How to Prepare for a Black Swan in strategy+business offers good advice to assess exposure to disruptive events, but misses key elements a strategy can and should cover.

In summary, the advice is [1] map the firm’s operations, supply-chain and sales channels [2] list potential disruptions [3] ask ‘what if’ these happen [4] set up contingency plans. Work on risk in utilities shows several additional strategy responses are both possible and desirable.

  1. Reduce the risk that an event will actually cause disruption, e.g. by investing in resilience. In utilities, critical equipment can be ‘hardened’ to make it less likely to fail if hit by a damaging event. Similar hardening investments can make supply chains, internal operations and distribution channels more resilient in other cases.
  2. Reducing the damage from any disruptions that do occur, e.g. by building in ‘redundancy’. In utilities, stand-by equipment at critical points can radically cut the risk of actual power cuts for a small incremental cost. In strategy, options for alternative supply-sources or distribution channels cut risk in a similar way.
  3. Minimising the time to recover, by making sure the business is not operating ‘on the edge’. In utilities, a small percentage of spare equipment or excess staff can radically cut the time needed to get service back online after a disruption. In strategy, obsessive ‘ratio management’ not only leaves business vulnerable to damage if disruptions occur, but make it that much harder to recover if they do.

www.strategydynamics.com

It Makes Sense to Adjust in strategy+business describes a simple process that any decently-led organisation should be using:

  1. “sensing” to detect changes and assess their likely impact, then
  2. “adjusting” policies to keep the strategy and performance on track.

Some sensible examples illustrate the approach, such as anticipating staffing needs in a cyclical business – though one wonders what on earth the companies discussed were doing before if they didn’t do this! It contrasts sense-and-adjust with reactive styles (do nothing until forced to) and programmatic change (keep changing as you planned, regardless of changed circumstances).

The article unfortunately misses the “Create” step – strong firms don’t just ‘sense’ the environment to see what might happen to them; they decide how they want their world to change and make it happen. This may be radical innovation, but is more likely to be just the relentless pursuit of known resource- and capability-building. 

Shame, too, to see these sound basics of strategy buried in more nonsense about ‘constant transformation’ with the unsubstantiated claim that “… companies must be ready to repeatedly transform themselves” and that “A review of businesses faced with burning platforms (enterprise-threatenting events) would reveal that most have failed to make the transformations required”. Sense-and-adjust is just the minimum of decent strategic management, and if properly performed would avoid most burning platforms in the first place.

strategydynamics.com

We’ve seen a few gung-ho CEOs mess up, especially but not exclusively in banking, but ‘Boards of Prevention‘ in strategy+business asks what the heck the supervisory Board is doing to let such nonsense happen. If they are not warning about risk, they are just overhead. Though the article largely focuses on risk in banking, some simple principles seem more generally useful [let's call them 'threats' to generalise beyond banking]:

  • Give the Board an explicit threat manifesto – how to assess and respond to threats to the business strategy and performance.
  • Give small executive teams responsibility to scan for and evaluate known and possible threats.
  • Reach out more widely, to external communities [investors, academics, customers, employees ...] to widen the scanning for threats.

I am reminded of a comment from a wise and successful CEO who told me “For any strategic initiative we might make, we always ask what is the worst that could go wrong – if that’s not too bad, or we can cope with the consequences, we go ahead; otherwise we drop it“.

strategydynamics.com

strategy+business explains how IT works best when tied closely to business goals, which using an Enterprise Architecture  helps ensure. Though the article explains little of what exactly an EA is, there’s plenty on the Web about it, including professional training and certification. An EA seems to rely on having a sound foundation of an ‘Operating Model’ of the business, which in turn ties together strategy maps, goals and policies.

But how do we ensure that operating model is indeed rigorous? I would start from a strategy dynamics analysis, which is theoretically rigorous, encompasses resources and capabilities, and can expand to incorporate business processes of whatever level of detail is required, but I guess most EAs don’t use that approach.

The article suggests that using EA to align technology with strategy is helpful, so it would be good to hear of any sources that clarify exactly how EA experts ensure they get a rock-solid strategic architecture on which to build.

I’ve posted before on how often firms over-expand and over-extend themselves*. Growth through Focus in strategy+business warns of the same danger, and explains how “companies should follow a seven-step strategy for achieving more with less”.
*Search in this blog for ‘expand’ and ‘extension’ for some posts on this issue.

Mintzberg’s keynote role at a conference on the MBA is a worry, but his latest foray into strategy is too serious to let pass. In Management by Reflection in S+B he continues his age-old mantra that teaching MBAs to work stuff out is pointless if not dangerous. He once sneeringly noted that MBA really stands for ‘Master in Business Analysis’. Well, he got his wish Continue reading »

Good to see strategy+business magazine on why operations strategy is vital to strategic performance. In Winter-09 edn An Essential Step for Corporate Strategy, Tim Laster points out that many operational decisions have huge implications for firms’ ability to build and sustain critical resources and capabilities, in spite of efforts by Michael Porter and others to dismiss their impotance. We do, though, need to go further, and develop a holistic, continuous view of strategy across all functions of course.

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?

There’s no question transformation is sometimes powerful or just unavoidable. You will find a more thorough, professional case showing how to think it through in Reinventing Print Media from strategy+business.

S+B reports onThe Three Laws of Performance: Rewriting the Future of Your Organization and Your Life by Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan. Continue reading »

© 2012 Talking about strategy Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha