Competing for the future C.K.

Prahalad and Gary Hamel

Book Review By - Rahul Chaudhari
INTRODUCTION Hamel and Prahalad are professors and academics who have also consulted to some major global corporates. This book is on strategic planning, but with a focus on breakthrough strategies for industry leadership and the markets of tomorrow. In their book Competing for the Future, authors Gary Hamel and C.K. Pralahad have offered their insights on business management for the 21st century. The authors provide advice on a forward-thinking strategy where companies can attempt to "seize the future" rather than maintain their status in the present. For, as they argue, companies, which are focused entirely on the present, and lose sight of the future, are merely running in place, and will quickly be outpaced by their global competitors. --------What drove some companies, and not others, to continuously search for new advantages? What was dynamic at work? There are some companies which were making commitments to specific areas optical media, financial engineering far in advance of the emergence of specific end-product market. What is the basis for such commitments? How can one write a business plan for a market that might not emerge for decade or more? What is the logic behind emotional and intellectual commitment so much in advance? How do executives select which capabilities to select for the future? The existing theories of strategy and organization provide a base only for discovery but do not fully answer these questions. They help us to understand the structure of an extant industry, the provide little insight into what it takes to fundamentally reshape the industry to ones own benefit, what it takes for a leadership team to develop a prescient, well grounded point of view about the future. While they provide a scorecard for keeping a track of relative competitive advantage, they fail to capture the dynamic of competence building. Competing for the future attempts to answer these questions. Chapter 1: Getting off the treadmill Managers should begin by trying to find answers to questions like: 1. Are we relevant in the industry? 2. How does the senior managements point of view about the future stack up against that of the competitors?

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

3. Which issue is absorbing more of senior managers attention? 4. Within the industry, do competitors view our company as more of a rule-taker or rule-maker? 5. What percentage of our advantage- building efforts focus on catching up with competitors versus building advantages new to the industry? 6. To what extent has our transformation agenda been set by competitors actions versus being set by our own unique vision to the future? 7. To what extent am I, as a senior manager, a maintenance engineer working on the present or an architect designing the future? 8. Among the employees, what is the balance between anxiety and hope? Senior managers should ask themselves the following questions: 1. What percentage of the time is spent on external, rather the internal issues, for example, the implications of new technology versus debating corporate overhead allocations? 2. Of the time spent outward, how much of it is spent considering how the world could be different in five or ten years, as opposed to worrying about winning the next contract or how to respond to competitors moves? 3. Of the time devoted to looking outward and forward, how much of it is spent in consultation with colleagues, where the objective is to build a deeply shared, well tested view of the future, so opposed to personal and idiosyncratic view? The findings suggest the about 40% of the senior management time is spent looking outward, out of this, about 30% is spent on peering five or more years into the future. And of the time looking forward, no more than 20% time is spent on an attempt to build a collective view of the future. Thus on an average, senior management is devoting less than 3% of the time (40% * 30% * 20% = 2.4%) of its time in building corporate perspective on the future. This should ideally be 20-50% over several months. But if future is not occupying senior managements time, then what is? Its restructuring and reengineering. The organizational transformation agenda typically includes downsizing, overhead reduction, employee empowerment, process redesign, and portfolio rationalization. As important these activities are, their accomplishment cannot restore a company to industry leadership, nor ensure that it intercepts the future. Though these are important, none of these is a substitute for imagining and creating the future. Disguising under the names of refocusing, delayering, decluttering, and right sizing, restructuring has always ended in the same result, fewer employees. One is tempted to ask why the right size is always smaller. The problems of low growth were often compounded by inattentiveness to ballooning overheads, diversification into unrelated businesses. To make the company lean and mean, make assets sweat, and get back to basics were the buzzwords. Return on capital employed (ROCE), shareholder value and earnings per share became the primary arbiters of the top management performance.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

Now, ROI, ROCE etc. have two components: numerator-net income and denominatorinvestment. To grow the numerator, top management must have a point of view about where the opportunities lie, must be able to anticipate customer changing needs, must have invested pre-emptively in building new competencies etc. Under pressure to raise ROCE or ROI, managements opts for reducing the denominator which is easier. One must understand that denominator management is an accountants shortcut to asset productivity. This is not the managements job. Another point to look at is that in restructuring, how will one know when he is done with it? Where is the dividing line between cutting fat and cutting muscle. One of the inevitable results of downsizing is plummeting employee morale. One of the paradoxes of is that trust is hardest to establish when you need it the most. There are some companies that employees trust. But if a company is in trouble, or if it is in middle of a restructuring effort, lack of trust automatically emerges as a serious barrier.

