Upload
levia
View
26
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ניהול אסטרטגי גלובאלי להשבחת ארגונים: אתגר ליועץ הארגוני כחוליה המקשרת בין תיאוריה לפרקטיקה. Israel Global Competitiveness. I. A. A. A. G. G. G. I. I. 1960s. 2008. 2020?. Some Personal and Biased Thoughts Professor Avi Fiegenbaum- - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Some Personal and Biased ThoughtsProfessor Avi Fiegenbaum-
Area Head – Strategic Management & EntrepreneurshipFaculty of Industrial Engineering & Management
TechnionIPPA 2009. January 28, 2009
ניהול אסטרטגי גלובאלי להשבחת ארגונים:אתגר ליועץ הארגוני כחוליה המקשרת בין תיאוריה
לפרקטיקה
1960s 2008 2020?
IA G I
A G
G
I
A
Israel Global Competitiveness
2
Challenges for AGI 1 - Israel 2028:Global, Periphery & Traditional Industries
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges D. OC-SM FutureC. “SM” Offerings
ממשלה:
שרים
2020?
יועצים
2020?
3
?2028יועץ – מה עלי לעשות לקראת
?
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges D. OC-SM FutureC. “SM” Offerings
4
Academia
(mgt)
Teaching•Degree•Non degree
Industry 1 Industry 2 Industry N
Government 1 Government 2 Government M
Levels:
A. Knowledge Creation
B. Knowledge Transformation
C. Knowledge Application
Management – OC Challenges 1:Top Down & Bottom Up
Consultants
(“Best Practices”)
“GI” Vision
2028
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges D. OC-SM FutureC. “SM” Offerings
5
Organizational Consultants Challenges 2: Bridging “AGI”
Knowledge Base
“)A(”
Themes-Methodologies
“)A(”Context (“GI”)
Traditional
OC
SM
SM
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges D. OC-SM FutureC. “SM” Offerings
OC SM•Individual + ?•Group + ?•Organization + ?•Industry/Environment ?
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
The Strategic Challenge 1:Mid 1990s: The CEO-Chair?
Industry: High tech Divisions: 3 Performance:
Total Sales: $ 800 M Profit: $ 30 M Market value: $ 200 M
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
1990 2000A. Financial Markets:
1. # of Companies NASDAQ 7 1202. Market Value $ O.5 B $ 130 B3. # of VC 2 704. VC Total Fund $ 0.1B $ 3B
B. Technological Markets1. # of Technological Incubators 0 232. # of Start Ups Few Thousands
The Strategic Challenge 2:Israeli High Tech 1990s
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
The Strategic Challenge 3:Israeli 2020?
1. Why?2. Can others learn from?3. Will Israel high tech re surge?4. Who is responsible (“the invisible hand”)?
1990
2000
2015
I II III IV?
THEORETCIAL PERSPECTIVE I:STRATEGYY IS ABOUT RISK TAKING – What Reference Point?
9,000,000
P = 100%
P = 90% P = 10%
10,000,0000
9,000,000
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
•Customers •Suppliers •Competitors
•Capabilities
•Vision
•Past
•Present
•Future
Internal
External
Time
Narcissist Competitive
Failure Amorphic
ExternalLow High
High
LowInternal
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
THEORETCIAL PERSPECTIVE II:STRATEGY: Global Competitive Space
A. CEO-Board LEADERSHIP-ADAPTATION PERFORMANCE (B) INSIDE (A,C,D)-OUTSIDE (E,F)
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO- Chair
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
THEORETCIAL PERSPECTIVE III:STRATEGY: System Management
Short-Term: ROE-MS
Leader
Manager
“Fantasizer”Long-
Term: MV
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair
B1. Balance Short-Long Term
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Low HighLong Term
HighShort Term
Low3. Exploration4. Failure1. Strategic2.Exploitation
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair Competitive Diagnostic
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair Relative to LOCAL-------------- Global ------- - Value
A. Short Term:1. ROE ------ 1 2 3 4 52. ROE Change ------ 1 2 3 4 53. SALES ------ 1 2 3 4
54. SALES Change ------ 1 2 3 4
55. Other ------ 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
B. Long Term:1. MV ----- 1 2 3 4 52. MV Change ----- 1 2 3 4 53. Dividend ----- 1 2 3 4
54. Other ----- 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
Implementation 1
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair
Cost- Leadership Differentiation
Cost –
Focus
Differentiation -
Focus
Cost Differentiation
Competitive Advantage
Scope
Narrow
Broad
1. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES?
