Como dar este salto? (parte II)

Parte I.

Ainda a propósito de:

Esperar que tudo corra pelo melhor, se "tivermos cuidado", vem na onda do tema frequentemente referido aqui no blogue acerca do locus de controlo.

A maioria das pessoas tem o locus de controlo no exterior, age como uma folha na corrente. Espera que um papá qualquer lhe resolva o problema. Basta recordar o caso recente dos viticultores do Douro referidos na hiperligação acima, ou da indústria de madeira e mobiliário que tem falta de matéria-prima nacional e age como se isso fosse problema do governo de turno.

Vamos agora ás empresas com gente com locus de controlo no interior. 

Vamos concretizar e chamar ao indicador da parte I de "Eficiência operacional". Uma empresa quer passar a sua eficiência operacional de 51% para 60%. O que faz?

Em vez de começar a dar tiros no escuro na esperança de que algo resulte, pode começar por interrogar-se: o que faz baixar a eficiência operacional?

Algumas empresas, não muitas, vão construir uma espécie de diagrama de Pareto para perceber quais os principais motivos na origem da perda de eficiência operacional. Algo deste género:

39% das ocorrências que baixam a eficiênca operacional têm como motivo principal o tempo de paragem por avaria.

Então, quem quer aumentar a eficiência operacional pode decidir, vamos:

• Aumentar a manutenção preventiva
• Comprar máquinas novas para substituir as mais antigas

Lembra um coro de vozes internas horrorizado com a perspectiva!!!

- Então, querem aumentar a eficiência operacional ou querem reduzir custos?

Querem optimizar não um, mas um conjunto de indicadores. 

E podem optimizar tudo ao mesmo tempo? 

Não, tem de haver trade-offs. Para ser muito bom a umas coisas não se pode ser bom a outras. Se calhar só se pode ser bom a umas, muito bom a outras e, a outras ainda, manter ou esperar o menos mau.

Como saber quais os indicadores que devem ser maximizados e quais os indicadores que devem se subordinar a esses?

Continua.

Como dar este salto? (parte I)

Considerem esta situação:

Como dar este salto?

Fico impressionado com a quantidade de vezes que vejo esta resposta:

Esperar que tudo corra pelo melhor. Se já conseguimos 60% num mês em particular, se tivermos cuidado conseguimos.

Outra abordagem não é melhor:

Dar vários tiros no escuro e esperar que algum resulte.

Recuo a 2007 e aos monumentos à treta para recordar outro tipo de abordagem. Em vez de avaliar o desempenho pelo cumprimento de um desafio, foge-se de avaliar o desempenho com base em resultados que não se podem controlar e apenas se mede a execução de actividades que se podem controlar, independentemente do seu real impacte no desempenho. 

Como dar este salto?

Continua.

Iniciativas, a operacionalização da transformação

"Value creation takes place in an uncertain world. We cannot predict the future, and in order to survive, firms need to be able to respond to unfolding circumstances. As we have stressed, we need to work with the complexities of the real world, and not assume these away, or pretend to ignore them.

An initiative may have a positive impact in one part of the system, but result in negative impacts elsewhere. 

...

significant change in an organisation typically occurs in two circumstances: a crisis, or a change of leadership, which is often preceded by a crisis. This is not surprising as to change an organisation that is ticking along in an acceptable way is a daunting prospect. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ would be the way most people would think. The idea that managers will enact ‘transformational change’ outside of a crisis is frankly unlikely.

...

Firstly, we need to have a clear description of the initiative: what is involved in the change being proposed. The expected or hoped for outcomes of the initiative should also be set out which can help us figure out what feedback is required to monitor the impact of the changes on the wider value system. Some thoughts as to the time frame of the change process will help, that is, is it weeks, or months before we would expect to see some effects?

It will be necessary to identify, at least initially, the resources required to kick-start the change process, and who owns the initiative. If there are expected synergies with other initiatives, these could be set out and monitored and it would be essential to highlight potential risks associated with the changes.

