Discussion: View Thread

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

  • 1.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-23-2009 11:24
    Colleagues,
     
    The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline indicates that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our attention, especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.
     
    Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since being introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I have watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new" theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility experiments. It is not surprising to me that many students find the  'strategy' subject matter irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long range planning and its essence is lost.
     
    Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly describe 'strategy' in 20 words or less.  I have been alert to such succinct description for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a lack of strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to do their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise suffers. 
     
    Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning. Strategy is better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second order cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be "the allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to achieving an objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs, the conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and the validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If you are lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding possible outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every hour or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?
     
    Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation and scheduling decisions.
     
    The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy discovery than strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of resources regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic duty, world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of discovering strategy.
     
    Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and resources and in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy does not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of being able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current strategy becomes clear.
     
    This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which most students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking about which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency.   Strategy discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and intuition participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success criteria and situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work students aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked to engage in pointless planning.
     
    One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a statement of intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what, when.
     
    Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the arrangement of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do strategy. They set policy.  Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of straw may be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly as well as can a supply of bricks.
     
    Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the opportunity to expose students to axiology, the study of values.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
     
     
     
     


  • 2.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-24-2009 00:34
    Colleagues,
     
    Jack Ring asked for definitions of strategy.  It isn't that simple.  At the grave risk of overdoing, I've tapped my Dictionary and my Science of Strategy for language that enables a strategic approach to business.  This 1000 words just indicate what strategy is.  The context for strategy and the how of strategy are much larger concepts. 
     
    With due respect, positioning is just a strategy. Not the strategy.  A position is a very strategic decision. Not the strategic decision.  Implementing the strategy of positioning requires tactical expertise and sufficient resources.  But then, so do every other element of an integrated strategy.
     
    Best to all,
     
    Gary
    A Language of Strategy

    The Market Engineering Dictionary of Innovation and Marketing

    Edition 18, September, 2008, The Market Engineering Press

    Lundquist, Gary - Editor

    Strategic:  Consciously connecting every action to established goals and objectives, then choosing actions that are the best possible methods to reach those goals.

    Strategic Directions:  Answers to fundamental questions needed to plan and manage for organizational success.  e.g., mission.

    Strategist:  One who develops, communicates, and gains buy in to strategies.

    To Strategize:  To find a method to reach a goal or objective by developing and evaluating a range of possible methods, then choosing the optimum approach for the specific situation.

    Strategizing:  The process of developing and evaluating a range of possible methods for achieving specific objectives as steps toward goals, then choosing the expected optimum approach.

    Strategy

    ·         A specific method for achieving a goal, reaching an objective, or meeting a need.

    ·         The science of managing resources to reach long term goals over time by successfully achieving near term objectives.

    ·         Summary statement of how objectives will be pursued.  Brandt

    ·         The analysis of alternative opportunities and risks, informed by environmental and internal information, which leads management to choose a particular set of market, product and customer goals.  Bonoma

    ·         The objective of strategy is to make tactics successful.  Thus strategy must be founded on tactical realities.  Ries and Trout

    ·         Strategy is the art of coordinating the means (money, human resources, materials) to achieve the ends (profit, customer satisfaction, company growth) as defined by company policy and objectives.  Paley

    Core Strategy:  A durable yet adaptable category of methods often formalized as corporate functions or departments.  Well defined core strategies provide strategic directions that may endure for years.  e.g, marketing, new product development.

    Integrated Strategy:  A tightly linked suite of strategies connected, timed, and coordinated to achieve a specific set of objectives over time. 

    Initiative:  (management initiative)  A temporary integrated strategy, typically designed to create a specific change.

    Scenario:  A test concept for an integrated strategy or initiative used during strategizing.

    Tactic:  A process or resource coordinated by a strategy to achieve an objective.

    Tactics:  The science of maneuvering resources in action.  Webster's

    Tactical:  Focusing on an action, its planning, and its implementation without regard to goals or objectives.

    The tactical approach leads to waste, inefficiency, lost opportunities, poor image, low revenues, and perhaps failure to survive.

     

    Perspectives on Strategy

    Lundquist, Gary, "The Science of Strategy," 1997-2008,
    The Market Engineering Press, 12006    .

    Strategies structure businesses.  Every business function, department, team, and project not outsourced is an internal strategy (e.g., product management, manufacturing).  Every function hired out is an external strategy (e.g., legal, advertising).  The outsourcing function itself can be internal or external.

    Strategies guide businesses.  Certain decisions set strategic directions.  e.g., the mission statement can be used as a strategy to guide behaviors of management and staff at all levels of the company.  A more tangible example is market segmentation, by which the business decides which customers to serve. 

    Strategies implement businesses:  e.g., staff, systems, processes, and especially professional disciplines such as engineering, management, and human resources.  Projects are strategies for achieving desired results.  People and teams are strategies for completing projects at every level from making Board decisions to completing janitorial duties.

    Strategies integrate businesses.  We use the term "business" to include internal businesses such as an engineering department or HR.  In that context, strategies engage ranges of internal businesses to accomplish higher business objectives.  A classic example is the "value chain" from idea to product launch and customer service.  At a corporate level, strategies result in, e.g., mergers. 

    Strategies are always complex.  A single engineer tasked to complete a prototype might seem simple, yet that person relies on facilities, systems, knowledge bases, perhaps patenting, context of stakeholders to be served, and on and on.  Naming a single bold strategy as the core of a business is naming a complex of strategies and tactics... down to procurement of printer paper.

    Strategies need buy-in.  Eventual implementation of strategies requires cooperation by both those who will perform and their management.  Mid management in larger companies can stonewall strategies.  Staff can perform, yet without enthusiasm or creativeness.  A corporate strategy is not complete without integrated elements of internal marketing to develop durable buy-in.

    Strategies beget strategies.  Single strategies rarely achieve significant objectives.  It takes an "integrated strategy" that combines a range of methods and resources applied within specific time frames. 

    Most of all, strategies require resources.  People, systems, libraries of patents, internal skills, contract expertise, etc.  Ideally, every strategy will produce results of value greater than the cost of implementation.  The sum of strategies for an objective must produce value greater than the sum of costs. 

    Strategies produce change.  Change happens everywhere and all of the time, and the only way to manage change is with change.  External change forces internal change.  Internal change in one process forces change in other processes.  The time is long past when businesses could do the same thing, year after year, and remain viable. 

    ...

    Do you remember what the Cat said to Alice in Wonderland?   "If you don't know where you are going, then any path will take you there."

    Being strategic means knowing where you are going and taking control of how you will get there.  It means knowing what you want to achieve and then designing every action to make it happen.

    Within a large organization like a corporation, goals are set and paths are chosen at many levels.  In a strategic business, goals flow down within the hierarchy.  Everyone knows where they are going.  Tactics then flow up from implementation levels.  The inventiveness and skills of all staff are leveraged.

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 9:24 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Colleagues,
     
    The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline indicates that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our attention, especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.
     
    Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since being introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I have watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new" theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility experiments. It is not surprising to me that many students find the  'strategy' subject matter irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long range planning and its essence is lost.
     
    Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly describe 'strategy' in 20 words or less.  I have been alert to such succinct description for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a lack of strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to do their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise suffers. 
     
    Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning. Strategy is better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second order cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be "the allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to achieving an objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs, the conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and the validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If you are lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding possible outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every hour or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?
     
    Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation and scheduling decisions.
     
    The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy discovery than strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of resources regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic duty, world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of discovering strategy.
     
    Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and resources and in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy does not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of being able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current strategy becomes clear.
     
    This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which most students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking about which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency.   Strategy discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and intuition participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success criteria and situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work students aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked to engage in pointless planning.
     
    One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a statement of intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what, when.
     
    Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the arrangement of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do strategy. They set policy.  Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of straw may be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly as well as can a supply of bricks.
     
    Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the opportunity to expose students to axiology, the study of values.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
     
     
     
     


  • 3.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-24-2009 07:47

    Here's a radical thought that comes from a colleague:  strategy is anything that one does that affects one's competitive advantage.  George Day's definition of the latter:  superior value added, difficult to imitate, and enhances one's flexibility adds to the flavor.  This definition rises above the short term, long term debate, and the intentional/emergent debate.  Some strategies, even in nature, might be semi- or sub-conscious.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:24 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Colleagues,

     

    The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline indicates that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our attention, especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.

     

    Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since being introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I have watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new" theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility experiments. It is not surprising to me that many students find the  'strategy' subject matter irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long range planning and its essence is lost.

     

    Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly describe 'strategy' in 20 words or less.  I have been alert to such succinct description for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a lack of strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to do their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise suffers. 

     

    Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning. Strategy is better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second order cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be "the allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to achieving an objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs, the conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and the validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If you are lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding possible outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every hour or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?

     

    Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation and scheduling decisions.

     

    The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy discovery than strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of resources regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic duty, world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of discovering strategy.

     

    Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and resources and in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy does not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of being able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current strategy becomes clear.

     

    This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which most students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking about which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency.   Strategy discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and intuition participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success criteria and situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work students aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked to engage in pointless planning.

     

    One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a statement of intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what, when.

     

    Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the arrangement of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do strategy. They set policy.  Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of straw may be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly as well as can a supply of bricks.

     

    Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the opportunity to expose students to axiology, the study of values.

     

    Onward,

    Jack Ring

     

     

     

     



  • 4.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-24-2009 15:19
    In a message dated 2/24/2009 12:29:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, GaryL@MARKET-ENGINEERING.COM writes:
    Jack Ring asked for definitions of strategy.  It isn't that simple.  At the grave risk of overdoing, I've tapped my Dictionary and my Science of Strategy for language that enables a strategic approach to business.  This 1000 words just indicate what strategy is.  The context for strategy and the how of strategy are much larger concepts. 
     
    With due respect, positioning is just a strategy. Not the strategy.  A position is a very strategic decision. Not the strategic decision.  Implementing the strategy of positioning requires tactical expertise and sufficient resources.  But then, so do every other element of an integrated strategy.
     
    Gary,
     
    If strategy is everything that you claim what is the definition of a game-changing design for an organization?
     
    We define it in our monograph entitled Game-Changing Design (2009), Info Age as an architecture that enables a company to continually reinvent itself through strategies that disrupt enough to shift from outmoded paradigms.  Examples of disruptive strategies are (1) Re-architect the corporate culture based on design principles and practices, (2) Adopt and proliferate a deep understanding of systems and institutionalize systems thinking, (3) Catalyze radical change readiness through peer-to-peer apprentice-style mentoring and partnering, and (4) Maximize understanding, visualization, and strategic use of competitive analytics.
     
    We also describe research based strategies and tools for this mission.
     
    George Graen
    /jag
     
     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 5.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-24-2009 16:38
    Similarly, is copulation anything that two do that produces pregnancy?
    Defining a concept by the result produced does not tell us much about how to help students learn about performing the concept. Also, a 'result' viewpoint doesn't clarify whether this is the only way to arrive at that result or whether this is a guaranteed cause-effect relationship.
    Close, but no cigar.
    Jack Ring 
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:46 AM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Here’s a radical thought that comes from a colleague:  strategy is anything that one does that affects one’s competitive advantage.  George Day’s definition of the latter:  superior value added, difficult to imitate, and enhances one’s flexibility adds to the flavor.  This definition rises above the short term, long term debate, and the intentional/emergent debate.  Some strategies, even in nature, might be semi- or sub-conscious.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:24 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Colleagues,

     

    The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline indicates that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our attention, especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.

     

    Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since being introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I have watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new" theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility experiments. It is not surprising to me that many students find the  'strategy' subject matter irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long range planning and its essence is lost.

     

    Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly describe 'strategy' in 20 words or less.  I have been alert to such succinct description for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a lack of strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to do their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise suffers. 

     

    Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning. Strategy is better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second order cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be "the allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to achieving an objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs, the conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and the validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If you are lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding possible outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every hour or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?

     

    Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation and scheduling decisions.

     

    The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy discovery than strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of resources regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic duty, world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of discovering strategy.

     

    Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and resources and in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy does not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of being able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current strategy becomes clear.

     

    This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which most students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking about which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency.   Strategy discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and intuition participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success criteria and situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work students aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked to engage in pointless planning.

     

    One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a statement of intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what, when.

     

    Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the arrangement of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do strategy. They set policy.  Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of straw may be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly as well as can a supply of bricks.

     

    Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the opportunity to expose students to axiology, the study of values.

     

    Onward,

    Jack Ring

     

     

     

     



  • 6.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-24-2009 17:06
    George,
     
    You ask how your language fits with mine.
     
    definition of a game-changing design for an organization
       A branded integrated strategy. 
     
    You bring in suite of strategies under a single name.  A proven, tested process worthy of branding. 
       Internally generated management initiatives are often given names and marketed via branding.
       I recently helped develop a federal laboratory program called Research to Practice (R2P).  Congress wanted more accountability for funds spent.  We innovated R2P.  It was a program of processes... an integrated strategy.
     
    definition of disruptive strategies
       Again, each of your disruptive strategies are very likely complex suites of strategies clustered under a single name.
     
    corporate culture, systems thinking, radical change readiness, use of competitive analytics
        Each of these is an objective.  Corporate management agrees that these are key to business success, and hires you to develop them.  You are a strategy for reaching these objectives.  Your qualifications, proven processes, and experience with specific industries characterize you as a strategy. 
       Achieving any of these objectives will take a suite of processes.  If you name your strategy Game-Changing Design, then the cluster of processes may be seen as tactics.  I tend to perceive GCD as an integrated strategy... that is, the integration of more than one key process, each with its own tactics.
     
    Re-architect, proliferate, Catalyze, Maximize
       Indications of processes.  Tactics of your branded integrated strategy.
     
    The key to your success is that you don't come in promising to re-architect.  You set a much higher goal.  Game-Changing Design. 
       All too often, businesses focus on tactical matters.  "If we just had a systems mindset, we'd make real progress."  That's process thinking.  Tactical thinking.  You set a significant goal, then make it happen through a suite of carefully designed strategies that, apparently, enable ongoing responses to market and internal changes.
     
    Hope that helps.
     
    Gary
     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:19 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    In a message dated 2/24/2009 12:29:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, GaryL@MARKET-ENGINEERING.COM writes:
    Jack Ring asked for definitions of strategy.  It isn't that simple.  At the grave risk of overdoing, I've tapped my Dictionary and my Science of Strategy for language that enables a strategic approach to business.  This 1000 words just indicate what strategy is.  The context for strategy and the how of strategy are much larger concepts. 
     
    With due respect, positioning is just a strategy. Not the strategy.  A position is a very strategic decision. Not the strategic decision.  Implementing the strategy of positioning requires tactical expertise and sufficient resources.  But then, so do every other element of an integrated strategy.
     
    Gary,
     
    If strategy is everything that you claim what is the definition of a game-changing design for an organization?
     
    We define it in our monograph entitled Game-Changing Design (2009), Info Age as an architecture that enables a company to continually reinvent itself through strategies that disrupt enough to shift from outmoded paradigms.  Examples of disruptive strategies are (1) Re-architect the corporate culture based on design principles and practices, (2) Adopt and proliferate a deep understanding of systems and institutionalize systems thinking, (3) Catalyze radical change readiness through peer-to-peer apprentice-style mentoring and partnering, and (4) Maximize understanding, visualization, and strategic use of competitive analytics.
     
    We also describe research based strategies and tools for this mission.
     
    George Graen
    /jag
     
     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 7.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-24-2009 20:37

    Jack,

    I love it.  What a nice return metaphor.  Defining the result brings clarity to the goal if not to the way to get there-of which there might be many-as so many have suggested in the "24 emails"...  The fun is in learning how to get from here to there.  And how to make those decisions in the heat of the moment.  Acquisition or ....  Growing old with the girlfriend you've got.  Do we have a long term relationship that will work or not?  It seems to me knowing the goal/result is the first step in figuring out how to get there.

    But then I'm not a strategist.  Anyway, it's a lot of fun to see how everyone thinks...

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:38 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Similarly, is copulation anything that two do that produces pregnancy?

    Defining a concept by the result produced does not tell us much about how to help students learn about performing the concept. Also, a 'result' viewpoint doesn't clarify whether this is the only way to arrive at that result or whether this is a guaranteed cause-effect relationship.

    Close, but no cigar.

    Jack Ring 

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:46 AM

    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Here's a radical thought that comes from a colleague:  strategy is anything that one does that affects one's competitive advantage.  George Day's definition of the latter:  superior value added, difficult to imitate, and enhances one's flexibility adds to the flavor.  This definition rises above the short term, long term debate, and the intentional/emergent debate.  Some strategies, even in nature, might be semi- or sub-conscious.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:24 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Colleagues,

     

    The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline indicates that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our attention, especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.

     

    Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since being introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I have watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new" theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility experiments. It is not surprising to me that many students find the  'strategy' subject matter irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long range planning and its essence is lost.

     

    Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly describe 'strategy' in 20 words or less.  I have been alert to such succinct description for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a lack of strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to do their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise suffers. 

     

    Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning. Strategy is better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second order cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be "the allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to achieving an objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs, the conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and the validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If you are lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding possible outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every hour or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?

     

    Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation and scheduling decisions.

     

    The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy discovery than strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of resources regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic duty, world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of discovering strategy.

     

    Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and resources and in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy does not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of being able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current strategy becomes clear.

     

    This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which most students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking about which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency.   Strategy discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and intuition participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success criteria and situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work students aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked to engage in pointless planning.

     

    One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a statement of intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what, when.

     

    Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the arrangement of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do strategy. They set policy.  Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of straw may be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly as well as can a supply of bricks.

     

    Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the opportunity to expose students to axiology, the study of values.

     

    Onward,

    Jack Ring

     

     

     

     



  • 8.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 01:05
    Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim didn''t ask about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning to craft strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get there (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:37 PM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Jack,

    I love it.  What a nice return metaphor.  Defining the result brings clarity to the goal if not to the way to get there—of which there might be many—as so many have suggested in the “24 emails”…  The fun is in learning how to get from here to there.  And how to make those decisions in the heat of the moment.  Acquisition or ….  Growing old with the girlfriend you’ve got.  Do we have a long term relationship that will work or not?  It seems to me knowing the goal/result is the first step in figuring out how to get there.

    But then I’m not a strategist.  Anyway, it’s a lot of fun to see how everyone thinks…

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:38 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Similarly, is copulation anything that two do that produces pregnancy?

    Defining a concept by the result produced does not tell us much about how to help students learn about performing the concept. Also, a 'result' viewpoint doesn't clarify whether this is the only way to arrive at that result or whether this is a guaranteed cause-effect relationship.

    Close, but no cigar.

    Jack Ring 

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:46 AM

    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Here’s a radical thought that comes from a colleague:  strategy is anything that one does that affects one’s competitive advantage.  George Day’s definition of the latter:  superior value added, difficult to imitate, and enhances one’s flexibility adds to the flavor.  This definition rises above the short term, long term debate, and the intentional/emergent debate.  Some strategies, even in nature, might be semi- or sub-conscious.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:24 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

     

    Colleagues,

     

    The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline indicates that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our attention, especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.

     

    Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since being introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I have watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new" theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility experiments. It is not surprising to me that many students find the  'strategy' subject matter irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long range planning and its essence is lost.

     

    Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly describe 'strategy' in 20 words or less.  I have been alert to such succinct description for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a lack of strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to do their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise suffers. 

     

    Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning. Strategy is better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second order cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be "the allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to achieving an objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs, the conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and the validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If you are lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding possible outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every hour or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?

     

    Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation and scheduling decisions.

     

    The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy discovery than strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of resources regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic duty, world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of discovering strategy.

     

    Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and resources and in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy does not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of being able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current strategy becomes clear.

     

    This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which most students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking about which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency.   Strategy discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and intuition participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success criteria and situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work students aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked to engage in pointless planning.

     

    One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a statement of intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what, when.

     

    Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the arrangement of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do strategy. They set policy.  Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of straw may be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly as well as can a supply of bricks.

     

    Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the opportunity to expose students to axiology, the study of values.

     

    Onward,

    Jack Ring

     

     

     

     



  • 9.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 01:19
    Trying to draw this discussion back to what practitioners do, attemting to provide a generic definition for "strategy" that will fit will reduce it to triviality. http://www.bain.com/management_tools/tools_planning.asp?groupcode=2 
    has it below. Why do academics persist in taking a straightforward business management process and deveoping their own egocentric definitions?
    Related Topics
    • Core Competencies
    • Mission and Vision Statements
    • Scenario and Contingency Planning
    Description

    Strategic Planning is a comprehensive process for determining what a business should become and how it can best achieve that goal. It appraises the full potential of a business and explicitly links the business's objectives to the actions and resources required to achieve them. Strategic Planning offers a systematic process to ask and answer the most critical questions confronting a management team-especially large, irrevocable resource commitment decisions.

    Methodology

    A successful Strategic Planning process should:
    • Describe the organization's mission, vision and fundamental values;
    • Target potential business arenas and explore each market for emerging threats and opportunities;
    • Understand the current and future priorities of targeted customer segments;
    • Analyze the company's strengths and weaknesses relative to competitors and determine which elements of the value chain the company should make versus buy;
    • Identify and evaluate alternative strategies;
    • Develop an advantageous business model that will profitably differentiate the company from its competitors;
    • Define stakeholder expectations and establish clear and compelling objectives for the business;
    • Prepare programs, policies, and plans to implement the strategy;
    • Establish supportive organizational structures, decision processes, information and control systems, and hiring and training systems;
    • Allocate resources to develop critical capabilities;
    • Plan for and respond to contingencies or environmental changes;
    • Monitor performance.
    Common Uses

    Strategic Planning processes are often implemented to:
    • Change the direction and performance of a business;
    • Encourage fact-based discussions of politically sensitive issues;
    • Create a common framework for decision making in the organization;
    • Set a proper context for budget decisions and performance evaluations;
    • Train managers to develop better information to make better decisions;
    • Increase confidence in the business's direction.
    Related Bain capabilities

    Selected References

    Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change . Plume, 1998.

    Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. "Has Strategy Changed?" Sloan Management Review , Winter 2002, pp. 88-91.

    Goold, Michael, Andrew Campbell, and Marcus Alexander. Corporate-Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company . John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

    Hamel, Gary, and C.K. Prahalad. Competing for the Future . Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

    Mankins, Michael C. "Stop Wasting Valuable Time." Harvard Business Review , September 2004, pp. 58-65.

    Mintzberg, Henry. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners . Free Press, 1994.

    Mintzberg, Henry, Joseph Lampel, and Bruce Ahlstrand. Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management . Free Press, 1998.

    Ohmae, Kenichi. The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business . McGraw-Hill, 1991.

    Porter, Michael E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors . Free Press, 1980.

    Porter, Michael E. "What Is Strategy?" Harvard Business Review , November/December 1996, pp. 61-78.



  • 10.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 10:56
    Romie, Bain Consulting represents the past and may be dysfunctional for our present and future as we find that someone changed our games without telling us.  A. G. Lafley and his consultant coauthor (Lafley & Charan, 2008) describe how P&G is doing it and its not the Bain way.  Bain's reference list is for the history books not the new games.
     
    Please let us play catch-up with the game changers and stop dragging us back to our yellowing lecture pages.  We need to move on even if it makes us feel old.  Our competitors are leaping ahead with research-based tools that aid in implementing game-changing designs.
     
    George Graen
    /jag
     
     
    In a message dated 2/25/2009 4:43:04 A.M. Central Standard Time, littrellaom@YAHOO.CO.NZ writes:
    Trying to draw this discussion back to what practitioners do, attemting to provide a generic definition for "strategy" that will fit will reduce it to triviality. http://www.bain.com/management_tools/tools_planning.asp?groupcode=2 
    has it below. Why do academics persist in taking a straightforward business management process and deveoping their own egocentric definitions?
    Related Topics
    • Core Competencies
    • Mission and Vision Statements
    • Scenario and Contingency Planning
    Description

    Strategic Planning is a comprehensive process for determining what a business should become and how it can best achieve that goal. It appraises the full potential of a business and explicitly links the business's objectives to the actions and resources required to achieve them. Strategic Planning offers a systematic process to ask and answer the most critical questions confronting a management team-especially large, irrevocable resource commitment decisions.

