"In some sense, business strategy is a lot like love. There are lots of people you can love and who may love you back, but the winning combination is pretty rare. So you need to keep working on it until you get it right. It's a process. And as with love, business, and so many things in life, you shouldn't settle until you get it right. So don't. And always remember, nobody has the answer."Está bem conseguido.
.
Em tempos, escrevi aqui no blogue sobre o problema de manter um mapa da estratégia e um balanced scorecard não actualizado e, sobretudo, com gestores que não o criaram (por despedimento, promoção, contratação ao exterior, morte, aquisição ou fusão, ...), o trabalho não fica feito, continua sempre por fazer.
.
Há um texto antigo de Mintzberg que compara o desenvolvimento de uma estratégia ao trabalho de um oleiro, ao moldar do barro por um artesão... vou procurar.
.
.
.
Cá está "Crafting Startegy" (HBR, Julho/Agosto de 1987)
.
.
Por isso, uma estratégia não é, não existe, não está terminada, vai sendo.
.
É preciso estar atento ao seu desenrolar, é preciso responder às respostas do meio.
.
Este outro artigo "Why Amazon Is The Best Strategic Player In Tech" dá pano para mangas para reflectir sobre este tema.
.
BTW, mais de metade das manobras da Amazon por cá, país de incumbentes, seriam consideradas predatórias, ilegais, imorais, fascistas, e sei lá que mais.
7 comentários:
Os comentários ao artigo sobre a Amazon são qualquer coisa de extraordinário!
Deve gostar deste... :)
"Bezos doesn't run a company. He runs an ecosystem that evolves, iterates and spawns."
Sem palavras...
"Amazon launched their own Android Apps Store and they called it the "Android Apps Store" (...)
Now Amazon is making more money off of Android Apps than what Google is making out of Play."
E, finalmente, para o contraditório: :)
"Actually, it may be really simple to explain Amazon's business strategy: they're confused and can't figure out how to make money on the internet, period. After all, they really don't make money. They're 'vauled' at almost $100 billion dollars by wall street, but don't even book a billion dollars a year in profit. Presently they're trading at almost 190 times earnings. The business that they're actually in is an age-old one of predatory pricing, putting other retailers out of business by undercutting their prices and being willing to lose money on every sale, and hoping--hoping--that one day they'll be few enough competitors to allow them to raise their margins. But it's not exactly clear that in the internet you can ever completely kill off your competitors and raise prices. They've put the booksellers out of business. They're putting Circuit City out and, finishing off Best Buy. That's the game they've been in for years, and they keep growing their revenues without growing their profits. And they know it, so they're circling around trying desperately to invent new business, like the kindle fire, but they're not a technology company and will get their head handed to them ultimately by apple and google and anyone else who enters the tablet space. It's one thing to put a bunch of booksellers out of business--they're little fry--it's another thing altogether to go after the big technology boys, huge companies that have bottomless resources, like google, apple or microsoft (witness the new microsoft investment in the nook). I see all these seemingly scatter shot business plans as big, wild round-house punches, desperate and without real strategy. We'll see."
P.S.: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/business/amazon-plans-its-next-conquest-your-closet.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
Boa Aranha,
Confesso que não liguei aos comentários. Erro básico, normalmente há tanto ou mais sumo nos comentários do que nos textos.
o comentário do contrarian... fica a remoer cá dentro... the man seems to have a point
Enviar um comentário