Originally published in

February 04, and republished

in November 07 because
Innovating in emerging ma it was elected the best
Latinamerican article
published in HBR America
Latina in its fth anniversary.

By Alejandro Ruelas-Gossi

Innovation is not only related to the

, hen we talk about innovation the first
thinc
product and advanced technologie@Pat comes to our mind are the high—tech pro
where the companies in Latin" eii dustries highly appealing that spin
at
have little to show. But this way, it seems as there is little

P ut
a
in Lâlatin American companies since th
opportunity to innovate in t/flfin k 6lS ajectory of technological develops
world. It is the Big T innoV8t h n e the necessary resources for Rese
and Development (R&D) in order to compete in the b:
as shown by the Cemex case, a o, the companies of the Region drop beh
catapult a Regional company t h ale ofsimple spectators and imitators
of
November Harvard Business Review
2007
 novations devised by the pioneering companies of
global leagues. developed countries, right? Wrong. Let s stop for a

44 Harvard Business Rev ember 2007

 The Big T
Paradigm

in an example. At the beginning of the 90 s t A rhave become powerful global players. Cemex
cement company Cemex was facing a challenge: MoLf,t‹is the third biggest company of its sector in
deliver in the same day and as fast as possib tihmmmccehtnet sales of US$ 6,500 millions in more
mix to contractors who were used to change thé0rcon8Lraes. The Mexican company Corona also excels
at the last minute. Looking for an answer, Celxsskimad-of innovation, considered the fourth bigge
agers visited the 911 Emergency Call Center ]zr fiuadodAe world, and which is currently the number
Realizing that there they were able to gatherimp tower in United States, European Union, anc
paramedics in a vehicle in just 10 minutes mmstr ecttif the 150 countries were it is sold. Or,
save a life, they concluded that there also had toglie sphere, Kola Real which from Peru set
itself to improve the delivery of their mixes. Ins ttncthguer the beverage markets in Central
Ame medical emergency model, Cemex established amdp agco. Andthe list goes on.
method using a GPS system known as Concrete Busfmetssare these companies doing differently? As 1
Integral Management (GINCO which stands for theoadteorystates, life finds its way.Withalackoftc
breviation of Gesti n Integral del Negocio dm )Qrmjectory, companies in Latin America ar
system that lies on a specialized informationeter#mm}oggonomies in general have defined their o
(IT) platform. Today, most part of the fleet of concrete
mixer trucks operating in Mexico is equipped with GPS
locators and information terminals. This makes it pos—
sible to get with the exact mix to the construction places
whose demand constantly varies. Besides, the company
guarantees the delivery of the cement in a period of 20
minutes, rather than the three hours that it took before.
Because of this, Los Angeles Times wrote: Cemex delivers
faster than Domino s Pizza. The cement factory s clients
not only receive a service substantially more senFatiTestoof Latin American companies, the great op
their demands but the costs to delivering the reBM unity to innovate lies more than anything on t ment
mix lowered 35%. Big T, that is, on the introduction of
innovations How can this achievement be characterized? Nobesiness model. But companies in
developed country of the technologies used by Cemex in this proceBsv wide background of
technological trajectory especially innovative by themselves: Neither ispD#erfal and well financed
Research and Developmei tools platform, GPS, or the information terminal. ItDbh*nits, which allows
them to strongly emphasi merge of these technologies in a new logistic prooessa t
innovations, that is, on the product it an admirable innovation. It is not an innovationtbms,tMe
interaction between small t and Big T tak product the cement mix continues to be the same ptbu Aich
center emerges the key question regardinc
it is an innovation in the business model. which should be the company s strategicfocus for
If we limit the innovation concept to gradual ordE4daualt development stages of a product and for
improvements in the products, or to the creation c8tpeLty of a market.
high—tech products, Latin American companies have libdléaving a clear strategic focus and try to in
to show. It is a kind of innovation that I call Nothing business model and the product itself
because it is mainly focused in one aspect of the b0a4aebgristake. This mistake has a high cost, sin
the product. doesn t deliver clear signs to the company and
the
In contrast to the small t, I want to introduce tNeeV which are the organization s business pr
of innovation with capital letter, with Big T . US &bobAer mistake is emphasizing the wrong typ
innovations that are introduced in the business tion for the market s and product s
develops and not in the product, and that in such way it isCpmAgjDm .
to change the rules of the competitive game. In the piAer industry well illustrates this interacti
novation eld, Latin American companies certainl#hBaveed to emphasize one or the other type of innc a
lot more to show and some of them have done it soEV€lllwas the rst company to realize that the s‹
needed to be stimulated by the Big T, speci cally
Alejandro Ruelas—Gossi is Managing Director in the Ca gistic, in order to compress the value chain. Its
Corporate Governance & Strategy for Latin America ano
demic director of Adolfo IbMez School of Management, in M
The Big T
Paradigm
EE.UU. He has written several articles for HBR Am0ric‹ JatA.t.
idea of Big T innovation. Being aware of this dqmemniihosvaio transform the Big T innovation in a
wi tion route and efficiently practicing it openss ‹w8mtAedeeiberate and consistent practice in
its o competitiveness potential. tion, achieving corporate results.
In this article, I will describe a new paradigm: The dy—
will
namic interaction of the Big T and the sma
iâ rsussmall t
show how the Big T is an open innovation path fbfi Latin
American companies and maybe even an imperatiLtefsmall t economy happens when a company bases it
the Regional companies that not only seek to i advantage on one unique source: Improvi
the next innovating onslaughts devised in thei QprbAurt. Small t is driven by technology, and
it of companies in developed countries but thathavpâgetñe specialized knowledge through patents o
compete on an equal footing in the world busiremsetieBdorder to be able to add value to the prod
For more than 10 years I have studied Ceme›n ata —in the biotech industry, for example, are
opment,both as formermanager andexternal advisdrlx&en by the small t.
the company, and in my position as academicianQna88eIother hand, Big T happens when a company
will mainly use the example of this company éMe âts competitive advantage in other working
arc

