What it takes is often simply a bit of courage to try a few things that others aren't trying, because they don't need to as they have the stuff you don't have.
I feel organizations constantly try to mimic each other, with little consideration of the specific features that make them stronger (or weaker) than the rest.
The case studies are excellent. They confirm Clausewitz's idea: "A few simple devices (such as outflanking, marching) form the basis of a variety of strategies, and the art of the strategist consists in achieving superiority from these familiar elements." However, the nature of strategy is twofold—it is a combination of art and craft. Unfortunately, the case studies do not contain the craft component suitable for inheritance.
The key difference between military and the Design Thinking-informed strategy for which Roger advocates is that you're not trying to destroy an enemy through some advantage but compel a change in customer behavior.
Great article! Sadly, companies can only choose cheap-but-valuable advantages when they've first faced the brutal truth that they have nothing. And most organizations can't openly face that. It's anathema for a frontline employee to question their manager about that. For managers to inquire C-Levels about it. For executives to admit that to their boards.
When they don't openly acknowledge their strategic disadvantage, they can't address poverty. Every operating improvement looks like progress. Every new initiative feels like momentum. The organization confuses activity with advantage, mistaking the illusion of "something" for actual strategic position.
That's why the Can't/Won't test matters so much! It forces organizations to stop confusing operating imperatives with strategic choices. Only when you face the fact that most of what you celebrate is table stakes can you start diagnosing poverty.
Sadly, most organizations would rather burn money pretending they're something than admit they're nothing and get creative about it.
Unparalleled scope and context here, Roger.
This is the big takeaway: "...despite all that spending, what are customers missing?
Then spend all your strategic thinking energy on finding inexpensive ways to achieve uniqueness in meeting those unmet customer needs."
What it takes is often simply a bit of courage to try a few things that others aren't trying, because they don't need to as they have the stuff you don't have.
I feel organizations constantly try to mimic each other, with little consideration of the specific features that make them stronger (or weaker) than the rest.
This is so motivating in a realistic way at a personal level too. Double down on what we are good at & do what we can depending on what we have.
The case studies are excellent. They confirm Clausewitz's idea: "A few simple devices (such as outflanking, marching) form the basis of a variety of strategies, and the art of the strategist consists in achieving superiority from these familiar elements." However, the nature of strategy is twofold—it is a combination of art and craft. Unfortunately, the case studies do not contain the craft component suitable for inheritance.
The key difference between military and the Design Thinking-informed strategy for which Roger advocates is that you're not trying to destroy an enemy through some advantage but compel a change in customer behavior.
Great article! Sadly, companies can only choose cheap-but-valuable advantages when they've first faced the brutal truth that they have nothing. And most organizations can't openly face that. It's anathema for a frontline employee to question their manager about that. For managers to inquire C-Levels about it. For executives to admit that to their boards.
When they don't openly acknowledge their strategic disadvantage, they can't address poverty. Every operating improvement looks like progress. Every new initiative feels like momentum. The organization confuses activity with advantage, mistaking the illusion of "something" for actual strategic position.
That's why the Can't/Won't test matters so much! It forces organizations to stop confusing operating imperatives with strategic choices. Only when you face the fact that most of what you celebrate is table stakes can you start diagnosing poverty.
Sadly, most organizations would rather burn money pretending they're something than admit they're nothing and get creative about it.
The "pretending they're something they're not" is an important insight, Felipe.
Dispersing effort across too many initiatives and trying to do things without the necessary capabilities lead many companies to mediocrity.
"Can't/Won't" is something I've also just referenced in my latest piece.
Finding where to do less, but better, is the right place to start.