    Methodology

    A successful Strategic Planning process should:
    • Describe the organization's mission, vision and fundamental values;
    • Target potential business arenas and explore each market for emerging threats and opportunities;
    • Understand the current and future priorities of targeted customer segments;
    • Analyze the company's strengths and weaknesses relative to competitors and determine which elements of the value chain the company should make versus buy;
    • Identify and evaluate alternative strategies;
    • Develop an advantageous business model that will profitably differentiate the company from its competitors;
    • Define stakeholder expectations and establish clear and compelling objectives for the business;
    • Prepare programs, policies, and plans to implement the strategy;
    • Establish supportive organizational structures, decision processes, information and control systems, and hiring and training systems;
    • Allocate resources to develop critical capabilities;
    • Plan for and respond to contingencies or environmental changes;
    • Monitor performance.
    Common Uses

    Strategic Planning processes are often implemented to:
    • Change the direction and performance of a business;
    • Encourage fact-based discussions of politically sensitive issues;
    • Create a common framework for decision making in the organization;
    • Set a proper context for budget decisions and performance evaluations;
    • Train managers to develop better information to make better decisions;
    • Increase confidence in the business's direction.
    Related Bain capabilities

    Selected References

    Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change . Plume, 1998.

    Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. "Has Strategy Changed?" Sloan Management Review , Winter 2002, pp. 88-91.

    Goold, Michael, Andrew Campbell, and Marcus Alexander. Corporate-Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company . John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

    Hamel, Gary, and C.K. Prahalad. Competing for the Future . Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

    Mankins, Michael C. "Stop Wasting Valuable Time." Harvard Business Review , September 2004, pp. 58-65.

    Mintzberg, Henry. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners . Free Press, 1994.

    Mintzberg, Henry, Joseph Lampel, and Bruce Ahlstrand. Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management . Free Press, 1998.

    Ohmae, Kenichi. The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business . McGraw-Hill, 1991.

    Porter, Michael E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors . Free Press, 1980.

    Porter, Michael E. "What Is Strategy?" Harvard Business Review , November/December 1996, pp. 61-78.

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 11.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 11:57
    Romie,
     
    Thanks for your overview.  I appreciate the language of description.  I may add some of your statements to my Dictionary. I can cite this MG-ED conversation.  If you'd prefer another citation, please send directly to me.
     
    In my speaking, I use a shorter form that hides the detail you offer.  This is has been copywrited for years.
     
        Who are we?  Who do we want to become?
        Where do we want to go?  How do we intend to get there?
        What do we value?  How do we intend to behave?
     
    Answer those questions, and we have the content for a strategic plan.
     
    Best to all,
     
    Gary

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:19 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Trying to draw this discussion back to what practitioners do, attemting to provide a generic definition for "strategy" that will fit will reduce it to triviality. http://www.bain.com/management_tools/tools_planning.asp?groupcode=2 
    has it below. Why do academics persist in taking a straightforward business management process and deveoping their own egocentric definitions?
    Related Topics
    • Core Competencies
    • Mission and Vision Statements
    • Scenario and Contingency Planning
    Description

    Strategic Planning is a comprehensive process for determining what a business should become and how it can best achieve that goal. It appraises the full potential of a business and explicitly links the business's objectives to the actions and resources required to achieve them. Strategic Planning offers a systematic process to ask and answer the most critical questions confronting a management team-especially large, irrevocable resource commitment decisions.

    Methodology

    A successful Strategic Planning process should:
    • Describe the organization's mission, vision and fundamental values;
    • Target potential business arenas and explore each market for emerging threats and opportunities;
    • Understand the current and future priorities of targeted customer segments;
    • Analyze the company's strengths and weaknesses relative to competitors and determine which elements of the value chain the company should make versus buy;
    • Identify and evaluate alternative strategies;
    • Develop an advantageous business model that will profitably differentiate the company from its competitors;
    • Define stakeholder expectations and establish clear and compelling objectives for the business;
    • Prepare programs, policies, and plans to implement the strategy;
    • Establish supportive organizational structures, decision processes, information and control systems, and hiring and training systems;
    • Allocate resources to develop critical capabilities;
    • Plan for and respond to contingencies or environmental changes;
    • Monitor performance.
    Common Uses

    Strategic Planning processes are often implemented to:
    • Change the direction and performance of a business;
    • Encourage fact-based discussions of politically sensitive issues;
    • Create a common framework for decision making in the organization;
    • Set a proper context for budget decisions and performance evaluations;
    • Train managers to develop better information to make better decisions;
    • Increase confidence in the business's direction.
    Related Bain capabilities

    Selected References

    Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change . Plume, 1998.

    Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. "Has Strategy Changed?" Sloan Management Review , Winter 2002, pp. 88-91.

    Goold, Michael, Andrew Campbell, and Marcus Alexander. Corporate-Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company . John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

    Hamel, Gary, and C.K. Prahalad. Competing for the Future . Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

    Mankins, Michael C. "Stop Wasting Valuable Time." Harvard Business Review , September 2004, pp. 58-65.

    Mintzberg, Henry. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners . Free Press, 1994.

    Mintzberg, Henry, Joseph Lampel, and Bruce Ahlstrand. Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management . Free Press, 1998.

    Ohmae, Kenichi. The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business . McGraw-Hill, 1991.

    Porter, Michael E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors . Free Press, 1980.

    Porter, Michael E. "What Is Strategy?" Harvard Business Review , November/December 1996, pp. 61-78.



  • 12.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 12:06
    Regarding Jack Ring's observation below:

    > Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim didn''t ask
    > about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning to craft
    > strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get there
    > (what impediments thus what resources, when).

    My sense of part of what Jack is driving at is similar the distinction between setting (or formulating) objectives and figuring out how to attain them. How to attain them is very much a matter of crafting a strategy - a course of action - and then of executing it smartly.

    In my experience, people experience very little difficulty in setting objectives. Nor, for that matter, do they encounter much difficulty in formulating plans (i.e., courses of action) that are intended to achieve their objectives. Indeed, on occasion, they are supremely confident - but, as later events reveal - they are also dead wrong. They didn't get it right (and, sometimes, they didn't do it right).

    I think where people go awry in their efforts to craft strategy isn't in their ability to imagine a course of action that, in their opinion, will get them from where they are to where they want to be. I think they come a cropper when it comes to imagining what the trip will be like (e.g., the "impediments" Jack mentions, the responses of others, changes in the operating environment, the political landscape, the economy, etc.). The obvious but impossible solution lies in being able to perfectly foretell the future, which no one can do. So, the second best option is to do a better job of examining and taking into account various scenarios. This, of course, is accomplished through contingency planning. I have seen numerous strategic initiatives go off track owing to the absence of any kind of scenario planning and accompanying strategic planning. On one occasion, I asked about that absence, and was told, "We don't need that; we will succeed." Needless to say, they didn't.

    Perhaps, somewhere along the pedagogical path, people should be asked to develop a strategy for making a trip through uncharted territory about which they have limited information and then reexamine their strategy after receiving additional information from actually making the trip. Perhaps this could be done via a simulation of some kind. The point being one of getting people to realize that the courses of action they undertake are at best well-informed guesses and at worst mere flights of fancy. Flexibility and the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances make the difference. If they weren't necessary, we would long ago have figured out how to engineer success. So far as I know, no one has yet nailed that one.

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >

    > Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Clawson, Jim
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:37 PM
    > Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >
    >
    > Jack,
    >
    > I love it. What a nice return metaphor. Defining the result brings clarity
    > to the goal if not to the way to get there-of which there might be many-as so
    > many have suggested in the "24 emails". The fun is in learning how to get from
    > here to there. And how to make those decisions in the heat of the moment.
    > Acquisition or .. Growing old with the girlfriend you've got. Do we have a
    > long term relationship that will work or not? It seems to me knowing the
    > goal/result is the first step in figuring out how to get there.
    >
    > But then I'm not a strategist. Anyway, it's a lot of fun to see how everyone
    > thinks.
    >
    >
    >
    > Jim
    >
    > James G. S. Clawson
    >
    > Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    >
    > Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    >
    > Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    >
    > 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
    >
    > Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
    >
    > Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:38 PM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >
    >
    >
    > Similarly, is copulation anything that two do that produces pregnancy?
    >
    > Defining a concept by the result produced does not tell us much about how to
    > help students learn about performing the concept. Also, a 'result' viewpoint
    > doesn't clarify whether this is the only way to arrive at that result or whether
    > this is a guaranteed cause-effect relationship.
    >
    > Close, but no cigar.
    >
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    >
    > From: Clawson, Jim
    >
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >
    > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:46 AM
    >
    > Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >
    >
    >
    > Here's a radical thought that comes from a colleague: strategy is anything
    > that one does that affects one's competitive advantage. George Day's definition
    > of the latter: superior value added, difficult to imitate, and enhances one's
    > flexibility adds to the flavor. This definition rises above the short term,
    > long term debate, and the intentional/emergent debate. Some strategies, even in
    > nature, might be semi- or sub-conscious.
    >
    >
    >
    > Jim
    >
    > James G. S. Clawson
    >
    > Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    >
    > Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    >
    > Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    >
    > 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
    >
    > Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
    >
    > Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:24 AM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >
    >
    >
    > Colleagues,
    >
    >
    >
    > The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline indicates
    > that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our attention,
    > especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.
    >
    >
    >
    > Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since being
    > introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I have
    > watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new"
    > theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility experiments. It is
    > not surprising to me that many students find the 'strategy' subject matter
    > irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long range
    > planning and its essence is lost.
    >
    >
    >
    > Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly describe
    > 'strategy' in 20 words or less. I have been alert to such succinct description
    > for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a lack of
    > strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to do
    > their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise suffers.
    >
    >
    >
    > Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning. Strategy is
    > better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second order
    > cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be "the
    > allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to achieving an
    > objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs, the
    > conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of
    > strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the
    > engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and the
    > validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If you are
    > lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding possible
    > outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of
    > engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every hour
    > or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?
    >
    >
    >
    > Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and
    > resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation and
    > scheduling decisions.
    >
    >
    >
    > The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy discovery than
    > strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of resources
    > regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic duty,
    > world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of
    > discovering strategy.
    >
    >
    >
    > Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and resources and
    > in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy does
    > not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of being
    > able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current strategy
    > becomes clear.
    >
    >
    >
    > This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which most
    > students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking about
    > which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency. Strategy
    > discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of
    > combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero
    > instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and intuition
    > participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success criteria and
    > situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work students
    > aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked to
    > engage in pointless planning.
    >
    >
    >
    > One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a statement of
    > intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what, when.
    >
    >
    >
    > Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the arrangement
    > of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do strategy.
    > They set policy. Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the
    > enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of straw may
    > be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly as well
    > as can a supply of bricks.
    >
    >
    >
    > Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the opportunity
    > to expose students to axiology, the study of values.
    >
    >
    >
    > Onward,
    >
    > Jack Ring
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


  • 13.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 12:10
    Gary:

    I like your list of question duos below. To them I would add one more duo:

    How do we decide? Who gets to decide?

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Gary Lundquist <GaryL@MARKET-ENGINEERING.COM>
    >
    > Romie,
    >
    > Thanks for your overview. I appreciate the language of description. I may
    > add some of your statements to my Dictionary. I can cite this MG-ED
    > conversation. If you'd prefer another citation, please send directly to me.
    >
    > In my speaking, I use a shorter form that hides the detail you offer. This
    > is has been copywrited for years.
    >
    > Who are we? Who do we want to become?
    > Where do we want to go? How do we intend to get there?
    > What do we value? How do we intend to behave?
    >
    > Answer those questions, and we have the content for a strategic plan.
    >
    > Best to all,
    >
    > Gary


  • 14.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 13:00
    I think Fred clearly describes a lot of actions that amount to fiction
    formulation, but not to discovering strategy.

    The key distinction is that strategy discovery involves solving "n"
    simultaneous equations concerning n-1 variables vs. performing sequential
    choice making followed by correcting "ooops" messes.

    When students are presented with a situation high in extent, variety and
    ambiguity (popularly mis-labeled Complex, Adaptive System) they soon learn
    that part of their resources should be allocated to learning about the
    situation, rather than putting all their efforts into naively "planning a
    course of action then correcting it."

    Until they ascertain the number of variables involved and devise an adequate
    number of interrelationships among the variables no amount of planning will
    lead to survival, let alone success.

    What End will we value?
    What variables are involved?
    What set of tenets encompass the variables?
    Which are the 10% that will influence 90% of the outcome?
    (Because its all probabilistic thus duals abound)
    Which kind of strategy will we be willing to live with
    - Offensive (max likelihood of gain (and magnitude of possible loss))
    - Defensive (min likelihood of loss (and magnitude of any gain))
    - Muddling through (max likelihood of being able to change strategy)
    - Oppressive (preserve the institution regardless of the citizenry)

    I suggest that we would all be well advised to read Bill Rothschild's Secret
    of GE's Success.
    I am not claiming that he agrees with the ideas I have put forth.