There is nobody between Dell and its clients psie&oqdemtmarket appreciated the improvement offered by
In 1984, precisely when Dell recognizes the neeflor@ag BâgtBe price/performance relation and it gave
it innovative focus, Apple and Compaq incline to tbBesma£Bet leadership for a while. But its advantage
didn and loose the game. last much. Compaq sold through distributors. It was so
c‹
Let s take a look rst at Apple s case. StevoooJdbbaMMcbrirL the small t, that it didn t care about
logi realize that the computer industry, which initi08ipagosnheb didn t last and soon Dell snatched leader
— towards the higher consumer segment, was startimQipo JBo the end, Compaq would be acquired by HP.
so towards the pyramid s base, where users are mo]fiepbd battle for the computer market shows that
sensitive and care less about more sophisticatedh€ehtyrgaestion which needs to be gured out by a
com- of the product. So, Jobs introduced LISA, a
supeRycéspwhether to concentrate on Big T or small t How easy to use (everything could be done
with the Abuge$pibht to know where to go? What can illuminate the very expensive (its cost was US$
10,000). Jobs âua8wersmalLhe old and loved supply and demand theory
t strategy with LISA, but thecomputer market wdJrodmhodpupply point of view, the exhaustion sign of
th‹ widening itself, demanding lower prices, that ism88lstyptrategyhappens when the supply curve
becomes demanding Big T-type innovations. Soon after LI€Aympbetic, that is, when a lot is invested in
R&D, but Board pushed Steve Jobs to leave the company. performance barely increases. That is a
clear warning si
Apple s subsequent story shows a back and fortB BBift to Big T innovations. But such vision must be c‹
tween small t and Big T innovations, proving inbmaeQ with the demand s point of view. There are times
times a lack of strategic focus. Shortly after SaewbidBbeven if R&D produce signi cant increases in th'
came back as Apple s CEO in 1997, he realized t#etrfrtrme ee or in the number of features of a product,
necessary to go for a Big T strategy, among othebetdemgad no longer wants more of that but instead it i.
through decremental innovations in the productsgolhgstowards the base of the pyramid, as the Apple s L
was how he launched the iMac computer from whieBmgteer case shows.
oppy drive and other features were taken away Wlñwchlynamic interaction between Big T and
small the client doesn t value so much , but it was iAtrodmvadimas is determined by a simultaneous
actionof the computer for the Internet generation. supply and
demand. It is necessary to be a great observe
November Harvard Business Re#Vw
2007
 In the case of Compaq, its strategy was smalldf Jueddémrâes in order to get it right regarding where t
mental, that is, it offered higher performance atr8tegsem6ocus should be at each stage.