Integrate ones talents, intellect

Self actualization Esteem Social Security

Job security

Physiological

This is explained in part by Maslows Pyramid, the hierarchy of human needs that was identified by psychologist Abraham Maslow. At the top of the pyramid where people would like to be focussing, is the need to be self-actualised, to realise and integrate ones talents, intellect, values, and physical and emotional needs. In the new work environments, where companies are offering to empower employees, self-actualisation is being promoted by talking about the importance of human capital and is it often flaunted as one of the companys biggest strength and asset. At the bottom of the pyramid, Maslow put physical security, the need everyone has to feel safe from danger, harm, or risk. In the new competitive environment, this kind of security is exactly what management cannot offer. With heightened competition, there is virtually no job security, which leads to low employee morale. Restructuring seldom results in fundamental improvement in the business. At best it buys time. Downsizing belatedly attempts to correct the mistakes of the past; its not about creating markets of the future. The point is that getting smaller or leaner is not enough because thin is not necessarily healthy. Reengineering or regenerating? There is a difference between restructuring and reengineering. Reengineering at least has the hope of getting better as well as getting smaller. But a company surrenders todays business when it gets smaller faster than it gets better. A company surrenders tomorrows business when it gets better without getting different.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

The quest for competitiveness

Restructuring the portfolio and downsizing headcount

Reengineering processes & continuous improvement

Reinventing industries and regenerating strategies

Smaller

Better

Different

It is important to note the battle is not USA versus Europe versus Asia or anyone else. The real competition is between laggards and challengers, incumbents versus innovators, imitative versus imaginative. To create the future a company must o o o Change in some fundamental way the rules of engagement in a long standing industry Redraw the boundaries between industries Create entirely new industries

Organizational transformation agenda must be driven by a point of view about the industry transformation agenda: o How do we want this industry to be shaped in the next five or ten years? o What must we do to ensure that the industry evolves in a way that is maximally advantageous for us? o What skills and capabilities must we begin building now if we are to occupy leadership position? o How should we organise ourselves for opportunities that may not fit neatly in the current business units and divisions? A point of view about the desired trajectory for industry transformation enables a company to create a proactive agenda for organizational transformation. A company can control its own destiny if it knows how to control that of the industry. The primary challenge is to become author of industry transformation. Competition for the future is competition to create and dominate emerging opportunities- to stake out new competing space. Creating the future is more challenging than trying to catch it. The goal is not to benchmark a competitors products and services or imitate them, but to develop independent point of view about how to create and exploit them.

Chapter 2: How competition for the future is different

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

Today we are standing on the verge of a revolution. The kind of revolution which we are talking of is the environmental revolution, genetic and biotechnological revolution, and the digital and information age revolution. New industries which are now in their gestation phase would be born. But we have to understand that this future is not an extrapolation of the past. New industrial structures will supersede the old ones. Opportunities that seem evolutionary would be revolutionary. Todays niche markets would turn out to be mass markets. Todays leading edge science will become tomorrows household appliances. To successfully compete for this future, managers must try and understand how the competition in the future is different form that of today. The differences and profound. Competing for the future not only requires a redefinition of the strategy but also that of the top managements role in creating strategy. The tools of segmentation analysis, industry analysis, and value chain are useful in case of a completely defined market with known boundaries. But are they useful in an undefined market where the rules of business are yet to be written? This further complicates the business of making strategic choices. Market share versus Opportunity share. For most of the companies, market share is the primary criterion for measuring the strength of a business strategic position. But what is the significance of this in markets that are yet to exist. Competition for the future is therefore for opportunity share. Its a competition to maximize the share of future opportunities that a company could potentially access. This leads to questions like: Which new competencies would we have to build, and how would our definition of served markets differ? How to acquire the strengths or skills to acquire these opportunities? It is important that top managers view the firm as a portfolio of opportunities. Another difference between competition for the future and that of present is that of the prospect of making an impact, rather than the certitude of immediate financial gains. The perseverance required to create the future must be based on sound strategies rather than a hunch. Competition for tomorrows industry structure raises questions like: Whose product concepts will ultimately win? Which standards will be applied? How do we increase our ability to shape a nascent industry?

Three phases of competition for the future

Intellectual Leadership

Management of migration paths

Competition for the Market share

Gaining industry Foresight Develop point of view about o Functionality o Core competencies o Customer interface

Building core competencies, exploring alternate product concepts Assembling and managing the industry coalition

Building worldwide supplier network Crafting positioning strategy Pre-empting competition in critical markets Maximizing efficiency Managing competitive interaction

Forcing competitors into longer and expensive Strategic architecture www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved migration paths

Chapter 3: Learning to forget

The deeply encoded lessons of the past that are passed form one generation of managers to another pose two types of dangers for any organization. First, individuals may forget the reasons for their strongly held beliefs. Second, managers may start believing that what they do not know is not worth knowing. Industry conventions and best practices have a shelf life and this needs to be appreciated. What was useful yesterday may not be relevant today or tomorrow. Dogmas go unquestioned and unchallenged and so do views of organization and industry structures and definitions of strategy and competition. The need for genetic diversity: Biological sciences tell us that long-term health and survival of any organism population depends on a minimum level of genetic variety. The same applies to the organization To assess the opportunity of lack of genetic variety in an industry, one might ask: Is the industry reasonably concentrated and with stable market shares among the incumbents? Or is the industry highly fragmented? Does everyone have the same profit recipe? Have most of the top management spent their entire careers in the industry? (Has in breeding reduced the genetic variety?) Has the basic concept of product or service remained the same for a significant period of time? (Is there orthodoxy about what the customers want and how to serve them?)

By these questions one can locate laggards. A laggard is an organization where the senior management has been unsuccessful in writing off its depreciating intellectual capital and under invested in new intellectual capital. Success sometimes reduces genetic variety to the extent that the firms strategy managers may come to believe that doing more of the same is the surest way to success and that any competitor not doing it our way is wrong. Another way to introduce genetic variety into a population is to bring in new members who crossbreed with the old. The corporate equivalent of crossbreeding is hiring new managers form outside. Often this takes the form of bringing in a new CEO, invariably form the competitor. The hope in hiring an outsider is that He or She will crossbreed with enough people to substantially alter the genetic pool, bring fresh ideas, perspectives, beliefs and assumptions in to the organization. But this is a very slow process of inducing genetic variety. A commitment to maximizing the share of voice of employees who are genetically different is also critical to survival of genetic variety in the organization. Top management must learn to seek out and reward unorthodoxy. To get to the future, a company must be willing to jettison its past, at least in part. What prevents companies from creating the future is installed base of thinking the unquestioned conventions, myopic view of opportunities and threats, and the unchallenged precedents that comprise the existing managerial frame. Managers are at discomfort when faced with the fact that intellectual capital accumulated over a professional lifetime may be of little value in a radically changing industry environment. The need to rebuild A firms stake in the past is economic as well as emotional. For a successful firm, the definition of served market, the value proposition given to the customers, the margin and

