["Strategy discussions are invariably burdened by resource-allocation agendas; or "You aren’t going to cut my unit.”; we don’t pay enough attention to the difference between strategy as resource allocation and strategy as insight generation."]"Strategy discussions are invariably burdened by resource-allocation agendas; actually, what’s labeled “strategic” is often what is politically protected by senior management, not what’s most valuable for a firm. Many a strategy discussion is actually about executives saying, “You aren’t going to cut my unit.”
...
I think we don’t pay enough attention to the difference between strategy as resource allocation and strategy as insight generation. There is a yearly strategy process, which focuses on resource allocation. We should acknowledge it as such and better understand its pathologies. But we also need to take a fresh look at how we identify ways to improve a firm’s positioning and performance, by explicitly asking, “What insight-generating activities, tools, and frameworks would be useful?
...
strategy tools are only effective if they provide executives with a way to get a comprehensive view of their company in the context of industry as a whole. You can go to an oil-and-gas conference and get an oil-and-gas perspective. Then, you go to another conference and see things from a supply-chain angle. There are competing frameworks that overlap and it’s often confusing. It is quite important to have effective frameworks that pull together these different views into a comprehensive picture.
...
We’ve talked about frameworks in the context of analysis, but my test is whether they are useful for synthesis. If not, what’s the process for getting a good synthesis? That’s where the strategies come from. A strategy is not the obverse of an analysis. It usually comes from some creative insight. I think the real opportunity in strategy development is on the synthesis side—figuring out how to deal with a faster-changing environment. I like to characterize strategy as coming from three places: strategic planning, strategic thinking, and opportunistic decision making. My prejudice is that most of it comes from strategic thinking and opportunistic decision making. Something happens out there; you see it and you act faster. The strategic-planning process can deteriorate into an exercise of applying techniques and frameworks.”
...
we need both the consultant- or firm-driven focus on “themes” and better frameworks, not only to teach strategy, but also to help executives rethink what they do, perhaps by helping to improve their judgment, to frame difficult problems, or to deal with individual or organizational biases. We should ask ourselves what types of frameworks can work best.
...
One of the toughest strategy challenges is still the creation of options—creating them is the black box of strategy. It’s easy to write “diverge” on the strategy-process map, but it’s darned difficult to create truly innovative strategy options.
...the better tools for creating options don’t seem to come from strategy but rather from product innovation....key principles of reframing the market, customer empathy, and rapid prototyping can be used to improve the creation of options in strategy.
Burberry operates in a very fragmented industry, where the ability to maintain market share is always dependent on the brand. Because our market share is so small, we always feel that if we do something great, it can actually be meaningful.
...We probably don’t think enough about the way competitors move; the thing we lack most is probably a better view of the competitive environment. Information is very anecdotal in the countries where we operate, so maintaining the brand, which protects you from the ins and outs of fashion,
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/Strategy/What_strategists_need_A_meeting_of_the_minds?cid=mckq50-eml-alt-mkq-mck-oth-1409
via @ccz1
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário