COMMON AND MAJOR MISTAKES IN STRATEGY

1. The most basic mistakes in having a cogent and executable strategy are
2. Too many strategies at the same time : Most companies don’t concentrate : they do not make clear choices and cannot resist doing many  things and sometimes go in opposing directions.
3. Not enough stress of targets and not enough stress of change The strategy document does not aim for enough change and says that whatever is being done is according to the strategy..
4. The strategy document is a mechanical set of decisive choices but does not say how it will all add up creating value and for whom. Most CEOs are happy to see new activities and changes accompanied by sales and profit projections without linking these activities to results. The way to link them is through value creation mechanism. Example : some large companies are  increasingly adopting a “strategy” called the matrix organization but it is not clear why such a structure will produce additional value for the company. Specifically someone needs to say 3 things (1) How it will add value to the customers (2) How will it fight with the competitors better (3) How will improve the company’s efficiency. The less clear these linkages, the less will the strategy work. 
5. Many strategies mistake ends for means. This is like hearing a university graduate say“I am going to be a billionaire by 40 by being better than anyone in business”. Very nice, but the real question is how. Examples : “We want to be number 1 in the market”, “we want to grow 50 per cent next year”, “we want to be the world’s pre-eminent institution”. But these are desires – or at most goals – they are not strategies ! Strategies means not only setting goals but also making choices how you will perform activities that are different than your competitors or/ and how you will perform these activities differently than your competitors.
6. The last common mistake observed is that the “strategy” remains only in the boardroom and on slides. The middle, junior and front ranked employees do not know it well enough to understand how they need to behave to help the company achieve the strategy. A good and simple test is to ask people “Specifically what steps is the company taking so that it progresses well”.

On strategy - General Course and Approach - Essence

The inability to articulate a strategy in a single, incisive and natural sounding statement  means that there is something wrong in the strategy itself.

There are three main sources of strategy 

1. strategic planning is the raw material and factual basis for strategic thinking and opportunistic decision making. Such work needs a lot of effort, compilation and analysis and requires collecting and analyzing enormous amounts of data for monitoring changes in markets and the competitive environment. This needs frameworks and concepts for compilation.
2. strategy formulation : synthesize this above into an “integrated set of actions designed to create a sustainable advantage over competitors. Such work is creative and its quality depends on  the quality of the interaction between management team and the strategic planners. This work is where insights take place, and it’s not something that should be limited to an annual strategic-planning process.
3. List of strategic leverage points —these are dimensions or strategic degrees of freedom and are a powerful means of structuring these discussions and stimulating strategic thinking. There are some obvious dimensions: customers, costs, and so on. But new ones are always coming in. You’re more likely to grapple with the right issues if you explicitly take the time to ask along which dimensions should your organization be doing its strategic thinking and engaging in creative debates.

The company needs to have a process which continually engages the top-management team including the board in synthesizing and re-synthesizing .  views on the people and processes that underpin a strategy.

 The real danger is “gray rhinos”:  hard to miss in the zoo but surprisingly difficult to spot in the bush, obscured as they are by the vegetation. By the time they’re visible, they are already storming toward you, leaving little chance to react. As academics, our job is to help managers tune into the rustling leaves or cracking twigs of an approaching challenge—or opportunity—before it’s upon them. To do that, we must focus on the parts of the environment that matter most and make sure the tools we carry are fit for the purpose.

How being rigorous helps improve decisions

First and foremost, we need rigor. But there are different types of rigor: the rigor of abstract analytical models, and behavioral rigor, which looks at how individuals, groups, and institutions actually behave. So far, we’ve expected too much from research that might be analytically rigorous but still doesn’t describe reality accurately. I’m thinking particularly of work that comes out of economics, such as game theory or financial economics, which can help but also can obfuscate.

