Kitabı oku: «Managing Internationalisation», sayfa 2
From a scientific perspective, Bartlett and Goshal’s Integration/Responsiveness Framework provides a clear strategic distinction between different kinds of organisations with relevant cross-border activities, as depicted in Figure 1-4. Their portfolio contrasts environmental pressures for global integration with the pressures of local responsiveness as two independent dimensions whose combination of low or high value, respectively, suggest a certain configuration of the organisation. Typical forces for global integration stimulate specific reactions. The importance of multinational customers or competitors (often stimulated by trade liberalisation) combined with high investment intensity for example activates further strategic coordination. Forces like homogeneous tastes and needs, high technological intensity as well as the need for realising cost reductions induce looking for economies of scale, economies of scope, economies of experience and/or worldwide innovation lead to operating integration. The second dimension, pressures for local responsiveness, includes differences in customer needs and tastes, (local) needs for substitutes, individual market distribution structures or host country government demands. In these cases, it is important to assimilate to the special requirements by establishing individual processes for the local environment or by offering local variations of the products or services in order to be attractive for customers and partners alike.9
Figure 1-4: The Global Integration/Local Responsiveness Framework10
This Integration/Responsiveness Framework advises upon the choice of a global strategy for organisations facing high global integration pressures (for example due to a strong global competition) but being able to offer a highly standardised product as the pressures for local responsiveness are low. Organisations choosing this approach typically build cost advantages through centrally managed global-scale operations. These global organisations constitute the classic case of a global player, as most of the strategic decisions, responsibilities, resources and assets are centralised in the (home country) headquarters, which exerts a tight control over all overseas operations that deliver the products to a global market. Typical representatives of this kind of organisations are found for example in the aircraft or consumer electronics industry. In contrast, organisations facing low global integration pressures but instead high environmental forcers for local responsiveness follow a multinational (also called multidomestic) strategy approach and are formed as a decentralised federation of independent organisations. Many of their key decisions, responsibilities and assets are decentralised in order to better meet the individual market needs. The relationship between headquarters and subsidiaries is comparatively informal and usually focused on financial control. Multidomestic or multinational organisations are mainly found in industries whose products depend on languages or culture-specific tastes like for example publishing houses, foods and beverages. In cases where both forces contemplated are low, the resulting international organisations are largely based on transferring the products or processes of the parent company to their subsidiaries for worldwide diffusion. Foreign activities are seen as remote outposts that are highly dependent on the headquarters’ resources and support the parent company with their profits. Therefore, the organisation’s management and strategy is oriented towards the home country, exercising a tight control over their foreign subsidiaries but without systematically integrating host country organisations and their perspectives. These organisations are found for example in the textile industry.11
So far, all introduced strategies are dominated by a single strategic demand. However, in the current global competition organisations increasingly face high forces of global integration and high pressures for local differentiation with a growing emphasis on worldwide innovation. According to Bartlett and Goshal, the appropriate transnational strategy to compete effectively in this extremely demanding environment requires the simultaneous development of “global competitiveness, multinational flexibility and worldwide learning capabilities”12. Transnational organisations are truly interdependent and make selective centralising or decentralising decisions. Essential resources are centralised within the home country headquarters to protect the core competencies and in part realise economies of scale. Other resources and learning opportunities are geographically dispersed in specialised locations which ensures the necessary flexibility. Products are adapted to local requirements where necessary despite being part of an integrated production process that provides standard components from a single location to all relevant subsidiaries worldwide. Improvements and innovations are promoted in all subsidiaries and headquarters alike and outcomes are shared between all operations and subsequently diffused around the globe. Transnational organisations are characterised by large flows of knowledge, capital, people and products between subsidiaries and between headquarters and subsidiaries. The resulting organisation can be described as an integrated network. The environment described is typical for the telecommunication, pharmaceutical and media industry. More and more industries are gradually developing towards the transnational sector, as is the case for example with the automobile and banking industry. It is obvious that a transnational strategy with its high demands on integration and coordination provides a huge challenge. Therefore, successful examples are rare.13
When an organisation pursues a transnational strategy, decisions become far more complex, as multiple market requirements and the needs and capabilities of many different subsidiaries have to be taken into account and balanced out. In addition to that, non-business matters or soft factors require more management attention, especially the need for productive and harmonious cross-border relationships despite cultural differences and language barriers. Whereas the challenges presented by strategic, organisational and operational matters are anticipated and considered, corresponding soft factors are regularly ignored. A global survey of 572 executives explored internationalisation challenges and especially the role of cross-border collaboration and communication. More than 50 % of the respondents rated cross-border collaboration as very important, not only with all kinds of external partners but also within their business unit and their whole organisation. 64% reported cross-border collaboration as having been a critical factor in performance improvement. Despite its relevance, 51% admitted that linguistic and cultural diversity make it very difficult. Communication misunderstandings were reported to have stood in the way of establishing major cross-border transactions several times (6%) or a few times (43%) with incurred financial setbacks. Interestingly, due to a generally enhanced command of English, the diversity of languages across countries is no longer seen as the crucial cause for misunderstandings (only 27% reported this as most likely reason), instead different norms of workplace behaviour (49%) and differences in cultural traditions (51%) constitute the main challenges. Factors such as local customs and languages were stated to hamper their company’s international expansion plans significantly, especially in Russia (89%), Spain (88%), Brazil (70%) and China (67%).14
In summary, dealing competently with intercultural issues constitutes one of the most important factors for a successful internationalisation. The basics of cross-cultural competence will therefore be addressed in detail in chapter 2 which is dedicated to this key issue.