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

value added structure, the configuration of assets and skills that yield those margins, and supportive administrative systems together constitute the Profit engine. The threat to a firms engine may come form improvements made by a competitor to a particular component of that engine: redefining the boundaries of the served markets, coming up with new value proposition, or reconfiguring assets and skills to yield the same value more economically. The profit engine is different form the value chain: It encompasses deep seated beliefs about what business we are in, what we are delivering to the customers, how money is made in this business, what assets and skills are necessary and who our competitors are. Every company must be alert to anything that could undermine the efficiency of its engine as profit generator. It must constantly inquire of itself whether its definition of served markets is too narrow, whether its margin structure can be sustained, and whether there might be another way to deliver a product or service more efficiently. The best way to ensure that one is not at risk form more imaginative competitors is to be the first to conceive of alternate value delivery mechanisms, the first to cannibalise ones own products and services, and first to get to the future, even when that future undermines past successes. You have to be your own toughest competitor. When the pace of genetic revolution falls behind the pace of environmental change, a species, like the dinosaurs can get wiped out. The corporate equivalent of this change is wholesale layoffs and massive restructuring exercises. Chapter 4: Competing for industry foresight Many times what prevents companies form imagining the future and discovering more competitive space is not the unknowability of the future, but the fact that managers tend to look at the future through the narrow aperture of existing served markets. To successfully for the future a company must be capable of enlarging its opportunity horizon. This requires top management to conceive of the company as a portfolio of core competencies rather than a portfolio of individual business units. Business units are typically defined in terms of a specific product market where as core competencies connote a broad class of customer benefits. When one conceives a company as a portfolio of core competencies, a whole new range of potential opportunities opens up. These opportunities can be termed as white spaces, and are those opportunities that reside between or around existing product based business definitions. To see the future, a company must be capable of escaping the narrow and orthodox view of What business we are in? What the company needs to ask is, What business we can be in? It is necessary to abstract away form traditional product and service definitions and focus on underlying functionalities. This concept is termed as functionality thinking. Its the marriage of core competence and functionality thinking that points a firm towards unexplored competitive space and allow companies to move beyond what is to what could be. Challenging price performance assumptions To escape orthodox thinking, one needs to challenge industry assumptions about price performance trade offs. A dramatic reduction in price can create a mass market where none existed.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

Think like children do Kids are nave and do not know whats possible and whats not and therefore they ask innocent questions like, Why cant you touch the stars? Such nave thinking and questioning can lead to answer to many of a companys questions. Companies that create the future are rebels. They tend to break the rules. They are filled with people who take the other side of an issue just to spark off a debate. Foresight often comes not form being a better forecaster, but form being less hide-bound. There are three types of companies. Companies that try to lead the customers where they dont want to go, companies that listen to customers and then respond to their articulated needs and companies that lead the customers where they want to go, but dont know it yet. Companies that create the future do more than satisfy the customers, they constantly amaze them.

Unarticulated

Unexploited opportunities

Needs

Articulated

Served Customer types

Unserved

Chapter 5: Crafting strategic architecture

Not only must the future be imagined, it must be built and hence the concept of strategic architecture. Every company has its own soft and hard architecture. Information architecture: who should communicate with whom, on what issues, how often and in what ways. Social architecture: Senior management must have a point of view on what

values must predominate, what behaviours must be encouraged, and what kind of people should feel comfortable working in the company. Financial architecture: The top management must have an idea on the ideal balance of debt and equity, how to finance acquisitions and disposals, on the criteria on making capital allocations and so on.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

Strategic architecture: The top management must have a point of view on

which benefits or functionalities will be offered to the customers in the next decade, what new core competencies would be needed to create those benefits, and how the customer interface will need to change to allow customers to access those benefits most effectively.
Strategic architecture is essentially a high level blueprint for the deployment of new functionalities, the acquisitions of new competencies or the migration of existing competencies, and the reconfiguring of the interface with customers. It shows the organization what competencies it must begin building now, what new customer groups must it begin to understand, what new channels must it be exploring right now. Strategic architecture is a broad opportunity approach plan. The question addressed by strategic architecture is not what we must do to maximize our revenues or share in an existing product market, but what must we do today, in terms of competence acquisition, to prepare ourselves to capture a significant share of the future revenues in emerging opportunity arena. The ultimate test of whether a company has strategic architecture is not thick books or documents it has for this purpose. The simplest way is to ask about 25 senior managers questions like, how will the future of your industry be different? Do not define what future or industry means. Check the answers for consensus about what the future holds for the company and whether all or most hold a similar picture. Foresight, breadth, uniqueness, consensus, and action ability are the criteria by which we judge whether a company really possesses strategic architecture. Chapter 6: Strategy as stretch Starting resource positions are a very poor predictor of future industry leadership. A firm can sit atop mountains of cash and command legions of talented people, and still lose its leadership position. Likewise a firm can sometimes overcome enormous handicaps and successfully scale the heights of industry leadership. Getting to the future is more a function of resourcefulness than resources. Resourcefulness stems not form a elegantly structured strategic architecture, but form a deeply felt sense of purpose, a broadly shared dream, a truly seductive view of tomorrows opportunities. Strategic intent The dream that energises a company is often more sophisticated, and more positive than just a war cry. Strategic intent is a term for an animated dream. Strategic architecture is the brain, strategic intent is the heart. Strategic intent implies a significant stretch for the organization. The traditional view of strategy focuses on the fit between existing resources and emerging opportunities, strategic intent creates, by design, a substantial misfit between resources and aspirations. As the distilled essence of a firms strategic architecture, strategic intent also implies a particular point of view about the long-term market or competitive position that a firm hopes to build over the coming decade or so. Hence it conveys a sense of direction. It implies a unique point of view about the future. It holds out to employees the promise of exploring new competitive territory. Hence it also conveys a sense of discovery. Strategic intent has an emotional edge to it. Hence it also has a sense of destiny. Therefore the attributes of strategic intent are direction, discovery and destiny.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

