Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C K Prahalad

Publications and source records attributed to C K Prahalad.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

The end of corporate imperialism.

As they search for growth, multinational corporations will have no choice but to compete in the big emerging markets of China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil. But while it is still common to question how such corporations will change life in those markets, Western executives would be smart to turn the question around and ask how multinationals themselves will be transformed by these markets. To be successful, MNCs will have to rethink every element of their business models, the authors assert in this seminal HBR article from 1998. During the first wave of market entry in the 1980s, multinationals operated with what might be termed an imperialist mind-set, assuming that the emerging markets would merely be new markets for their old products. But this mind-set limited their success: What is truly big and emerging in countries like China and India is a new consumer base comprising hundreds of millions of people. To tap into this huge opportunity, MNCs need to ask themselves five basic questions: Who is in the emerging middle class in these countries? How do the distribution networks operate? What mix of local and global leadership do you need to foster business opportunities? Should you adopt a consistent strategy for all of your business units within one country? Should you take on local partners? The transformation that multinational corporations must undergo is not cosmetic--simply developing greater sensitivity to local cultures will not do the trick, the authors say. To compete in the big emerging markets, multinationals must reconfigure their resources, rethink their cost structures, redesign their product development processes, and challenge their assumptions about who their top-level managers should be.

Commerce↗
PubMed2002

Serving the world's poor, profitably.

By stimulating commerce and development at the bottom of the economic pyramid, multi-nationals could radically improve the lives of billions of people and help create a more stable, less dangerous world. Achieving this goal does not require MNCs to spearhead global social-development initiatives for charitable purposes. They need only act in their own self-interest. How? The authors lay out the business case for entering the world's poorest markets. Fully 65% of the world's population earns less than $2,000 per year--that's 4 billion people. But despite the vastness of this market, it remains largely untapped. The reluctance to invest is easy to understand, but it is, by and large, based on outdated assumptions of the developing world. While individual incomes may be low, the aggregate buying power of poor communities is actually quite large, representing a substantial market in many countries for what some might consider luxury goods like satellite television and phone services. Prices, and margins, are often much higher in poor neighborhoods than in their middle-class counterparts. And new technologies are already steadily reducing the effects of corruption, illiteracy, inadequate infrastructure, and other such barriers. Because these markets are in the earliest stages of economic development, revenue growth for multi-nationals entering them can be extremely rapid. MNCs can also lower costs, not only through low-cost labor but by transferring operating efficiencies and innovations developed to serve their existing operations. Certainly, succeeding in such markets requires MNCs to think creatively. The biggest change, though, has to come from executives: Unless business leaders confront their own preconceptions--particularly about the value of high-volume, low-margin businesses--companies are unlikely to master the challenges or reap the rewards of these developing markets.

Developing Countries↗
PubMedDate not supplied

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↗
PubMedDate not supplied

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↗
PubMedDate not supplied

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↗