PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C K Prahalad

Publications and source records attributed to C K Prahalad.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing.

In the 1980s, competitive success came mostly from achieving cost and quality advantages over rivals in existing markets. In the 1990s, it will come from building and dominating fundamentally new markets. Core competencies are one prerequisite for creating new markets. Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing are the keys that unlock them. McKinsey Award winners Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad argue that corporate imagination quickens when companies escape the tyranny of their served markets. (Motorola, for example, sees itself as a leader in wireless communications, not just as a maker of beepers and mobile phones). Think about needs and functionalities instead of marketing's more conventional customer-product grid. Overturn traditional price/performance assumptions. (Fidelity Investments unlocked a vast new market by packaging sophisticated investment vehicles for middle-income investors.) And lead customers rather than simply follow them. Creating new markets is a risky business, however--a lot like shooting arrows into the mist. Imaginative companies minimize the risk not by being fast followers but through the process the authors call expeditionary marketing: low-cost, fast-paced market incursions designed to bring the target quickly into view. Toshiba introduced laptop computers to the market at such a blistering pace that it could explore every conceivable niche--and afford an occasional failure without compromising its credibility with customers. To stimulate corporate imagination, top management needs to redefine failure and develop new time- and risk-adjusted yardsticks for managerial performance. Managers must be encouraged to stretch their company's opportunity horizon well beyond the boundaries of its current businesses.

Commerce↗

Strategy as stretch and leverage.

Global competition is not just product versus product or company versus company. It is mind-set versus mind-set. Driven to understand the dynamics of competition, we have learned a lot about what makes one company more successful than another. But to find the root of competitiveness--to understand why some companies create new forms of competitive advantage while others watch and follow--we must look at strategic mind-sets. For many managers, "being strategic" means pursuing opportunities that fit the company's resources. This approach is not wrong, Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad contend, but it obscures an approach in which "stretch" supplements fit and being strategic means creating a chasm between ambition and resources. Toyota, CNN, British Airways, Sony, and others all displaced competitors with stronger reputations and deeper pockets. Their secret? In each case, the winner had greater ambition than its well-endowed rivals. Winners also find less resource-intensive ways of achieving their ambitious goals. This is where leverage complements the strategic allocation of resources. Managers at competitive companies can get a bigger bang for their buck in five basic ways: by concentrating resources around strategic goals; by accumulating resources more efficiently; by complementing one kind of resource with another; by conserving resources whenever they can; and by recovering resources from the market-place as quickly as possible. As recent competitive battles have demonstrated, abundant resources can't guarantee continued industry leadership.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Economic Competition↗

The new meaning of quality in the information age.

Software applications are now a mission-critical source of competitive advantage for most companies. They are also a source of great risk, as the Y2K bug has made clear. Yet many line managers still haven't confronted software issues--partly because they aren't sure how best to define the quality of the applications in their IT infrastructures. Some companies such as Wal-Mart and the Gap have successfully integrated the software in their networks, but most have accumulated an unwidely number of incompatible applications--all designed to perform the same tasks. The authors provide a framework for measuring the performance of software in a company's IT portfolio. Quality traditionally has been measured according to a product's ability to meet certain specifications; other views of quality have emerged that measure a product's adaptability to customers' needs and a product's ability to encourage innovation. To judge software quality properly, argue the authors, managers must measure applications against all three approaches. Understanding the domain of a software application is an important part of that process. The domain is the body of knowledge about a user's needs and expectations for a product. Software domains change frequently based on how a consumer chooses to use, for example, Microsoft Word or a spreadsheet application. The domain can also be influenced by general changes in technology, such as the development of a new software platform. Thus, applications can't be judged only according to whether they conform to specifications. The authors discuss how to identify domain characteristics and software risks and suggest ways to reduce the variability of software domains.

Economic Competition↗