Companies learn how to make strategy by doing. Where the value of new strategies erodes rapidly, companies must pay attention to how fast and how well they are able to create new strategies and migrate to them. Advice for strategy making emphasizes either discipline (e.g, rigorous, elaborate planning) or imagination ( e.g, attempts to think outside the box). Neither discipline nor imaginationalone is as effective as both are together.
(il ne suffit pas d’avoir des bonnes idées il faut avoir une method precise et organisée afin d’appliquer ses idées. Il en est de même dans le sens inverse, on peut organisé et faire preuve de discipline mais s’il n’y a pas d’imagination comment mettre ne place une stratégie)
Intro: learning to make strategy.
Strategy making in the rapidly changingenvironment would have to happen more often. In a reality where the window of opportunity for a strategy to generate new wealth is steadily shortening,(comme nous l’avons vu dans les articles précédemment étudiés, nous pouvons dire que notre environnement change tres rapidement et nous ne voulosn pas que notre produit devienne obsolete ou encore nous faire dépassé par nos concurrents il est importantd’établir de nouvelles strategies en function de ces changements. Par ex à travers l’innovation) new strategies have to be constructed more often. The demand of the dynamic and competitive business environment can potentially overwhelm an organization’s tried-and-true methods for making strategy. Value creation has become intimately associated with the ability to continually innovative businessstrategies.
Such capability must be learned by doing. (savoir faire une stratégie n’est pas inné, il faut plusieurs mises en pratique).
Themes of strategy making
In the early 60’s everybody was focused on imagination. The leader was expected to be a brilliant visionary, able to form intuitively a coherent strategy for the future of the company by matching the strengths and weaknesses of thecompany to the threats and opportunities posed by its environment.
But the leader could be wrong sometimes and to replace it the formal planning system, which is organized and developed on the basis of a set procedures, appears.
Thus, discipline displaced imagination in strategy making and the process was removed from the leader and entrusted to the reliable and systematic professional planner. Inthe 70’s many companies developed specialized planning departments featuring elaborate systems to create strategy.
In the 80’s, imagination re-took the power. Strategic planning departments were disbanded. Corporations began to focus on operational improvements as the key to value creation implementing concept such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering and benchmarking.
In 1994, C.K.Prahalad and Gary Hamel carried forward the banner of imagination. They pointed out that there is a limit to the extent to which “progress” can sustain growth. They advocated a more democratic strategy making process that enhances corporate imagination by involving more people and focusing on creating the corporate future.( afin d’établir une stratégie il est important de se projeter vers le future unestartégie s’établit dans un premier sur le long terme meme si parfois elle sera modifiée plutot que prevue)
Thus with the benefit of hindsight, trends in strategy appear to alternatively emphasize discipline and imagination. Both approaches have values and especially so in combination. At any given time, one approach may occupy the foreground while the other serves as background; however,neither can fully supplant the other. Both discipline and imagination are essential components of a high quality strategy-making effort.
Theorist James March argues that it is possible to strengthen the survival chances of an organization by simultaneously improving the process by which organizations seek out or generate new options (exploration) and improving the capabilities for implementing…