VIPs
| 1.2 | The Use of Holistic Management Models |
Managing any kind of organisation is a complex process and is made even more complex in an international and therefore usually unknown environment. The smaller and the more focused an organisation is, the easier it is for its (top) managers to rely on their experience and instincts for good management decisions. Consequently, the more an organisation is diversified, the more people are contributing to its success and the more it is dispersed over different locations, the more a clear structure is needed in order to not involuntarily overlook important matters.
Holistic management models were developed to ensure a balanced and complete view on all management matters of different types of organisations. They provide generalised issues that have to be solved in order to steer an organisation effectively to longterm success. These models are used for guidance in the management process, for assessing the maturity of an organisation’s management system and for electing the best organisations at quality or excellence price competitions.
Since the 1970s several holistic management models were published. To date, there are three models with international relevance: the (New) St. Galler Management Model, the model of the Baldrige Excellence Program and the EFQM Excellence Model.
The New Management Model is an integrative framework that provides a system-oriented view of a company and is edited by the Management Institute St. Gallen. It therefore presents predominantly a scientific view. The distinctive graphic as presented in Figure 1-5 shows the company as a productive system in the centre of its surrounding network. It consists of six essential concepts: environmental spheres, stakeholders, interaction issues, structuring forces, processes and modes of development. These depict central dimensions of the management function. Whereas environmental spheres and stakeholder expectations have to be analysed with regard to important changes, interaction issues combine manageable matters concerning communication and resource allocation. Structuring forces should be set up to arrange the daily routines coherently, forming the company’s framework for value creating and other activities that are logically combined to consistent processes. Modes of development explain basic patterns of entrepreneurial change processes. The main aim of the St. Galler model is to support sustainable business solutions and organisational development. The University of St. Gallen uses this model as a basic guideline for executive management studies.16
Figure 1-5: Survey of the New St. Gallen Management Model15
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, technology and standards with the help of cooperative programs. The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program is one of those. Driven by a more practical need, criteria were developed in order to evaluate organisations and their competitiveness and to provide guidelines for organisational improvement. The Baldrige criteria and their systems perspective are used for assessing the applications for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) that is awarded yearly by the U.S. president.17
The requirements of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence for business and non-profit organisations are embodied in seven categories, as shown in Figure 1-6. These categories are integrated and connected in the Baldrige framework or systems perspective. Its top basic element is the “Organizational Profile”. It sets the context for the way an organisation operates as it includes its competitive environment, relationships and its strategic situation. Core values and concepts form the basis for the actual Performance Management System. This is first composed of six Baldrige categories: the leadership triad with Leadership (category 1), Strategy (category 2), and Customers (category 3) which sets the organisational direction, and the results triad with Workforce (category 5), Operations (category 6) and Results (category 7). All actions taken by the organisation’s workforce and key operational processes produce its overall performance results. The seventh category forms the system’s foundation, as Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management (category 4) are critical to a factbased, knowledge-driven and effective management system. The central part “integration” stresses the model’s holistic and integrated perspective. The criteria categories are subdivided into overall 17 process and results items, each focusing on a major requirement. Each item consists of one or more areas to address that define more specific requirements. This third level of the whole model is the level that organisations should address in order to explain their particular solutions and approaches when applying for the MBNQA.18
Figure 1-6: Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework 201519
Besides its predominant use in the U.S., the Baldrige model or its equivalent was used for national excellence awards in more than 20 countries worldwide in 2010, for example in Hong Kong and New Zealand.20
The third internationally recognised model is the EFQM Excellence Model. As it represents the red thread through this textbook, it will be explained explicitly in the following chapter 1.3.