44 Harvard Business Rev ember 2007

the organization, such as operations, commercia#achneopogny shall choose in which pole to focus,
marketing, among others. We talk about Big T b1 antLbl t or Big T, according to its competencie
change comes from more than one source. Big T/ taalbeological advance of its environment, markets
than focusing on the product, implies changes aectBosbdmi-which it acts, maturity of the product
ness model and is driven by ideas. with which it competes and therefore its commoditiza
An example illustrating Big T innovation is CLeqmlVdd—developed countries that is one of the
com elo, which produces Corona beer. Without changkep Hildas. And the strategic emphasis
mistakes h its product in fact, the company strongly premtDpt bMztt, as shown
by the experience of Apple its brand is produced 100% in Mexico in l98Bm§egoâa
the 80 s (Sea the box Cost of mistakin managed to snatch decades of leadership
from 8eiAekenIn the emerging markets, in turn, this dil as the imported beer with the biggest
salessmkrllfirid cbause the companies usually don t have States. Innovations in the business
model whirbsuñfewadand the technological background necessar Coronatowin globalpresence came
from, among otheraQl in small t innovations, that is to say, techs the marketing area (the
brand sells the idea ofn J:ñpaeunfocused on the product. But the good n and fun,
and has been extremely consistent in tsMa elbaL—allows, and it even demands to seek fo
ing) and the commercial area (it has positionekh a
premium brand outside of Mexico, with a price 30lBes48his mean that the small t lacks of importan
higher compared to local beers, breaking the ensLomevetion source for the Latin American compan
the Latin brands of appealing to the Hispanic Jhnsaneweinis, of course, no. The organizations in t
United States.) gion must pay attention to the small t, but as cons
When Big T does involve a change in the prododtpdnptoas of it (for example, through decrementa
decremental. That is, it takes away features f ab|iarpdodBut their competitive advantage lies mo1
uct to achieve radically expanding the marke8owabd utdcethat technological base in order to ease
business eld, and in this way be more congrutébnwfmhbi/oiness models, rather than in the technol
consumers needs in the emerging markets. change itself. The example of how Cemex faced its lo
Procter & Gamble, for instance, decided to 1 enjanellustrates this point: It took advantage
of basic disposable diapers for Latin AmeridaesUhimt hnkLlogy and in telecommunications in
ords took away almost all the sophisticated featurdevcLhgt dinnovation which substantially
improved assured primacy in the developed markets. ThiBLghttBetvice.
decremental innovation the company managed to expand
12 times the diapers market in the Region, ke %%g innovation biosphere for
stantial participation and becoming the Region .lea r in
that category.
Rather than being mutually exclusive, Big TWâmK[ émmM about small t it is clear regarding whe
t have a dynamic interaction between them. The\nmreo will lie:It will be in the product, and
ferent emphasis on the innovation activity andiBglypsthefinnovation effort will come from a sp‹
that, strategic answers of the companies. Manydegmg , Research and Development. The small t f
perform both kinds of innovation. Companies ar1oatrate#amear course of innovation since it is pc
cally inclined towards one or the other pole dqoeddaegeefthat the innovation will emerge from
diverse factors, much of them that coincide wiklo:\âanjdLffuoit. Innovation does not flow from
all ences between the emerging and developed economimgia ,s areas.
it is possible to state that: On the other hand, when it s about Big T, that c1
The more commoditized or undifferentiated bbe prglec/ept. Big T follows a non—linear course of
the bigger the T. tion. The lack of technological background in the
The less commoditized the product, the sma ewbose engine is the Big T leads to the fac
The faster the technological cycle of ththqp tirhgeeffort derives from the whole firm.
smaller the t. associated to one specific department. Innovation
The slower the technological cycle of thatprw&yctinth1l the company s areas.
bigger the T. The biological evolution can be used as a metapho
The small t economy is driven by technologpxplain the Big T paradigm. In the evolution of a v
The Big T economy is driven by ideas. of organisms which coexist in a particular biosp
The more developed the economy, the smallerAfiheetis no clarity about which organism will fir
The less developed the economy, the biggerdnbeJ.variation in its biological adjustment path t
The Big T
Paradigm

the environment. Faced to an unfriendly env nmn electronic data base to capture ideas fi
and which never stops changing, organisms devtAepemgrlioyees in all the hierarchical levels.
Eac ations as defense mechanisms. In the firms drptegeByidh6emex Mexico has been trained to
incorpor Big T, the different organization s differedtisâheasidéuo into this base. This not
only reflect develop variations in order to survive. The nfigement
rstrong belief that Big T innovations ity about which department will produce a
ameegasf/rbm any department or level, but also tha variety. Just like the evolutionary
effort isa nDrx deliberately boost an innovation cc
entire biosphere, the innovation effort is p bt taj# across its entire organization.
the organization s areas. By establishing the Innovation Committee with
In the biosphere, the biological evolutiopl teams and the Bank of Ideas, Cemex generat
through three processes generally identified am vafiMstdobtosphere where innovations are identil
selection and retention/dissemination. In a sé8ettrdwap$ disseminated.
thecompanydrivenbytheBigTappliesthreecategories
of inn ovati on processes: variati on, the mec m i@ nn ovat ion in Marketing and
order to detect and stimulate innovation su tions; se
— lection, the mechanisms to choose which of them
wilfiDe
accepted; and, dissemination, the mechanisms tlnBic&fnsYemex s innovation platforms con rmed that
innovations to the diverse company s operatiomement projected demand growth in emerging countries
Just like there are certain conditions in thevébitiq*heiMigher compared to the developed world.
for evolution, the firms driven by the Big T aheooomtab$tsdn of cement in sacks, which represents
previous conditions in order to promote an atâgBgBegercentage in the emerging countries, basically
where innovation can emerge. And, as we will sA&pmCthexpoorest people. Faced to this perspective,
has been especially successful creating this ‹ itiqslobre.team of managers willing to work for a year
Small t economy hasn t played an importanteuir melp poor neighborhood of the crowded city of Gu:
the cement industry. In fact, since modern c[m$atawaBhe purpose was to understand the consuming h‹
invented in England at the beginning ofnttBy/ nd the problems faced by that population.
its production process has had little variatiBne dfn tdenthings discovered on site by Cemex s
ma trast, Big T economy certainly has allowed maeysiéaothat 20% of the almost US$ 12,000
millions s tions. Or, as a senior executive of the comp i mm igrants from United
States to their hom says, we have a bag full of tricks. in Mexico is
destined to construction. Unfortunatel Cemex s top management knew that good ideabwezzrn 10% and
20% of that money was lost in trans
emerge from the most remote places of the com sandnd commissions. With this information, in
that a proper atmosphere was needed to encour ehnr8egan a pilot project in Los Angeles, Califc
vation. That made top management impose itsetâltB8efonstrumex. By means of this system, Mexic
challenges in order to create a series of pPeidedatizars:go to a Cemex Office in Los Angeles
stimulate experiments across the entire orgaedettaoadvice regarding plans and material neces
select those experiments of higher impact, addrqria#&gific project. After paying the products,
disseminate the experiments across the compangommunicates with the local distributor in Mexico
So there were no doubts regarding that inncga rmsi e materials and delivers them to the rel‹
the business model, or that Big T was of highT@rsomhQy flemex has managed to venture in a marke
the company, Cemex MBxico s top management fctbmtlroves more than US$ 2,000 millions per year am
ized an innovation process. On one side, itwAétAbLxéBtdnce it was barely aware before starting
the Innovation Committee, composed of three vthesppBeject.
idents, three directors and an external adviso uLntbtargasn t the only experiment. Given the la.
of defining a small number of innovation pdrAdbtr , finance construction projects, people in G
which are always aligned with the company s Qoiposadeighborhoods have developed for years a come
strategy. Each platform has a working teamfmcidhcdJMred lots . The lot has become the financin
mission of seeking innovative answers to diffiameKitg yystim for the people with low income in Mex
tions. Some of the recent platforms are: How Isa m ]eLmd of lottery organized by the community s
advances in manufacture, development of inte erlbb-leaders. Each week, dozens of families co
tions for accessible housings, and makeit eaotiert8othtbelottery with a pre—established amount
clients to perform businesses with Cemex. each week a family receives the total amount in o
46 Harvard Business ember
Rev 2007
 The Big T
Paradigm
On the other hand, the company created the BenBeefine it to its different needs. The lottery