Bureaucracy and its control aver capital spending; financial rewards etc is supposed to be a system of checks and balances that prevent individuals form pursuing idiosyncratic and competing objectives. But without a point of view about corporate direction, it is likely to be little more than enforcer of corporate orthodoxies. It blocks initiative and creativity at every turn. Also empowerment without direction is anarchy. Strategic intent must be broad enough to leave considerable room for experimentation in how to reach the destination. Strategic intent broadly constrains the where but not the how. We are all seduced to, one degree or other, by the opportunity to explore the unfamiliar. Hence the sense of discovery of strategic intent is important. Not only must everyone in the company find the goal emotionally compelling, each employee must understand the nature of linkage between his or her own job and the attainment of the goal. In short, strategic intent must be personalised for every employee. It is the senior managements responsibility to establish the sense of purpose, to identify the key capability building challenges and then to help everyone understand what role He or She plays in the pursuit of victory. All employees must be given the tools they need to contribute to advantage building efforts. The tool kit may include statistical analysis, general problem solving techniques, bench marking methods, systems modelling, and teamwork disciplines. Chapter 7: Strategy as leverage A view of competition as encirclement rather than confrontation, a propensity to accelerate the product development cycle, tightly knit cross-functional teams, a focus on core competencies, close links with suppliers, programs of employee involvement, and so forth are elements of a managerial approach typically labelled as Japanese. These can be logically induced when views strategy as stretch. A firm that has a surfeit of ambition and dearth of resources quickly discovers that it cannot merely imitate the advantages of more affluent competitors, it cannot match their spending , it cannot afford the same entry costs, it cannot tolerate the same inefficiency and slack. Within the fruits of success and seeds of failure. The only vaccine for success is s renewed sense of stretch. Industry leadership is something to be aimed for. Starting premises The first is that the firm can be conceived as a portfolio of resources as well as portfolio of products or market focused business units. The second premise is that resource constraints are not necessarily an impediment to the achievement of global leadership. Third is that great differences do exist between firms in the market and the competitive impact they are capable of generating with a given amount of resources. Fourth premise is that leverage based efficiency gains come primarily form raising the numerator in productivity ratios rather than form reducing the denominator. The fifth premise is that resource allocation task of top management has received too much attention when compared to the task of resource leverage. The final premise is that the capacity for resource leverage is the ultimate selection mechanism, sorting out the victors form the victims in prolonged battles for industry leadership. Its not enough to get to the future first it is also important to get there for less.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

Achieving resource leverage Resource leverage can be achieved in five ways: by more effectively concentrating resources on key strategic goals, by more efficiently accumulating resources, by completing resources of one type with those of other to create high order value, by conserving resources wherever possible, and by rapidly recovering resources by minimizing the time between expenditure and payback. By converging what is meant is concentrating resources on the same goal. Strategic plans of companies must be tested for consistency in long-term direction. Almost as bad as having no goal is having multiple, competing goals. As a rule of thumb, no one group of employees can attend to more than two key operational improvements at a time. Chapter 8: Competing to shape the future

There is often a presumption that it is better to be a follower, and it is more prudent to let the other guy make the mistakes. Being first carries a risk of failure disproportionate to the rewards of leadership only when the pioneering firm permits its financial commitment to race ahead of its understanding of the precise nature of the emerging opportunity. The objective is to learn as quickly and inexpensively as possible about the precise nature of customer demand, the suitability of the new product or service concept, and needs for adjustments in the market strategies. A companys influence and share of future profits is determined by four factors. Its capacity to build and manage coalitions Its success in building core competencies central to the provision of customer value in the new opportunity arena. Its ability to rapidly accumulate market Its global share of mind and distribution capacity.