    Onward,
    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:06 AM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    > Regarding Jack Ring's observation below:
    >
    >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim didn''t
    >> ask
    >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning to
    >> craft
    >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get
    >> there
    >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >
    > My sense of part of what Jack is driving at is similar the distinction
    > between setting (or formulating) objectives and figuring out how to attain
    > them. How to attain them is very much a matter of crafting a strategy - a
    > course of action - and then of executing it smartly.
    >
    > In my experience, people experience very little difficulty in setting
    > objectives. Nor, for that matter, do they encounter much difficulty in
    > formulating plans (i.e., courses of action) that are intended to achieve
    > their objectives. Indeed, on occasion, they are supremely confident -
    > but, as later events reveal - they are also dead wrong. They didn't get
    > it right (and, sometimes, they didn't do it right).
    >
    > I think where people go awry in their efforts to craft strategy isn't in
    > their ability to imagine a course of action that, in their opinion, will
    > get them from where they are to where they want to be. I think they come
    > a cropper when it comes to imagining what the trip will be like (e.g., the
    > "impediments" Jack mentions, the responses of others, changes in the
    > operating environment, the political landscape, the economy, etc.). The
    > obvious but impossible solution lies in being able to perfectly foretell
    > the future, which no one can do. So, the second best option is to do a
    > better job of examining and taking into account various scenarios. This,
    > of course, is accomplished through contingency planning. I have seen
    > numerous strategic initiatives go off track owing to the absence of any
    > kind of scenario planning and accompanying strategic planning. On one
    > occasion, I asked about that absence, and was told, "We don't need that;
    > we will succeed." Needless to say, they didn't.
    >
    > Perhaps, somewhere along the pedagogical path, people should be asked to
    > develop a strategy for making a trip through uncharted territory about
    > which they have limited information and then reexamine their strategy
    > after receiving additional information from actually making the trip.
    > Perhaps this could be done via a simulation of some kind. The point being
    > one of getting people to realize that the courses of action they undertake
    > are at best well-informed guesses and at worst mere flights of fancy.
    > Flexibility and the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances make
    > the difference. If they weren't necessary, we would long ago have figured
    > out how to engineer success. So far as I know, no one has yet nailed that
    > one.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >>
    >
    >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    >> cheers,
    >> Jack Ring
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: Clawson, Jim
    >> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:37 PM
    >> Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >>
    >>
    >> Jack,
    >>
    >> I love it. What a nice return metaphor. Defining the result brings
    >> clarity
    >> to the goal if not to the way to get there-of which there might be
    >> many-as so
    >> many have suggested in the "24 emails". The fun is in learning how to
    >> get from
    >> here to there. And how to make those decisions in the heat of the
    >> moment.
    >> Acquisition or .. Growing old with the girlfriend you've got. Do we
    >> have a
    >> long term relationship that will work or not? It seems to me knowing the
    >> goal/result is the first step in figuring out how to get there.
    >>
    >> But then I'm not a strategist. Anyway, it's a lot of fun to see how
    >> everyone
    >> thinks.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Jim
    >>
    >> James G. S. Clawson
    >>
    >> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    >>
    >> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    >>
    >> Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    >>
    >> 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
    >>
    >> Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
    >>
    >> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    >> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:38 PM
    >> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >> Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Similarly, is copulation anything that two do that produces pregnancy?
    >>
    >> Defining a concept by the result produced does not tell us much about
    >> how to
    >> help students learn about performing the concept. Also, a 'result'
    >> viewpoint
    >> doesn't clarify whether this is the only way to arrive at that result or
    >> whether
    >> this is a guaranteed cause-effect relationship.
    >>
    >> Close, but no cigar.
    >>
    >> Jack Ring
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >>
    >> From: Clawson, Jim
    >>
    >> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >>
    >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:46 AM
    >>
    >> Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Here's a radical thought that comes from a colleague: strategy is
    >> anything
    >> that one does that affects one's competitive advantage. George Day's
    >> definition
    >> of the latter: superior value added, difficult to imitate, and enhances
    >> one's
    >> flexibility adds to the flavor. This definition rises above the short
    >> term,
    >> long term debate, and the intentional/emergent debate. Some strategies,
    >> even in
    >> nature, might be semi- or sub-conscious.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Jim
    >>
    >> James G. S. Clawson
    >>
    >> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    >>
    >> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    >>
    >> Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    >>
    >> 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
    >>
    >> Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
    >>
    >> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    >> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:24 AM
    >> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >> Subject: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Colleagues,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The 24 messages regarding Directions for a Troubled Discipline
    >> indicates
    >> that we should all thank Kim Warren for bringing the situation to our
    >> attention,
    >> especially when it is getting harder to discern strategy from tragedy.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Having been a student, practitioner and mentor of strategy since
    >> being
    >> introduced to the subject by Bill Rothschild at GE Crotonville in 1967 I
    >> have
    >> watched the usual diffusion of meaning and practice that ensues as "new"
    >> theories are proposed while nobody bothers to run fallibility
    >> experiments. It is
    >> not surprising to me that many students find the 'strategy' subject
    >> matter
    >> irrelevant. The real tragedy with strategy is that it is equated to long
    >> range
    >> planning and its essence is lost.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Perhaps each of those who have posted on this thread would kindly
    >> describe
    >> 'strategy' in 20 words or less. I have been alert to such succinct
    >> description
    >> for many years but have not found many. I have found a way to identify a
    >> lack of
    >> strategy in a work group --- this is when capable people, each trying to
    >> do
    >> their best for the whole, collide so frequently that the enterprise
    >> suffers.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Kim highlighted a key issue regarding strategy --- positioning.
    >> Strategy is
    >> better thought of as relative positioning as the scenario evolves. Second
    >> order
    >> cybernetics, if you will. This becomes clear if you take strategy to be
    >> "the
    >> allocation and scheduling of resources to overcome impediments to
    >> achieving an
    >> objective." Every time an engagement of resource vs impediment occurs,
    >> the
    >> conditions for next allocation changes. If that demands an adjustment of
    >> strategy, then so be it. You may say that this describes tactics. No, the
    >> engagement is tactics, the associated observation of the engagement and
    >> the
    >> validation or reallocation of resources to impediments is strategy. If
    >> you are
    >> lucky or darned good, the strategy has been thought through regarding
    >> possible
    >> outcomes of engagements so that strategy sustains throughout a series of
    >> engagements. Not so lucky or good, strategy may have to be restated every
    >> hour
    >> or so. So how do we become good at discovering strategy?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Notice that there are three keys, a) objectives, b) impediments and
    >> resources (i.e., capabilities) and their engagements and c) allocation
    >> and
    >> scheduling decisions.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The process of arriving at a strategy, better called strategy
    >> discovery than
    >> strategic planning, is concerned with allocation and scheduling of
    >> resources
    >> regardless of whether the chosen objective is liquidity, value, civic
    >> duty,
    >> world peace, etc., Selection of objective is a precursor, not part of
    >> discovering strategy.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Discovering strategy starts with identifying impediments and
    >> resources and
    >> in generating expectations of engagement outcomes. Accordingly, strategy
    >> does
    >> not pursue a position relative to others but does pursue the privilege of
    >> being
    >> able to make a subsequent decision as the ramifications of current
    >> strategy
    >> becomes clear.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> This entails a departure from single-thread, linear thinking (which
    >> most
    >> students have been taught to do) to multi-attribute, emergence thinking
    >> about
    >> which most students don't have a clue let alone proficiency. Strategy
    >> discovery continues with allocation and scheduling decisions, a swamp of
    >> combinatorial suppositions for which most students have had not only zero
    >> instruction but also strictures against letting their insight and
    >> intuition
    >> participate. Strategy discovery ends with the creation of success
    >> criteria and
    >> situation assessment action. Because it isn't 'cool' to check you work
    >> students
    >> aren't turned on by the thrill of discovery but turned off by being asked
    >> to
    >> engage in pointless planning.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One way of documenting a strategy is called policy, typically a
    >> statement of
    >> intent and rules regarding which resources will be committed to what,
    >> when.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Note that architects define their practice as discovering "the
    >> arrangement
    >> of function and feature that maximizes an objective function." They do
    >> strategy.
    >> They set policy. Strategy may be thought of as the architecture of the
    >> enterprise. As the little pig learned, no amount artful arrangement of
    >> straw may
    >> be able to withstand the huffing and puffing of the big, bad wolf nearly
    >> as well
    >> as can a supply of bricks.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Another benefit of distinguishing Objective from Strategy is the
    >> opportunity
    >> to expose students to axiology, the study of values.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Onward,
    >>
    >> Jack Ring
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >


  • 15.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 13:22

    Draw this discussion back?  It was started by Kim regarding what students do or don't do regarding learning strategy. Addressing what practitioners do is taking the discussion down a side road. But that is your prerogative, of course. However, why not tell us not only what they do but also how it turned out? 
     
    A description of strategy that "will fit" what practitioners do is a strange criteria, especially when they can't get clear about strategy vs. strategic planning (the Bain topic). Bain's graph is useful. It illustrates the classic description of "insanity.'
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:19 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Trying to draw this discussion back to what practitioners do, attemting to provide a generic definition for "strategy" that will fit will reduce it to triviality. http://www.bain.com/management_tools/tools_planning.asp?groupcode=2 
    has it below. Why do academics persist in taking a straightforward business management process and deveoping their own egocentric definitions?
    Related Topics
    • Core Competencies
    • Mission and Vision Statements
    • Scenario and Contingency Planning
    Description

    Strategic Planning is a comprehensive process for determining what a business should become and how it can best achieve that goal. It appraises the full potential of a business and explicitly links the business’s objectives to the actions and resources required to achieve them. Strategic Planning offers a systematic process to ask and answer the most critical questions confronting a management team—especially large, irrevocable resource commitment decisions.

    Methodology

    A successful Strategic Planning process should:
    • Describe the organization’s mission, vision and fundamental values;
    • Target potential business arenas and explore each market for emerging threats and opportunities;
    • Understand the current and future priorities of targeted customer segments;
    • Analyze the company’s strengths and weaknesses relative to competitors and determine which elements of the value chain the company should make versus buy;
    • Identify and evaluate alternative strategies;
    • Develop an advantageous business model that will profitably differentiate the company from its competitors;
    • Define stakeholder expectations and establish clear and compelling objectives for the business;
    • Prepare programs, policies, and plans to implement the strategy;
    • Establish supportive organizational structures, decision processes, information and control systems, and hiring and training systems;
    • Allocate resources to develop critical capabilities;
    • Plan for and respond to contingencies or environmental changes;
    • Monitor performance.
    Common Uses

    Strategic Planning processes are often implemented to:
    • Change the direction and performance of a business;
    • Encourage fact-based discussions of politically sensitive issues;
    • Create a common framework for decision making in the organization;
    • Set a proper context for budget decisions and performance evaluations;
    • Train managers to develop better information to make better decisions;
    • Increase confidence in the business’s direction.
    Related Bain capabilities

    Selected References

    Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change . Plume, 1998.

    Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Has Strategy Changed?” Sloan Management Review , Winter 2002, pp. 88-91.

    Goold, Michael, Andrew Campbell, and Marcus Alexander. Corporate-Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company . John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

    Hamel, Gary, and C.K. Prahalad. Competing for the Future . Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

    Mankins, Michael C. “Stop Wasting Valuable Time.” Harvard Business Review , September 2004, pp. 58-65.

    Mintzberg, Henry. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners . Free Press, 1994.

    Mintzberg, Henry, Joseph Lampel, and Bruce Ahlstrand. Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management . Free Press, 1998.

    Ohmae, Kenichi. The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business . McGraw-Hill, 1991.

    Porter, Michael E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors . Free Press, 1980.

    Porter, Michael E. “What Is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review , November/December 1996, pp. 61-78.



  • 16.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-25-2009 16:44
    Fred,

    I provide services in how to answer the questions. The client decides who
    is involved in the process. If a senior manager tasks these issues to a
    team, then he can toss out the results. That, of course, angers the team.

    It has always been a mystery that senior management tasks strategic
    planning.

    G

    ...........................................
    Gary Lundquist
    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources*for Innovation
    303-840-9929*
    ...........................................
    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    Innovation of Business and
    the Business of InnovationT


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:10 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    Gary:

    I like your list of question duos below. To them I would add one more duo:

    How do we decide? Who gets to decide?