November 2007 Harvard Business ReVbew

week after week until finally all the numbers +8beeparticipating in the project and the compa
selected. But the financial cost for each fa dgténimzomqmsrating 800,000 more in the following y as
it has to wait during weeks to obtain the loAnotBeouMexican company, Elektra, also captured t After
knowing this, Cemex created new experimemtss arthat in order to be able to sell to the great
keting experts at the company talked with some grfoqJhewith low income, the lot mechanism had t‹
organizers of these lotteries, generally wom eaoAbdiagtystem. Today, Elektra is the biggest hot
gested that Cemex could help them to establisbomesobdi-n in that country, and its products are lar
common fund system with the purpose of fiweeblpgpayments (emulating the lots ). Elektra
housing construction projects. Cemex offeredre8dycex#Loring in United States Hispanic market as
construction, design and a small contributionw€thfgmcoztcssuccess in Los Angeles. And like Cemex, E
projects of the fund. After three years, some &08Ii ed that a percentage of the sendings

Good ideas can emerge in the most remote places of the organization. But innovation is like life itself Ii
a favorable biosphere must exist. At Cemex this implied the creation of a series of pre—conditions So, the
challenge has been:

Stimulate experiments acros° tHelect those experiments of higlerQuickly disseminate them

entire organization impact across the entire
company

In 2000, Cemex MOxico created the Innovation Committee formed by three vice—presidents, three directors
advisor. The Committee received all the support from Cemex Norteamorica s top management, and it was its
ch Francisco Garza Zambrano, who gave a boost to it and who actively participates in the Committee s
activitie responsibilities are:

DEFINE a small number of SELECT four to six teams PROVIDE a structure for the P
topics, which are the platforRbose task is to identify three innovation process.
that will guide the innovationinnovation opportunities for Members of the innovation
processes. These topics are the business model. These platforms receive training in how
completely aligned with the opportunities must be consisted identify an opportunity; ho. to
organization s corporate stratep\th the Big T platforms, and generate ideas in order to re -ñ
Some of Cemex s recent platformDunt with 12 to 18 impact ideasgap in the market; and how
have been: per year. formulate an action plan.
Teams are integrated by up to lAbmex s innovation process
integrated solutions and accesq]ld*ons, who during three to fcouRulates entrepreneurs boot—
for the highest number of peopbopths dedicate 25% of their tim&mps.
to the platforms. Participating
development; in this is considered a privileged
assignment, not only because
clients to do business with Ce ovation is a top management s
express priority, but also because
it gives team members a great
exposure. They must conceive
detailed action plans in order to
implement their ideas.
 The Big T
Paradigm

tined to buying its products, so it is possiQLecfrsptqt ation of molds and a new mix), but d
products in its stores in United States, whielnba cbedrom the commercial area (how contracts
up later in Mexico. Again, this is a Big T inmB#aatsncaJhaccelerate the construction process of t
company s product hasn t changed a bit, since tAehaomea8- Added to the innovations in the nancin
tion was in the business model. it turned out to be a modi cation of the business
in the segment of popular houses nanced by the gon
ment. There is a dynamic interaction between the B4
Big T Innovation in Production and the small t, as that in the use of GPS and the ‹
Another Big T innovation came from the platfoDmoEeL io the logistic area. But in both cases the s
make things easier for the clients to perform airsimdwqsla<mtchon the Big T.
Cemex and it emerged in a conversation with a contractor
specialized in building houses for low income B% r . novation in the Supply
contractor said that his problem, rather thatching the
sale of the houses (the housings were nancedVy fe gov—
ernment), was thetimeit takestobuild ahouse.DdMzlrgning economies are flooded with products whi'
construction workers constantly change jobs, icnrt —few differentiation opportunities. And
Ce tor lost up to 20% of his team each week. BesfdeeQ jesMadhat challenge: How could it achieve
a co to deal with the cultural factor called Sa eMmhkIzQe&entiation for cement which is,
or is pc when labor absenteeism dramatically increasesasFtenoAModity? The company s commercial
area and i week—end. As a result, the contractor often id/mrbvM
qblatform How to deliver integral solute his production goals. constructors and
contractors gave an effective answ
Listening to these claims, most cement comQaAyeBetween five and seven cents out of each Dot
would answer: Sorry, but your turnover and ln orb-in construction are spent in cement. In wh‹
senteeism is not our problem. But Cemex was dé€fetBet.93 to 95 cents spent? And the answer led
Constructors frustration not only helped tooklrystmfljl1I'zcinnovation. Rather than selling only ce
the team s mindset regarding a new micro—probflsmexcomow also sells construction solutions.
struction velocity but also encouraged a prac6rcâLssbñuiness model innovation, Cemex offers lo‹
tion proposal. Cemex s team proposed a way tsernerdrceto distributors which cover the entire spe
the amount of work: the use of metal molds drheVoonstruction industry. In Mexico, more than 7
cement could be poured and in that way quiebtgnbuiAdsold in sacks. These sacks are generally c
walls and floor. cialized in small construction stores, where cement
These molds were already available in United saaUmost half of the business. Cemex selected
Europe (Cemex s innovation platforms researchedititmtiBttors, from 4,000 existing in the country
country with the fastest construction was Finttmd¿e8ltreoffer valuable services around the cemen
because of climate reasons they have only fourFmnttlfiis, the company created Construrama, a frs
to nish the work), but there were two othozh qarogram for distributors and constructio
for the application of molds in Mexico. Firstperfa6hetrnaaiy. Cemex invested US$ 10,000 in each
mix was poured in the molds, air bubbles wouldwBppBaxatndestined to the construction of a new f
the walls that would make the construction ie:flem*ocuiénga, and a computer and inventory tracki
terms of structure. In a country with frequent ke0emex trained Construrama s distributor°
this wasn t a minor problem. Second, the mold etdBusiness management skills, such as market
expensive for most of the local constructors. Opramde Banning, taxes and inventory control. In t
ing the problems, the team found out that thieGmdpumythe loyalty to its brand.
itself had recently developed a more uent forffobooaady Cemex does not manufacture the great
sp mix that would be perfect for this applicat rfnronstruction materials. The idea is to take
would 11 the molds evenly. And the secondtâgeuefwUBe company s logistic capacity to administ
solved with a new Cemex Capital program, the conppLy shain between the manufacturing companies
an
nance arm, which would help contractors tdhéupetAerk of distributors. The project turned out
required molds. The Innovation Committee apprcozedB ling that now Cemex expects to take Construrz
project which promptly became a Cemex s new s eebKed countries. Through this Big T innovation,
( offering. During the project s rst year, Cemdsecsm‹ge eddde company in the construction process.
build 30,000 houses in this way. Big T innovation not only happens inside the org
This case shows a technical innovation in thezptodocTidn also outsider of it. Just as Big T inr
November 2007 l Harvard Business Review
involves each area of the organization, outsidengBewitdparéountry managers (few multinationals gat
zation the conception of the business model btBefi6naolctry managers so frequently, but Cemex beli
the client s vision. The most pragmatic way tclrManQeegdent and face—to—face communication is key
paradigm from selling products to selling so iim)toLike this, while in 1992 it took 18
watch the business model from the client s poiutimL e the Spaniard acquisitions, the South'
For example, at John Deere, an agricultural n in 2001 reached the standard level in
manufacturer, a Big T kind of paradigm change tFmm?rglzaMhs.
A questioning similar to the one at Cemex was r edpfaadtructure has been a crucial vehicle in
the company discovered that 35 cents out of eMrha Ld this common language. IT served as tool
used in the agricultural process, are spent ipr reend£tion for many of Cemex s Big T innc
tural equipment, and the rest in fertilizers,timmimLdmetctt wasn t the focus of the innovation
it: and aerial works. The new paradigm therefore i sa8amytdeveloping economies suffer from a
poor te sellsolutionsforthefarmandnotonlytractors.communications infrastructure (which serves to
justil
the absence or delay of the information requester
Big T Innovation in the the headquarters), Cemex had to install satellite
Organization at each plant. The satellite system served as bac
for a new computer platform which connected all t
Running a company which operates in countriasa plants, warehouses and offices. Informat
ferent as Egypt, Philippines, Costa Rica and Jiite8abt6tes of each Cemex s entity gave a boost t
clearly demands a common language, affirmed prmgeEoatmosphere so that the innovations dissem4
Zambrano, CEO at Cemex, in a meeting with aiacHyqJrDcess could naturally emerge. Along with
th1
held in Houston on July 2001. And I m not ra mgiddormation demand by CEO Lorenzo Zambrano
English, which is our operative language but pDodummdna double result. On the one hand,
developm‹ reports, common systems, common practices, aod aomemmon base of practices and business
knowled mon technological platforms, so that we can O8fibéeutAyr, knowledge transfer through the
diffe and effectively talk amongst us. production areas. Each plant manager knew that if
?
The Big T innovation that answered this chaBlmaayesv formation system didn t reflect that the
baptized as The Cemex Way. It s about thecommitibedicators were being fulfilled, it was like
of a common language and practices for the thbirglamt manager to receive a call from the CEO. Z
ganization implemented by the top managementfareyhthe manager asked the plants which didn t shou
company was globally growing due to its aggrera§rec in order to discover what they did diff
quisition strategy. That is a good example of Big T innovation.
Traditio
In a certain way, we could say that organizaLroB#é rameDt industry the production units used
to vation is a kind of mother of all innovationss âns0Bm independent and unconnected islands.
because it has allowed the creation of a commcoe uLmJustry was conceived as local. Cemex
chanc platform. This allows encouraging, selecting a cbisbemiJf the industry, transforming
a domestic nating innovations which may emerge in any ixndndustry into a big, global and
extremely d level of the company. Besides, The Cemex Wayindistr#if—
ferentiates the company from its main competitors, most
of them European, whose internationalizationNmm8ebfiAhese company s innovations has been in t
more diffused from the organizational point o§rohext Thyself. Cement continues be cement. Bu
to European model in this sector is focused on h ehaaesits innovations have able to change
been in a series of local markets, resulting in asabtrasspoob@etitive game s
rules.
lio, but with little knowledge transfer. In con£imct4tfidntAan t monopoly of the countries most
t Mexican company, they aspire totransform k lly advanced. Without doubt, these counti
into profitability, and the Cemex Way is ourh# ldUmelepd innovation advantages in the product
celerate and intensify this process, accorcliLmplfioc4am£ion of technology—intensive
products. B brano s own words. portunities to make innovations in business models,
These common language and practices were jam—make Big T innovations, are completely open,
lated into a series of initiatives to face lhDe rgabh for Latin American companies and ot
accelerated growth resulting from the acquis iemmrgilcg countries in general.
Cemex created multi—cultural teams that supervise the
integration post—merge and encourages month p tR0711R E