One of the standard assumptions about strategy is that it evolves from the top. Those at the top of the organisation have access to all the information and resources necessary to craft the strategy that will then be deployed through the organisation. Then, crucially, they have the power to make those critical resource allocation decisions that drive activity. Sometimes that strategic development process is assisted by people from a range of functions and levels, all given the opportunity to have their say, and be a part of the process.
When you think hard about it, this top-down dynamic, however it is constructed and communicated is a load of old cobblers.
It should never work that way if what you want is an optimised outcome.
The objective of strategy is to figure out how to outcompete the competition, current, emerging and potential. That implies that strategy should be born at the point of competition. This point is not the supermarket shelf, the procurement office of customers, or in the boardroom, but in the definition of the source of the competitive advantage you are creating.
Building competitive advantage is a long-term task that requires choices to be made about the way available resources are to be deployed. If the competitive arena is based on the outcomes of R&D, as it is a digital product, then you had better allocate the resources to ensuring you are at least amongst the best in the field. Similarly, if it is in the excellence of customer service, you had better build the infrastructure to ensure no customer is left waiting and wondering.
This sort of analysis consumes time and intellectual energy from a wide range of stakeholders, not just the few sitting around the senior management table.
Clearly there can be an internal conflict when a business has more than one offering that have different points of competition.
That challenge can only be managed by ensuring that there is a source of common leverage that can be applied to all the product portfolios. Usually this will prove to be a brand that has built the credibility necessary to be compelling in both arenas.
A current client has two competitive arenas with entirely different business models and sets of capabilities necessary to support them. However, the physical products are very similar, emerging from the same technology ‘home base’. The strategies being deployed are different, although there is some commonality in the value proposition, but tactically, they are entirely different. Two years ago, there was a third product range that seemed to be an obvious extension, but proved to be a major distraction, as the competitive coalface was focussed elsewhere. As we lacked the resources to accommodate three, the product category was exited. That has proved to be a good decision, albeit very tough at the time.
The moral is to craft your strategy around the competitive arena where you must win to be commercially successful. If you cannot win in a definitive manner, the better choice is to exit and deploy the released resources where the return for winning is higher.
This is challenging stuff, so call me whan a bit of wisdom from experience might help.