VIPs
| 1.3 | The Approach of the EFQM Excellence Model |
The most successful and widespread holistic management model is the EFQM Excellence Model. Leaders that face an internationalisation challenge are in need of a clear structure of their organisation’s existing management system as well as of ideas for integrating new approaches and different cultures. The EFQM Excellence Model provides through its non-descriptive and structured framework a very good tool for this purpose. Consequently, its building components will be explained in detail in the following subdivisions.21
| 1.3.1 | Background Information: The EFQM and its Model |
The EFQM is a global non-for-profit membership foundation, established in 1988 by 14 CEOs of internationally recognised companies (Nestlé, Robert Bosch, Volkswagen et al.) with the goal of developing a management tool for increasing the competitiveness of European organisations. In alignment with its vision of “a world striving for sustainable excellence”22 the EFQM is organiser of the prestigious European Excellence Award that yearly recognises organisations for their sustainable achievements using the EFQM Excellence Model as assessment tool. To date, the EFQM records about 500 international members from many different industries and more than 50 countries.23 Its model is used by over 30 000 organisations in Europe for development and assessment purposes.24 According to a research conducted in 2010, the EFQM Excellence Model or its equivalent is used for national excellence awards in more than 35 countries worldwide, not only in European countries like Germany (Ludwig-Erhard-Preis), Finland, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation but also in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.25
Due to its background the EFQM Excellence Model was developed from a practical European management perspective. Accordingly, it sets a strong focus on people and sustainability. The inclusion of relevant leadership matters affecting all sorts of global organisations is one of its strong features. Keeping it up-to-date is a major prerequisite for its on-going success; therefore the model is reviewed every 3 years in a rigorous and widespread review process. The latest reviews were carried out with more than 200 representatives from academics, large organisations, EFQM partners and assessors, allowing work groups to comment and test draft versions before the final version was published. The 2013 version of the EFQM Excellence Model now emphasises emerging trends like innovation, risk management and corporate governance. The in-depth revision achieved also a full integration of its main building blocks: the 8 fundamental concepts, the 9 model criteria and the RADAR assessment tool.
| 1.3.2 | The Fundamental Concepts of Excellence |
Every management model is based on key concepts that explain the underlying management philosophy. These concepts provide important guidance on the interpretation of model criteria in case they are not self-explanatory. Before using any kind of model it is always advisable to compare its basic philosophy with one’s own because incompatibilities in this respect can reduce the usefulness of a tool considerably.
Figure 1-7: EFQM Fundamental Concepts of Excellence26
The EFQM Excellence Model supports any kind of organisation in its endeavour to attain excellence with the goal of meeting or exceeding the expectations of its stakeholders by achieving and sustaining superior levels of performance. The essential foundation of this quest is built by 8 underlying principles called the Fundamental Concepts as depicted in Figure 1-7.
Figure 1-8: EFQM Fundamental Concepts: Definitions and Best Practices27
Each Fundamental Concept of Excellence is defined against the backdrop of a management approach of an excellent organisation. These definitions are augmented by aspects of what excellent organisations do to transfer these principles into practical activities. The main definitions and some of their constitutive best practices are specified in Figure 1-8. The management approach described in the Fundamental Concepts is cast in a structure of a holistic management model with 9 criteria: the EFQM Excellence Model.
| 1.3.3 | The EFQM Excellence Model Framework 2013 |
The EFQM Excellence Model 2010 offers through its non-descriptive framework a guiding structure for any kind of organisation striving for excellence. It is presented in Figure 1-9. The nine criteria and their subdivisions allow depicting precisely an organisation’s way of offering value (“enablers”) and the resulting goal attainment (“results”).