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Gary Lundquist <GaryL@MARKET-ENGINEERING.COM>
    >
    > Romie,
    >
    > Thanks for your overview. I appreciate the language of description.
    > I may add some of your statements to my Dictionary. I can cite this
    > MG-ED conversation. If you'd prefer another citation, please send
    > directly to me.
    >
    > In my speaking, I use a shorter form that hides the detail you offer.
    > This is has been copywrited for years.
    >
    > Who are we? Who do we want to become?
    > Where do we want to go? How do we intend to get there?
    > What do we value? How do we intend to behave?
    >
    > Answer those questions, and we have the content for a strategic plan.
    >
    > Best to all,
    >
    > Gary


  • 17.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-26-2009 15:28
    Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/25/09 12:59 PM
    The key distinction is that strategy discovery involves solving "n"
    simultaneous equations concerning n-1 variables vs. performing sequential
    choice making followed by correcting "ooops" messes.
    When students are presented with a situation high in extent, variety and
    ambiguity (popularly mis-labeled Complex, Adaptive System) they soon learn
    that part of their resources should be allocated to learning about the
    situation, rather than putting all their efforts into naively "planning a
    course of action then correcting it."
    Onward,
    Jack Ring

    Jack,

    In following this thread, I find your position and insights illuminating and most helpful. I agree with you more than any other. I also see the academic mindset built of set knowledge forming to squeeze you out. So, I speak up in support of your ideas in order that they might not die of starvation.

    What I have found in teaching strategy (strategic leadership) and performing strategic management and leadership roles thru various job descriptions is that there are several errors made in dealing with "strategic":

    a. No due regard is made in differentiating strategic management and strategic leadership. The former does tend toward the structure of a strategic plan; the latter tends toward operating with no structure or very elastic structure. Indeed, the best strategic leadership, in my view, operates outside of the box of structures built by and/or for strategic management.

    c. Further, there is do due regard given to the idea that planning is hierarchical: tactical (today), operational (linking activities as stepping stones to Vision - aka business planning) and strategic. Too many people writing, teaching, speaking, and doing planning get into minefields and pathways to problems and/or failure because the constructs differ greatly from one level to the other. For example, marketing is a fairly ineffectual tool for tactical planning (in business), is at best incidental at the operational level but is a key leveraging dynamic - indeed an essential - at the strategic level.

    b. The definition I have developed for strategic planning is "building things that don't exist with things that don't exist in order to effect purpose".

    As I see it, the fundamental focal point for pure things-strategic is not Vision; it is about Purpose. It is not what am I trying to accomplish or become but, rather, why do I exist and how can I express that.

    Esoteric, I know. In order to get that to the needed purposeful and less abstract constructs needed for business, I espouse this flow:

    a. Strategic Thinking - Defining Purpose and ambition - NOT vision. The book I have found most useful for this level is "Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation" by Kees van der Heijden.
    b. Strategic Framework - Defining a strategy map that captures the things you have spoken of, Jack, and arraying them into a strategy map (borrowing from an outgrowth of Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard - albeit the Balanced Scorecard is more about the operational than the strategic, in my view).
    c. Strategic Planning - Here is where I see Strategic Resourcing being done. In a sense, it is here that resources "feeds" the stepping stones of the strategy map
    d. Operational Planning - It is at this level that accountability, responsibility, and authority is set. That is delegation is effected for accomplishing parts of the strategy map.
    c. Tactical Planning

    Further, I see a sliding scale in which one starts with almost put strategic leadership at step a (Strategic Thinking), then increasingly taking on strategic management approaches as one moves farther down the steps.

    One last thought: Being strategic has more to do with reacting with feedforward feedback and less to do with dealing with concurrent feedback or simple feedback (borrowing ideas from cybernetic control schemas). In other words, one tends to be acting more strategically when one is reacting to an anticipated event that is divorced from the present, i.e. is not evolutionary.

    For example, Steve Jobs acted very strategically when he created the IPOD as part of an entertainment information SYSTEM. He did not just create the IPOD. Rather, he created a whole new system of entertainment information management and distribution. His innovations were a response to an anticipated state he could see. Those innovations and the structure of Apple today is a response to something that did not exist and are, by and large, things that did not exist when he embarked Apple on a new strategic direction.

    Thus, those who write of innovation are more on target to speak of what is needed at the strategic level than those who speak of creativity - in my view. Innovation is a response to an sensed or anticipated need; creativity is expressing potential.

    Finally, I am attending a course on listening provided at my church by a Rollins Professor, Richard K. Bommelje. In the first session he introduced a model: SIER: Sense, Interpret, Evaluate, Respond. We take in with the five senses (sense); we put that into schema or sensical patterns to understand (interpret); we make judgments as to value (evaluate), and then we respond. We respond, not react - ideally. Reacting is catching the ball. Responding is throwing it back.

    In terms of things-strategic, I think we "SIER" the future. Thus strategic planning is not a reaction to the future or some future state. Rather, it is a response to an intentionally developed future state. Again, in my view, this what Steve Jobs did. Along those lines, I see Microsoft as quagmiring as it is doing strategic planning without benefit of strategic thinking.

    Kind wishes

    Ed
    Drive On!









    Retired Faculty
    Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
    University of Central Florida

    Active Adjunct Faculty
    Duquesne University
    Florida Institute of Technology

    407-588-1177


  • 18.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-26-2009 19:06
    Colleagues,

    Edward Hampton suggests "strategy discovery involves solving n simultaneous
    equations concerning n-1 variables."

    Three factors add constraints.

    Reality Check: Master plans full of objectives and strategies have no
    meaning if we haven't considered the various costs. If we find a conflict,
    we can change objectives, change strategies, or change reality. The last
    implies adding a strategy to gain investment to enable our first choice of
    integrated strategy.

    Time Line: When we lay out strategic operations (e.g., via program or
    project management), we discover both negative incompatibilities and
    positive synergies among elements of strategy. We may find killer problems.


    Delegation: Do we have the skills and experience to drive a strategy to
    completion? Do those resources work on our time line?

    Resourcing, timing, and delegating create tests of strategies and tactics.
    These tests can remove the uncertainty of an under determined system.

    Best,

    Gary

    PS: SWOT logically impacts development of plan-period objectives rather
    than choices of strategies.

    ...........................................
    Gary Lundquist
    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources*for Innovation
    303-840-9929*
    ...........................................
    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    Innovation of Business and
    the Business of InnovationT


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Hampton
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:28 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/25/09 12:59 PM
    The key distinction is that strategy discovery involves solving "n"
    simultaneous equations concerning n-1 variables vs. performing sequential
    choice making followed by correcting "ooops" messes.
    When students are presented with a situation high in extent, variety and
    ambiguity (popularly mis-labeled Complex, Adaptive System) they soon learn
    that part of their resources should be allocated to learning about the
    situation, rather than putting all their efforts into naively "planning a
    course of action then correcting it."
    Onward,
    Jack Ring

    Jack,

    In following this thread, I find your position and insights illuminating and
    most helpful. I agree with you more than any other. I also see the
    academic mindset built of set knowledge forming to squeeze you out. So, I
    speak up in support of your ideas in order that they might not die of
    starvation.

    What I have found in teaching strategy (strategic leadership) and performing
    strategic management and leadership roles thru various job descriptions is
    that there are several errors made in dealing with "strategic":

    a. No due regard is made in differentiating strategic management and
    strategic leadership. The former does tend toward the structure of a
    strategic plan; the latter tends toward operating with no structure or very
    elastic structure. Indeed, the best strategic leadership, in my view,
    operates outside of the box of structures built by and/or for strategic
    management.

    c. Further, there is do due regard given to the idea that planning is
    hierarchical: tactical (today), operational (linking activities as stepping
    stones to Vision - aka business planning) and strategic. Too many people
    writing, teaching, speaking, and doing planning get into minefields and
    pathways to problems and/or failure because the constructs differ greatly
    from one level to the other. For example, marketing is a fairly
    ineffectual tool for tactical planning (in business), is at best incidental
    at the operational level but is a key leveraging dynamic - indeed an
    essential - at the strategic level.

    b. The definition I have developed for strategic planning is "building
    things that don't exist with things that don't exist in order to effect
    purpose".

    As I see it, the fundamental focal point for pure things-strategic is not
    Vision; it is about Purpose. It is not what am I trying to accomplish or
    become but, rather, why do I exist and how can I express that.

    Esoteric, I know. In order to get that to the needed purposeful and less
    abstract constructs needed for business, I espouse this flow:

    a. Strategic Thinking - Defining Purpose and ambition - NOT vision.
    The book I have found most useful for this level is "Scenarios: The Art of
    Strategic Conversation" by Kees van der Heijden.
    b. Strategic Framework - Defining a strategy map that captures the
    things you have spoken of, Jack, and arraying them into a strategy map
    (borrowing from an outgrowth of Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard -
    albeit the Balanced Scorecard is more about the operational than the
    strategic, in my view).
    c. Strategic Planning - Here is where I see Strategic Resourcing being
    done. In a sense, it is here that resources "feeds" the stepping stones of
    the strategy map
    d. Operational Planning - It is at this level that accountability,
    responsibility, and authority is set. That is delegation is effected for
    accomplishing parts of the strategy map.
    c. Tactical Planning

    Further, I see a sliding scale in which one starts with almost put strategic
    leadership at step a (Strategic Thinking), then increasingly taking on
    strategic management approaches as one moves farther down the steps.

    One last thought: Being strategic has more to do with reacting with
    feedforward feedback and less to do with dealing with concurrent feedback or
    simple feedback (borrowing ideas from cybernetic control schemas). In
    other words, one tends to be acting more strategically when one is reacting
    to an anticipated event that is divorced from the present, i.e. is not
    evolutionary.

    For example, Steve Jobs acted very strategically when he created the IPOD as
    part of an entertainment information SYSTEM. He did not just create the
    IPOD. Rather, he created a whole new system of entertainment information
    management and distribution. His innovations were a response to an
    anticipated state he could see. Those innovations and the structure of
    Apple today is a response to something that did not exist and are, by and
    large, things that did not exist when he embarked Apple on a new strategic
    direction.

    Thus, those who write of innovation are more on target to speak of what is
    needed at the strategic level than those who speak of creativity - in my
    view. Innovation is a response to an sensed or anticipated need; creativity
    is expressing potential.

    Finally, I am attending a course on listening provided at my church by a
    Rollins Professor, Richard K. Bommelje. In the first session he introduced
    a model: SIER: Sense, Interpret, Evaluate, Respond. We take in with the
    five senses (sense); we put that into schema or sensical patterns to
    understand (interpret); we make judgments as to value (evaluate), and then
    we respond. We respond, not react - ideally. Reacting is catching the ball.
    Responding is throwing it back.

    In terms of things-strategic, I think we "SIER" the future. Thus
    strategic planning is not a reaction to the future or some future state.
    Rather, it is a response to an intentionally developed future state. Again,
    in my view, this what Steve Jobs did. Along those lines, I see Microsoft as
    quagmiring as it is doing strategic planning without benefit of strategic
    thinking.

    Kind wishes

    Ed
    Drive On!









    Retired Faculty
    Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department University of
    Central Florida

    Active Adjunct Faculty
    Duquesne University
    Florida Institute of Technology

    407-588-1177


  • 19.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-26-2009 20:13
    Jack Ring writes:

    > I think Fred clearly describes a lot of actions that amount to fiction
    > formulation, but not to discovering strategy.
    >
    > The key distinction is that strategy discovery involves solving "n"
    > simultaneous equations concerning n-1 variables vs. performing sequential
    > choice making followed by correcting "ooops" messes.

    I'm curious, Jack. To me, your assertion above about discovering strategy suggests that you view it as a math problem. Is that the case or is your assertion above merely a figure of speech?


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"


  • 20.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-27-2009 09:59
    Thanks. Interesting view. Differs somewhat from mine but the real criteria
    is "What works for the students?"
    Any ideas regarding how to educe strategy in MBA students? A few of us with
    a systems bent have started a Motor Sports Working Group in order the inject
    the excitement (and principles) of that venue into the course of action
    called learning.

    OBTW, ask Prof. Bommelje to compare his SEIS with Shewart's Plan, Do, Check,
    Adjust, PDCA, and with Col. Boyd's Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, OODA. Also
    notice that after Boyd came to understand the generic Course of Action he
    then discerned a key Strategy (at least for the design of combat aircraft),
    notably, The aircraft that can gain and shed kinetic energy quicker, wins.

