Online groups  seem obsessed with asking what Strategy is, and what’s its value. If we don’t know, we can hardly expect others to listen to us. It’s simply setting powerful but realistic aims, and defining how to get there. It’s purpose is to create business value (NPV of future free cash flows). Because things change, these must be updated continually. (In non-commercial cases, the purpose is to achieve non-financial aims, though within financial constraints).

So, let’s stop debating this basic issue, and focus on working out, codifying, and explaining how to do strategy well, whatever the circumstances.

A senior exec student points out a common blind-spot – the strong cash-flow possible in mature/declining sectors. This firm, part of a global business, makes large-volume manufactured products, sold through distributors to numerous installers.
Management diverts resources away from any sector where growth slows, but as in other cases, there is easy money to be made. Everyone else avoids the sector too, so little effort is needed to steal business, and lack of interest keeps margins OK too. Profitability ratios may not be high (which can drive still faster decline as firms keep cutting costs essential to business maintenance) but quantities of cash-flow can be huge.
It’s worth revisiting the principles of the Boston Matrix [whose damaging impact resulted from mis-understanding and mis-application, rather than flaws in the basic logic] – that over an industry life-cycle, free cash-flow goes from strongly negative, while heavy investments and spending are needed to capture growth, to strongly positive, when most of that spending has been done and large volumes of business drive large revenues. A key piece to remember, though, is that competition has to be driven out, to avoid those late-life cash-flows being competed away.

A rare example of clear and useful academic research from Emilie Feldman at Harvard [but treat it with care - see below]. Emilie “investigates “legacy” divestitures, the sale or spinoff of a company’s historical core business. Firms appear to divest their legacy businesses within the context of larger efforts to reshape their identities. I find that operating performance deteriorates Continue reading »

I have noted before that stock analysts need know little about how strategy affects firm performance, so an academic study on the impact of stock analysts on firms’ investment behaviour is intriguing. Continue reading »

Just updated the revised opening for chapter 1 of Strategic Management Dynamics, which you can download from www.strategydynamics.com/smd-new-start. This includes an important correction to the explanation of free cash-flow on p.27 that was unfortunately introduced when the document was laid out – apologies.

Reminder – This document reviews through some well-known cases the current philosophy and some basic tools of business strategy to make the case for a continuous, holistic approach to strategic management, i.e. strategy dynamics.

[Join strategy dynamics on LinkedIn]

© 2012 Talking about strategy Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha