Analytics: the New path to Value reports on what leading firms are doing with analytics. It offers five big recommendations. Whilst reasonable enough, they raise more questions than answers:

  1. Focus on the biggest and highest value opportunities – should be easy enough in most cases, though blind-spots are common .. e.g. if you don’t know how to destroy competitors, the option is not likely to feature in the identified opportunities.
  2. Within each opportunity, start with questions, not data – right, but what questions? Without a solid model of how the business works, key questions will get missed, e.g. many firms don’t know the scale or pattern of their customer losses, and of those that do, few know the reasons for those losses.
  3. Embed insights to drive actions and deliver value – it’s tricky if you haven’t identified the best opportunities or asked the right questions concering them to find the insights, let alone embed them.
  4. Keep existing capabilities while adding new ones – fair enough, though as we are not so good at specifying exactly what a ‘capability’ is, we will find it hard to define what new ones to develop, what effort will be needed, or what benefit will result.
  5. Use an information agenda to plan for the future - not sure what an information agenda might be.

It would be helpful if such reports could specify potentially useful recommendations more clearly.

www.strategydynamics.com

I’ve noted before the dangers of amateur, gut-feel strategy, so a new MIT Sloan Mgmt Review newsletter on the ‘Intelligent Enterprise‘ aims to explain analytical ways to exploit the ‘data deluge’, rather than get drowned in it. I’ll sign up and alert you to any especially helpful item.

Harvard Business Review may be seen as the gold-standard for leading edge management thinking. But I am increasingly impressed by the quality of other journals. McKinsey Quarterly, of course, has long produced solid content based on work with major clients, or else on serious research from their Global Institute, and other big consulting firms do some of the same. Now, seems to me, Sloan Management Review is also putting out important, well-informed articles reflecting rigorous work, and strategy+business from Booz & Co does the same.

Meanwhile, HBR offers more and more articles featuring glib slogans or ‘X ways to do Y’ and other styles of  thin journalism. Some are downright dangerous! There are still some great exceptions of course, but I wonder if their crown is slipping. 

Anyone got other favourite sources?

Two solid pieces on strategy implications from sustainability. The Business of Sustainability report from BCG reviews the impact the issue is having on companies and how it is affecting their strategic management. Most now see it as far more than just the latest fad and potentially a big factor in their future success – or failure. Sloan Mgmt Review summarises this report, 5 mini-cases on Nike, Rio Tinto, GE, Better Place and Wal-Mart, and articles on implications for competitive conditions and for talent-management.

Amongst the continuing stream of articles on this, some good ones [I've left out some bad or downright dangerous ones] include: Continue reading »

An interview with Dan Ariely in Sloan Mgmt Review points up the need to test assumptions – critical, of course, and can’t fault Dan’s case. But doing as he asks on serious strategic decisions is not so easy. Continue reading »

Good to see a serious management journal – MIT’s Sloan Management Review – regularly featuring items on this issue. John Sterman’s ‘Sober optimist’s guide to sustainability‘ and an interview with Rebecca Henderson are both good. Continue reading »

In Sloan Mgt Review Thomas Davenport of Babson College and Jeanne Harris of Accenture’s Institute For High Performance Business in What People Want Next (and How to Predict It) show how firms like Amazon.com use unprecedented data and sophisticated technology to inform decisions as never before. Great to see so much being written now about powerful strategic management being driven by data and analysis, not just gut and emotion [has anyone done more to devalue and undermine competent, professional strategic management than Henry Mitzberg I wonder?].

Great use of business intelligence is important and good to see. I would just add though, as I think I’ve noted before, that powerful organizations go beyond predicting what people want – they look for what they could be persuaded to want, then go about developing it and doing the persuading.

Neat article on this in Sloan Management Review Continue reading »

© 2012 Talking about strategy Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha