Skip to main content

"Strategy As We Knew It Is Dead."

...says Walt Shill, head of North American management consulting practice for Accenture Ltd.

The "Managing" column in today's Wall Street Journal describes the economy's impact on corporate strategic planning processes. Maybe the key phrase there is "...as we knew it..."

Out: rigid calendars, static three-year plans and quarterly updates.

In: flexibility, accelerated decision-making, 'adaptive' strategy, scenario-testing, war rooms and opportunism.

Office Depot began updating its budget every month after quarterly reviews left leaders slow to react to changing customer needs.

Retailer J.C. Penney put its entire strategy on hold in favor of a "bridge" plan, delaying some efforts and speeding up others. Penney's CEO 'Mike' Ullman III credits the plan with improving margins and helping the company avoid layoffs. Now he's reviewing the 2007 plan's "relevance" and whether it should be revived. Wanna bet?

Historically, appliance maker Whirlpool Corp. considered demand scenarios based on 5% swings up or down. Now it's 15%.

Yet how much do you really "know" about strategy if it took an economic crash of historic proportions to convince you to build speed and adaptability into your planning process? I guess the answer to that question is why consultants at McKinsey & Co. see a huge uptick in demand for their services.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor
Post a Comment
Read more

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare
Post a Comment
Read more

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved
Post a Comment
Read more