The first initiative will require a significant amount of change energy. The idea is new, it will need management support, and those involved will need to move out of some familiar routine ways of behaving. But once the initiative gets established, it requires a lot less energy to sustain it as the new practices become embedded into routine ways of working.

...

Value is created by combining inputs with existing assets to create products and services. Operations activities are those where the firm has most influence. Relationships with suppliers and customers can be influenced by what happens in the value creation process, but the firm has no direct control over what suppliers or customers choose to do. [Moi ici: Este sublinhado é incompreensível para quem vive fora do sector privado. "Como é possível estabelecer objectivos para as vendas quando não é possível obrigar os clientes a comprar]

The value activities ‘inside’ the firm generate outcomes with respect to customers, costs and prices."

Trechos retirados de: Paul Raspin. “What's Your Competitive Advantage?”

Covid-19 - Direcção e iteração colaborativa

Quando comecei a trabalhar a ISO 14001, nos anos 90 do século passado, fiquei fascinado com a sua diferença face à ISO 9001.

Ao trabalhar com a ISO 9001 facilmente ficávamos prisioneiros da quantidade de procedimentos obrigatórios que tinhamos de criar. Por isso, os resultados no terreno demoravam a aparecer. Primeiro tinhamos de arquitectar e construir o sistema, traduzi-lo em procedimentos e só depois começar a implementação. A implementação, porque o consultor era tótó, ou porque a gestão de topo só estava interessada na bandeira, ou porque a empresa estava sobrecarregada de trabalho, mais parecia um calvário. O objectivo da implementação era chegar a algo que pudesse ser certificado e uma bandeira atribuída. Uma vez obtida a certificação, a empresa dizia-nos adeus, e raramente havia oportunidade mergulhar na melhoria do sistema.

Entretanto, na minha cabeça remoía um artigo de 1992 na HBR - "Successful Change Programs Begin with Results"

Ao trabalhar com a ISO 14001 descobria a possibilidade de desenhar um sistema de gestão virado para atingir resultados. Um sistema de gestão como um portfolio de projectos:

Acabei por publicar um livro onde explicava a metodologia. (BTW, um projecto interessante que nunca foi pago pela editora)

No ano passado descobri mais uma norma ambiental, confesso que não a conhecia, a ISO 14005:2019 - Environmental management systems — Guidelines for a flexible approach to phased implementation.

Esta norma apoia a implementação faseada de sistemas de gestão ambiental. O que é que isto quer dizer? Em vez de começar por montar um sistema de gestão ambiental completo, com todos os ésses e érres, começar por um desafio concreto, um desafio específico. Por exemplo, melhorar a eficiência energética, ou reduzir a produção de resíduos perigosos.

Por que escrevo sobre isto agora? Porque o meu parceiro das conversas oxigenadoras pôs-me a ler este livro, "The Lean Strategy" de Michael Ballé, Daniel Jones, Jacques Chaize, e Orest Fiume.

"Lean thinking starts with acting: solving immediate problems to better understand the deeper issues. It differs radically from the mainstream approach.
...
Lean thinking starts with find, in the real world, by identifying immediate problems right now, moves to face as we grasp which problems are easy to solve and which aren’t, what our deeper challenges are, then to frame these challenges in a way others will understand intuitively both (a) the problem we’re trying to solve and (b) the generic form of the solution we’re looking for, and then form the specific solutions through repeated try-and-see efforts with the people themselves until we, all together, build a new (often unforeseen) way of doing things
...
Effectively, the idea is that to learn anything, we first have to change something and then carefully check the results to evaluate the impact.
...
"Don’t look with your eyes. Look with your feet. Don’t think with you head. Think with your hands.”
...
The point is that running experiments and experiencing consequences is an ongoing process. It is more to accelerate the learning cycle—to learn and respond, then grasp with the current situation, then adjust again—than it is to establish large-scale goals and compare our progress to them on an occasional basis rather than as a constant state. Companies must use meaningful metrics to understand meaningful actions."

Entretanto, ontem ao folher um livro, "Managing Crises: Responses to Large-Scale Emergencies" de Arnold Howitt e Herman B. Leonard. Encontrei estes trechos:

"[Moi ici: As emergências podem ser de dois tipos, as de rotina e as de crise. As de rotina são aquelas para as quais as organizações se preparam e testam. São aquelas para as quais existem planos de resposta. Já a pandemia em curso é uma emergência de crise... não há plano, não houve preparação prévia] This is not a routine emergency. There are no scripts or templates—guides, check-lists, and norms that dictate the set of things that need to be done, their order, the way they are organized, and so on. An authority-driven command and control hierarchy is a good organizational form for producing the efficient execution of known and practiced routine actions.
...
This is a Crisis Emergency. This emergency has significant elements of novelty that organizations were not prepared for. The presence of significant novelty as the defining feature of crisis emergencies creates an array of distinctive challenges, requiring significantly different approaches, techniques, and processes by those engaged in them. Novelty comes in many forms and from many different sources.
...
During a crisis, leaders must relinquish the belief that a top-down response will engender stability. In routine emergencies, the typical company can rely on its command-and-control structure to manage operations well by carrying out a scripted response. But in crises characterized by uncertainty, leaders face problems that are unfamiliar and poorly understood. A small group of executives at an organization’s highest level cannot collect information or make decisions quickly enough to respond effectively. Leaders can better mobilize their organizations by setting clear priorities for the response and empowering others to discover and implement solutions that serve those priorities. To promote rapid problem solving and execution under high-stress, chaotic conditions, leaders can organize a network of teams." 

E ao chegar aqui ... recuo ao Natal de 2007 e a Boyd e à blitzkrieg (parte I e parte II):

"Give lower-level commanders wide freedom, within an overall mind-time-space scheme, to shape/direct their own activities so that they can exploit faster tempo/rhythm at tactical levels yet be in harmony with the larger pattern/slower rhythm associated with the more general aim and larger effort at the strategic level."

Como diz o meu parceiro das conversas oxigenadoras: uma pena as empresas não estarem a aproveitar esta crise para encontrarem uma plataforma de comunicação real com os seus trabalhadores... sim, o primeiro ciclo de Senge:

O ambicioso versus o desejoso (parte II)

Parte I.

"I've seldom met a successful person who didn't start out with a set of ambitious goals. However, the power of goal-setting isn't just anecdotal. It turns out that there's a wealth of scientific research into how goal-setting changes the way you brain functions. That research also provides guidance on how to make goal-setting vastly more effective.
.
Here's the gist: Goal-setting restructures your brain to make it more effective.
...
goals that are highly emotional (i.e., the subject is highly motivated to succeed) cause participants to downwardly evaluate the difficulty of achieving that goal.
.
In other words, if you strongly desire a goal, your brain will perceive obstacles as less significant than they might otherwise appear.
...
Research has also shown that ambitious goals are far more motivating (i.e. they more thorougly structure your brain) than easily achieved goals.
...
In other words, if you want to fully activate your amygdala and frontal lobe so that your brain makes you more successful, you must set challenging goals.
...
In 90% of the studies, specific and challenging goals led to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development. Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when the goals are specific and sufficiently challenging."

Trechos retirados de "What Goal-Setting Does to Your Brain and Why It's Spectacularly Effective"

O ambicioso versus o desejoso (parte I)

Esta semana ouvi Joaquim Aguiar falar na diferença entre o ambicioso e o desejoso.

O ambicioso treina para atingir o objectivo. O desejoso senta-se à espera que o objectivo lhe caia no regaço. Os políticos adoram desejosos. Assim, especializam-se na distribuição de rebuçados.

"lays out the seven-step approach SEALs use to tackle even the most daunting missions, so you can adapt it to achieve your own biggest, scariest goals.
.
1. Ask clarifying questions..
Clearly, in military situations it's essential to be clear about your objective, both so you don't capture the wrong guy and know what winning looks like. But in civilian life, too, it's impossible to achieve success if you don't define it first.
...
2. Identify all your resources..
The next step is to marshal all your resources and see what you have to work with to achieve your aim. That means not only material resources like money and technology, but also intangible ones like your network and skills.
...
3. Clarify roles and responsibilities....
make sure each person knows their role, ... what each must accomplish, and when. ... it's essential to make sure everyone understands their area of responsibility and how it fits into the larger mission.
...
4. Focus relentlessly on your goal..
As Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has explained, all good leaders take responsibility for outcomes, whatever the circumstances. [Moi ici: Recordar aqui] For true leaders, there is no such thing as an excuse, because they always keep their focus on the goal and look for ways around each constraint.
...
5. Think through all possible contingencies..
In practice, this means letting your pessimistic imagination run wild to dream up every hiccup and holdup you might face. How can you work around these possibilities? [Moi ici: A aplicação da abordagem baseada no risco]
...
6. Train until you're stress-proof..
OK, you know your aim, you've assigned your roles, and you've talked through everything that could go wrong. Your planning is ace, but there's another essential step to making sure your paper plan actually translates to real life.
...
7. After-action review..
Reached your goal? Congrats, but there's still one final step left to go. "You do yourself and the people in the room or the people in the organization a disservice if you don't debrief what happened or where the mistakes are at," Roy concludes. This isn't about assigning blame to people. It's about figuring out what went wrong so you can do better next time."

Trechos retirados de "Navy SEALs Use This 7-Step Process to Achieve Any Goal. You Can Too"

Operacionalizar uma estratégia

Uma estratégia, qualquer que ela seja, não passa de uma ideia. Para que tenha algum impacte numa organização tem de ser traduzida em acção.

Acção significa saber: o que fazer; por quem, até quando, com que recursos.

Ou seja, a estratégia tem de ser operacionalizada em actividades muito concretas, muito específicas.

“1. Selecting existing capabilities that need to be enhanced and/or new capabilities that need to be introduced into the sourcing, operations and selling activities
.
2. Identifying enabling practices that will help and support the development of the required capabilities; the practices will affect the structure, systems and culture of the business
.
3. Developing specific initiatives to install those practices and to directly build the required capabilities
.
4. Moving from initiatives into actions that directly impact the system. These actions must also generate feedback to enable us to track the effects of the changes introduced.
.
This last step is critical: if there is no change in what people actually do, the strategy process will have no positive impact on the system.
.
A clearly stated competitive strategy can build a coherent collective intention, which can help to integrate the efforts of all the members of the firm.”

Recordar:

• BSC numa IPSS (parte VI) (Julho de 2014)
• Transformar uma empresa de forma alinhada com a estratégia (parte VIII) (Agosto de 2018)

Imagem e trechos retirados de “What's Your Competitive Advantage?” de Paul Raspin

"Without focus"

"Without focus a company cannot achieve an execution culture....unfocused companies pursue too many objectives and have too many initiatives. ...the greater the number of strategic objectives and priorities, the more unfocused are the are the employees. Alternatively, the more focused is top management, the clearer employees and departments are about what they need to do on a daily basis. When priorities cascade down the organization, the result is often a distorted focus - a frequently a significant distortion. ...Another significant consequence is that lack of focus leads to lack of discipline in executing organizational objectives. Focus imposes discipline because staff at any level know what to do at any point....One of the most dramatic consequences of being an unfocused company is the impact on staff. Lack of clear direction and priorities causes staff to be unhappy in what they do because they do not understand how their work contributes to the company's goals. ...Managements needs to decide every year  how to distribute the company's limited resources, specifically its staff and financial assets. Decisions regarding how much and where to allocate resources are not easy. Management at an unfocused company often fails to regards these decisions as part of their key responsibilities because they lack clarity about the run-the-business/change-the-business dimensions. Consequently, the distribution of work within the business becomes totally unbalanced and grow out of control."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization: How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution".

"Poorly executed strategy"

"the fundamental difference between success and failure depends on which projects top management decides to invest in and how those projects are executed.
.
In other words, finding ways to achieve the strategic goals is what today is known as 'strategic planning,' while 'strategy execution' is the method used to achieve those goals. The three most important elements of successful strategy execution are:

• Identifying the company's core competencies that will differentiate it from the competition.

• Selecting and prioritizing the initiatives that will exploit those core competencies and create sustainable growth via the company's strategic plan.

• Organizing company resources so as to optimally execute the chosen strategy. 

...
Once a company's structure and resources are aligned to its chosen strategy, the key question is whether the organization is focused enough to deliver the intended result. If the answer is no chances are that the strategy will not be successfully executed. This will be discussed later, but successful strategy execution is not so much about how well the strategy is defined; instead, success depends on project selection, effective organizational alignment, relentless execution and focus.
...
Being unfocused means that strategy objectives have not been clearly articulated or communicated to the entire organization. Often, there are too many objectives or even worse, the objectives are not prioritized. Top management wants to do too many things and does not involve employees in the strategy formulation. Thus, employees neither understand nor buy into the long-term mission.
...
If the strategy is poorly executed, the financial objectives will be difficult to achieve. Unfocused companies typically generate significant costs over the years. They often run too many projects, not recognizing that projects are expensive and consume both financial and staff resources. In addition, they frequently lack a clear, transparent and objective project selection process (or investment committee). Investment decisions are made on partial information and the tendency is to start all projects whose business case 'looks good on paper."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization: How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution".

As iniciativas estratégicas que não são estratégicas...

Actualmente ando a ler vários livros em simultâneo, qual deles o melhor. Um desses livre é "The Focused Organization: How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution".

Recentemente num projecto BSC, para subir na escala de valor, optou-se por desenvolver a relação com o cliente do cliente, algo deste tipo:

Desenhou-se o mapa da estratégia, fez a S-CRT e desenvolveram-se quatro iniciativas estratégicas. No entanto, todas as quatro iniciativas estratégicas tinham a ver com a melhoria do negócio existente:

• Melhoria de competências em funções críticas;
• Simplificação de processos críticos;
• Melhoria do planeamento;
• Melhoria da comunicação interdepartamental.

Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez escreve:

"I have developed a matrix that illustrates this situation (Figure 4.2). The x-axis refers to the dimension of the business, either run-the-business or change-the-business. The y-axis represents both the front/core activities of the business and the support activities. For simplicity, I assume that most of the strategic growth projects are launched by the front side of the business — which is not too far from reality if we consider that research and development (R&D), business development, marketing and corporate are the departments that launch most of these growth initiatives — while the functions are more involved in cost-reduction projects (including performance improvement and system automation). Management has to make sure that the distribution of its resources is totally aligned and reflects the strategic objectives, in which case the chances are high that the strategy will be successful."

Interessante que todos as quatro iniciativas da empresa caem no quadrante inferior esquerdo... ou seja, as iniciativas estratégicas ainda que relevantes não são verdadeiramente estratégicas uma vez que são apenas "run-the-business".

São necessárias? Quase de certeza que sim, mas não criam o negócio de amanhã. E como os recursos são escassos, a começar pelo tempo... talvez a realidade seja:

No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

"Deciding where to focus companies' scarce resources"

"most companies have very similar strategies and business objectives (e.g.,  growth, expansion, product innovation, market leadership) but just a few succeed in achieving them. What do these successful companies do differently?
...
Up to the late 1970s, an organization's main focus was on core activities reflected in the traditional value chain described by Michael Porter
...
Deciding where to focus companies' scarce resources is one of top management's most important challenges.
...
Improving operations is easier than improving projects. Often, operational processes can be mapped, analysed and finally improved by automating or simply removing the inefficient parts. This is not possible with projects: mapping them is very complex, and they are very difficult to improve m most of the time they are one-off.
...
although very few companies succeed in implementing their strategies, there are a few whose strategy execution is successful.
...
To my surprise, some of these successful organizations were not just reaching but were also exceeding their strategic objectives. While their formula included great leadership and maturity, what made all the difference in their ability to exceed their expectations was the fact that they were highly FOCUSED.
.
What I realized is that in todays world most companies and many employees are highly unfocused. As a result, top management has difficulty setting a dear strategy and communicating a ranked list of priorities; and most staff members end up deciding on their own where to concentrate their efforts; most likely on easy and irrelevant task, This lack of focus results in much wasted money and resources, the inability to execute the strategy, project failures, and unhappy and uncommitted employees. Successful individuals are highly focused, and the same applies lo organizations. In fact, every business is focused when it is just starting up but only those companies that manage to stay focused will likely succeed and remain in business."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization - How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution" de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez

Acerca da data de chegada

"Time is one of the major characteristics of projects in that, unless there is an articulated compelling, official and public announced deadline, there is a good chance that the project will be delivered later than originally planned. Delays in project mean, besides extra costs, a loss of benefits and expected revenues, both having a tremendous negative impact on the business case of the initiative. A project without a deadline should not be considered a project - better call it an experiment, an exploration or daily business activities."

Trecho retirado de "The Project Revolution" de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez

“Hierarchy of Purpose”

Simplesmente muito bom, "How to Prioritize Your Company’s Projects":

"We had more than 100 large projects (each worth over 500,000 euros) under way. No one had a clear view of the status of those investments, or even the anticipated benefits. The bank was using a project management tool, but the lack of discipline in keeping it up to date made it largely fruitless. Capacity, not strategy, was determining which projects launched and when. If people were available, the project was launched. If not, it stalled or was killed.
.
Prioritization at a strategic and operational level is often the difference between success and failure. But many organizations do it badly.
...
Of course, sometimes leaders simply make the wrong decisions; they prioritize the wrong thing. But in my 20 years as an executive, the problem I see more often is that leaders don’t make decisions at all. They don’t clearly signal their intent about what matters. In short, they don’t prioritize.
...
The number of priorities admitted to by an organization is revealing. It is notable that if the risk appetite of a senior executive team is very low (or if they are not able or inclined to make the tough choices), they will tend to have a generous portfolio of priorities; they don’t want to take the risk of not being compliant, missing a market opportunity, not having the latest technologies, and so on. But in my experience, the most successful executives tend to be more risk taking and have a laser-like focus on a small number of priorities. These executives know what matters today and tomorrow. At the extreme, this might mean simply having a single priority. The more focus, the better.
...
In that time, I have developed a simple framework that I call the “Hierarchy of Purpose.” It is a tool that executive teams can use to help them prioritize strategic initiatives and projects:
.
Purpose. What is the purpose of the organization and how is that purpose best pursued? What is the strategic vision supporting this purpose?
Priorities. Given the stated purpose and vision, what matters most to the organization now and in the future? What are its priorities now and over the next two to five years?
Projects. Based on the answers to the first two points, which projects are the most strategic and should be resourced to the hilt? Which projects align with the purpose, vision, and priorities, and which should be stopped or scrapped?
People. Now that there is clarity around the strategic priorities and the projects that matter most, who are the best people to execute on those projects?
Performance. Traditionally, project performance indicators are tied to inputs (e.g., scope, cost, and time). They are much easier to track than outputs (such as benefits, impact, and goals). However, despite the difficulty companies have in tracking outputs, it’s the outputs that really matter. What are the precise outcome-related targets that will measure real performance and value creation? Reduce your attention to inputs and focus on those instead."

Para reflexão

Imagem retirada daqui.

Orçamento e estratégia (parte III)

Parte I e parte II.

Começo por recuar a 2003, ou seria 2004?

"Smart leaders understand that their job requires them to identify trade-offs, choosing what not to do as much as what to do. Grading the importance of various initiatives in an environment of finite resources is a primary test of leadership.
...
There are three interdependent variables that are essential for executing any initiative — objectives, resources, and timing. You can’t produce the desired effect of a project without precise objectives, ample resources, and a reasonable time frame. If you push or pull on one leg of this triangle, you must adjust the others.
.
All three variables are important, but resources reign supreme. Resources are what enable an objective to be accomplished within a set time; without dedicated means, an initiative is pure fantasy."

E não é raro encontrar fantasias.

E na sua empresa como se distribuem os recursos?

Trechos retirados de "A Better Way to Set Strategic Priorities"

Estratégia executada por um portfolio de projectos

Esta ideia:

"What makes the strategic journey unique is that it’s perpetual – you never actually reach your destination. It is a highly uncertain journey where the terrain is constantly shifting and there are more things outside of your control than within them. It is much more like an explorer’s journey through the wilderness than it is a highway trip. More and more it is a journey where following the familiar, well-trodden path can get you hopelessly lost before you even realise that you are off course.
...
Projects are the perfect vehicle for today’s strategic journey
.
In the Tao Te Ching, Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. When talking about a strategic journey, strategic improvement projects are the most effective way to take those steps. Through these projects, and a project-mindset, we can take decisive action toward our strategic goals… one step at a time.
...
Most importantly, they are short-duration, hard-hitting activities that can be carried out by a relatively small cross-functional team. They should be targeted on a single specific outcome that delivers strategic value – either on its own or as one phase in a longer program – rather than on low-value activities."

É seguida por mim há vários anos:

"Quando falo de sistemas de gestão tento passar a ideia de que o sistema de gestão ideal traduz-se num portfolio de iniciativas, num portfolio de projectos, alinhados por uma estratégia. Tudo o resto é treta de consultor e de auditor, para justificar honorários.
...
Só as iniciativas, quando implementadas, quando executadas, mudam uma organização. Tudo o resto, estratégia, mapa da estratégia, balanced scorecard, indicadores, metas,... não passa de conversa de café, enquanto não começarmos a mudar a realidade!!!" (Junho de 2007)

E:

"Um sistema de gestão concebido desta forma, é na essência uma estrutura móvel, um portfolio de projectos de melhoria," (Fevereiro de 2007)

Trechos retirados de "Why projects are the key to bringing your strategy to life"

Papéis de uma estratégia

O papel da estratégia bem resumido:

"Strategy serves as a link between an organization, with its goals and values, resources and skills, structure and organizational systems, and the external environment, with its competitors, customers, and suppliers. At the same time, it is a model or a guideline that gives coherence to the decisions made by the enterprise or the individual.
.
Often, the situation in which the decision-maker makes decisions is characterized by limited rationality and knowledge of the problem and of the existing options.
.
Three main roles can be identified for strategy: it helps to simplify the decision-making process, to set goals, and to coordinate the actions to be undertaken to reach these goals."

Simplifica o processo de tomada de decisão porque enquadra as decisões a tomar permitindo uma resposta intuitiva a uma dinâmica externa.
.
Ajuda a estabelecer objectivos que façam sentido para orientar o caminho para o futuro desejado e para reconhecer que se chegou, ou não, a esse futuro desejado.
.
E coordena as acções a tomar, permitindo coordenar pessoas e recursos através de iniciativas alinhadas que transformam a realidade, que ajudam a formar o mosaico de trade-offs que dificultam a sua cópia.

Trecho retirado de "Business Strategies and Competitiveness in Times of Crisis - A Survey on Italian SMEs" de Laura Gavinelli.

Sugestões para um mapa da estratégia

Neste postal "uma extraordinária ferramenta de visualização e de comunicação da estratégia" referimos que mão concordávamos com este mapa da estratégia:

Não digo que ele esteja mal. Como dizia Deming, todos os modelos estão errados, alguns são úteis. Se este mapa da estratégia for útil para a empresa ... cumpre a sua missão. No entanto, o meu modelo mental recomenda algumas alterações, por exemplo:

Um pouco de humildade

"There is a better way. Instead of sweeping away corporate culture and existing organizational design in a “big bang,” we can move incrementally, learning as we go.
...
Citing the early twentieth-century organizational psychologist Kurt Lewin, he argues that we can never understand an organization until we try to change it and thus suggests a “provoke and observe” approach:

We can never direct a living system, only disturb it and wait to see the response  … We can’t know all the forces shaping an organization we wish to change, so  all we can do is provoke the system in some way by experimenting with a force we think might have some impact, then watch to see what happens.

Avery’s “provoke and observe” approach parallels the Agile principle of “inspect and adapt.” In my interpretation of Avery’s comments, we can formulate a  hypothesis about what is valuable to the organization, deliver something based on that hypothesis, and observe the results. The feedback that results—especially if this is a new way of thinking about value—teaches us how to either adjust our hypothesis or adjust our way of bringing agility into the culture. In terms of the Lean Startup, you may see this as an example of adjusting our value hypothesis or our growth hypothesis through validated learning."

Um pouco de humildade faz bem a consultores e outros bem intencionados que acreditam que sabem o que é melhor para as empresas. Uma vez mais, o papel do ecossistema interno é fundamental.
.
O cemitério de projectos está cheio de boas intenções que não tiveram em conta a resistência à mudança, por causa de uma cultura interna que não foi respeitada.
.
Trechos retirados de "The Art of Business Value", de Mark Schwartz.  

Reflexões de um consultor

Embora não esteja, hoje, agora, com a actual relação de vectores económicas, tão crente nas 5 forças de Porter como o autor, recomendo a leitura de "3 Levels of Strategy".
.
E gostava de pegar naquele trecho quase final:
.
"Once you realize that different approaches are needed for different levels of strategy, a lot of confusion can be avoided. For instance, management consultants can be helpful in formulating strategic intent and strategic moves, but are usually a disaster at operational strategies (very few have ever had real jobs). (Moi ici: É uma grande verdade. Muitos consultores saltam directamente dos bancos da universidade para o taxismo documental das consultoras sem nunca terem vivido a realidade de uma empresa que fabrica coisas. Mas gostava de levar o pensamento ainda mais longe... e quantos gestores alguma vez apertaram parafusos, embalaram caixas, carregaram sacos, cortaram pele... 
.
Estão a ver o meu ponto? (Engraçado recordar o costume japonês pelo qual tive de passar quando comecei a trabalhar numa empresa de capital maioritariamente japonês - trabalhar como operário!!! Fazer turnos!!! Carregar sacos, limpar paredes de um reactor, desentupir peneiros... )
.
Quando, no desenvolvimento de um sistema de gestão baseado no balanced scorecard, se chega à fase das iniciativas estratégicas... à fase de operacionalizar a estratégia em acções elementares: quem faz o quê até quando e quanto vai custar, por vezes a reacção inicial é "Pereira da Cruz, já sabemos o que há a fazer, não nos queira impor uma camisa de forças!"
.
.
.
Estão mesmo a imaginar o que aconteceria sem iniciativas estratégicas formais (com calendários, com responsabilidades, com orçamentos)... costumo atribuir essa incomodidade com o formalismo de uma iniciativa estratégica à nossa veia "cath" tão ao gosto de Arroja, o autor, no entanto, coloca o problema a outro nível, até que ponto os gestores alguma vez tiveram outra função que não a de gestores? Antigamente nas empresas tarimbava-se, sei que a especialização hoje em dia dificulta isso, mas não fazia mal nenhum a adopção do sistema japonês de acolhimento de quadros, não esquecer que o politicamente correcto é perigoso)
.
Another salient point is that the bulk of strategic activity occurs much further down than most managers realize. If the rank and file doesn’t buy into the organization’s strategic intent and strategic moves, they will seek to undermine them and operational strategies won’t be in line." (Moi ici: Vale a pena ler After all, it’s the lunatics that run the asylum e pensar que muitos problemas resultam da incapacidade de perceber que, muitas vezes, para ganhar controlo, temos de ceder o controlo: "The lunatics are perfectly capable of creating their own rules, and often do, without letting the C-Suite know about it.

Good managers realize that, in reality, they make only a handful of consequential decisions per year. The rest of the job entails enabling the actions of others. In the end, you really don’t have a choice.

The lunatics will always run the asylum. Effective management helps them run it well.")