Coalitions may be required for several reasons, the most central being that no one firm possesses all the requisite resources to bring the new product or service to fruition. Chapter 9: Building gateways to the future A core competence is a bundle of skills and technologies that enables a company to provide a particular benefit to customers. Competition for competence is not product versus product, or even business versus business. It is corporation versus corporation. Core competencies transcend any particular product or service, and indeed may transcend any single business unit within the corporation. Core competencies are also long lasting than any individual product or service. Winning or losing the battle for competence leadership can have a profound impact on the companys potential for growth and competitive differentiation, a much greater impact than success or failure of a single product.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

The investment, risk taking, and time frame required to achieve core competence leadership often exceeds the resources and patience of a single business unit, some competencies will not be built in absence of direct corporate support. A core competence must make a disproportionate contribution to customer perceived value. Core competencies are the skills that enable a firm to deliver a fundamental customer benefit. The distinction between core and non-core competencies rests, on distinction between core and non-core customer benefits. To qualify as a core competence, a capability must also be competitively unique. Any capability that is ubiquitous across an industry should not be defined as core unless the companys level of competence is substantially superior to others. The core competencies also should be tested for extendibility. In defining core competencies, managers must work hard to abstract away form the particular product configuration in which the competence is currently embedded, and imagine how the competence might be applied in other new product arenas. Chapter 10:Embedding the core competence perspective The risks of ignoring core competencies

Opportunities for growth will be needlessly truncated If the competencies that are needed to respond to that opportunity which lies in another business unit, there may be no way to redeploy people who carry those competencies into the new opportunity arena. As a company divisionalizes into smaller business units, competencies may be fragmented and weakened. The lack of a core competence perspective can also desensitise a company to its growing dependence on outside suppliers of core products. A company focussed only on end products may fail to invest adequately in new core competencies that can propel growth in the future. A company that fails to understand the core competence basis for competition in its industry may be surprised by new entrants who rely on competencies developed in other end markets. Companies insensitive to the issue of core competence may unwittingly relinquish valuable skills when they divest an unperforming business.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved

Chapter 11: Securing the future When the goal is to create new competitive space, it is usually impossible to know in advance just what configuration of products or service features, offered at what price point and through what channels, will be required to unlock the potential market. The practical problem of expeditionary marketing is how to reduce the time and cost of product iteration. Speed of iteration refers to the time it takes a company to develop and launch a product or service, accumulate insights form the market place, and recalibrate and relaunch. Expeditionary marketing does not imply launching products that are manifestly unready or inappropriate to the needs of potential customers. Expeditionary marketing honours the quality maxim, conformance to customer requirements, but recognizes that customer requirements in the emerging markets can only be partially understood. Expeditionary marketing is not a blind leap of faith; each product iteration should embody all that it is currently possible to know about customer needs and desires. Chapter 12: Thinking differently If the goal is industry leadership, restructuring and reengineering are not enough. To build leadership, a company must capable of reinventing its industry, to rebuild leadership; a company must be capable of regenerating its core strategies. It is not enough to get smaller and betted, a company must also have the capability to become different. To have a share in the future, a company must learn to think differently about three things: the meaning of competitiveness, the meaning of strategy, and the meaning of organizations. Competitiveness comes form a defensible market position and sustainable competitive advantages. The search for the causes of competitiveness has been narrow in terms of (1) The time frame considered months and years instead of decades (2) the unit of analysis employed the product or business unit rather than entire firm or coalition of firms (3) the competitiveness arena encompassed market versus non market. Different industries and industry segments have different average profitability levels, and these differences persist over time. Depending on the array of competitive forces at work, a particular industry segment may be, on average, inherently more or less profitable than other. Over the past few years many companies have been working hard to transform their organizations. Companies have devolved traditional head office functions like planning and HRM to individual business units; they have sought to enlarge the sphere of operating freedom for employees at all levels; they have divested tangential operations and concentrated on core businesses; they have attempted to encourage personal risk taking; they have emphasised individual responsibility, they have inverted the organization chart and put customer at the top. The watchwords for the future engineers of modern corporation are devolution, empowerment, focus, entrepreneurship, personal accountability and customer focus.

www.hrfolks.com All Rights reserved