De onde vêm as grandes estratégias (parte III)

Parte I e parte II.

"Great strategies should be both impactful and innovative. But where do such strategic innovations come from?"

Interessante como a mesma pergunta é colocada por mais três autores, depois de olharmos para a proposta de Gavetti.

"The question of where great strategies comes from has many answers, and there are theories and anecdotal “origin stories” to support each of them. But there is a fundamental tension between answers that emphasize favorable outcomes under conditions of uncertainty and those that assert intentionality (see Figure 1).

First, there is a basket of different kinds of components that grows with time as new components are added to it. Second, there is a prespecified set of valid and invalid combinations of these components, with the valid combinations representing viable products. We assume that the firm knows which combinations of the components already in its basket, as well as combinations from the existing basket with any single new component under consideration for adoption, constitute viable products. But, crucially, we assume no knowledge of the “recipe book” beyond this—that is, we do not know whether or not combinations containing multiple components outside of our basket are viable.
.
The firm’s goal is to maximize the number of products that it can make—its product space—as it adds more components to its basket. The model does not consider the different values associated with specific products, which will depend on the market environment and may change over time. Instead, it simply seeks to maximize the number of viable products that it can make,
...
we introduce two simple variables: the complexity of products and the usefulness of components.
...
To make a product of complexity c, we must possess all c of its distinct components. So making a complex product is harder than making a simple one, because there are more ways that we might be missing a needed component.
...
Components that tend to show up in complex products do not seem useful early on, because we are likely to be missing other components that those products require.[Moi ici: Aqui as coisas começam a aquecer. Como não recordar que os macacos não voam, de Ricardo Hausmann]
...
Our research shows that the most important components—materials, skills, and routines—when an organization is less developed tend to be different from when it is more developed. The relative usefulness of components changes over time [Moi ici: Como não recordar os que acreditam que basta importar/copiar o que se faz noutros países. Como não recordar a rejeição do Relatório Porter]
...
A key insight from the analysis is that there are different frames of reference for prioritizing a set of components. The most useful components in one frame, or innovation stage, need not be the same as in another. No single frame is inherently more valid than any other; the frame we prioritize depends on our current stage and how far into the future we wish to and are able to look.
...
Internally, the optimal strategy depends on resource constraints and, more broadly, the objectives of the firm, which are related to its governance. Resource-constrained firms tend to favor an impatient strategy and immediately reap the value of new components, whereas wealthier firms likely favor a farsighted strat-egy and, after a stagnant period assembling needed components, expect to achieve greater growth as the value of those components kicks in.[Moi ici: Como não relacionar isto com "Carlos Costa: “Empresas portuguesas estão entre as mais alavancadas da Europa”]"
...
Third, our analysis stresses the importance of trade-offs, but with a clearly dynamic twist. ... The distinction between impatient and farsighted strategies more closely resembles the distinction in evolutionary biology between r-selection (more offspring) and K-selection (better offspring). The r-selection approach, similar to our impatient strategy, invests little in nurturing individual progeny, focusing instead on fast, immediate growth.
Fourth, our analysis fits with recent academic and practical work on strategy dynamics emphasizing the importance of both irreversibility and uncertainty for dynamic thinking about strategy to really be required. ... without irreversibility of any sort, choices could be reversed costlessly and therefore be made myopically, without penalty.
...
what matter are the components that are available at a point in time rather than the order in which they were acquired.
...
Our main insight is that the most important objects, skills, and routines are not static but depend on how far along the innovation process a firm has progressed."

Trechos retirados de "Searching for Great Strategies" de Thomas Fink, Pankaj Ghemawat e Martin Reeves, publicado por Strategy Science Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2017, pp. 272–281