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair Relative to LOCAL-------------- Global ------- - Value
A. Cost reduction:1. Production ------ 1 2 3 4 52. Marketing ------ 1 2 3 4
53. Logistics ------ 1 2 3 4
54. Encouraged ------ 1 2 3 4 55. Other ------ 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
B. Innovation1. Production ----- 1 2 3 4 52. Marketing ----- 1 2 3 4
53. Logistics ----- 1 2 3 4
54. Encouraged ----- 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
Implementation 2
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Sales Earning EPS ROC ROEGrowth Growth Growth1. SINGLE FIRM 7.17-- 4.81-- 3.92-- 10.81-- 13.20
2. DOMINANT FIRM 7.42-- 7.34 5.14- 8.24--- 10.18---
3. RELATED DIVER. 9.62 10.39+++ 8.56+ 11.97+++ 14.11+++
4. UNRELATED DIVER. 20.64+++ 18.64+++ 9.56+++ 9.56 10.38-
D. Corporate Level Strategy:
Empirical Findings
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Global
MNE
Trans-
NationalInter-
National
Local Responsiveness
Global Synergisms
High
High
Low
Low
How?
Cost
Differences
1.GLOBAL STRATEGY SUCCESS?
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Local Responsiveness
(Differentiation
Global Integration
(Cost)
1. Division
2. Division
3. Division
2. DIFFERENTIAED ORGANIZATION?
B. MNE:Performance
C. Business
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair Relative to LOCAL-------------- Global ------- - Value
A. Tangible Synergism1. Production ------ 1 2 3 4 52. Marketing ------ 1 2 3 4
53. Logistics ------ 1 2 3 4
54. Encouraged ------ 1 2 3 4 55. Other ------ 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
B. Intangible Synergism 1. Production ----- 1 2 3 4 52. Marketing ----- 1 2 3 4
53. Logistics ----- 1 2 3 4
54. Encouraged ----- 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
Implementation 3
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
3 years agoNow )2003(
R&D2[ 0..30]8[ 0..100]
Marketing18[ 0..250]38[ 0..400]
Logistics2[ 0..12]4[ 0..50]
Number of Alliances:
B. MNE:Performance
C. Business
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair
STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Pros:•Information•High Cost of Entry•Risk Reduction•Quick Entry•Quick Exit•Standards
B. Performance
C. Business
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair
WHY STRATEGIC ALLIANCES?
Cons:•Coordination•Changing Goals•“Hollow Organization”
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Managing Network Synergisms
Low HighRelational Efficiency
HighStructuralEfficiency
Low
3. Myopic4. Failure1. Strategic2. Amorphic
B. Performance
C. Business
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair Relative to LOCAL-------------- Global ------- - Value
A. Tangible Synergism1. Production ------ 1 2 3 4 52. Marketing ------ 1 2 3 4
53. Logistics ------ 1 2 3 4
54. Encouraged ------ 1 2 3 4 55. Other ------ 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
B. Intangible Synergism 1. Production ----- 1 2 3 4 52. Marketing ----- 1 2 3 4
53. Logistics ----- 1 2 3 4
54. Encouraged ----- 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
Implementation 4
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Demand: Total size Growth rate Segmentations
Competition: Buyers Suppliers Threat of new entrants Threat of substitute products Rivalry among existing companies
INDUSTRY ATTRACTIVNESS
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Industry Attractiveness
High LowCompetition
HighDemand
Low3. Efficiency4. Failure1. Strategic2. Growth
B. Performance
C. Business
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
B. Performance
C. SBU
D. Corporate
F. Industry
E. Alliance
A. CEO-Chair Relative to LOCAL-------------- Global ------- - Value
A. Competition1. Customers ------ 1 2 3 4 52. Suppliers ------ 1 2 3 4
53. New entrants ------ 1 2 3 4 54. Product substitute ------ 1 2 3 4
55. Rivalry ------ 1 2 3 4
5Average: 1 2 3 4
5
B. Demand 1. Size ----- 1 2 3 4 52. Growth rate ----- 1 2 3 4 53. Segmentation ----- 1 2 3 4 5
Average: 1 2 3 45
Implementation 5
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
1 2 3 45
Not at all Agree
1. Has a global & strategic model to enhance MV 1 2 3 45
2. Gets the right information with out asking 1 2 3 4 5
3. Affects the company strategy 1 2 3 4 5
4. Affects short term performance (ROE) 1 2 3 45
5. Affects long term performance (MV) 1 2 3 4 5
6. In sum, I am happy with the chairman-BOD
Contribution to the company 1 2 3 4 5
CEO-CHIAR: GLOBAL STRATEGIC EVLAUTION
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
CEO- Chair: Global Strategic Management Model to Enhance Market Value
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Long Term
Shor
t Ter
m 0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
vision
obje
ctiv
e &
goal
s
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Local Responsivness
Glo
bal S
yner
gies
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Relational EfficiencySt
ruct
ural
Effi
cien
cy
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Demand
Riva
lry
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Leader
Adap
tive
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cost
Scop
e
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1 C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2C2
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
2020: Co Evolution:Traditional Industries & High Tech?
Traditional Industries
1960s 2008 2020?
Israel Global Competitiveness
Traditional Industries
High Tech
High Tech40K
17K
10K
Innovation•Social Capital,•Entrepreneurship
IG
AB. “OC” ChallengesA. “GI” Challenges B. OC-SM FutureA. “SM” Offerings
Shoot to the moon, even if you miss, you still will be
among, stars …Thank You