damage the skins of animals is not used in the natural farms and fields. Black goatskin of Kushtia is particularly noted for its fine grain structure and tensile strength. The tradition of humane care of domestic animals also contributes significantly to keeping the leather quality high.

About 40% of the supply of hide and skin comes from animals slaughtered during the annual Muslim festival of eid-ul azha. In addition to daily consumption of meat, festivals, Muslim weddings, and other celebrations yield a substantial supply of hide and skin. The tanning industry got a big boost following the government decision to promote more value addition in exports. The installed capacity for crust leather production increased. At present, it is double the domestic supply of raw hide and skin. Investments are also made in installing new finishing capacity. The trends encourage more tanneries to produce finished leather on a commercial basis.

Worth to share

Business & Entrepreneurship / Leather industry in Bangladesh
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:29:01 AM »
Please check it :)

Business & Entrepreneurship / Macro- economic Indicators of Bangladesh
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:19:05 AM »
Please read the material :)

Basics of the Situational Leadership Model

By: Ryan May
Created by professor and author Dr. Paul Hersey and author Ken Blanchard, the Situational Leadership Model is a theory of business leadership that promotes the benefits of combining a range of managerial styles to cater to different people within the same organization. This is opposed to the more traditional view of the executive manager who may employ the same leadership tactics across an entire organization, more than likely passing directives down through subordinates and other intermediaries.

But by employing the strategies put forth in the Situational Leadership Model, a manager would potentially have the capabilities to deal with a wide range of people and thereby create a more employee-centric and innovative organization through the level of direct contact he or she has with members at all levels. Further, the leader would be free to place more or less emphasis on a particular task as well as more or less emphasis on relationships with employees - enabling them to focus on the component most needed to get the task accomplished successfully.

One Size Doesn't Fit All

The core foundation of the Situational Leadership Model is the belief that there is no single "best" approach to leadership. Instead, effective leadership is viewed as task-relevant. Therefore, the most successful leaders are the ones who are able to adapt their leadership styles across a broad range of varying maturity levels readily present within the average organization. Also factoring into the choice for leadership style are the individual employees' willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task as well as their applicable education and experience.

Given the wide level of variance in these factors, choices surrounding leadership are highly subjective in regard to the person or work group that is being influenced as well as the specific job or function that has been assigned - a situation some say lends itself perfectly to the Situational Leadership Model.

The Four Styles of Situational Leadership
Though it's meant to provide extreme adaptability, there are four basic styles when it comes to the Situational Leadership Model, each custom tailored to elicit the highest productivity from each employee or group.
As you'll see, there is a clear distinction between productivity and employee-development, with the first two styles (telling and selling) focused on accomplishing the task while styles three and four (participating and delegating) are more concerned with the personal development of team members.
•   Telling - Within this style, a leader will specifically instruct subordinates what to do and how to do it. This style is used at length within the law enforcement and military communities as well as on manufacturing assembly lines, providing a means of managing a diverse group of people that span a wide range of experience and maturity levels.
•   Selling - Information and direction will still be provided by the manger in this style of leadership but there's also more two-way communication with subordinates. Within this role, leaders "sell" their message to get employees on board, persuading them to work toward the common goal. A perfect example of this type of leadership is often found in an internship situation, with the success of this approach dependent upon whether the student or apprentice learner is excited and self-motivated to be on the job.
•   Participating - With participation, leaders can focus more on relationships and less on direction. In doing so, the Situational Leadership manager works closely with the team and shares decision-making responsibilities. This style is often used by corporate leaders who are attempting to influence a board of directors toward developing a new policy for which there is no proven history or established practice.
•   Delegating - Although the leader will still monitor task- and organizational-progress, he or she will pass much of the responsibility for the execution and completion of the established goals onto the individual subordinates or dedicated work groups. By delegating, the leader is usually less involved with decisions and is therefore able to focus on the work and achievements of subordinates, as seen commonly in the freedom given to tenured professors who are allowed to teach in the manner they believe is most effective while being monitored by a dean or department head.

Source: Business

Total Quality Management's Impact on Different Business Processes

By: Adam Colgate
Total Quality Management (TQM) is a competitive approach to long-term success that's derived from a dedication to customer satisfaction. Within this system, every employee in a company endeavors to enhance the products, services and internal culture to produce a streamlined set of business processes that deliver an improved customer experience.
Also commonly known as Quality Management in the United States, a TQM effort is unique in that it requires a high level of commitment to an established philosophy, with every member of the organization not only familiar with the end goal but committed to it - a dedication many attribute to the self-motivation of employees through reward-based incentives.

For the overall process to be effective, there are 10 key practices management can use to promote the culture of Total Quality Management and, in doing so, positively impact nearly every process within an organization. These include:
•   Foster a continuous drive toward improving products and services
•   Stop depending upon inspection to achieve quality
•   Work with a single supplier to avoid having to award supplier contracts based on price alone
•   Commit to a continuous reevaluation of processes related to planning, production and service to achieve improvement goals
•   Provide on-the-job training to develop and retain valuable staff, including opportunities for extensive education and self-improvement for everyone
•   Remove barriers between staff areas to facilitate a free-flow of collaboration and ideas
•   Get rid of any slogans, exhortations and targets aimed at employees
•   Do away with numerical quotas for employees and numerical goals for management
•   Eliminate the barriers that erode pride of workmanship, such as an annual evaluation or merit-based system
•   Task everyone within the organization toward achieving the transformation goals of TQM
Fostering Positive Impact through Research and Effective Leadership
The above mentioned practices related to Total Quality Management can have a profound impact on companies both large and small. To achieve the best results, there are two areas of focus that can enable the benefits of Total Quality Management to be integrated as seamlessly as possible: employee participation and benchmarking.
Benchmarking is a competitive method used to evaluate the success of a company's products or services in relation to its competitors. The practice calls for an in-depth study of competitors deemed "best in class" within their niche and is an essential component to achieving a successful TQM impact on your organization. The overall goal is to analyze how a successful organization operates with respect to a particular product or service, emulating and improving upon it whenever possible.

For example, many companies have imitated the highly-successful shopping cart available at, specifically the creation of a "wish list" that not only enables shoppers to create a list of items for future purchase but also motivates them to continuously return to the site to manage and add to the list.

The second area of focus, employee participation, is the most crucial. A successful effort toward the goals established through TQM demands a workforce that is both well-trained and committed to the activities selected for process improvements. As mentioned earlier, this level of participation is often reinforced through reward-based and recognition systems, highlighting the individual and team achievements related to quality objectives.

In addition, continuous education and training for employees adds to the drive for quality by improving the capabilities of those within the organization while instilling a culture of self-improvement that often leads to the retention of valuable employees who more readily view themselves as having a personal stake in the company. As a result, employees are more willing to take on additional responsibilities, communicate more effectively, act creatively and innovate - a system that can be directly linked to customer satisfaction metrics in Total Quality Management.

Source: Business

Corporate Entrepreneurship and its Importance in Large Company

By: Ryan May

Though its definition is somewhat contentious, the concept of corporate entrepreneurship is generally believed to refer to the development of new ideas and opportunities within large or established businesses, directly leading to the improvement of organizational profitability and an enhancement of competitive position or the strategic renewal of an existing business.
Within that system, the notion of innovation is at the very core of corporate entrepreneurship - the two inseparably bound together and responsible for driving calculated and beneficial risk-taking. Taking it one step further, corporate entrepreneurship may even significantly alter the balance of competition within an industry or create entirely new industries through this act of internal innovation.
Why should established organizations consider corporate entrepreneurship?
Corporate entrepreneurship is especially crucial for large companies, enabling these organizations - that are traditionally averse to risk-taking - to innovate, driving leaders and teams toward an increased level of corporate enterprising. In addition to the obvious benefits obtained through innovation, this approach also provides the organizational benefit of setting the stage for leadership continuity.

In a simpler view, corporate entrepreneurship can also be considered a means of organizational renewal. For in addition to its focus on innovation, there also exists an equal drive toward venturing. These two work in unison as the company undertakes innovations across the entire organizational spectrum, from product and process to technology and administration. In addition, venturing is a primary component in the process, pushing larger companies to enhance their overall competitiveness in the marketplace by taking bigger risks. Examples of these risks, as seen in a large-scale organization, may include: redefinition of the business concept, reorganization, and the introduction of system-wide changes for innovation.

Setting up the corporate entrepreneurship environment

In modern business, one of the primary tasks of the business leader is to foster an environment in which entrepreneurial thinking is encouraged and readily takes places. Promoting this culture by freely encouraging creativity (and thereby innovation), business leaders motivated toward corporate entrepreneurship must continuously strive to exude and build trust, embracing the risk to fail and inspiring those around them to take similar calculated risks.
But there is more to an environment of corporate entrepreneurship than simply inciting inspiration. It also relies heavily on a system of continuous analysis and feedback, potentially including the following two steps:
Step 1
Set a broad direction for achievement, reevaluating it periodically for any new information that may have surfaced in regard to changes in the business environment, including competitive products and markets in which the firm is operating. Constant evaluation is essential at this stage as even the most finely-tuned direction can still lead to catastrophic failure if the approach is no longer working.
Step 2
Reinforce efforts across the entire organization that coincide with the current plan for achievement. The task of a leader or senior manager is often that of the analyst, continuously promoting strategy while making adjustments based on their beliefs related to organizational goals and the feedback they receive from business units. As these business units continue to experiment with existing products and services, as well as innovate and develop new ones, senior executives can magnify the stated goals to reinforce those business unit initiatives and thereby achieve the highest degree of success.

Business & Entrepreneurship / Monopoly vs. Oligopoly
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:10:59 AM »
Monopoly vs. Oligopoly

By: Jeffrey Glen
Both monopoly and oligopoly refer to a specific type of economic market structure, but understanding the differences and implications of the two can be difficult. This article will explain the key differences to understand a monopoly vs. an oligopoly.


A monopoly refers to an economic market for a specific product or service where there is only a single provider of that service. This means that the single provider, be it a government entity or a corporation, can dictate prices and other factors and that the end consumers for the most part need to accept it. In many countries monopolies are frowned upon and governments actively oppose them, and in extreme cases like Standard Oil they have forced the companies to break into smaller entities. The reason for this is that government and the public in general want to avoid situations where a company can dictate terms to people and charge far more than is justified for their product because there are no alternatives.

Very few industries have a monopoly in place though in recent years both Microsoft and Google have been plagued by government inquiries and actions directed at their near monopolies in their respective industries. In a way this is a result of too much success, as they both rose to the top and defeated their competition to end up being the market leader by an unsurmountable margin.


An oligopoly refers to an economic market where there are a small number of players, be they government or corporations, which dominate the industry. While in some industries this is sufficient to still keep a competitive environment, where each is seeking to beat the others, there is a risk that the limited number of players will collude.

Historically a prime example of an oligopoly has been the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) where a limited number of countries have dictated oil production and prices to the global economy. This has changed significantly over time as more and more countries become oil producers, but OPEC still has a major role on the global economy. OPEC's oil embargo of 1973 was a key example of what can happen when producers collude on pricing, where oil prices globally increased over 300% in a few short months.
Many governments limit the creation of oligopoly condition markets by putting major mergers under review. The oil industry and the telecom industry in America have both seen large mergers reviewed to ensure that the industry does not become so closely held that consumers suffer.

Monopoly vs. Oligopoly

Both of these market structures are generally going to result in a negative position for consumers, as the consumers will be at the whim or a single company or a limited group of companies. One of the key risks with a monopoly or oligopoly structure occurring is that it can then become nearly impossible for a new competitor to enter the market. Either they could never compete on the same scale, or the monopoly company could afford to sell at a loss or no profit until the new entrant folds.