When we confuse beautiful models with messy reality, we all suffer. In the run-up to the financial crisis of 2008, for example, many policy makers deluded themselves into thinking that markets could regulate themselves, while regulators remained blissfully unaware of the business models and structures that had developed in the financial sector. Academics and their models share the blame for these oversights.³

Behavioral work, though, is far more promising. We’re learning more and more about behavioral biases and the way individuals really make decisions. Now we need behavioral and evolutionary economics to step up and show us how organizations make decisions—and why we can expect them, quite predictably, to make bad decisions and to stick with the wrong behavior. The more we know about organizational pathologies, the better the outcomes we can achieve.⁴

Strategy doesn’t work the way we think it does

The importance of investigating these organizational dynamics speaks to a related issue: as academics, we don’t spend enough time looking at the way strategic decisions are really made. Often, what we call strategy is less about navigating to a distant shore and more about allocating resources among competing projects or people in the here and now. Even our infatuation with innovation may have to do more with making sure the organization keeps its focus on customers (as opposed to internal politics) than it does with new products and services. Strategy acts as a motivating and disciplining device, which helps avoid organizational pathologies.

By leveraging behavioral and evolutionary work, we can get a much clearer picture of the organizational reality of strategy and a better understanding of how to add value through cognitive issues (such as the use of the right frameworks and analogies) and a focus on the most relevant parts of the business environment. And without focusing too much on the negative, we need to understand strategic failure better and to identify the process that drives it.⁵

Winning doesn’t just mean finishing first

There’s also a growing body of research, in institutional and evolutionary economics and economic sociology, looking at the web of relationships within a sector and in the economy: how complex production systems emerge, evolve, and interact and how value migrates within and between sectors. Whether you call these webs industry architectures, ecosystems, or organizational fields, they’re a lens for viewing reality and can show us some very valuable new perspectives.

These ideas have some big implications for competition—implications that we’re only just beginning to understand. In many sectors, winning doesn’t just mean finishing first; it means changing the rules of the game to your own advantage. Consider how Google and Facebook have redefined the way we interact with information, while also creating ecosystems that collaborate and compete with Apple.⁶

New landscapes demand new maps

Finally, academics and consultants can come together to revisit popular ideas, even those that have profoundly shaped practice, such as Clay Christensen’s views on disruptive innovation or Michael Porter’s five forces. Models like these are widely used and accepted because they’re user-friendly, make things simpler, and reassure executives that they’ve acted on well-substantiated knowledge.

But should established firms try to be disrupters? Is Porter’s famous model universally applicable? Academic research on such questions is limited, and some of that work suggests the answers are not clear-cut; there are many “ifs” and “buts” that popular frameworks lack. Sadly, though, mainstream academic journals aren’t interested in testing, refuting, or updating strategy frameworks, for all these publications’ stated interest in practical implications. As academics, we can add value by being objective and rigorous about the conditions under which established views do and don’t work well. We can also point out some new, valuable ideas that don’t get enough play in the popular business press and the consulting community.⁷

In all of these areas, what really excites me is the prospect of a stronger link between practitioners and academics, so we can leverage the research we’ve done and shape the research we need to do. Together, we can simplify reality without distorting it and uncover the social laws that we don’t yet understand but shape our world.

CCapabilities are practical and actionable, and a critical part of strategy. Strong ones create new growth options. Capabilities are also the conduit between strategy and execution, and a failure to assess capabilities objectively is often at the root of execution problems. What, in retrospect, is ascribed to poor execution instead has its roots in an unexpectedly large gap between a company’s capabilities and the ones needed to deliver the strategy successfully.

This gap exists, in part, because of another mismatch: between the rigor of tools and methods for assessing market attractiveness (which are fairly robust, thanks to the contributions of Michael Porter and others) and those for assessing internal skills and capabilities. Frustrated, many organizations make only a cursory attempt to clarify and actively manage their capabilities. 

Inventorying internal resources

Resources come in two forms—assets and capabilities—and it’s important not to confuse them. Understanding assets is not that hard. At my former employer, Clorox, brand equities are a huge asset, as are protected technologies, the manufacturing network, and efficient access to retail distribution. A significant portion of Clorox’s value is derived from monetizing those assets in both current and new markets. People-based skills and capabilities can be even larger sources of value, but they are much harder to assess. Three approaches can help:

1. Get objective inputs : Capabilities are relative, so an external lens is critical. Formal benchmarking is one obvious method. Another is to get honest input on strengths and liabilities from people who know both your company and others well. Customers, suppliers, and industry experts are good sources, as are experienced hires who join from the outside and former employees now working in businesses that don’t compete with yours. Most companies tend to believe their capabilities are stronger and more distinctive than they really are, but that is not always the case. At Clorox we found a couple of operational areas particularly difficult, leading us to believe we were not that good—but we learned that they were even tougher for others. Excelling was still a challenge, but the outsiders made us realize we had a greater advantage than we had thought. The inverse was true in other areas: capabilities we thought were superior turned out to be just table stakes.
2. Uncover the logic that separates past successes from failure : Another way to get a more objective view of capabilities is to look back at your company’s most significant successes and failures over, say, a 10- to 15-year period. Write the facts (not the outcomes) of each case on an index card and then try to identify threads of underlying logic that would help people not familiar with the company predict success or failure. With the logic—your capabilities—in hand, people should be able to sort the cards with at least 70 percent accuracy. It’s not a perfect science, but it can help increase objectivity. It’s also a way to see how capabilities change over time.
3. Go beyond isolated capabilities, to integrated competencies : I define a competency as an integrated set of individual capabilities. In large multibusiness firms, competencies usually exist at the enterprise level. Getting an enterprise view is difficult, though, for two reasons (1) The first is that while it’s relatively easy to rise above the business-unit structure, enterprise-level competencies tend to be viewed as areas of functional expertise as opposed to being defined from the customer’s perspective. Customers don’t see functions—they see benefits (2) The second reason is that because competencies are complex, it’s hard to be sure you have a real advantage relative to competitors. Some competitors are more capable in one area, while others are more capable in a different one, so you end up with a mixed bag. Interestingly, though, the very complexity that makes it hard to identify competencies is what makes them very hard for others to replicate.
4. Clorox, for example, has strong capabilities in market segmentation and consumer insights, in retail execution, and in product and packaging innovation. Are any of those world-class in a competitive set that includes P&G and other premier global players? Probably not. However, the combined set—consciously integrated with processes—does give Clorox a clear edge in midsized consumer-goods categories; together, the integrated set forms a competency Clorox called brand building. That competency is superior only in certain contexts, but it did open up opportunities beyond the current portfolio.

Prioritizing and enhancing capabilities

Understanding your capabilities and competencies is important, but it’s not enough. You have to match them to market opportunities and close the gaps.

Use strategy to identify and prioritize capability gaps

In the current businesses, gaps are often fairly obvious, though you need to consider them at both the business-unit and enterprise level. At Clorox, one enterprise gap was how to build consumer desire in a very fragmented media environment quite different from the environment when most of the major brands were built. Filling that gap was a major undertaking. You also have to identify new capabilities that will be needed down the road, in both current markets and new markets the company is considering.

Close gaps with a portfolio approach

The unstated default option to close gaps in large companies is internal development, and that probably is best when long-term proprietary advantage is needed. But it is not the only option—partnerships and acquisitions should be considered as well.

When Clorox added capabilities to make products from natural ingredients—part of a sustainability strategy—it used all three options. Internal development and partnerships played important roles in the development of Green Works natural cleaners, and Clorox acquired capabilities in the formulation of natural personal-care products when it bought Burt’s Bees. Partnerships have become such an important part of Clorox that the company made a conscious choice to develop an internal capability in partnership management.

Make conscious choices on where to disinvest

Reducing investment in capabilities that are no longer as critical to the future is a controversial but often necessary call. Resources for new capabilities need to come from somewhere, and hanging on to outdated capabilities can hamper future performance.

Strategy choices and the capability agenda must match. The sooner and more certainly a new capability will be needed and the larger the gap, the more aggressive you have to be in filling it. If the gap is too large, you probably need to alter the strategy to match a more realistic capability-development plan.

Clarifying and actively managing people-based capabilities is much more complicated and nuanced than this short article implies. But I firmly believe that a robust capability-development agenda isn’t just another corporate priority; it must be inextricably linked with the crafting of strategy.

7 degrees of freedom from growth

Do not rely on only one way of growing your revenue; because there are 7 ways of growing it according to the . 

1. Selling existing products to existing customers.
2. Acquiring new customers in existing markets.
3. Creating new products and services.
4. Developing new value-delivery approaches.
5. Moving into new geographies.
6. Creating a new industry structure.
7. Opening up new competitive arenas.

Selling Existing Products to Existing Customers Has your marketing strategy identified existing customers as a segment ? Is there a separate Target, Organization, Focus and a Strategy (MVC) for this segment ? Do you have strategies aimed at increasing the size or frequency of their purchases, or buy other products from your range, can you increase volume and maximize profit by dropping price?  Also, use tools such as the Brand Pyramid   to develop customers' loyalty, so that they are more likely to buy from you again.

Acquiring New Customers in Existing Markets  Use market segmentation to divide your market into niche groups and then develop marketing approaches that appeal to certain segments. Or to new types of customer who are outside the market altogether? You can also use the Product Diffusion Curve   to target different customer types, based on the stage a product is at in its life cycle.

Creating New Products and Services  

With this degree, you look into developing new products and services, and enhancing existing ones. Review your current offering. How can you improve it to make it more appealing or more effective? To generate new ideas   for products, use a combination of rational, structured thinking and brainstorming  , as well as creativity tools like the Simplex process and TRIZ  . You can also use PEST Analysis   to spot trends or changes in customer perceptions, both of which can be opportunities for growth; while tools like Kano Model Analysis   and Doblin's 10 Types of Innovation   can give useful insights that drive product and service development.

Developing New Value-Delivery Approaches

This degree relates to how you handle products and services before, and as, they reach your customers. How can you improve the way that you create, offer and deliver your products to increase growth? First, look at your current business processes  . Can you add value by exploring new approaches  , improving quality  , or working more efficiently  ? Use Value Chain Analysis   and Porter's Value Chain   to understand how you create value throughout your organization, so that you can look for areas where you can do things better. Key partnerships and alliances can be invaluable here, especially if your organization struggles to meet demand on its own. Use the Outsourcing Decision Matrix   to identify which tasks you can outsource   and which you should keep in-house. You could also explore entirely new sales channels. This can include bringing on board new distributors, or finding creative ways to get your products into your customers' hands.

Moving Into New Geographies

New markets can present exciting areas for growth. Before you start scanning the globe, however, look at the markets you already serve. Is there any way to deepen the distribution you have in these territories? Then, look at your organization's reach on a national level. If you only serve a limited area, how can you expand into new markets at home? Where are your greatest opportunities? As you think about global markets, use the CAGE Distance Framework   to analyze which ones will be the best fit for your organization and which you should avoid. If you do expand into a new market abroad, use the EPRG Model   and Porter's Diamond   so that your organization can adapt to the country's culture effectively.

Creating a New Industry Structure

This degree encourages you to see how you can use alliances and acquisitions to grow your business. Are there any organizations, either in your industry or outside it, that you can partner with or even acquire to achieve shared objectives, or create greater economies of scale  ? Can you increase your bargaining power   or have more influence on industry regulation with a strategic alliance   or merger? Bear in mind that this can be a risky area for growth, as it's difficult to predict how mergers and acquisitions will play out – very many of them fail to achieve the value desired.

Opening up New Competitive Arenas

The last degree of growth involves searching out opportunities to diversify  , so that you can expand into new markets and industries. Look at your assets using approaches like VRIO Analysis   and Core Competence Analysis  . Can you use any of these to create an entirely new business? Consider your organization's skills and resources, including people, technology and knowledge.