Figure 1-9: The EFQM Excellence ModelFramework201328
Figure 1-10: Definitions ofthe EFQM Enabler Criteria29
The five enabler criteria on the left side of the model cover what an organisation does to fulfil the various expectations of its stakeholders and how it does it. They consist of the criteria 1 Leadership, 2 Strategy, 3 People, 4 Partnerships & Resources and 5 Processes, Products and Services. The results stem from the enablers and depict what the organisation achieves. The balanced view on results is expressed by the four criteria 6 Customer Results, 7 People Results, 8 Society Results and 9 Business Results. As any excellent organisation is a learning organisation, the dynamic of continuous improvement through feedback is represented by the arrow at the base of the model stating “Learning, Creativity and Innovation”. Each criterion is clearly defined in order to explain its general meaning. An overview of the criteria definitions is provided in Figure 1-10 (for enablers) and Figure 1-11 (for results).
Figure 1-11: Definitions of the EFQM Results Criteria30
The high level definitions of the criteria only allow a very rough structure of a management system. For assessing the maturity of an organisation as well as its strengths and weaknesses, a more detailed approach is necessary. Therefore, the nine criteria are subdivided in criterion parts and these are further elaborated in guidance points. The 32 criterion parts describe different facets of what an excellent organisation typically does in the area of the defined criterion and what therefore should be considered during an assessment. On the third and lowest level of the model, the guidance points provide tangible best practice examples of how to implement the ideas. These guidance points link the EFQM Excellence Model to the Fundamental Concepts. Some of them provide an adaption of one part of a Fundamental Concept to fit the specific context of the criterion part. Other guidance points repeat the text from the Fundamental Concept precisely. Through the guidance points, the structure of the model allows to grasp connections between the different criteria and by that to identify management approaches that are able to integrate several goals at once. This adds another dimension to the otherwise two-dimensional model. These links are depicted by the connecting lines in the EFQM Excellence Model Framework. A graphic example of the EFQM levels is provided in Figure 1-12.
Figure 1-12: Exemplary Levels of the EFQM Excellence Model31
It is important to keep in mind that the 119 guidance points used for exemplifying the five enabler criteria are not meant as a check list, so it is not necessary for an organisation to follow them all. Nor is the list of guidance points meant to be exhaustive, as there are other ideas and approaches that fit into a criterion part without being mentioned in a guidance point. The EFQM Excellence Model as an open and non-descriptive model allows and expects individual solutions that match business sector, size, culture and strategy of a specific organisation. However, the guidance points facilitate the search for a fitting improvement measure, in this respect being proper guides for a leader facing management challenges.
Figure 1-13: Exemplary Red Threads Through the EFQM Excellence Model32
It is possible to follow certain ideas or aspects of management through the model as they are referred to in several guiding points. The EFQM depicts in their 2013 model brochure the integration of their fundamental concepts into the model by highlighting those criterion parts of the enablers where the text of a certain fundamental concept is reflected directly in one of the attached guiding points.33 This exercise can also be done in a broader sense for any aspect a manager would like to focus on, for example customers or ideas and impacts of the introduction of a risk management system. As shown in Figure 1-13, each of these aspects can be followed through the model. Ideas how to optimise the benefit from the customer’s perspective can be found for example in 1c (leaders are transparent and accountable to their customers and encourage them to participate in activities that contribute to the wider society), in 2a (gather customer’s needs and expectations as strategy input), 2b (analyse current performance trends, for example how customer expectations and promises to the customers are kept), 2d (communicate their strategy to their customers), 3b (attract the right people and ensure that all employees have the necessary competencies to fulfil the needs of the customers), 4a (identify and work together with partners to ensure enhanced value for the customers), 4c (optimise the impact of their product lifecycle and services on public health and safety including that of the customers), 4d (involve customers in the development and deployment of new technologies to maximise the benefits generated), 4e (establish approaches to engage relevant customers and use their knowledge in generating innovation), 5a (design and manage processes to optimise customer value – also beyond the boundaries of the organisation), 5b (develop products and services that create optimum value for customers), 5c (define different customer groups and anticipate their needs and expectations), 5d (produce and deliver products to need or exceed customer needs and expectations), and 5e (manage and enhance customer relationships). The outcomes of these approaches are measured in 6a and 6b (customer perceptions and performance indicators with impact on the perceptions of customers). Explanations concerning the depicted relevant criterion parts for people are provided online at the accompanying website combined with the solution to the following exercise.
Exercise: Familiarise yourself with the EFQM structure (online)
The internationalisation process that forms the structure of this textbook is based on the EFQM criteria. Therefore, more details of each criterion and the associated criterion parts will be explained at the beginning of the corresponding chapters. As this book will only present selected parts of the EFQM Excellence Model, it is highly recommended to acquire the original brochure of the model which can be obtained at www.efqm.org.
| 1.3.4 | The EFQM RADAR Logic |
For assessing the excellence level of an organisation the EFQM offers a logical method based on the Deming or PDCA Cycle. According to the Deming Cycle a continuous improvement of processes or systems is based on several successive phases starting with establishing plans, processes and (measurable) objectives to the delivery of a certain output (PLAN), implementing and executing these plans (DO), reviewing the actual results (CHECK) and taking corrective actions in case significant differences between the actual results and the planned objectives occur (ACT).34 The PDCA-Cycle lies at the heart of all improvement-related management models and is used for example in the ISO 9001 quality management systems’ requirements.
The EFQM calls its derived approach RADAR® logic. It consists of four consecutive phases that an organisation needs to execute in order to ensure continuous improvement and sustainable outcomes and is represented in Figure 1-14. In the first phase, the organisation determines the RESULTS it wants to achieve according to its strategy. In the second phase the organisation plans and develops an integrated set of comprehensive APPROACHES to deliver the results from an actual and future-oriented perspective. In the third phase the approaches are DEPLOYED systematically to ensure a successful implementation. In the fourth phase the organisation has to ASSESS and REFINE its approaches according to the analysis of the achieved results and based on its on-going learning activities. Therefore, the cycle starts again with defining the desired results. The degree to which an organisation is able to consequently follow this rigorous improvement cycle is the basis for assessing its level of excellence. For an EFQM assessment, a detailed set of requirements and possible levels of fulfilment based on the RADAR® cycle was invented that is depicted in the so called RADAR tools. One RADAR tool (also called RADAR matrix) deals with the results, as it depicts the first phase of the cycle and is thus used for the result criteria. The second RADAR matrix is used for the assessment of the enabler criteria and depicts the phases two to four of the RADAR logic.
Figure 1-14: The EFQM RADAR® Logic35
VIPs
| 1.4 | Process Model “Managing Internationalisation” |
Figure 1-15: The Internationalisation Process
The management logic of the EFQM Excellence Model can be used to define the path through the internationalisation process, as shown in Figure 1-15. The management process itself starts with leadership awareness and competence to steer the organisation through the internationalisation process. This is followed by the definition of an international strategy which sets the path for the following implementation. The strategy is implemented through the following steps: managing people in an international environment, managing international partners and resources as well as managing products and processes globally. Based on a sustainability approach the results achieved will be compared with the (strategic) goals set, defined by ways of an individual balanced scorecard. A strategy review based on the outcomes will follow to ensure that the longterm vision of the company is still valid and the path to be followed seen as appropriate. These internationalisation steps are supported by the development of crosscultural competence, which is required for every action and decision in internationally operating organisations. Therefore it defines the starting point for the following elaborations of this book.
| 1.5 | Citations & Notes |
1 Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Zentes J. (2010), pp. 71-82; Holtbrügge, D., & Welge, M. K. (2010), pp. 25-26.
2 Contents based on Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Zentes J. (2010), p. 72, figure 4.1; Holtbrügge, D., & Welge, M. K. (2010), p. 24, tab. 1-7
3 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977)
4 A good overview of theories dealing with foreign direct investments is provided in Holtbrügge, D., & Welge, M. K. (2010), pp. 54-78
5 UNCTAD (2013b)
6 UNCTAD (2010), p. iii
7 UNCTAD (2010), p. XVIII. Unfortunately, the newer World Investment Reports concentrate on FDI inflows and outflows but do not offer a recent count of TNCs.
8 UNCTAD (2014), p. 16
9 Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1986); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1987a); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1987b); Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1993); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998)
10 Based on Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1986), p. 377; Kutschker, M., & Schmid, S. (2011), p. 300
11 Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1986); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1987a); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1987b); Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1993); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Industry examples from Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Zentes J. (2010), pp. 43-44 and Kutschker, M., & Schmid, S. (2011), pp.301-304.
12 Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998), p. 18
13 Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1986); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1987a); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1987b); Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1993); Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998); Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Zentes J. (2010), pp. 34-35; Kutschker, M., & Schmid, S. (2011), pp.301-304.