Source: Business

Business & Entrepreneurship / Global Entrepreneurship Examples
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:09:26 AM »
Global Entrepreneurship Examples

By: Leo Sun

This past decade has proven that businesses that expand to international markets tend to fare better than purely domestic ones. The most well-known American companies - such Coca-Cola, Nike and McDonald's - all have significant overseas footprints. Many of the products sold in America are also produced overseas. For the 21st century, countries are inextricably linked to one another in trade, taking advantage of exchange rates to import and export with maximum profitability. The international market is currently four times the size of the American one and growing, making it an essential part of any company's expansion strategy.
Multiple free-trade agreements now exist between global participants that help fuel the rapid pace of globalized businesses. Organizations such as the WTO and cross-country agreements such as NAFTA and GATT reduce and eliminate trade barriers and tariffs, which are seen as detrimental to global corporate growth. Participating countries benefit from importing goods by acquiring a wider variety of available products, which increases local competition and in turn improves quality and decreases prices. This ideally produces a self-sustaining system in which only the best quality products sold at the lowest price survive, forcing companies to refine their production capabilities repeatedly to remain competitive. What are some examples of industries that have evolved from domestic businesses into international powerhouses?

The Tech and Agriculture Industries

The titans of the tech industry are strong examples of successful global entrepreneurship. Companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Google and Yahoo all evolved from small startups with limited funding into massive multinational corporations. The reason for the rapid spread of these companies is that the demand for these technologies - operating systems, search engines, office software and smartphones - is universal in developed nations. Successful tech companies have all been led by visionary leaders - such as Gates, Jobs, Page or Yang - who have are able to look a decade into the future to predict the evolving needs of customers.
Large chemical companies - such as Monsanto and DuPont - are also successful due to their ability to cut through the noise of the markets to draft out a long-term business plan. With the global human population increasing at an unsustainable rate, food shortages will become a harsh reality in the next few decades. Agricultural companies, which produce fertilizer and bio-engineered crops, are well positioned across the world to reap the profits of the growing demand of farmers who are increasingly required to maximize their productivity.

Other Industries

Other industries, such as fast food restaurants, apparel retailers and miners have all found success in international markets. The two characteristics that these all share are universal demand and long-term business forecasts. Businesses that are well positioned for growth will offer detailed calculations of the anticipated growth in demand for its target market. Common target countries and considerations include China, Latin America and developing third world nations, which lack infrastructure but are rich in natural resources. Consult the most recent International Trade Statistics Yearbook of the United States to find the code of your product or service, to determine the hottest global growth areas for your company.

Global Etiquette

When doing business with other countries, modern technology is your best friend. Technologies such as e-mail, Facebook, Twitter and Skype make it much easier to conduct international business with just a computer with an Internet connection. The Internet makes it much easier to build a network of contacts quickly, who can help you start to establish a presence in the target country. Touching base with a local team can help you understand the current market conditions in the country, the demand for your product or service, as well as the business culture. Doing business in Japan differs greatly from Europe or the Middle East, so localizing your product and your attitude can increase your chances of success. Entering a country via a joint venture or franchise may decrease your risk exposure while allowing you to gauge your probability of success.

Source: Business

Impact of Globalization on Small Businesses

By: Leo Sun
The following is a classic story, often used by socialists to highlight the "evils of a capitalist society" - the small town grocer gets mercilessly taken out by the new Wal-Mart in town. The small town grocer may have an established customer base and friendly relations with the community, but it simply can't match the low prices offered by Wal-Mart. Being a large national company, Wal-Mart has the sprawling global resources and is willing to sacrifice margins to take out local competitors. In the end, customer loyalty means nothing and the grocer goes bankrupt, decades of hard work decimated overnight. This is a well-known anecdote referring to the impact of globalization on small businesses. Once you start up a new business, you plunge into an ocean populated by a few smaller fish, which compete with you for food, and lots of bigger ones, eager to eat you alive. The big fish in the sea tend to be well-connected, multinational beasts taking full advantage of the perks of globalization - such as outsourcing, uneven exchange rates, and low-margin high-volume sales models - making them nearly impossible to compete against. What are the impacts of globalization on the small business owner, and how can you defend yourself from the blows that will inevitably come your way?
Globalized Brands
In "The Communist Manifesto", Karl Marx famously warned that small local businesses will inevitably be wiped out by large multinational companies in a form of imperialist capitalism. According to him, the destruction of local businesses leads to the loss of local culture, and the rise of a singular anonymous corporate culture which only varies slightly from country to country. Visiting China today, it's hard to argue with Marx's words. The urban landscape is littered with KFCs, Pizza Huts, McDonald's and Starbucks. A trip to a Chinese department store is virtually identical to one in America, with the same multinational brands - Armani, Coach, Chanel, Gucci - lining the halls like an anonymous duty-free airport shop.

However, at a closer glance, today's multinational companies are a far cry from the sinister imperialists that Marx prophesised. Brands are highly localized to accommodate local tastes, and companies have forged mutually beneficial relationships with foreign countries to further their sales. Foreign governments are also quick to kick out offenders who don't play by the rules.
While some small businesses - such as the aforementioned local grocer - have suffered, there are those which have avoided being crushed by a large, globalized company. In China, there are still plenty of successful small restaurants and coffee shops, despite the rise of the American multinational eateries. How did these restaurants survive? By providing local menu items - such as dumplings, noodles, Peking duck - that those chains lack the expertise to make. The lesson for a small business is simple - don't keep making hamburgers when a McDonald's comes to town. Sell something else.
Exchange Rates and Outsourcing
There was a time, decades ago, that "Made in the U.S.A" meant well-made products that you could be patriotically proud of. Today, "Made in the U.S.A" usually means paying high labor costs, dealing with labor unions and earning hopelessly tiny profits on slim product margins. It was due to this that outsourcing - or shifting your production base to another country - became attractive. Lower material and labor costs in a country with a weaker currency boosts profits considerably.

Small businesses usually don't have the advantage of forging outsourcing partnerships with overseas factories, and are at a severe disadvantage in pricing. Multinational corporations, such as Wal-Mart, tend to exploit this business model to the fullest, creating extremely cheap goods in China, marking them up only slightly and only earning only a slim margin on each product. The goal of this business model is to use high sales volume to offset its low profit per product. A more immediate goal is to undercut any local competitors, who are physically unable to match those low prices due to the lack of an outsourcing infrastructure, and wipe them out with a pricing war. After all these local competitors have been eliminated, Wal-Mart is free to raise prices again, since it has established itself as a local monopoly.

As a small business, it's nearly impossible to protect yourself from this kind of assault. If you want to stand your ground and fight, then the best strategy is to ally yourself with other local businesses and pool your resources. Offer free cross-advertising campaigns and attack the large multinational threat together. While you can't offer discounts on all your products to fight back, offering rotating sales on select products can attract customers. In an all-out war against the big guys, the enemy of your enemy is your best friend.
Stay Defensive
Small businesses often drop like flies when targeted by a multinational corporation with strong globalized ties. However, forging a strong identity and solid alliances with small competitors can increase your chances of survival, so that your small business lives to see the day that it matures into a globalized company.

Source: Business

Business & Entrepreneurship / The Importance of Quality Over Quantity
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:06:33 AM »
Quality over quantity - it's a simple concept taught to us throughout our formative years - but it's one that fits like a square peg in a round hole in today's corporate environment. The reason that it's so hard to emphasize quality over quantity is simple - businesses are established to make money as quickly as possible and at the highest possible margins. Crafting single high quality products tends to be expensive and time consuming, and must be sold at much higher, less attractive prices to the average consumer in order to be profitable. Lower quality work, produced quickly in outsourced factories with a minimal time commitment per product, tends to be far more profitable, with higher margins as well as a lower, more attractive price point for consumers. Well-known adopters of this business model are Wal-Mart and Target.
However, business managers shouldn't entirely overlook the importance of quality over quantity. If your product becomes known for its shoddy construction - and due to the Internet, word travels fast - your overall sales will be quickly damaged. Modern consumers are likely to scout out opinions online before purchasing goods - wouldn't you rather that they be greeted by a stream of favorable comments as opposed to a flood of angry ones? If your product is too cheap, it can also get easily lost in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart alongside a plethora of shoddy, similarly named foreign-made products.

Let's take a look at a few examples where quality over quantity has prevailed. In the auto industry, BMW's business model of selling well-crafted luxury cars in tiers has become a standard for companies wishing to emphasize product quality. BMW offers its flagship vehicles in three flavors - the compact 3 series, the mid-size 5-series and luxury 7-series - all aimed at different markets. In addition, it sells sporty Mini hatchbacks as well as the ultra-luxurious Rolls-Royce in order to appeal to the lower and higher ends of the pricing spectrum, respectively. BMW's clear separation of its tiers, all while retaining an aura of overall luxury, was the inspiration for Steve Jobs when he returned to Apple in the late 1990s. At Apple, Jobs mimicked BMW's tiered pricing system with his computer and iPod lines. BMW and Apple are shining examples that offering a quality product on multiple pricing levels can attract the maximize amount of customers at premium prices.
A large part of product quality stems from product design. You need to have a product design team that can create attractive designs while keeping costs under control. Your aim should be to create the illusion of an expensive product which is actually cheap to manufacture. This does not mean to cut corners and decrease quality. Instead, you should decrease the amount of necessary components, streamline the design and eliminate redundancies. Johnathan Ive, the head designer at Apple, is a master of this concept. By simply replacing the cheap plastic exteriors of its computer products with sleek, airbrushed aluminum and minimizing the amount of visible screws, he set his products miles above the rest, and customers lined up to pay the "Apple premium" for his futuristic looking products - such as the iPad, iPhone and iMac. Customers will come back if your product feels good in their hands.

Quality over quantity - it's an age old lesson that too many of us choose to ignore. Although sacrificing the former for the latter may grant you a few short-term profits, you'll quickly run out of steam when customers fail to come back. Favoring quality over quantity will increase your company's reputation and increase product loyalty, which will keep your business sustainable in the long run.

By: Leo Sun

Which Organizational Structure is Right for Your Business?
By: Leo Sun
When setting up a new business, you should pay careful attention to designing your company's organizational structure. This should be decided according to your company's size, industry and aims. You should think of organizational structures as communication flowcharts. Poorly conceived organizational structures will result in sluggish, inefficient communication in which managers at various levels are required to deliver information to too many people for too many levels of approval. Well designed organizational structures will produce efficient communication channels and encourage fast, clean decisions. Let's take a look at several of the most common forms of organizational structures.
The functional structure is the most commonly used by most businesses. It's a top down flowchart with a high ranking executive at the top, with multiple middle managers - such as the human resources, marketing, accounting and engineering department heads - all directly reporting to the top executive. These departments are managed separately from each other by the department heads, and they only answer to the top level manager. The strength of this system is that it's easy to understand, and keeps businesses neatly compartmentalized. However, the weakness is glaring - if a weak, poorly organized executive is at the top, then cases where the right hand fails to talk to the left will occur, causing frustrating problems.
A variant of the functional structure is the product structure, which is designed for larger companies. In this flowchart, a group of the highest executives sit at the top, while different products are separated into mini-companies. For example, a food products company might be split into beverages, snacks, dairy products, frozen dinners and condiments, with the managers of each segment reporting to the top. In this case, it won't matter if the right hand fails to talk to the left, since products don't depend directly on each other.
If your company offers services, such as healthcare, you can use the customer-based organizational structure. This is simply a variation of the product structure, in which the different business segments at the bottom are each split into a specific customer group - for example, inpatients, outpatients and free clinic patients. The managers of each segment would then report directly to the hospital president at the top. This is also designed to avoid overlap, confusion and redundancies.
If your company gets really big and starts to go national or global, you need to split your company structure into regional segments. This is also a variant of the functional structure, with the top executives based in your home country at the top, with the reporting segments being comprised of regional managers. This insures that your demands in different markets are being met in a localized fashion. Localization is the goal here, in all aspects - pricing, real estate and product lines. Large companies which have tried to use a single pricing strategy on a static product line across multiple geographic markets have often failed miserably, being eaten alive by smaller regional competitors.
The matrix structure is often used by video game and movie companies, with various departments, all equal, working in tandem to produce a single final product. In this case, a strong manager at the top - such as a video game publisher or movie director - acts as a team leader to insure that each segment receives the data they need to complete their separate task. For example, in the production of a movie, one department might work on the music, the other might work on special effects, while another one works on the recorded film. Each segment must receive some information from the other - for example, a special effects team will need access to the filmed footage - and it's the job of the movie director (at the top) to make sure all the threads of the web are connected to each other, then produce the finished product.
Other Structures
While most companies use a variation of the functional structure, it's up to you to figure out which structure best fits your company. You can also mix and match the best parts of each to create a customized structure. Just remember, the reason for having an organizational structure is to maintain communication and to make sure that there are as few redundancies as possible
 Source: Business

Business & Entrepreneurship / Six Effective Ways to Foster Innovation
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:03:58 AM »
Six Effective Ways to Foster Innovation
By: Adam Colgate
Employee creativity and innovation are essential for the success of any business, particularly in times of economic turmoil. There is a clear connection between employee engagement and innovation according to a 2006 Gallup poll. Engaged employees are more creative and more willing to accept innovative ideas from others. Most CEOs value creativity, and employees who are allowed to be creative are more engaged with their current positions. A company's culture can either foster or stifle innovation. Fortunately, business leaders are able to shape a more creative work environment if they follow a few basic guidelines.
Maintain an open dialogue between employees and upper management
Dialogue will effectively motivate and engage employees. Always allow employees to present their ideas before important decisions are made. Provide feedback to employees, even when their ideas are not used, so that they know that they are not being dismissed.

Encourage communication between departments: Collaboration between members of different departments often results in creative solutions for problems. Interdepartmental communication facilitates trust and prevents conflict. Departments that do not communicate are more likely to blame each other when problems arise.
Organize brainstorming sessions
IBM has found the innovation jam to be quite successful. Since 2001, jams have allowed hundreds of thousands of IBM employees around the world to connect and come up with innovative solutions for company problems. You do not need to run a global enterprise to benefit from companywide collaboration. Give your employees regular opportunities to bounce ideas off each other.
Engage employees by encouraging them to share creative ideas
Do notlimit creativity to special occasions. Employees should be encouraged to continually share their ideas with supervisors and each other. Find the most effective method of communication for your organization. You may want to create a type of suggestion box or schedule time at the end of meetings for people to share their ideas.
Do not force people to be innovative
Creativity can be encouraged but not compelled. Forcing people to present creative ideas at certain times will not bring true innovation. Rather, create a number of different incentives to draw out creativity. Innovative ideas could be rewarded financially, with opportunities for advancement or any other incentive you have found effective for your employee base.
Remain flexible and forgiving
Inflexible environments discourage innovation. Innovation often involves taking risks. Encourage employees to think outside the box and implement ideas without interference. Additionally, do not punish employees if ideas are unsuccessful. Employees who are punished for taking risks serve as a warning to others against being creative or innovative.
Keep track of company innovations
Many leaders in upper management lose interest in supporting creativity and innovation because they do not bother to keep track of past innovations. Knowing how many employee innovations have been implemented and how successful they are, presents a clear picture of the financial benefits of employee creativity. Keeping track of innovations will also indicate whether any alterations need to be made to recently implemented programs or the company culture.
 Source: Business

Business & Entrepreneurship / Principles of Creative Leadership
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:02:16 AM »

When properly managed, creativity can be found in any employee, regardless of the job description. On the whole, creative people typically fall into a variety of categories, ranging from those who are quick and dramatic to people who are careful and quiet. But one thing remains true of all: most creative ideas are not flashes of inspiration in an individual's head but rather come from how people identify, create, store, share and use the knowledge they're exposed to in their surrounding environment.
And fostering that environment (not the act of creativity itself) is the task of creative leadership.
Defining Creativity
According to the Snowflake Model of Creativity, developed by Professor David Perkins of Harvard University, there are six common traits present in creative people:
1.   Strong commitment to personal aesthetics
2.   Ability to excel in finding solutions
3.   Mental mobility
4.   Willingness to take risks (and the ability to accept failure)
5.   Objectivity
6.   Inner motivation
The first three traits are largely cognitive and the last three refer to aspects of personality. As none of the six are viewed to be genetically inherited, Perkins argues that creativity can be taught and, as it relates to modern business, cultivated.
Managing Creative People
Managing for creativity and innovation differs slightly from other methods of management due to the level of freedom employees are given in comparison to those in other job functions. But like any other process, managing creative functions must strike a balance between employees, clients, audiences and partners, achieving satisfaction between all involved for it to be effective.

This balancing act is reportedly achieved by employing five distinct leadership tools to stimulate the creative mind that include: the amount of challenge given to personnel, the degree of freedom granted to minimize hassles related to procedures and processes, the design of work groups to tap ideas from all employees, the level of encouragement and incentives provided (including rewards and recognition), and the nature of support provided by the organization as a whole. It goes without saying, but managers must be motivated themselves to achieve a peak outcome.
Fostering a Creative Environment
One of the key components mentioned above is encouragement. In fact, if you really stop and analyze each of the leadership tools mentioned, they all boil down to one basic function: support. And since creativity springs from a highly personal reaction to one's environment, it's the leader's task to create an environment that fosters creativity. To do so:
•   Organize regular team brainstorming sessions, allowing employees to produce a high quantity of ideas, regardless of whether they're immediately viable or not. Once you've amassed a large pool of potential ideas, analyze and select those of the highest quality and move forward with them.
•   Establish a positive and continuously-reinforced work environment. When employees realize their ideas are not only encouraged but accepted, they'll naturally tend to think more creatively, which will lead to the potential for innovation in your products or services.
•   Build a collaborative work environment. Do this by tearing down walls and barriers. Creativity and innovation often stem from employees working in close proximity toward a common goal. You can create an open channel of communication between employees (or departments) by rewarding those who work together on solving problems.
Encourage risk taking. The thing that kills creativity the fastest is fear. Your team won't be creative or innovative if they think their actions may result in failure (and a potential backlash from management). So foster a working environment that rewards success and learns from failure but does not penalize for it. And above all, don't assign blame.

source: Business

Business Administration / The Discipline of Innovation
« on: March 01, 2017, 08:22:00 PM »
How much of innovation is inspiration, and how much is hard work? If it’s mainly the former, then management’s role is limited: Hire the right people, and get out of their way. If it’s largely the latter, management must play a more vigorous role: Establish the right roles and processes, set clear goals and relevant measures, and review progress at every step. Peter Drucker, with the masterly subtlety that is his trademark, comes down somewhere in the middle. Yes, he writes in this article, innovation is real work, and it can and should be managed like any other corporate function. But that doesn’t mean it’s the same as other business activities. Indeed, innovation is the work of knowing rather than doing.