    Onward,
    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Edward Hampton" <ehampton@MAIL.UCF.EDU>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:27 PM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    > Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/25/09 12:59 PM
    [...]
    > What I have found in teaching strategy (strategic leadership) and
    > performing strategic management and leadership roles thru various job
    > descriptions is that there are several errors made in dealing with
    > "strategic":
    >
    > a. No due regard is made in differentiating strategic management and
    > strategic leadership. [...]
    > c. Further, there is do due regard given to the idea that planning is
    > hierarchical: tactical (today), operational (linking activities as
    > stepping stones to Vision - aka business planning) and strategic. [...]>
    > b. The definition I have developed for strategic planning is "building
    > things that don't exist with things that don't exist in order to effect
    > purpose".
    >
    > As I see it, the fundamental focal point for pure things-strategic is not
    > Vision; it is about Purpose. It is not what am I trying to accomplish or
    > become but, rather, why do I exist and how can I express that.
    >
    > Esoteric, I know. In order to get that to the needed purposeful and less
    > abstract constructs needed for business, I espouse this flow:
    >
    > a. Strategic Thinking - Defining Purpose and ambition - NOT vision.
    > [...].
    > b. Strategic Framework - Defining a strategy map that captures the
    > things you have spoken of, Jack, and arraying them into a strategy map
    > [...]
    > c. Strategic Planning - Here is where I see Strategic Resourcing being
    > done. In a sense, it is here that resources "feeds" the stepping stones
    > of the strategy map
    > d. Operational Planning - It is at this level that accountability,
    > responsibility, and authority is set. That is delegation is effected for
    > accomplishing parts of the strategy map.
    > c. Tactical Planning
    >
    > Further, I see a sliding scale in which one starts with almost pu[re]
    > strategic leadership at step a (Strategic Thinking), then increasingly
    > taking on strategic management approaches as one moves farther down the
    > steps.
    >
    > One last thought: Being strategic has more to do with reacting with
    > feedforward [...] and less to do with dealing with concurrent feedback or
    > simple feedback (borrowing ideas from cybernetic control schemas). [...]
    > Finally, I am attending a course on listening provided at my church by a
    > Rollins Professor, Richard K. Bommelje. In the first session he
    > introduced a model: SIER: Sense, Interpret, Evaluate, Respond. We take
    > in with the five senses (sense); we put that into schema or sensical
    > patterns to understand (interpret); we make judgments as to value
    > (evaluate), and then we respond. We respond, not react - ideally.
    > Reacting is catching the ball. Responding is throwing it back.
    >
    > In terms of things-strategic, I think we "SIER" the future. Thus
    > strategic planning is not a reaction to the future or some future state.
    > Rather, it is a response to an intentionally developed future state.
    > Again, in my view, this what Steve Jobs did. Along those lines, I see
    > Microsoft as quagmiring as it is doing strategic planning without benefit
    > of strategic thinking.
    >
    > Kind wishes
    >
    > Ed
    > Drive On!


  • 21.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-27-2009 10:19
    Colleagues,

    Gary highlights some of the 'n' factors. Please consider ---

    Cost is one of the 'n' variables. Anyone who doesn't know "We Are Playing
    For Money" shouldn't be teaching MBA students.

    Semiotically, there is no such thing as 'strategic operations' except
    perhaps in one's imagination. Operations are known by their result, not
    intent.

    In the context of the four kinds of strategy mentioned earler, those who
    limit strategy to 'what we know how to do, when' choose the kind I called
    'preserving the Institution regardless of the citizens.' Other kinds of
    strategy indicate the requisite CHANGEs that must be achieved in resourcing,
    timing, and delegating .

    A strategy does test one key thing, the leadership coefficient in an
    enterprise.

    Yes, a preoccupation with SWOT can mislead strategy formulation.

    cheers,
    Jack Ring


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Gary Lundquist" <GaryL@MARKET-ENGINEERING.COM>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:06 PM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    > Colleagues,
    >
    > Edward Hampton suggests "strategy discovery involves solving n
    > simultaneous
    > equations concerning n-1 variables."
    >
    > Three factors add constraints.
    >
    > Reality Check: Master plans full of objectives and strategies have no
    > meaning if we haven't considered the various costs. If we find a
    > conflict,
    > we can change objectives, change strategies, or change reality. The last
    > implies adding a strategy to gain investment to enable our first choice of
    > integrated strategy.
    >
    > Time Line: When we lay out strategic operations (e.g., via program or
    > project management), we discover both negative incompatibilities and
    > positive synergies among elements of strategy. We may find killer
    > problems.
    >
    >
    > Delegation: Do we have the skills and experience to drive a strategy to
    > completion? Do those resources work on our time line?
    >
    > Resourcing, timing, and delegating create tests of strategies and tactics.
    > These tests can remove the uncertainty of an under determined system.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Gary
    >
    > PS: SWOT logically impacts development of plan-period objectives rather
    > than choices of strategies.
    >
    > ...........................................
    > Gary Lundquist
    > Director@InnoSearchColorado.com
    >
    > Colorado Resources*for Innovation
    > 303-840-9929*
    > ...........................................
    > GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    > Innovation of Business and
    > the Business of InnovationT
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Hampton
    > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:28 PM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >
    >
    > Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/25/09 12:59 PM
    > The key distinction is that strategy discovery involves solving "n"
    > simultaneous equations concerning n-1 variables vs. performing sequential
    > choice making followed by correcting "ooops" messes.
    > When students are presented with a situation high in extent, variety and
    > ambiguity (popularly mis-labeled Complex, Adaptive System) they soon learn
    > that part of their resources should be allocated to learning about the
    > situation, rather than putting all their efforts into naively "planning a
    > course of action then correcting it."
    > Onward,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > Jack,
    >
    > In following this thread, I find your position and insights illuminating
    > and
    > most helpful. I agree with you more than any other. I also see the
    > academic mindset built of set knowledge forming to squeeze you out. So, I
    > speak up in support of your ideas in order that they might not die of
    > starvation.
    >
    > What I have found in teaching strategy (strategic leadership) and
    > performing
    > strategic management and leadership roles thru various job descriptions is
    > that there are several errors made in dealing with "strategic":
    >
    > a. No due regard is made in differentiating strategic management and
    > strategic leadership. The former does tend toward the structure of a
    > strategic plan; the latter tends toward operating with no structure or
    > very
    > elastic structure. Indeed, the best strategic leadership, in my view,
    > operates outside of the box of structures built by and/or for strategic
    > management.
    >
    > c. Further, there is do due regard given to the idea that planning is
    > hierarchical: tactical (today), operational (linking activities as
    > stepping
    > stones to Vision - aka business planning) and strategic. Too many people
    > writing, teaching, speaking, and doing planning get into minefields and
    > pathways to problems and/or failure because the constructs differ greatly
    > from one level to the other. For example, marketing is a fairly
    > ineffectual tool for tactical planning (in business), is at best
    > incidental
    > at the operational level but is a key leveraging dynamic - indeed an
    > essential - at the strategic level.
    >
    > b. The definition I have developed for strategic planning is "building
    > things that don't exist with things that don't exist in order to effect
    > purpose".
    >
    > As I see it, the fundamental focal point for pure things-strategic is not
    > Vision; it is about Purpose. It is not what am I trying to accomplish or
    > become but, rather, why do I exist and how can I express that.
    >
    > Esoteric, I know. In order to get that to the needed purposeful and less
    > abstract constructs needed for business, I espouse this flow:
    >
    > a. Strategic Thinking - Defining Purpose and ambition - NOT vision.
    > The book I have found most useful for this level is "Scenarios: The Art
    > of
    > Strategic Conversation" by Kees van der Heijden.
    > b. Strategic Framework - Defining a strategy map that captures the
    > things you have spoken of, Jack, and arraying them into a strategy map
    > (borrowing from an outgrowth of Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard -
    > albeit the Balanced Scorecard is more about the operational than the
    > strategic, in my view).
    > c. Strategic Planning - Here is where I see Strategic Resourcing being
    > done. In a sense, it is here that resources "feeds" the stepping stones
    > of
    > the strategy map
    > d. Operational Planning - It is at this level that accountability,
    > responsibility, and authority is set. That is delegation is effected for
    > accomplishing parts of the strategy map.
    > c. Tactical Planning
    >
    > Further, I see a sliding scale in which one starts with almost put
    > strategic
    > leadership at step a (Strategic Thinking), then increasingly taking on
    > strategic management approaches as one moves farther down the steps.
    >
    > One last thought: Being strategic has more to do with reacting with
    > feedforward feedback and less to do with dealing with concurrent feedback
    > or
    > simple feedback (borrowing ideas from cybernetic control schemas). In
    > other words, one tends to be acting more strategically when one is
    > reacting
    > to an anticipated event that is divorced from the present, i.e. is not
    > evolutionary.
    >
    > For example, Steve Jobs acted very strategically when he created the IPOD
    > as
    > part of an entertainment information SYSTEM. He did not just create the
    > IPOD. Rather, he created a whole new system of entertainment information
    > management and distribution. His innovations were a response to an
    > anticipated state he could see. Those innovations and the structure of
    > Apple today is a response to something that did not exist and are, by and
    > large, things that did not exist when he embarked Apple on a new strategic
    > direction.
    >
    > Thus, those who write of innovation are more on target to speak of what is
    > needed at the strategic level than those who speak of creativity - in my
    > view. Innovation is a response to an sensed or anticipated need;
    > creativity
    > is expressing potential.
    >
    > Finally, I am attending a course on listening provided at my church by a
    > Rollins Professor, Richard K. Bommelje. In the first session he
    > introduced
    > a model: SIER: Sense, Interpret, Evaluate, Respond. We take in with
    > the
    > five senses (sense); we put that into schema or sensical patterns to
    > understand (interpret); we make judgments as to value (evaluate), and
    > then
    > we respond. We respond, not react - ideally. Reacting is catching the
    > ball.
    > Responding is throwing it back.
    >
    > In terms of things-strategic, I think we "SIER" the future. Thus
    > strategic planning is not a reaction to the future or some future state.
    > Rather, it is a response to an intentionally developed future state.
    > Again,
    > in my view, this what Steve Jobs did. Along those lines, I see Microsoft
    > as
    > quagmiring as it is doing strategic planning without benefit of strategic
    > thinking.
    >
    > Kind wishes
    >
    > Ed
    > Drive On!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Retired Faculty
    > Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department University of
    > Central Florida
    >
    > Active Adjunct Faculty
    > Duquesne University
    > Florida Institute of Technology
    >
    > 407-588-1177
    >


  • 22.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-27-2009 11:14
    Fred,

    Thanks for noting the ambiguity. I did not use it as a figure of speech or
    as solely a math problem.
    The point is that a student is more likely to comprehend the meaning of
    strategy (and the discovery of a strategy for a given situation) if he or
    she is grounded in a specific kind of thought pattern. The pattern of
    interest is taught in algebra as simultaneous equations but is present, as
    well, in futbol, in jazz music and other domains. I used the algebra analogy
    because I thought members of this list would likely know it.

    Interestingly, to me at least, is that those in the younger generation who
    have written computer programs have learned this thought pattern under the
    heading of 'debugging' wherein several things must come into coherence at
    once.

    Make sense?

    Jack Ring

    ps. framers of the U.S. Constitution spent a lot of time debating democracy
    vs. republic and settled on the latter because although democracy fosters
    coherence it can foster dual solutions, e.g., mob rule, whereas a republic
    is less likely to trample on the rights of the minority in any given
    situation. This is relevant to MBA students because one of the higher
    leverage factors in the set of 'n' factors is GREED and the moderation
    thereof.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:13 PM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    > Jack Ring writes:
    >
    >> I think Fred clearly describes a lot of actions that amount to fiction
    >> formulation, but not to discovering strategy.
    >>
    >> The key distinction is that strategy discovery involves solving "n"
    >> simultaneous equations concerning n-1 variables vs. performing sequential
    >> choice making followed by correcting "ooops" messes.
    >
    > I'm curious, Jack. To me, your assertion above about discovering strategy
    > suggests that you view it as a math problem. Is that the case or is your
    > assertion above merely a figure of speech?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >


  • 23.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-27-2009 15:18
    Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/27/09 9:58 AM wrote:
    Thanks. Interesting view. Differs somewhat from mine but the real criteria
    is "What works for the students?" Any ideas regarding how to educe strategy in MBA students?
    Also
    notice that after Boyd came to understand the generic Course of Action he
    then discerned a key Strategy (at least for the design of combat aircraft),
    notably, The aircraft that can gain and shed kinetic energy quicker, wins.
    Onward,
    Jack Ring

    Jack,

    Thank you for the questions and observations.

    In regards to "how to educe strategy in MBA students?":

    Having taught a strategic management course in an MBA program and having taught a course on strategic leadership in a graduate leadership program, here are a few things I have learned about teaching strategy (these are NOT from any Bible, indeed are perhaps not even the best ways - they are things that worked for me and earned student comment that they got "it" and gained practical benefit, i.e. could apply the knowledge:

    1. The instrument of strategy is Self. Too many people do not know Self. Thus, they do not know the where Self ends and the role of strategist begins. So, they do not understand how Self shapes strategy. For example, a person who is risk aversive is likely to shape strategies that are conservative; perhaps totally eschewing "risky" strategies. Such a person would tend to shape - more likely select as selection tends to shift burden of responsibility and risk - strategies that fit their comfort zone. If they are oblivious to how Self influences or contaminates strategic thought, then they stand a good chance of failing out the gate.

    Or, more precisely, they will fail in the box as they will not be able to recognize the box that confines their behavior - much less get outside of it. For, how would they even know if they are in the box or outside of it?

    Thus, lesson 1: a component of a good course on strategy STARTS with self exploration. This is counter-intuitive as Self tends to be down in the weeds and/or the tactical level of things. On the other hand, strategy tends to be at the systems and/or high organizational levels - a thing more of large complex systems rather than the "simple" system of Self.

    Some good tools for this: Strength Deployment Inventory to explore attitudes towards conflict - and ability to manage such (a key to managing is understanding, which the SDI provides). DiSC, which explores Self relative to attitude towards self efficacy and prevailing perception of the environment being "friendly" or "unfriendly". These combination of these two perceptions yields D, i, S, or C behaviors which, in turn, tend to drive strategy shaping or choices.

    2. Related to the idea of "knowing Self", I also tend to do things to help them understand "other". Other tends to operate as individuals, groups, teams, organizations and complex systems. So, we explore those layers/levels of Other.

    I once spoke to a young man who held an MBA but was taking my course on organizational behavior. About 1/3 of the way thru the course, I noted to him that he must be bored as he got this in his MBA. No, the man replied. He had never seen what I was speaking of. I left that conversation and did some informal research. I found that, indeed, many MBA programs do not get into exploration of "Other". That astounded me: "how can anyone manage an organization and not KNOW what makes Other tick?" It goes a long way towards explaining -to me - why so few MBAs make it to CEO. Indeed, this same young man came to me some time after he had finished my course and re-entered the workforce. He thanked me as he asserted that he used much of what I taught but very little of what he had gained in his MBA program. Things that make you go hmmmm.....

    3. I teach experientially. I DON'T do case studies. Case studies had use. However, I want students to THINK. So, I create experiences. Some are obvious like exercises like Lost on the Moon, Zin Obelisk, Working Manufacturing lines using Legos to get in touch with supply chain, quality control, and other ideas related to strategy execution, etc. Some are what I call meta-experiential exercises. My favorite is to create an incredibly difficult mid-term on an open-book, open-note, open-neighbor basis. The idea for them to experience threat and how that affects group and organizational formations - as well as Self and Other.

    Now, you might be saying "this is just teaching approaches - pedagogy"

    Actually, as I teach content about strategy within the above framework, students tend to relate to it personally and are left being able to effect strategy.

    My personal theory is that students are narcissistic. Unless they are made the "star" of their learning -learning tends not to happen. So, I make them "stars" in "productions" called experiential exercises.

    In my on-line courses, these sometimes evolved from a student's assertion. I might slip into a role to leverage from that comment into some aspect of strategy I want to bring out. For example, one student asserted candor and honesty were needed. So, I was very candid and honest with that student on one of his more contentious postings. That created a meta-experiential exercise that not only graphically demonstrated how dangerous candor and honesty can be in terms of risk creation but also, more importantly, how to manage that and use it in strategy crafting and application. I almost lost my job over that one. But, in the end, just about all the students said it was the best set of lessons and learning experience they had gotten.

    NOTE: It does take a supporting department to take such risk.

    Regarding PDCA, OODA, etc.; I understand there are many models out there that reflect what Prof. Bommelje expresses in his SIER. I probably did not do his model justice as I did not note it was meant to create a new construct to get people into his focus: listening. The new terminology and his explanations tended to help me - and others - see learning in a new way without the baggage that comes with morphing or transplanting models like PDCA, OODA, etc. And, I took great liberty with the idea of SIER'ing the future for the benefit of strategy development. He did not profess nor espouse such an idea.

    Kind wishes

    Ed
    Drive On!


    Retired Faculty
    Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
    University of Central Florida



    407-588-1177


  • 24.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-27-2009 17:46
    Actually I just spent a week with two former F4, F18 & F15 pilots who said that cobra move stuff is only good for airshows and if an opponent did that they'd nail him fast and at high speed. We pay 161mm each for an stealthy F15 called an F-22. The guy who wins is invisible and can see & shoot everything--F22 can kill 30 opponents per sortie at once. So the strategy there would be: ... "see all, don't be seen, and kill in all directions with guided munitions"

    What's the level of strategic thinking at the top 100 cos in world? How much of it do they outsource? How's it going for them now? Do we overshoot (Christensen) the strategy complexity utilization by practitioners? And how does one get them to avoid the ST obsession that seems to be built on a culture-wide meme that they should grow & flip w/o delivering sustainable high values goods and services? How do we get them out of the grow/collapse model/cycle? If ur promising double the growth of others, Mr. Stanford, something's wrong. Why can't we learn how to teach them sustainable reasonable growth / flat rates?
    Okay- hit me.
    5:42:13 PM
    --------------------------
    James G. Clawson
    Sent using BlackBerry


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Fri Feb 27 15:18:00 2009
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/27/09 9:58 AM wrote:
    Thanks. Interesting view. Differs somewhat from mine but the real criteria
    is "What works for the students?" Any ideas regarding how to educe strategy in MBA students?
    Also
    notice that after Boyd came to understand the generic Course of Action he
    then discerned a key Strategy (at least for the design of combat aircraft),
    notably, The aircraft that can gain and shed kinetic energy quicker, wins.
    Onward,
    Jack Ring

    Jack,

    Thank you for the questions and observations.

    In regards to "how to educe strategy in MBA students?":

    Having taught a strategic management course in an MBA program and having taught a course on strategic leadership in a graduate leadership program, here are a few things I have learned about teaching strategy (these are NOT from any Bible, indeed are perhaps not even the best ways - they are things that worked for me and earned student comment that they got "it" and gained practical benefit, i.e. could apply the knowledge:

    1. The instrument of strategy is Self. Too many people do not know Self. Thus, they do not know the where Self ends and the role of strategist begins. So, they do not understand how Self shapes strategy. For example, a person who is risk aversive is likely to shape strategies that are conservative; perhaps totally eschewing "risky" strategies. Such a person would tend to shape - more likely select as selection tends to shift burden of responsibility and risk - strategies that fit their comfort zone. If they are oblivious to how Self influences or contaminates strategic thought, then they stand a good chance of failing out the gate.

    Or, more precisely, they will fail in the box as they will not be able to recognize the box that confines their behavior - much less get outside of it. For, how would they even know if they are in the box or outside of it?

    Thus, lesson 1: a component of a good course on strategy STARTS with self exploration. This is counter-intuitive as Self tends to be down in the weeds and/or the tactical level of things. On the other hand, strategy tends to be at the systems and/or high organizational levels - a thing more of large complex systems rather than the "simple" system of Self.

    Some good tools for this: Strength Deployment Inventory to explore attitudes towards conflict - and ability to manage such (a key to managing is understanding, which the SDI provides). DiSC, which explores Self relative to attitude towards self efficacy and prevailing perception of the environment being "friendly" or "unfriendly". These combination of these two perceptions yields D, i, S, or C behaviors which, in turn, tend to drive strategy shaping or choices.

    2. Related to the idea of "knowing Self", I also tend to do things to help them understand "other". Other tends to operate as individuals, groups, teams, organizations and complex systems. So, we explore those layers/levels of Other.

    I once spoke to a young man who held an MBA but was taking my course on organizational behavior. About 1/3 of the way thru the course, I noted to him that he must be bored as he got this in his MBA. No, the man replied. He had never seen what I was speaking of. I left that conversation and did some informal research. I found that, indeed, many MBA programs do not get into exploration of "Other". That astounded me: "how can anyone manage an organization and not KNOW what makes Other tick?" It goes a long way towards explaining -to me - why so few MBAs make it to CEO. Indeed, this same young man came to me some time after he had finished my course and re-entered the workforce. He thanked me as he asserted that he used much of what I taught but very little of what he had gained in his MBA program. Things that make you go hmmmm.....

    3. I teach experientially. I DON'T do case studies. Case studies had use. However, I want students to THINK. So, I create experiences. Some are obvious like exercises like Lost on the Moon, Zin Obelisk, Working Manufacturing lines using Legos to get in touch with supply chain, quality control, and other ideas related to strategy execution, etc. Some are what I call meta-experiential exercises. My favorite is to create an incredibly difficult mid-term on an open-book, open-note, open-neighbor basis. The idea for them to experience threat and how that affects group and organizational formations - as well as Self and Other.

    Now, you might be saying "this is just teaching approaches - pedagogy"

    Actually, as I teach content about strategy within the above framework, students tend to relate to it personally and are left being able to effect strategy.

    My personal theory is that students are narcissistic. Unless they are made the "star" of their learning -learning tends not to happen. So, I make them "stars" in "productions" called experiential exercises.

    In my on-line courses, these sometimes evolved from a student's assertion. I might slip into a role to leverage from that comment into some aspect of strategy I want to bring out. For example, one student asserted candor and honesty were needed. So, I was very candid and honest with that student on one of his more contentious postings. That created a meta-experiential exercise that not only graphically demonstrated how dangerous candor and honesty can be in terms of risk creation but also, more importantly, how to manage that and use it in strategy crafting and application. I almost lost my job over that one. But, in the end, just about all the students said it was the best set of lessons and learning experience they had gotten.

    NOTE: It does take a supporting department to take such risk.

    Regarding PDCA, OODA, etc.; I understand there are many models out there that reflect what Prof. Bommelje expresses in his SIER. I probably did not do his model justice as I did not note it was meant to create a new construct to get people into his focus: listening. The new terminology and his explanations tended to help me - and others - see learning in a new way without the baggage that comes with morphing or transplanting models like PDCA, OODA, etc. And, I took great liberty with the idea of SIER'ing the future for the benefit of strategy development. He did not profess nor espouse such an idea.

    Kind wishes

    Ed
    Drive On!


    Retired Faculty
    Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
    University of Central Florida



    407-588-1177


  • 25.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-28-2009 02:51
    Terrific! Methinks your students are quite lucky.
    Thank you for the detail.
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Edward Hampton" <ehampton@MAIL.UCF.EDU>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:18 PM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    > Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/27/09 9:58 AM wrote:
    > Thanks. Interesting view. Differs somewhat from mine but the real criteria
    > is "What works for the students?" Any ideas regarding how to educe
    > strategy in MBA students?
    > Also
    > notice that after Boyd came to understand the generic Course of Action he
    > then discerned a key Strategy (at least for the design of combat
    > aircraft),
    > notably, The aircraft that can gain and shed kinetic energy quicker, wins.
    > Onward,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > Jack,
    >
    > Thank you for the questions and observations.
    >
    > In regards to "how to educe strategy in MBA students?":
    >
    > Having taught a strategic management course in an MBA program and having
    > taught a course on strategic leadership in a graduate leadership program,
    > here are a few things I have learned about teaching strategy (these are
    > NOT from any Bible, indeed are perhaps not even the best ways - they are
    > things that worked for me and earned student comment that they got "it"
    > and gained practical benefit, i.e. could apply the knowledge:
    >
    > 1. The instrument of strategy is Self. Too many people do not know
    > Self. Thus, they do not know the where Self ends and the role of
    > strategist begins. So, they do not understand how Self shapes strategy.
    > For example, a person who is risk aversive is likely to shape strategies
    > that are conservative; perhaps totally eschewing "risky" strategies. Such
    > a person would tend to shape - more likely select as selection tends to
    > shift burden of responsibility and risk - strategies that fit their
    > comfort zone. If they are oblivious to how Self influences or
    > contaminates strategic thought, then they stand a good chance of failing
    > out the gate.
    >
    > Or, more precisely, they will fail in the box as they will not be able to
    > recognize the box that confines their behavior - much less get outside of
    > it. For, how would they even know if they are in the box or outside of it?
    >
    > Thus, lesson 1: a component of a good course on strategy STARTS with self
    > exploration. This is counter-intuitive as Self tends to be down in the
    > weeds and/or the tactical level of things. On the other hand, strategy
    > tends to be at the systems and/or high organizational levels - a thing
    > more of large complex systems rather than the "simple" system of Self.
    >
    > Some good tools for this: Strength Deployment Inventory to explore
    > attitudes towards conflict - and ability to manage such (a key to
    > managing is understanding, which the SDI provides). DiSC, which explores
    > Self relative to attitude towards self efficacy and prevailing perception
    > of the environment being "friendly" or "unfriendly". These combination of
    > these two perceptions yields D, i, S, or C behaviors which, in turn, tend
    > to drive strategy shaping or choices.
    >
    > 2. Related to the idea of "knowing Self", I also tend to do things to
    > help them understand "other". Other tends to operate as individuals,
    > groups, teams, organizations and complex systems. So, we explore those
    > layers/levels of Other.
    >
    > I once spoke to a young man who held an MBA but was taking my course on
    > organizational behavior. About 1/3 of the way thru the course, I noted to
    > him that he must be bored as he got this in his MBA. No, the man replied.
    > He had never seen what I was speaking of. I left that conversation and
    > did some informal research. I found that, indeed, many MBA programs do
    > not get into exploration of "Other". That astounded me: "how can anyone
    > manage an organization and not KNOW what makes Other tick?" It goes a
    > long way towards explaining -to me - why so few MBAs make it to CEO.
    > Indeed, this same young man came to me some time after he had finished my
    > course and re-entered the workforce. He thanked me as he asserted that he
    > used much of what I taught but very little of what he had gained in his
    > MBA program. Things that make you go hmmmm.....
    >
    > 3. I teach experientially. I DON'T do case studies. Case studies had
    > use. However, I want students to THINK. So, I create experiences. Some
    > are obvious like exercises like Lost on the Moon, Zin Obelisk, Working
    > Manufacturing lines using Legos to get in touch with supply chain, quality
    > control, and other ideas related to strategy execution, etc. Some are
    > what I call meta-experiential exercises. My favorite is to create an
    > incredibly difficult mid-term on an open-book, open-note, open-neighbor
    > basis. The idea for them to experience threat and how that affects group
    > and organizational formations - as well as Self and Other.
    >
    > Now, you might be saying "this is just teaching approaches - pedagogy"
    >
    > Actually, as I teach content about strategy within the above framework,
    > students tend to relate to it personally and are left being able to effect
    > strategy.
    >
    > My personal theory is that students are narcissistic. Unless they are
    > made the "star" of their learning -learning tends not to happen. So, I
    > make them "stars" in "productions" called experiential exercises.
    >
    > In my on-line courses, these sometimes evolved from a student's assertion.
    > I might slip into a role to leverage from that comment into some aspect of
    > strategy I want to bring out. For example, one student asserted candor
    > and honesty were needed. So, I was very candid and honest with that
    > student on one of his more contentious postings. That created a
    > meta-experiential exercise that not only graphically demonstrated how
    > dangerous candor and honesty can be in terms of risk creation but also,
    > more importantly, how to manage that and use it in strategy crafting and
    > application. I almost lost my job over that one. But, in the end, just
    > about all the students said it was the best set of lessons and learning
    > experience they had gotten.
    >
    > NOTE: It does take a supporting department to take such risk.
    >
    > Regarding PDCA, OODA, etc.; I understand there are many models out there
    > that reflect what Prof. Bommelje expresses in his SIER. I probably did
    > not do his model justice as I did not note it was meant to create a new
    > construct to get people into his focus: listening. The new terminology
    > and his explanations tended to help me - and others - see learning in a
    > new way without the baggage that comes with morphing or transplanting
    > models like PDCA, OODA, etc. And, I took great liberty with the idea of
    > SIER'ing the future for the benefit of strategy development. He did not
    > profess nor espouse such an idea.
    >
    > Kind wishes
    >
    > Ed
    > Drive On!
    >
    >
    > Retired Faculty
    > Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
    > University of Central Florida
    >
    >
    >
    > 407-588-1177
    >


  • 26.  New Discipline for a Troubled Practice

    Posted 02-28-2009 16:08
    Jim,

    I, too, know such pilots. ;-)

    Notice that they talk in the future tense, not about what they actually did.

    OBTW, it isn't about the pilots, it is about the guidance systems of the
    munitions. Are your pilot friends sure their munitions have the bandwidth to
    handle the relative dv/dt that the SU-30 can achieve?

    If CEO's understood 'Systems 101' then they would know that most markets
    exhibit an S-curve. Accordingly, flat growth is no more sustainable than
    greedily high growth attempts. c.f., Corporate Life Cycles, Adizes, UCLA

    One way to stabilize a system is to make CEO's use their own money by, e.g.,
    tying their compensation to the outcomes of their bets. Then 'Knowing When
    to Hold 'em and When to Fold 'em' becomes the moderator. It is when CEO's
    (or government officials) play with other people's money that the greed
    factor appears.

    cheers,
    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Clawson, Jim" <ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:45 PM
    Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice


    > Actually I just spent a week with two former F4, F18 & F15 pilots who said
    > that cobra move stuff is only good for airshows and if an opponent did
    > that they'd nail him fast and at high speed. We pay 161mm each for an
    > stealthy F15 called an F-22. The guy who wins is invisible and can see &
    > shoot everything--F22 can kill 30 opponents per sortie at once. So the
    > strategy there would be: ... "see all, don't be seen, and kill in all
    > directions with guided munitions"
    >
    > What's the level of strategic thinking at the top 100 cos in world? How
    > much of it do they outsource? How's it going for them now? Do we
    > overshoot (Christensen) the strategy complexity utilization by
    > practitioners? And how does one get them to avoid the ST obsession that
    > seems to be built on a culture-wide meme that they should grow & flip w/o
    > delivering sustainable high values goods and services? How do we get them
    > out of the grow/collapse model/cycle? If ur promising double the growth
    > of others, Mr. Stanford, something's wrong. Why can't we learn how to
    > teach them sustainable reasonable growth / flat rates?
    > Okay- hit me.
    > 5:42:13 PM
    > --------------------------
    > James G. Clawson
    > Sent using BlackBerry
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Fri Feb 27 15:18:00 2009
    > Subject: Re: New Discipline for a Troubled Practice
    >
    > Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 02/27/09 9:58 AM wrote:
    > Thanks. Interesting view. Differs somewhat from mine but the real criteria
    > is "What works for the students?" Any ideas regarding how to educe
    > strategy in MBA students?
    > Also
    > notice that after Boyd came to understand the generic Course of Action he
    > then discerned a key Strategy (at least for the design of combat
    > aircraft),
    > notably, The aircraft that can gain and shed kinetic energy quicker, wins.
    > Onward,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > Jack,
    >
    > Thank you for the questions and observations.
    >
    > In regards to "how to educe strategy in MBA students?":
    >
    > Having taught a strategic management course in an MBA program and having
    > taught a course on strategic leadership in a graduate leadership program,
    > here are a few things I have learned about teaching strategy (these are
    > NOT from any Bible, indeed are perhaps not even the best ways - they are
    > things that worked for me and earned student comment that they got "it"
    > and gained practical benefit, i.e. could apply the knowledge:
    >
    > 1. The instrument of strategy is Self. Too many people do not know
    > Self. Thus, they do not know the where Self ends and the role of
    > strategist begins. So, they do not understand how Self shapes strategy.
    > For example, a person who is risk aversive is likely to shape strategies
    > that are conservative; perhaps totally eschewing "risky" strategies. Such
    > a person would tend to shape - more likely select as selection tends to
    > shift burden of responsibility and risk - strategies that fit their
    > comfort zone. If they are oblivious to how Self influences or
    > contaminates strategic thought, then they stand a good chance of failing
    > out the gate.
    >
    > Or, more precisely, they will fail in the box as they will not be able to
    > recognize the box that confines their behavior - much less get outside of
    > it. For, how would they even know if they are in the box or outside of it?
    >
    > Thus, lesson 1: a component of a good course on strategy STARTS with self
    > exploration. This is counter-intuitive as Self tends to be down in the
    > weeds and/or the tactical level of things. On the other hand, strategy
    > tends to be at the systems and/or high organizational levels - a thing
    > more of large complex systems rather than the "simple" system of Self.
    >
    > Some good tools for this: Strength Deployment Inventory to explore
    > attitudes towards conflict - and ability to manage such (a key to
    > managing is understanding, which the SDI provides). DiSC, which explores
    > Self relative to attitude towards self efficacy and prevailing perception
    > of the environment being "friendly" or "unfriendly". These combination of
    > these two perceptions yields D, i, S, or C behaviors which, in turn, tend
    > to drive strategy shaping or choices.
    >
    > 2. Related to the idea of "knowing Self", I also tend to do things to
    > help them understand "other". Other tends to operate as individuals,
    > groups, teams, organizations and complex systems. So, we explore those
    > layers/levels of Other.
    >
    > I once spoke to a young man who held an MBA but was taking my course on
    > organizational behavior. About 1/3 of the way thru the course, I noted to
    > him that he must be bored as he got this in his MBA. No, the man replied.
    > He had never seen what I was speaking of. I left that conversation and
    > did some informal research. I found that, indeed, many MBA programs do
    > not get into exploration of "Other". That astounded me: "how can anyone
    > manage an organization and not KNOW what makes Other tick?" It goes a
    > long way towards explaining -to me - why so few MBAs make it to CEO.
    > Indeed, this same young man came to me some time after he had finished my
    > course and re-entered the workforce. He thanked me as he asserted that he
    > used much of what I taught but very little of what he had gained in his
    > MBA program. Things that make you go hmmmm.....
    >
    > 3. I teach experientially. I DON'T do case studies. Case studies had
    > use. However, I want students to THINK. So, I create experiences. Some
    > are obvious like exercises like Lost on the Moon, Zin Obelisk, Working
    > Manufacturing lines using Legos to get in touch with supply chain, quality
    > control, and other ideas related to strategy execution, etc. Some are
    > what I call meta-experiential exercises. My favorite is to create an
    > incredibly difficult mid-term on an open-book, open-note, open-neighbor
    > basis. The idea for them to experience threat and how that affects group
    > and organizational formations - as well as Self and Other.
    >
    > Now, you might be saying "this is just teaching approaches - pedagogy"
    >
    > Actually, as I teach content about strategy within the above framework,
    > students tend to relate to it personally and are left being able to effect
    > strategy.
    >
    > My personal theory is that students are narcissistic. Unless they are
    > made the "star" of their learning -learning tends not to happen. So, I
    > make them "stars" in "productions" called experiential exercises.
    >
    > In my on-line courses, these sometimes evolved from a student's assertion.
    > I might slip into a role to leverage from that comment into some aspect of
    > strategy I want to bring out. For example, one student asserted candor
    > and honesty were needed. So, I was very candid and honest with that
    > student on one of his more contentious postings. That created a
    > meta-experiential exercise that not only graphically demonstrated how
    > dangerous candor and honesty can be in terms of risk creation but also,
    > more importantly, how to manage that and use it in strategy crafting and
    > application. I almost lost my job over that one. But, in the end, just
    > about all the students said it was the best set of lessons and learning
    > experience they had gotten.
    >
    > NOTE: It does take a supporting department to take such risk.
    >
    > Regarding PDCA, OODA, etc.; I understand there are many models out there
    > that reflect what Prof. Bommelje expresses in his SIER. I probably did
    > not do his model justice as I did not note it was meant to create a new
    > construct to get people into his focus: listening. The new terminology
    > and his explanations tended to help me - and others - see learning in a
    > new way without the baggage that comes with morphing or transplanting
    > models like PDCA, OODA, etc. And, I took great liberty with the idea of
    > SIER'ing the future for the benefit of strategy development. He did not
    > profess nor espouse such an idea.
    >
    > Kind wishes
    >
    > Ed
    > Drive On!
    >
    >
    > Retired Faculty
    > Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
    > University of Central Florida
    >
    >
    >
    > 407-588-1177
    >
    >