There are at least hundreds of definitions of competitive strategy for for-profit firms. In my view, the useful differences in definitions are based on changing contexts for businesses, not from someone trying to re-invent sliced bread. My favorite definition of competitive strategy from the context or lens of making strategic decisions is below. This definition has been suggested by several strategists including Donald Sull of MIT and is:
In 2019 time and speed are still important operational and strategic weapons for firms. Just look at Amazon moving to next day and now same day delivery. But the very rich disciplines of process innovation and process management seem to be disappearing in many or even most firms. This article, part of my series on what causes the valuation of the for-profit firm to increase, will in part be a community call to confirm your experience that indeed these rich disciplines are disappearing. If so, why? Is this a problem? I believe it is a problem if my recent observations are correct.
There is an accompanying slightly more in depth article just published in LinkedIn titled “Diagnosing the Strategic Health of Your Firm At Lightning Speed: How You Can Do It”, but if you would like to go to the survey directly, here is the link https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GKF9889.
A few weeks ago I was at a dinner party and mentioned to a CEO of a large privately held for-profit firm that I could diagnose the strategic health of his firm by using two brief surveys and get Findings and Implications to him within three weeks. He did not believe me.
I used the word “Established” in 2004 in the title of my first (and only) book The New Science of Strategy Execution: How The Established Firm Becomes a Fast, Sleek Wealth Creator. I had an idea then about what Established meant but have refined my thinking on this recently. Some writers have referred to them as “ongoing” firms, but we need a more useful view of what “established” means in this context.
In 2019 I think more mid-sized firms are shunning competitive strategy and strategic planning than in 1970, around the time of the Arab Oil Embargo when competitive strategy and strategic planning were king.
Polymorphous Kaleidoscopic in this context means a “many-sided person who is made up of a complex mix of elements”. Do we really need such a person in business? I think so. Recently there have been more than a few articles criticizing the relatively new position and role of the Chief Strategy Officer (CSO). This article will explore this reality and what in my view is required for this role to add value to the management team and the organization.
The for-profit firm should indeed compete to be unique and not the best. As usual, I think Dr. Porter is correct, even though I was at first skeptical. I poured over all of my prior strategy engagements (about seventy-five that lasted six or more months) plus looked really closely at my most recent engagements while in progress. Sure enough, I think the desire and energy to compete to be the best have more pitfalls than good things.
Pundits tell us we are in the “new normal”. Not a new normal but the new normal. And they write in tones that suggest the amount of change that is on us is unprecedented in human history. This article will explore this premise for ideas that hopefully can help with the context for making competitive strategy for for-profit firms and the growth of the market value of those firms in today’s times in 2019.
In today’s world of lightning-fast change and disruption, plus only being able to secure temporary competitive advantages, as we are told, can’t OE tackle all of this? I don’t believe OE can subsume the work of good strategy, but this recent engagement has forced me to rethink and recommit to the value proposition of completing competitive strategy alongside OE work.
OK so here is another of my articles with Figures and one formula. Please don’t let this deter you from considering the message here. I think this article, while a little longer than most, is worth your attention. It picks up where my last article “The Age of Agile – The New Management Paradigm and Nasty Old Shareholder Value Strikes Again” ends.
The recent book The Age of Agile by Stephen Denning, 2018) is the presenter of the (not a) new management paradigm. Whether it will be replaced with another the new management paradigm will remain to be seen. And while there are many frustrating “red herring” arguments throughout the book, mostly against the activist hedge fund view of shareholder value, top management teams extracting value instead of creating value and the toxicity of top-down command and control bureaucracies, I think this is a very good and an important book.