Drucker argues that most innovative business ideas come from methodically analyzing seven areas of opportunity, some of which lie within particular companies or industries and some of which lie in broader social or demographic trends. Astute managers will ensure that their organizations maintain a clear focus on all seven. But analysis will take you only so far. Once you’ve identified an attractive opportunity, you still need a leap of imagination to arrive at the right response—call it “functional inspiration.”

Despite much discussion these days of the “entrepreneurial personality,” few of the entrepreneurs with whom I have worked during the past 30 years had such personalities. But I have known many people—salespeople, surgeons, journalists, scholars, even musicians—who did have them without being the least bit entrepreneurial. What all the successful entrepreneurs I have met have in common is not a certain kind of personality but a commitment to the systematic practice of innovation.

Innovation is the specific function of entrepreneurship, whether in an existing business, a public service institution, or a new venture started by a lone individual in the family kitchen. It is the means by which the entrepreneur either creates new wealth-producing resources or endows existing resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth.

Today, much confusion exists about the proper definition of entrepreneurship. Some observers use the term to refer to all small businesses; others, to all new businesses. In practice, however, a great many well-established businesses engage in highly successful entrepreneurship. The term, then, refers not to an enterprise’s size or age but to a certain kind of activity. At the heart of that activity is innovation: the effort to create purposeful, focused change in an enterprise’s economic or social potential.

Sources of Innovation
There are, of course, innovations that spring from a flash of genius. Most innovations, however, especially the successful ones, result from a conscious, purposeful search for innovation opportunities, which are found only in a few situations. Four such areas of opportunity exist within a company or industry: unexpected occurrences, incongruities, process needs, and industry and market changes.

Three additional sources of opportunity exist outside a company in its social and intellectual environment: demographic changes, changes in perception, and new knowledge.

True, these sources overlap, different as they may be in the nature of their risk, difficulty, and complexity, and the potential for innovation may well lie in more than one area at a time. But together, they account for the great majority of all innovation opportunities.

1. Unexpected Occurrences
Consider, first, the easiest and simplest source of innovation opportunity: the unexpected. In the early 1930s, IBM developed the first modern accounting machine, which was designed for banks. But banks in 1933 did not buy new equipment. What saved the company—according to a story that Thomas Watson, Sr., the company’s founder and long-term CEO, often told—was its exploitation of an unexpected success: The New York Public Library wanted to buy a machine. Unlike the banks, libraries in those early New Deal days had money, and Watson sold more than a hundred of his otherwise unsalable machines to libraries.

Fifteen years later, when everyone believed that computers were designed for advanced scientific work, business unexpectedly showed an interest in a machine that could do payroll. Univac, which had the most advanced machine, spurned business applications. But IBM immediately realized it faced a possible unexpected success, redesigned what was basically Univac’s machine for such mundane applications as payroll, and within five years became a leader in the computer industry, a position it has maintained to this day.
The unexpected failure may be an equally important source of innovation opportunities. Everyone knows about the Ford Edsel as the biggest new-car failure in automotive history. What very few people seem to know, however, is that the Edsel’s failure was the foundation for much of the company’s later success. Ford planned the Edsel, the most carefully designed car to that point in American automotive history, to give the company a full product line with which to compete with General Motors. When it bombed, despite all the planning, market research, and design that had gone into it, Ford realized that something was happening in the automobile market that ran counter to the basic assumptions on which GM and everyone else had been designing and marketing cars. No longer was the market segmented primarily by income groups; the new principle of segmentation was what we now call “lifestyles.” Ford’s response was the Mustang, a car that gave the company a distinct personality and reestablished it as an industry leader.

Unexpected successes and failures are such productive sources of innovation opportunities because most businesses dismiss them, disregard them, and even resent them. The German scientist who around 1905 synthesized novocaine, the first nonaddictive narcotic, had intended it to be used in major surgical procedures like amputation. Surgeons, however, preferred total anesthesia for such procedures; they still do. Instead, novocaine found a ready appeal among dentists. Its inventor spent the remaining years of his life traveling from dental school to dental school making speeches that forbade dentists from “misusing” his noble invention in applications for which he had not intended it.

This is a caricature, to be sure, but it illustrates the attitude managers often take to the unexpected: “It should not have happened.” Corporate reporting systems further ingrain this reaction, for they draw attention away from unanticipated possibilities. The typical monthly or quarterly report has on its first page a list of problems—that is, the areas where results fall short of expectations. Such information is needed, of course, to help prevent deterioration of performance. But it also suppresses the recognition of new opportunities. The first acknowledgment of a possible opportunity usually applies to an area in which a company does better than budgeted. Thus genuinely entrepreneurial businesses have two “first pages”—a problem page and an opportunity page—and managers spend equal time on both.

2. Incongruities
Alcon Laboratories was one of the success stories of the 1960s because Bill Conner, the company’s cofounder, exploited an incongruity in medical technology. The cataract operation is the world’s third or fourth most common surgical procedure. During the past 300 years, doctors systematized it to the point that the only “old-fashioned” step left was the cutting of a ligament. Eye surgeons had learned to cut the ligament with complete success, but it was so different a procedure from the rest of the operation, and so incompatible with it, that they often dreaded it. It was incongruous.

Doctors had known for 50 years about an enzyme that could dissolve the ligament without cutting. All Conner did was to add a preservative to this enzyme that gave it a few months’ shelf life. Eye surgeons immediately accepted the new compound, and Alcon found itself with a worldwide monopoly. Fifteen years later, Nestlé bought the company for a fancy price.

Such an incongruity within the logic or rhythm of a process is only one possibility out of which innovation opportunities may arise. Another source is incongruity between economic realities. For instance, whenever an industry has a steadily growing market but falling profit margins—as, say, in the steel industries of developed countries between 1950 and 1970—an incongruity exists. The innovative response: minimills.

An incongruity between expectations and results can also open up possibilities for innovation. For 50 years after the turn of the century, shipbuilders and shipping companies worked hard both to make ships faster and to lower their fuel consumption. Even so, the more successful they were in boosting speed and trimming their fuel needs, the worse the economics of ocean freighters became. By 1950 or so, the ocean freighter was dying, if not already dead.

All that was wrong, however, was an incongruity between the industry’s assumptions and its realities. The real costs did not come from doing work (that is, being at sea) but from not doing work (that is, sitting idle in port). Once managers understood where costs truly lay, the innovations were obvious: the roll-on and roll-off ship and the container ship. These solutions, which involved old technology, simply applied to the ocean freighter what railroads and truckers had been using for 30 years. A shift in viewpoint, not in technology, totally changed the economics of ocean shipping and turned it into one of the major growth industries of the last 20 to 30 years.
3. Process Needs
Anyone who has ever driven in Japan knows that the country has no modern highway system. Its roads still follow the paths laid down for—or by—oxcarts in the tenth century. What makes the system work for automobiles and trucks is an adaptation of the reflector used on American highways since the early 1930s. The reflector lets each car see which other cars are approaching from any one of a half-dozen directions. This minor invention, which enables traffic to move smoothly and with a minimum of accidents, exploited a process need.

What we now call the media had its origin in two innovations developed around 1890 in response to process needs. One was Ottmar Mergenthaler’s Linotype, which made it possible to produce newspapers quickly and in large volume. The other was a social innovation, modern advertising, invented by the first true newspaper publishers, Adolph Ochs of the New York Times, Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World, and William Randolph Hearst. Advertising made it possible for them to distribute news practically free of charge, with the profit coming from marketing.

4. Industry and Market Changes
Managers may believe that industry structures are ordained by the good Lord, but these structures can—and often do—change overnight. Such change creates tremendous opportunity for innovation.

One of American business’s great success stories in recent decades is the brokerage firm of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, recently acquired by the Equitable Life Assurance Society. DL&J was founded in 1960 by three young men, all graduates of the Harvard Business School, who realized that the structure of the financial industry was changing as institutional investors became dominant. These young men had practically no capital and no connections. Still, within a few years, their firm had become a leader in the move to negotiated commissions and one of Wall Street’s stellar performers. It was the first to be incorporated and go public.

In a similar fashion, changes in industry structure have created massive innovation opportunities for American health care providers. During the past ten or 15 years, independent surgical and psychiatric clinics, emergency centers, and HMOs have opened throughout the country. Comparable opportunities in telecommunications followed industry upheavals—in transmission (with the emergence of MCI and Sprint in long-distance service) and in equipment (with the emergence of such companies as Rolm in the manufacturing of private branch exchanges).

When an industry grows quickly—the critical figure seems to be in the neighborhood of 40% growth in ten years or less—its structure changes. Established companies, concentrating on defending what they already have, tend not to counterattack when a newcomer challenges them. Indeed, when market or industry structures change, traditional industry leaders again and again neglect the fastest growing market segments. New opportunities rarely fit the way the industry has always approached the market, defined it, or organized to serve it. Innovators therefore have a good chance of being left alone for a long time.

5. Demographic Changes
Of the outside sources of innovation opportunities, demographics are the most reliable. Demographic events have known lead times; for instance, every person who will be in the American labor force by the year 2000 has already been born. Yet because policy makers often neglect demographics, those who watch them and exploit them can reap great rewards.

The Japanese are ahead in robotics because they paid attention to demographics. Everyone in the developed countries around 1970 or so knew that there was both a baby bust and an education explosion going on; about half or more of the young people were staying in school beyond high school. Consequently, the number of people available for traditional blue-collar work in manufacturing was bound to decrease and become inadequate by 1990. Everyone knew this, but only the Japanese acted on it, and they now have a ten-year lead in robotics.

Much the same is true of Club Mediterranee’s success in the travel and resort business. By 1970, thoughtful observers could have seen the emergence of large numbers of affluent and educated young adults in Europe and the United States. Not comfortable with the kind of vacations their working-class parents had enjoyed—the summer weeks at Brighton or Atlantic City—these young people were ideal customers for a new and exotic version of the “hangout” of their teen years.

Managers have known for a long time that demographics matter, but they have always believed that population statistics change slowly. In this century, however, they don’t. Indeed, the innovation opportunities made possible by changes in the numbers of people—and in their age distribution, education, occupations, and geographic location—are among the most rewarding and least risky of entrepreneurial pursuits.

6. Changes in Perception
“The glass is half full” and “The glass is half empty” are descriptions of the same phenomenon but have vastly different meanings. Changing a manager’s perception of a glass from half full to half empty opens up big innovation opportunities.

All factual evidence indicates, for instance, that in the last 20 years, Americans’ health has improved with unprecedented speed—whether measured by mortality rates for the newborn, survival rates for the very old, the incidence of cancers (other than lung cancer), cancer cure rates, or other factors. Even so, collective hypochondria grips the nation. Never before has there been so much concern with or fear about health. Suddenly, everything seems to cause cancer or degenerative heart disease or premature loss of memory. The glass is clearly half empty.

Rather than rejoicing in great improvements in health, Americans seem to be emphasizing how far away they still are from immortality. This view of things has created many opportunities for innovations: markets for new health care magazines, for exercise classes and jogging equipment, and for all kinds of health foods. The fastest growing new U.S. business in 1983 was a company that makes indoor exercise equipment.

A change in perception does not alter facts. It changes their meaning, though—and very quickly. It took less than two years for the computer to change from being perceived as a threat and as something only big businesses would use to something one buys for doing income tax. Economics do not necessarily dictate such a change; in fact, they may be irrelevant. What determines whether people see a glass as half full or half empty is mood rather than fact, and a change in mood often defies quantification. But it is not exotic. It is concrete. It can be defined. It can be tested. And it can be exploited for innovation opportunity.

7. New Knowledge
Among history-making innovations, those that are based on new knowledge—whether scientific, technical, or social—rank high. They are the super-stars of entrepreneurship; they get the publicity and the money. They are what people usually mean when they talk of innovation, although not all innovations based on knowledge are important.

Knowledge-based innovations differ from all others in the time they take, in their casualty rates, and in their predictability, as well as in the challenges they pose to entrepreneurs. Like most superstars, they can be temperamental, capricious, and hard to direct. They have, for instance, the longest lead time of all innovations. There is a protracted span between the emergence of new knowledge and its distillation into usable technology. Then there is another long period before this new technology appears in the marketplace in products, processes, o r services. Overall, the lead time involved is something like 50 years, a figure that has not shortened appreciably throughout history.
Knowledge-based innovations can be temperamental, capricious, and hard to direct.

To become effective, innovation of this sort usually demands not one kind of knowledge but many. Consider one of the most potent knowledge-based innovations: modern banking. The theory of the entrepreneurial bank—that is, of the purposeful use of capital to generate economic development—was formulated by the Comte de Saint-Simon during the era of Napoleon. Despite Saint-Simon’s extraordinary prominence, it was not until 30 years after his death in 1825 that two of his disciples, t he brothers Jacob and Isaac Pereire, established the first entrepreneurial bank, the Credit Mobilier, and ushered in what we now call finance capitalism.

The Pereires, however, did not know modern commercial banking, which developed at about the same time across the channel in England. The Credit Mobilier failed ignominiously. A few years later, two young men—one an American, J.P. Morgan, and one a German, Georg Siemens—put together the French theory of entrepreneurial banking and the English theory of commercial banking to create the first successful modern banks: J.P. Morgan & Company in New York, and the Deutsche Bank in Berlin. Ten years later, a young Japanese, Shibusawa Eiichi, adapted Siemens’s concept to his country and thereby laid the foundation of Japan’s modern economy. This is how knowledge-based innovation always works.

The computer, to cite another example, required no fewer than six separate strands of knowledge:

binary arithmetic;
Charles Babbage’s conception of a calculating machine, in the first half of the nineteenth century;
the punch card, invented by Herman Hollerith for the U.S. census of 1890;
the audion tube, an electronic switch invented in 1906;
symbolic logic, which was developed between 1910 and 1913 by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead;
and concepts of programming and feedback that came out of abortive attempts during World War I to develop effective antiaircraft guns.
Although all the necessary knowledge was available by 1918, the first operational digital computer did not appear until 1946.

Long lead times and the need for convergence among different kinds of knowledge explain the peculiar rhythm of knowledge-based innovation, its attractions, and its dangers. During a long gestation period, there is a lot of talk and little action. Then, when all the elements suddenly converge, there is tremendous excitement and activity and an enormous amount of speculation. Between 1880 and 1890, for example, almost 1,000 electric-apparatus companies were founded in developed countries. Then, as always, there was a crash and a shakeout. By 1914, only 25 were still alive. In the early 1920s, 300 to 500 automobile companies existed in the United States; by 1960, only four of them remained.

It may be difficult, but knowledge-based innovation can be managed. Success requires careful analysis of the various kinds of knowledge needed to make an innovation possible. Both J.P. Morgan and Georg Siemens did this when they established their banking ventures. The Wright brothers did this when they developed the first operational airplane.

Careful analysis of the needs—and, above all, the capabilities—of the intended user is also essential. It may seem paradoxical, but knowledge-based innovation is more market dependent than any other kind of innovation. De Havilland, a British company, designed and built the first passenger jet, but it did not analyze what the market needed and therefore did not identify two key factors. One was configuration—that is, the right size with the right payload for the routes on which a jet would give an airline the greatest advantage. The other was equally mundane: How could the airlines finance the purchase of such an expensive plane? Because de Havilland failed to do an adequate user analysis, two American companies, Boeing and Douglas, took over the commercial jet-aircraft industry.

Principles of Innovation
Purposeful, systematic innovation begins with the analysis of the sources of new opportunities. Depending on the context, sources will have different importance at different times. Demographics, for instance, may be of little concern to innovators of fundamental industrial processes like steelmaking, although the Linotype machine became successful primarily because there were not enough skilled typesetters available to satisfy a mass market. By the same token, new knowledge may be of little relevance to someone innovating a social instrument to satisfy a need that changing demographics or tax laws have created. But whatever the situation, innovators must analyze all opportunity sources.

Because innovation is both conceptual and perceptual, would-be innovators must also go out and look, ask, and listen. Successful innovators use both the right and left sides of their brains. They work out analytically what the innovation has to be to satisfy an opportunity. Then they go out and look at potential users to study their expectations, their values, and their needs.

To be effective, an innovation has to be simple, and it has to be focused. It should do only one thing; otherwise it confuses people. Indeed, the greatest praise an innovation can receive is for people to say, “This is obvious! Why didn’t I think of it? It’s so simple!” Even the innovation that creates new users and new markets should be directed toward a specific, clear, and carefully designed application.
Effective innovations start small. They are not grandiose. It may be to enable a moving vehicle to draw electric power while it runs along rails, the innovation that made possible the electric streetcar. Or it may be the elementary idea of putting the same number of matches into a matchbox (it used to be 50). This simple notion made possible the automatic filling of matchboxes and gave the Swedes a world monopoly on matches for half a century. By contrast, grandiose ideas for things that will “revolutionize an industry” are unlikely to work.

In fact, no one can foretell whether a given innovation will end up a big business or a modest achievement. But even if the results are modest, the successful innovation aims from the beginning to become the standard setter, to determine the direction of a new technology or a new industry, to create the business that is—and remains—ahead of the pack. If an innovation does not aim at leadership from the beginning, it is unlikely to be innovative enough.

Above all, innovation is work rather than genius. It requires knowledge. It often requires ingenuity. And it requires focus. There are clearly people who are more talented innovators than others, but their talents lie in well-defined areas. Indeed, innovators rarely work in more than one area. For all his systematic innovative accomplishments, Thomas Edison worked only in the electrical field. An innovator in financial areas, Citibank for example, is not likely to embark on innovations in health care.

Innovation requires knowledge, ingenuity, and, above all else, focus.

In innovation, as in any other endeavor, there is talent, there is ingenuity, and there is knowledge. But when all is said and done, what innovation requires is hard, focused, purposeful work. If diligence, persistence, and commitment are lacking, talent, ingenuity, and knowledge are of no avail.

There is, of course, far more to entrepreneurship than systematic innovation—distinct entrepreneurial strategies, for example, and the principles of entrepreneurial management, which are needed equally in the established enterprise, the public service organization, and the new venture. But the very foundation of entrepreneurship is the practice of systematic innovation.

The Discipline of Innovation,Peter F. Drucker

A version of this article appeared in the August 2002 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15