.
O artigo é muito interessante. Destaco, numa primeira parte:
.
"In every industry, there are several viable positions that companies can occupy. The essence of strategy is, therefore, to choose the one position that our company will claim as its own. A strategic position is simply the" sum of the answers that a company gives to the questions:
- WHO should I target as customers?
- WHAT products or services should I offer them?
- HOW should I do this in an efficient way?
Strategy is about making tough choices on these three dimensions: the customers we will focus on and those we will consciously not target; the products we will offer and the ones we will not offer; the activities we will perform and the ones we will not perform." (Moi ici: escolher o que fazer e o que não fazer. Matar filhos, produtos ou serviços tornados obsoletos, é quase blasfémia. Como desenhou Seth Godin, o attachement cega).
.
"Strategy is all about choosing and a company will be successful only if it chooses a distinctive (ie different from competitors') strategic position. Sure, it may be impossible to come up with answers which are 100% different from the answers of our competitors but the ambition should be to create as much differentiation as possible whilst satisfyng your chosen customers' needs.
.
The "WHO-WHAT-HOW" decisions set the parameters within which the company will operate. At the same time, they also define the terrain for which the company will not fight: the customers it will not pursue, the investments it will not make, the competitors it will not respond to. As a result, these decisions are painful to make and are often preceded by internal arguments, disagreements and politicking. But unless a decision is taken, the company will find itself spreading its resources too widely with no clear focus or direction." (Moi ici: De acordo com tudo isto, só acrescentaria outra questão, anterior às outras: Qual é o nosso negócio? Ou, seja, ter em conta a primeira lei que Tony Hsieh aprendeu com o poker "Table selection is the most important decision you can make. It’s okay to switch tables if you discover it’s too hard to win at your table. If there are too many competitors (some irrational or inexperienced), even if you’re the best it’s a lot harder to win.")
.
"Most managers have a strong bias towards the "HOW" question (Moi ici: Atenção a este ponto muito importante). Either because they do not think the "WHO" and the "WHAT" choices are real strategic choices or because they think that, once decided, these choices should never be revisited, most managers spend little time on the "WHO" or "WHAT" questions (Moi ici: como refere David Birnbaum "We in the garment industry — both the factory suppliers and the importer/retailer buyers — none of us like strategies. We are very good at tactics. We are masters at dealing with crisis. But long-term strategies are simply not our thing.").
.
BUT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT MOST BREAKTHROUGHS IN STRATEGY OCCUR NOT SO MUCH WHEN THE "HOW" IS QUESTIONED BUT WHEN THE "WHO-WHAT" CHOICES ARE CHALLENGED.
...
Usually, strategic innovation takes place when companies question and chalenge the answers they gave, often a long time ago in their history, to the "WHO-WHAT" questions."
.
Saltar do disco do HOW, HOW, HOW, HOW... para o pôr o jogo em causa e virar a mesa é tão difícil.
.
Cada vez percebo melhor este título e a ideia subjacente ao livro "Hero with a Thousand Faces" de Joseph Campbell... calçado, têxtil, mobiliário, maquinaria, medicamentos,... à primeira vista parecem histórias diferentes, heróis diferentes, mas depois de alguma análise, começamos a perceber que há um arquétipo por trás disto tudo. Steven Blank tem razão!!!
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário