"It ain't over till the fat lady sings" (parte II)

Parte I.

Ao reler a parte I veio-me à mente Beinhocker e Lindgren:

"“Likewise, we cannot say any single strategy in the Prisioner’s Dilemma ecology was a winner. Lindgren’s model showed that once in a while, a particular strategy would rise up, dominate the game for a while, have its day in the sun, and then inevitably be brought down by some innovative competitor. Sometimes, several strategies shared the limelight, battling for “market share” control of the game board, and then an outsider would come in and bring them all down. During other periods, two strategies working as a symbiotic pair would rise up together – but then if one got into trouble, both collapsed.”
…
And now, the grande finale:
“We discovered that there is no one best strategy; rather, the evolutionary process creates an ecosystem of strategies – an ecosystem that changes over time in Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction.”"

Uma ideia a ganhar adeptos

"The Invisible Hand, Trumped by Darwin?"
.
"Smith is celebrated for his “invisible hand” theory, which holds that when greedy people trade for their own advantage in unfettered private markets, they will often be led, as if by an invisible hand, to produce the greatest good for all. The invisible hand remains a powerful narrative, but after the recent economic wreckage, skepticism about it has grown. My prediction is that it will eventually be supplanted by a version of Darwin’s more general narrative — one that grants the invisible hand its due, but also strips it of the sweeping powers that many now ascribe to it."
.
Uma previsão fácil de fazer, sobretudo depois de ler "Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics" de Eric D. Beinhocker.

O paradoxo da estratégia (parte VI: muitas e pequenas apostas antes da aposta em grande)

Continuado daqui.
.
Ghemawat referiu, como ilustrámos nos episódios anteriores, que todos os planos estratégicos envolvem compromissos. Compromissos que têm de ser feitos perante um futuro cheio de incerteza.
.
Seguem-se trechos retirados de “The Origin of Wealth – Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics” de Eric Beinhocker.
.
“Truly strategic choices are difficult or costly to reverse once made.”… “The level of commitment distinguishes strategic from tactical decisions.”
.
“Building a position of sustainable competitive advantage requires commitment, because by definition a position that does not require commitment is easy to imitate.” … “without irreversibility, there is no wealth creation, and it is irreversibility that makes wealth creation risky.”
.
E num registo muito semelhante ao de Raynor, Beinhocker refere:
.
“The standard approach to strategy thus hinges on two fundamental assumptions: first, that one can make confident predictions about what strategies will be successful in the future, and second, that one can make strategic commitments that will result in sustainable competitive advantage.”
…
“We thus have a problem. On the one hand, strategic planning requires us to make predictions about the future to make strategic commitments. On the other hand, we have a near-infinite number of possible future states, and which brand we take may depend on a series of impossible-to-predict frozen accidents. At the same time, the punctuated nature of change tricks our pattern-recognizing minds into thinking that the world is more stable than it really is.”
.
“All competitive advantage is temporary. Some advantages last longer than others, but all sources of advantage have a finite shelf life.”
.
“The key to doing better is to “bring evolution inside” and get the wheels of differentiation, selection, and amplification spinning within a company’s four walls. Rather than thinking of strategy as a single plan built on predictions of the future, we should think of strategy as a portfolio of experiments, a population of competing Business Plans that evolves over time.”
.
Beinhocker propõe que o planeamento estratégico não se concentre em prever o futuro, tarefa vedada aos humanos, mas se transforme num exercício de aprendizagem para preparar as mentes das pessoas para um futuro intrinsecamente incerto. O propósito não é o de descobrir “A Resposta” única mas criar mentes preparadas.
.
“Typical strategic planning processes focus on chopping down the branches of the strategic decision tree, eliminating options, and making choices and commitments. In contrast, an evolutionary approach to strategy emphasizes creating choices, keeping options open, and making the tree of possibilities as bushy as possible at any point in time. Options have value. An evolving portfolio of strategic experiments gives the management team more choices, which means better odds that some of the choices will be right” … “The objective is to be able to make lots of small bets, and only make big bets as a part of amplifying successful experiments when uncertainties are much lower.”
.
Algo na linha da ideia de Tom Peters de que quem faz mais pequenas experiências, sujeitas a pequenos erros, aprende mais depressa e tem mais hipóteses de tropeçar no sucesso antes dos mais conservadores.
.
Trata-se de mais uma possível abordagem, mais fácil para grandes empresas.
.
Assim que uma hipótese estratégica, que uma experiência, se revela errada, é preciso o distanciamento para lhe cortar o financiamento rapidamente, para que este seja canalizado para as hipóteses bem sucedidas. E isto é demasiado perigoso para quem está próximo da acção, há muito esforço e empenho investido.
.
Assim, continuo a achar que estas abordagens para vencer o paradoxo estratégico são mais fáceis de aplicar a grandes empresas mas pouco úteis para PME's pouco capitalizadas e com poucos recursos humanos com capacidade para viver experiências fora do corpo.
.
Sou tentado a preferir desenhar potenciais cenários para, depois, equacionar uma estratégia mais robusta.
.
Sou tentado a preferir conhecer melhor o perfil dos clientes-alvo do que confiar em segmentações genéricas baseadas em critérios demográficos ou financeiros.